Hello, council. I'll call to call to order our meeting
of Monday, December the 15th and. We're going to start
by standing for the playing of our national anthem.
Councilor Potts going to read the land acknowledgment this afternoon.
For more than 15,000 years, the first nations walked upon
and cared for the lands we now call home. And
if schnawk, hardenishanivaway and many others who are families, friends
and communities the way we are today. The town of
Columbia Technologies, the Lake Simcoe. Nadosaga Treaty of 1818 and
the relationship it establishes for the original inhabit. Inhabitants of
Turtle island, we acknowledge the reality of our shared history.
And the current contributions of indigenous people within our community,
we seek to continue empowering expressions of pride amongst all
of the diverse stakeholders in this area. We seek to
do better and to continue to recognize, learn and grow
in friendship and community, nation to nation. Thank you. Before
we get into the formal part of the agenda. I
just wanted to speak for a few moments. And that
our COO will add a few comments. More than I
will about our water and our water issues over the
weekend. As I'm sure you know now. I'm pleased to
let everyone here and all of our residents and businesses
know that the boil water advisory for all the effective
areas in Collingwood has now been lifted. The Simple Muskoka
District Health Unit has completed all required testing and is
confirmed that our water is safe for normal use. Our
water treatment plant is fully operational. I know this was
so inconvenient and caused real concern, and I want to
thank residents and businesses for their patients and cooperation. Protecting
public health guided every decision throughout this response. I want
to sincerely thank town staff, and I'll start by narrowing
in on our department. Heads who participated in our emergency
operations center. They had not only meetings throughout the weekend,
but had an open chat line where they all could
participate, ask questions. Share thoughts and what was happening on
the ground 24/7. I was fortunate to be part of
that, and I can tell you it was very active.
And there was many staff members behind those department heads
who were also working all weekend. So I want to
start by thanking all of them. I want to thank
Arnold Construction, who worked through the night, Friday night to
locate that water main. Break. It was a tricky one.
And get it repaired. And our partners at the Simcoe
Muskoka. District health unit for their careful and timely work.
And also, let's not forget the many community partners and
volunteers who stepped up to support our residents and businesses.
Collingwood is a community that looks out for one another,
and I'm truly grateful for that. And on behalf of
council and town staff, thank you, and I'll turn this
over to Ocio Skinner. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. It was
a team effort with the community and staff over the
weekend. Some of us feel like it's Monday again. With
the first Monday we worked Friday night. So the event
did first start on Friday afternoon. We noticed that we
had a water main break. There was water evident that
the intersection of Pretty River Parkway Highway 26 in Hume
street, initially the location wasn't clear, but. There's two large
mains underground that area, and water was surfacing in large
amounts. At three locations around the intersection, so we knew
there was a significant problem. The positive pressure that the
team kept in the pipes kept groundwater contamination from coming
in. So. We were insured. That continued while we were
locating the break. The break was so large, though. That
we had an immediate drop in the system pressure and
the water level in the water tower. Lowered significantly. And
in response, the south area of town was affected as
a Dave B reservoir tried to feed water into the
downtown area. Residents and businesses in Summit View and mountain
craft subdivisions experienced low water pressure and no water and
similar to residents and businesses in the east end of
Collingwood. Given that we used a lot of water. In
addressing this, we deeply appreciate all the businesses and homeowners
who minimize their use of water over Friday and Saturday,
allowing our storage facilities to be refilled. The break in
the areas with low pressure were reported to the health
unit. The provincial spills action center. And others, and using
appropriate caution around human health. As the mayor mentioned, the
health unit issued the boil water advisory on Friday night.
At that time, town staff thought it could take up
to five days to rectify. So now that we're sitting
here on Monday morning, With just two and a bit
days. Monday afternoon, two and a bit days later, I
think. That the folks who worked on this did it
with lightning speed. We had to find the brake, fix
it, flush the system, take tests across town. Take those
water. Samples down to Mississauga. And bring them to the
lab. And the testing takes about two days as the
cultures need to grow before. The test. Lab attendants can
provide their formal results. So with help from ice water
springs, we were also able to hand out water starting
Saturday morning. From several locations. And by Saturday, before dinner,
there was an evidence based decision made by the health
unit, supported by material from our staff announcing that we
could substantially reduce the geographic area of the boil water
advisory. And I give a lot of folks credit for
that. It was appropriate to put it on the town.
As a health unit did, and it was also appropriate,
given the evidence, to reduce it as soon as practical.
We often talk about asset management. And as town staff,
we probably not as effectively as we should describe how
the work helps us. Avoid immediate crises. With our infrastructure,
we do monitor age and condition, as well as the
risk demonstrated by brakes and other patterns. When our teams
go out from water, wastewater and public works, for example.
And we're making excellent strides in our asset management work
as a municipality, council and staff. Have been supporting this
over a number of years. You'll see some construction on
Highway 26 on the blue mountain side of Collingwood where
we are relining one water line so we can address
some water breaks that were happening there in a smaller
line. We have included in our 2026 budget funds for
a dedicated assessment of. A large diameter transmission main that
feeds the Davy reservoir. And new to comsus and we'll
continue with these types of assessments as well as major
upgrades. That are shown in our ten year capital plan.
So some of the work that the town does is
really visible, and you see it and you probably have
heard it at this table over the last few meetings
as council has talked about the items that we're addressing
this year. We do have in any given year, about
$100 million of capital work. Some of it is less
visible, but it's essential to keep the town running. So
we have our experts and our supporting consultants working on
that and that making sure that infrastructure runs. It was
demonstrated this weekend. How important that is to our residents,
businesses and visitors. I wanted to thank you, our community
as well, our staff and the many others who helped
us. Get through this weekend of challenges. Thank you for
allowing me to give that more technical part of the
update there. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so we're going to
move on to the adoption of the agenda. Item three.
That the content of the council committee of the whole
agenda for December 15, 2025 be adopted. As amended. Two
amendments proposed addition of the memorandum for item 11.1, Simcoe
county recycling changes and addition of staff report for item
14. Budget discussions continued. Could I have a mover? In
a second, or, please. Councilor Bain seconded by councilor bots.
Comments. All those in favor. And that's. Are you unanimous?
Okay, sorry. Okay. Dr. Nanos. Are there any declarations of
pecuniar interest today, Deputy Mayor? Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I
have two declarations to provide to council agenda items 7.2
which is 401 Ragland street zoning bylaw amendment. Have a
non pecuniary code of conduct disqualifying interest as the east.
Side of the proposed severed lot about my father in
law's property. At 80, Sanford Fleming Drive. So even though
no decisions are being made today, I will follow the
integrity commissioner's. Recommended protocol remaining at table for presentation but
not participate. If there's any ensuing discuss. Discussion also for
item ten, fees and charges. From a previous declaration. That's
the bylaw I'm going to ask for severing of the
centennial pool and. I'll have a non pecuniary code of
conduct disqualifying interest. As well there for my daughter is
employed at the facility. Are there any others? Okay. If
you find yourself in that position during the meeting, please
let me know. Community announcements and we'll start with the
deputy mayor. Thank you. And on the heels of your
very significant community announcement. That you and CIo skin are
provided. Excellent summary. And I want to echo the thoughts
as you conveyed. I wanted to recognize the environment network,
who this month are celebrating 30 years of operation. I
recall back in 1993 when the organization was established in
no small part as an integral partner of the Collingwood
harbor and remedial action plan. That successfully led to the
hot. Hotspot, the listing of Collingwood harbor in 1994. Another
initial initiative the environment network worked with us on was
the Envira park that has now been renewed as sunset
point. Play space. Over the years, the environment network has
evolved its initiatives, but. Always focused on making our community
more aware in support of the environment. The plans are
to have a formal recognition in the spring and council
will have a chance to join with them, then. For
now, I want to say on behalf of Comingwood, we
are very appreciative. Of their efforts, both past, current and
future. You help make our community more sustainable in many
different ways. Also want to express appreciation again to the
efforts of all the volunteers who are assisting Chris and
Andrea Dop as part of the Christmas Day feast team.
It's the return of the free community Meal project that
is open and welcome to anyone who needs a place
to go, whether they are going to spend the day
alone. Experience food insecurity or simply looking to connect with
others. It's open to all denominations in ages. It will
take place from 1230 to 02:00. P.m. at the legion
390 on Terrorist street. We are so grateful for the
team, bringing people together in the spirit of care and
community. Would also add that an additional thanks to Chris
and Andrea for their efforts. With the 25th annual turkey
dinner giveaway over. The time, it has grown from 25
to a tremendously generous but unfortunately needed 250. Which, starting
at 09:00 a.m. on December 23, they will be available
on a first come, first serve basis at the Mortgage
center, 192 1st street. If anyone is wanting more detail.
They can call 705 445-1300 and that's what I have.
Thank you, Councilor Jeffrey. Thank you very much, Mayor Hamlin.
So, firstly, I just want to remind my council colleagues
that the coldest night of the year is going to
be upon us again for February 28, so if you
market in your calendars. I'll get the team set up
and hopefully everybody. Will participate, and we can help some
unhoused youth. And the next. It was a pleasure. To
do. Some pipe drops and presentations at the Silverstick regional
tournament yesterday at the Eddie bush arena. And we had
one calling with team in the finals and they won
their game. And our administrative coordinator, I believe, is her
title. Her son was on the team, so it was.
A pleasure to present. To those champions who were participate
in the international tournament in pellum on January 8. So
congratulations. To coaches, players, and for a game well played.
And then just. I think this is our last. Meeting
before our holiday break, so I would just wish residents
and staff and my colleagues the best. For the season
and I celebrate. Merry Christmas. So merry Christmas. But happy
holidays for everybody else. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Dougherty.
Thank you, mayor. This is just to remind the community
that the association and municipalities of Ontario is offering. A
webinar series entitled stronger leaders and stronger communities. And it
offers. Information and guidance for individuals seeking election for the
first time to municipal government. Or even members of council
now who are seeking reelection. The registration was so strong
that. It was sold out. Or I shouldn't even say
sold because it's free, but. It was. Totally subscribed. So
another stream. Of webinars is offered starting in February. And
if you would like more information, you can find it
at the association and municipalities of Ontario. Website. Amo on
ca. And I also would like to wish my colleagues
and staff. And our community the very, very best of
the holiday season. And good luck, good health and prosperity
in 2020. Six. Can't believe I said that. Thank you,
mayor. 2027. Why not? Thank you for all those wishes.
Okay, Councilor Potts. Thanks. Mary Hamlin. I messaged a couple
of messages from the BIA. The BIA would like to
pass. On their sincere appreciation for town staff. This past
weekend. For those that repaired the break to the team,
they kept our office informed of updates as they happen.
So we communicate to our members quickly. So, please, the
town and health unit. We're able to work together to
determine that our downtown was able to open as soon
as possible as this critical time for our small business
community. Also, the final Christmas market is back this Friday.
December 19 at 05:00 p.m. to 08:00 p.m. find the
perfect gift from our downtown merchants and market vendors enjoy
strolling entertainers along the street, taking a free horse and
wagon ride, leaving from town hall and visit sand in
the Big Red slay at 84 here, Ontario street, across
from town hall. Santa will be back there on Saturday,
December 20 from noon. To three for his final visit
to Colio before he heads back to the North Pole
to get ready for the big night. And just another
note, just with the weather events we've had in the
last week, like to pass on my appreciation to the
public works team. For the diligent snow removal and road
maintenance and sidewalk maintenance. It's gone very noticed. And to
all my colleagues and the residents of the community, happy.
Holidays. And all the best for 2026. Thanks. Thank you.
Councilor ring thank you very much, Mayor Hamlin. No announcements
to make, but I, too, would like to wish all
of council staff and residents of Collingwood happy holidays and
a very merry Christmas. Happy, healthy and prosperous. 2026. Thank
you, Councilor Baines. Following up on that. For those of
you who follow social media, you might have seen all
the postings from the Christmas market last Friday, particularly in
regard to our wonderful museum's booth and the number of
items that they were selling. So I would say to
all, if you have not yet purchased as some of
us haven't. All of your Christmas gifts, or, indeed, any
of them. Attend the Christmas market this coming Friday night.
December the 19th. And you can pick up everything you
need for your stockings and under the tree. In addition,
afterwards, you might consider taking in the wonderful Collingwood Blues,
who will be playing at the Eddie Bush arena. And
whilst there, you might purchase 50. 50 tickets. Yours truly
will be selling 50. 50 tickets. I point out to
all of you that if you are lucky enough to
win in the last pots have been somewhere between 900
to one. $100. That's tax free. Well, at least we
don't tell cra. And it could fund the purchase of
those Christmas gifts outside on here, Ontario Street. So. You've
got lots to consider. And I, too, would love to
add my best wishes for the holidays and for Christmas
to our staff and to all my colleagues as well,
because I think it's been a challenging and hard working
year for all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks
for the gift tips. Councilor Perry. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin.
I do have a couple of library announcements. This is
a repeat, but it's starting today. The library will be
looking seasonal with winter. I spy you can pick up
your game card in the children's area, and the search
will take you through both floors of the library. Once
you find all the items, submit a ballot for a
chance to win your own board game. All ages are
welcome to play, and it runs from December 15 to
December 23. And I bring seasoned greetings from the Collingwood
Public Library. As the year comes to a close, we
extend our heartfelt gratitude to our community for your continued
support and encouragement. Engagement. Sorry. Libraries are more than books.
They are places of connection, learning and inspiration. And that's
possible because of our community. This holiday season bring joy,
peace. And time to enjoy a good book. We look
forward to. Welcoming you in the new year as we
continue to grow together. Happy holidays and best wishes for
2026. Thank you, Councilor McCullough. Thank you, Mary. Nothing to
add on public announcements, but just to echo my colleagues
statements. Very happy holidays to staff, colleagues and everyone else
with an earshot and all the best for a happy,
healthy, prosperous 2026. Well, I don't think I need to
say it again, but thank you, everyone, for saying. It
for me and really looking forward to the end of
this year. And great next year, and I hope everyone
has a great holiday, so thank you. Okay, so next
we are doing deputations, and there are three today. Abby
Westlake will. Be speaking first. Is that? Be online, perhaps?
Oh, you're there. Oh, sir, I didn't see you back
there. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to
come up and speak today. I had brought forward to
Yvonne Hamlin with regards our concern for Third street and
the safety on that street and had presented a letter
as well, which I'm to read. I'm writing as a
fourth generation resident of Collingwood and a parent who is
deeply concerned about the ongoing safety issues at the intersection
of Third and Third street and cedar. On November 25,
our 16 year old son was traveling west on Third
street when he was struck. By a driver who failed
to stop properly at the Cedar street stop sign. The
collision caused significant damage to his vehicle. Has now been
declared a total loss. This particular vehicle was especially meaningful
to him, as he had purchased it with his own
money and spent considerable time refurbishing both the body and
the engine himself. A tremendous achievement for a young person
of his age, seeing that hard work destroyed. In an
instant has been devastating to him and our family. More
importantly, This is not the first time our son has
been involved in a serious collision with inadequate traffic. Control
in this area. When he was just six years old,
he was struck by a driver at Maple and Third
street. It is deeply troubling that nearly a decade later,
similar conditions continue. To put our community. And particularly youth
and pedestrians at risk. The third street corridor experiences heavily
pedestrian traffic, including students, families and local residents. The current
two way stop at third and cedar is no longer
sufficient to manage the volume and behavior of drivers using
this route, as shown by repeated collisions and near misses.
The lack of. Fourway stop creates unnecessary danger. For those
reasons, I am formally requesting that the town of Collingwood
install a four way stop at the intersection of. Third
street and Cedar street. This improvement is overdue and would
significantly enhance safety for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians alike. We
appreciate the town's commitment to road safety and hope this
matter will be reviewed promptly and given the serious condition
consideration it deserves. Our family and many others in the
community believe that proactive action is needed. Before another preventable
accident occurs. Thank you for your attention and concern with
this. I was also given a letter from a girlfriend
and didn't know if that should be read as well.
You can if you'd like. Okay. Just want to tickle
over. I think she submitted
it, so I'm okay at this time, not. To. Yeah.
Thank you very much. Okay, did anyone want to ask
any questions of Abby while she's here? No, we'll be
dealing with the motion later in the agenda. Thank you.
Thank you. Kenneth Hale is our next deputy. On behalf
of the Gergun Triangle Development Institute. Mayors, Deputy Mayor
Council thank you for having me today. On. This agenda.
My name is Kenneth Hale. I'm president of the Georgian
Triangle Development institute. I'm here today to respectfully request a
deferral on the planning fees increase. Through 2026. And I
would first like to start by thanking you for deferring
the decision in November to allow us to continue to
work with staff in our discussions, and we did. Have
a follow up meeting on December 5. And this is
a follow up to that meeting, so I would like
to thank the CIO. And also director Valentine, director Alcoca,
for taking their time to work with us. Next slide,
please. So I've just iterated the request. We're asking that
you defer any decision on a rate increase until 2026,
continuing to benchmark the current planning fees with CPI as
currently done. Next slide, please. I want to give you
a little bit about who we are at GTI and
build, build. Has been working with us on this presentation
is strictly from GTI. Today we haven't. Had a time
to coordinate on this representation, but they have been in
all of the meetings with staff and are also concerned
about the post rate increases. But as far as GTI
is, we've been around since 1992. Incorporated 1992. And we
are the largest collective group. We represent the largest collective
group of employers in our region. We have members ranging
in all facets of the development and building from the
people in the field to the people at Arnett construction.
To. The engineers and the architects and the planners and
the municipality. And most of us live here. Most of
us raise families here. Most of us are here for
the long haul. And we are proud of that, that
we are part of this community. We are proud that
we support this community, and we're here for the long
haul. So thank you. Next slide. So when we were
going through. This. We noticed the town planning review services,
development review services is seeing what we're seeing. In the
industry, a marked decline in the need for development and
bus development services. We note that in the reports, the
Collingwood planning applications for development are down some 23. Percent
this year, and that is following a three year trend
of averaging. A 17 year annual decline. Next slide, please.
Okay. What is not picked up in here? So this
is from the 2026 budget in here. And I had
highlighted, but. It's not on the slide. Is that if
we look at the 2025 budget, Under expenses and services.
This is for the growth and development management. We'll note
that the budget for 2025 was $2.26 million, and it's
proposed to go to, if I can read that. 3.281
million dollars in 2026. So that is a marked increase
in the growth and development budget. In 2026 when applications
are down. Next slide, please. What we have here is.
The part of the budget which is dedicated to planning
and review services fees. So. These are the full time
equivalents that. The town uses to provide the services to
the development and building industry, or development industry, and we
know, in 2025, there were 10.5 full time equivalents assigned
to those tasks, and in 2026. It's proposed that that
goes up to 12.7. So we're increasing the recoverable cost.
To the planning and development fees. Next slide, please. So
what we're saying is that there's a demand for town
planning services. There's a continued decline in anecdotally, no one
has a crystal ball of 2026. But I can say
comfortably that the industry wide is playing for further decline
in 26 as far as the need. For development services.
What we notice in this budget is that the budget
is increasing from two point three to three. Point three
million dollars for those services and at the town recoverable
costs. The cost that will be borne by development application
fees is going from ten and a half full time
equivalents to 12.7. Next slide, please. So what is the
pros fanning fee increase? We'd like to note that
the planning fees, although haven't been adjusted since 2010. They
have been, to our knowledge, as noted in the staff
report. A continued CPI index every year. Consumer price index
every year. The town is proposing to triple or more.
Some of the planning fees in here, for example, official
plan amendments and some zoning by law stuff. And the
town is proposing not to implement that all at once.
They're proposing to do. It over a graduated four year
schedule. So in 2026, the first tranche would be 25%.
Of the ultimate proposed increase. So we do recognize that.
Next slide, please. What we fear in the development industry
is that there could be some unintended consequences here. And
that is if applications are down year over year and
the continuing decline if we increase now. Fees now and
continue to try to recover more cost. From a declining
customer pool. We're going to further exasperate the customer pool
that we have and that is applications that would otherwise
come forward. That probably will not. In 2026. So the
offsetting revenue that you might collect from increasing fees. Will
decline because. You're going to have continued further collapse of
your customer base. So that would be an unintended consequence
that we fear that you'll see some. Of those applications
that would otherwise come forward may not come forward in
2026. And it's not just about the fees. It's about
those projects that would bring in more housing. More affordable
housing to the town of Hollywood that we're concerned that
we want to see. That. As we come out of
this downturn. So next slide, please. So, in conclusion, we
are requesting the council continued benchmarking the fees with CPI
through 2026. And defer decision on rate increases until. Through
2026. Thank you. And I'm here to answer any of
your questions. Okay, thanks very much. We do actually have
a report on this later in the agenda, but would
anyone have any questions for Mr. Hale while he's here?
Councilor Paynes, give Mayor Hamlin to Mr. Hale. I think
just questions of clarification. Sure. I'm assuming those fees that
you wish are deferment on are exactly those ones. In
the schedule you showed and are proposed to go from
2.3 to 3.3. As you indicated. In revenue. Yes, go
ahead. Through the mayor to councilor. No, that was the
2026 budget. The fees that I'm. Requesting are as noted
in the original slide staff report, p specifically, the planning
and engineering. Fee increases. Our members have no comment on
the building fee increase. It's the planning fees. That our
members have comment on it is that staff report that
we're wishing a deferral on. Understood. And as a follow
up and the deferment you're looking for is essentially for
the year 2026, tax year. What we're looking for is
that. This be paused until next year. Then revisit it.
What? We prefer not to see. Is it passed, and
then they just get triggered in 2027 rather than 2026,
I think. We need to have a pause to see
how 2026 turns out in terms of number of applications,
the needs for service, and then have this discussion in
a year's time. Understood. Thank you. No further questions. Okay.
All right. Thanks very much for coming. Thank you, everybody.
And the next reputation is on behalf of the Georgian
Bay School. I have here nancy black and janice McDonald.
Good afternoon, Mayor Hamlin, members of council, thank you for
the opportunity to speak. As mentioned, I'm Nancy Black. This
is my partner, Janice, who doesn't get the microphone very
often. But she's here with me. We're here to address
by law number 2025 86. The 2026 fees and service.
Charge by loads you're going to be facing and a
fee classification. Therein. Our club uses the same pool in
the same way to deliver the same community benefit as
other. Groups. Yet we do face, and we are charged
with dramatically different fees now, and even more so with
the proposed changes. We're asking what might sound like special
treatment, and I was going to delete that. Line, but
I thought maybe that's okay to be asking for special
treatment. We are special. And a little different. We'd like
you to align our fees with community impact and with
the town's. Own strategic goals, so it requires only a
bylaw adjustment. For you to change the whole bylaw itself.
But just an amendment to it. Next slide, please. So
what mentioned were the squall three time provincial Masters champions
and bringing some pride to the community. We host events.
We bring visitors to Collingwood who contribute to the economy.
Also in our strategic planning, hopefully through our member development.
We're deeply involved in the community because we really do
work hard. To be model citizens inside and outside the
pool. I'm going to go through the first couple of
slides pretty quickly because I'm going to get to the
meat of our presentation. So, next slide, please. Although I
hope you had a chance to read those regarding community
impact, we have over 140 members, and they're adults, of
course, of all ages, including a paralympic hopeful. Who's training
for the 2028 Olympics. Our club is living proof of
Canada's sport for life model, delivering safe, coached, inclusive adult
fitness with strong social connection. Those are all their tenements,
sometimes weirdly called cradle to grave, which I find is
a weird expression, but you get the idea. Of that
trajectory. We run six workouts a week. And all of
them but an early morning one, have waitlists we consistently.
Fill every lane. Our waitlist is about 30 people, and
we don't try to recruit. We've stopped doing that. We're
telling people, don't even come to us. Demand is high.
Supply lane time is a constraint. Next slide, please. So
wherein is the issue? Is that you have a lot
of things to cover. I get it. I'll try to.
Condense this down to these points, which is this? Youth,
not profit, clubs or rentals pay. $55 an hour currently.
We pay $110 an hour currently, which is 100% more
than that same pool space, so. While we knew this,
and we reluctantly accepted it. We were okay? Not really.
But until we learned that we were now being moved
from the basic category into commercial category, adding another 10%
increase on the plan, 2% increase, which we kind of
knew about. Your own facility. Delegation policy defines commercial users
as organizations whose primary purposes to make a profit. That
is not us. By your own definition, we do not
belong in that category. At a minimum, we request to
remain invasive. And to save you all time, I could
leave there because I feel like that's one. Step of
the things we were hoping to accomplish today. But I'm
still going to talk. As my swimmers well know, there's
always more. But now that this classification, this was brought
to the forefront, for us to really look at this,
We're asking a bigger question. Why do adults pay double
what the kids pay? For identical use and identical public
benefit in this town. The difference is not based on
usage cost react. It's based solely on age category and
potentially tax structured classification. So. While this practice does exist
in some other Ontario municipalities, because this policy didn't come
out of the blue. But in a town that promotes
healthy act of living and has a disproportionately large adult
and senior population. This. Call it age based price gap.
Works against your own public health goals. Not to deviate
too far. But internationally, countries that have large adult fitness
numbers or their adult population is healthier, like Australia, Sweden,
Denmark, Finland. They actually have tighter policies that align kids
with adults. There isn't a distinction. And so Ontario. While
it's changing, Ontario does sit kind of at the high
end of that spectrum. For adult aquatics, and it shows
because. In our country. I don't have Ontario's jets. 46%
of the population is. As fit, as out of population,
as fit as it should be. So our adults aren't.
As healthy as some of those aforementioned countries that treat
those two entities as one, but they can be here.
Municipal recreation policy should classify users based on community benefit.
Like, not corporate paperwork. And I know that some of
the stuff you have to deal with all the time.
I just realized when I'm saying corporate paperwork or municipal
paperwork, I'm sure you have a lot of it. Master
swim clubs typically operate like not for profits, whether or
not they are formally structured in that way. So typically,
profits aren't taken so that fees can go literally into
the pool. Rental competition. Special training, coaches and insurance, just
like it does on the kids club. If the town
believes the corporate structure is relevant, then I ask plainly
if we. Switch to not profit status. Would you align
our fees directly with that youth rate? And if you
don't, then the corporate structures are not really the issue.
Next slide, please. So sort of why this caused pools
have this came up in the executive presentation regarding. Our
potential new pool in town. Pools have pretty high fixed
costs, and they don't change. When prices rise, they change
when the lane sipped empty. So cost recovery is driven
by utilization, not higher fees. We rent year round off
peak times and reliably fill all the lanes. We provide
predictable. And that's kind of a key word here, stable
re. Revenue. And that will matter a lot. It matters
now, but it'll also matter a lot. If we all
get a new pool. So we've repeatedly asked for additional
pool time, including Sunday mornings when the pool does sit
empty. And there are reasons for that, including lifeguarding. However.
It could be a priority to get the pool open
for longer hours because this pool is under opened relative
to other municipal pools? I don't know. That's not a
real word. Please don't anticipate recorded. You can delete that?
Somebody does. It's a good thank you. Just this past
season, this full season. If we had 2 hours of
pool time on Sunday mornings in this season, we would
have denvered $8,140 at the current rates, way more than
you'd produce in sort of these incremental increases. Increasing utilization
generates more revenue than increasing rates, so giving more pool
time to high demand users like us is a win
win. More access for residents, more revenue for the town.
And we don't. Have enough time, this presentation. But if
this bylaw is about money, which. Was part of what
I saw in the rationale points that were sent to
me. But this speaks to then the priorities that you
have regarding who uses a pool and how it's used,
and that's too big of a conversation to get into,
but it does. Have to do with. Our usage is
stable and full. Compared to how the town itself sometimes
might make the pool available. So, next slide, please. We're
proposing a straightforward solution. So one off was to remove
the Georgia based wall from the commercial category and. I
feel like. I hope that we can agree to that.
I don't need to have nods at the head. Because
I know you're going to be discussing it later because
we're looking for. A specific amendment. So one is, let's
start with that. Then the other would be, hey. Hang
on a second. Back to this whole we're a basic
user, then there are other kids, not for profits. Why
do we live in this other world? We're not like
some. Of the basic other renters, which can include a
number of entities. So maybe. You actually devise a category
that's called a community health sport provider. Community sport provider.
Probably is too general, because that could include. A number
of entities, but we are unique in what we offer.
So kind of worst cases that you keep us in
basic better is that you have an impact based rate.
It would be really interesting for you to look at
that, where maybe instead of us paying 100%, More than
the kids pay that we pay 50% more. Like I'm
a reasonable person. I'm reasonable. And as I say those
numbers, I'm saying we're happy. To pay 50% more, and
it's still a little bit. Weird to say that, right?
That the fees aren't in line, that this adult club
that does all these same things. As a kids would
pay. Why? And I haven't had anybody give me an
answer, ever. As to. Why kids programs should be funded
differently than adult programs, or, conversely, why adult programs should
be charged more. I also want to clarify the corporate
structure once and for all. Because this has been dealt
with other communities where they deal with this profit, not
for profit, and who's doing what. If the organization is
benefiting the town and providing a service that you need
and you can't provide. I don't mean be so flippant
about it, but who cares how it's? Set up. I've
been a not for profit. It's truly required for equitable
fees. We will make that change. But Felign should reflect
function and public benefit, not necessarily forms so, next slide,
please. I thought this would be wording that you'd be
familiar with, because I know that. It's important to have
things like whereas, and whereas, and whereas. Because you do
have to outline. Sort of. Why did you get to
your point where you're saying therefore or that and that.
And so I wrote some of these thinking that, okay,
let's prop up. Let's. Prop this up so you can
actually have this. But since I wrote that, I had
to submit. This on last Friday at noon. Some of
them would change. Because at first I'm thinking, fine, just
keep us out of the commercial category. That's not what
we're asking here anymore. Because we'd like you to take
a pretty good look at this, and I don't. Know
how much time I think I'm okay for time. Oh,
perfect for wrap up. There are some words. There is
somewhere in there that we could use. I think Daniel
has access. To it that can put it into your
paperwork so you don't have to rewrite. This kind of
stuff, but through quest of motion, actually. I think that's
it. Well, I want to make sure that we're excluded
from the first, as I mentioned. Sorry. I'm just going
to quickly go into the last one. So, the last
slide, please. The next slide, please. Yeah. Thank you. Sorry.
On this, I'm going to tell you this. I'd like
you to flip at our club. Or we'd like you
to look. At our club as a youth at heart.
So if you're called a youth club, where youth at
Heart Club. We are community health asset. We're a reliable
partner in the pool. In terms of its utilization and
cost recovery. So do I need to recap the items
that we were. Really clear, but thank you. And you
know what? Thank you for explaining how you use the
pool. And the nature of your organization. Thank you. The
fact you could even use more lanes. Yes, we really
could. Yeah, I hear you. Thank you for letting us
speak today. Thank you. And there may be a question
here in this moment. Council thanks, Mayor Hamlin, and thanks
for the presentation that's a very good. Motion. I have
a question. I think this is for staff. When we
talk about the Sunday mornings sitting vacant or sitting. And
this will be through to director Cuban. Understanding is probably
operational, so I don't think there'd be any direction that
would be needed. But is there a possibility? Or what
would it take? Or what is the process to get
that lane time opened? I know. There's staffing, probably. Challenges,
but. What would be the next process to get it
open to those times would be available. Thanks. Yeah. Go
ahead. Thank you, Siri. Mayor Hanlin, I'm going to need
to take this. Back to staff. We'll get a better
understanding and provide to you why it is that. We
do have some time available and how we intend to
address that. Thank you, Councilor Dougherty. Thank you, mayor.
I'd like to put forward a notice of motion to
hold the fee increase for this. User group. Until we
have had a chance and staff have had a chance
to take a look at your proposal and recommendations and
then come back. With a possible solution and. I also
would ask council to allow me to waive notice just
based on the timing and that these fees would be.
Going up imminently. Thank you. Thank you. Should we deal
with this now, madam Clerk, or should we hold it?
Thank you, worship. We do have the fees and charges
motion that's coming up, and it could. Be an amendment
to that piece, so I'll just confirm with the treasurer
when that arises. We can confirm. Okay, so we'll hold
it for now. Thank you. Okay. And also councilor Baines.
Thank you. Mayor Hamlin, just a clarification question, if I
might. I've had this discussion just recently with a number
of other groups, and it is a question about the
nonprofit status, or, in your case, the reason that you
haven't applied for that. And secondly. Are you aware of
any other compatriot groups like yours? Seniors leagues, if you
will. That have. Achieved nonprofit status. And results as a
result of that, are they having, quote, more success? I'm
just trying to get that. I think it might be
a consideration of yours to register for a nonprofit status.
Who do I answer through? So we can do that.
So when you say, have they had more success, do
you mean more? Success as a club, because if we
went to not for profit, and we can do that.
We would not have greater. I think you meant success
in getting pool time. Right? Money, actually. Not the. We're
not asking for money, but I guess what the impetus
would be. Imagine the fact that many not for profits
can do exactly, or many clubs can do exactly that.
Apply for not for profit status, run their organization. In
any way. There's no control over how you run your
organization just because you're. Not for profits. So that's where
it's in. You need us to go. Do that. We
can go do that. To comply with what you need.
It doesn't make our organization run any better or do
anything? For anybody. But we're saying if in your bylaw
works, it's a requirement. It's. Something that has been through
all. Your work, and I don't want to do a
workaround on that. We're just saying. Typically. It's not something
that I mentioned that's happened to other communities where it
doesn't. Matter how. You're set up. It matters what product
you're delivering to the community. But if your wording as
such isn't to come back around to that. Then people
go ahead and set themselves up a not for profit
and do the same things. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
Right. Thank you for the questions. Thank you. The next
items on our agenda are public meetings, and we have
two. The first one is for four elm street. And
I have to read for each of them. A lengthy.
Explanation of the process. So I'll start then with the
first one for four elm street. This is owning bylaw.
Amendment. So welcome. This is public planning meeting for a
proposed zoning bylaw amendment for four elm street. No decision
is going to be made this afternoon. Purpose of this
meeting is to introduce and obtain public comments. On the
proposed zoning bylaw amendment. The meeting will begin with presentations
by staff and. The applicant. Members of the public will
then be invited to offer their comments or questions regarding
the proposal. Once the public portion of the meeting has
been completed, no more public comments or questions. Will be
allowed at today's meeting. I will then ask council members
if they have any questions. Once all public can counsel,
their questions and comments have been received. Staff will have
an opportunity to respond or provide clarification if appropriate. All
questions and comments specific to the purpose of the Sony
Balla amendment will be addressed in a future staff report.
It is very important that the town received the correct
names, email addresses and mailing addresses, including postal code of
individuals having an interest in this application. If you plan
to speak to council at this meeting or if you
want to be notified of any future council or committee
meetings concerning the application, you must provide this information. Public
comment and feedback on development proposals are important to the
town of Collingwood and are a core part of a
transparent and inclusive land use planning process. We encourage you
to express comments verbally or in writing. However, please note
that the rights of third parties to appeal zoning by
law, amendment decisions to the Ontario Land Tribunal have been
restricted under the Planning act. If you do not make
a neural submission today or a written submission to council.
Before the council decision, you may not be added as
a party. To an appeal before the Ontario Land tribunal
unless, in the opinion of the tribunal, there are reasonable
grounds to do so. This meeting is being recorded and
streamed on the municipal YouTube channel and broadcast on Rogers
TV. Your name, address, comments and any other personal information
are being recorded. According to the Missile act and the
Municipal Freedom of information and protection of privacy act. The
minutes will be available to the general public. On the
town website. I will ask that planning services also confirm
that notification to the public has been given as required.
By the planning act within their presentation this afternoon. Again,
I would like to remind everyone that no decision will
be made today, and the zoning bylaw amendment will be
considered by council on a future date. And now I'll
turn the microphone over to housing development coordinator to Sousa.
Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. And good afternoon, members
of council staff and members of the public. My name
is Claire de Souza, and I am the housing development
coordinator for the town and one of the planners assigned
this file. Erica Ro. Rose, community planner, is also here
with us this afternoon as we are both working on
this file. Together. Today's public meeting is legislated under the
Planning act and is required as part of the public
process. The purpose of today's meeting is to introduce an
application that was received for a zoning by law amendment
and to hear questions, comments and concerns to assist in
future decision making. Next slide, please. Today's meeting will follow
the town's standard public meeting format. Since Mayor Hamlin has
already provided an introduction. The remainder of the meeting will
consist of confirming the public notice, an overview of the
application review process, an overview of the proposed zoning bylaw
amendment, followed by a review of the proposal from the
agent, and then. We'll be opening the floor to questions,
comments and concerns at the end and address anything. We
are able to today. Otherwise, anything that cannot be answered
will be addressed in a future staff. Report, next slide,
please. Notice of complete application and public meeting was circulated
to internal and external agencies on November 19, 2025 and
was also published in the Collingwood Today online newspaper on
the same date. Additionally, as a courtesy. The notice was
mailed to property owners and condo owners or condo corporations
within 120 meters. Of the property. Next slide, please. This
slide provides a general overview of the town's development review
process. Everything in green has been completed to date, and
the box outlined in red reflects where we are today.
Next steps include a continued review of the application, including
technical reports and receipt of public comments, providing comments to
the applicant and then receiving any necessary modifications from the
applicant. Once all outstanding matters have been addressed, staff will
prepare a recommendation report for the committee of the whole
and council, where a decision will be made on the
application. Following council's decision. If approved, a notice of passing
of the zoning bylaw amendment will be issued and a
20 day appeal period will commence prior to being final.
The zoning bylaw will not come into force and effect
or, sorry, the zoning bylaw amendment. Will not come into
force and effect until appeals impacting the 2024 official plan
are dealt. With and the full official plan is in
force. Next slide, please. Now we will get into some
of the details of the application. The property subject to
the proposed application is municipally addressed as four elm street,
which is highlighted in red on the screen. The property
is zero point 83 ha in area and currently contains
a single detached dwelling with an internal additional residential unit,
or ARU. To the north of the property, there is
a mix of commercial and residential uses. Residential uses surround
the property to the east, and commercial uses surround the
property. To the south and west. The purpose of the.
Proposed zoning bylaw amendment is to rezone the subject property
from resort commercial c three zone to a residential second
density exception zone to permit a residential building containing four
dwelling units. The development is proposed to be constructed in
two phases, and the phased construction approach impacts the site
specific exceptions being requested. Phase one will include the construction
of a detached Aru in the rear. Yard. And phase
two will involve the demolition of the existing single detached
dwelling in the front yard. And the construction of a.
Residential building containing two dwelling units and then connecting the
two buildings from phase one and two via a common
corridor, creating one building with four dwelling units. So once
phase one is completed, the structure in the rear yard
will be temporarily considered a detached Aru and a site
specific provision for increased maximum height. Will address a zoning
conformity matter at the end of phase two, the final
development on site. Will be one building with four dwelling
units. Next slide, please. This slide shows the site plan
for the proposed development in its final stage. As you
can see, here on the slide. The result will be
a two story building with four units, two in the
rear and two in the front, connected by a corridor.
Four parking spaces will be provided in the front yard
and a pathway will connect residents from the parking area
to the building. Next slide, please. Under the town's 2024
official plan, the property is designated existing neighborhood. The existing
neighborhood designation permits residential units and low rise and mid
rise buildings, including additional residential units the proposed development meets
the general purpose and intent of the existing neighborhood designation
and low rise built form policies. The existing neighborhood designation
is under appeal, and as such, the proposed zoning bylaw
amendment will not come into force and effect until the
appeals of the 2020 official plan. 2024 official plan are
dealt with. Next slide, please. The subject property is currently
zoned resort commercial, or c three, the proposed zoning bylaw
amendment seeks to rezone the subject property to a residential
second density exception zone to bring the property in line
with the official plan designation and to facilitate the proposal.
Next slide, please. This slide highlights the site specific exceptions
being requested in the residential second density exception zone. The
R two exception zone proposes to establish site specific provisions
for a detached, additional residential unit, including an increased maximum
height of 8.48 meters, where 7.5 meters is permitted. And
this is an increase of just under a meter, so
zero point 98 meters. This exception is being sought as
the proposed development is being constructed in two phases. As
I mentioned, once the first phase is completed and before
the second phase begins, the structure will be considered a
detached ARU once both phases are completed, the development is
finished the building will be one building with four units.
Aside from these exceptions, all other provisions of the zoning
bylaw would apply. Next slide, please. Planning services circulated the
application for technical review on November 19, and since then
we have received standard public comments or, sorry, standard comments
from Enbridge and Rogers, as well as comments from the
town's. Parks, recreation and culture department and building services. Next
slide, please. We have not received any public comments to
date. However, today's meeting is an opportunity to formally hear
from the public. Next slide, please. Following this afternoon's public
meeting. Next steps include a review and consideration of comments
received from today's meeting completion of a technical review, receiving
results from peer reviews, and providing the proponent with all
comments received. Refining the proposed zoning bylaw amendment as necessary.
Preparing a staff report with recommendations to the comm. Committee
of the whole and council council would then render a
decision to approve or refuse the zoning bylaw amendment and
a notice of decision would be circulated to all individuals
and organizations who formally request a notice and would be
published in Collingwood Today Online's newspaper. If the proposed ZBA
is approved, it would not come into force and effect
until the existing neighborhood policies of the 2024 official plan
are in full force in effect. Next slide, please. Should
anyone wish to submit comments or concerns following this afternoon's
meeting, you are welcome to email myself Claire de Sousa,
housing development coordinator at C. De Sousa at Collingwood, CA
or community. Planner Erica Rose at Eros at Collingwood, Ca.
Or you can submit written correspondence to town hall members
of the public can provide written comments up until council
renders a decision. Verbal comments will only be accepted during
a public meeting or at a future committee of the
whole meeting for anyone. Wishing to provide comments today, we
ask that you please add your name to the. Sign
in sheet available at the front here. Next slide, please.
To be notified of future agendas or meetings related to
these applications. You can view them online on our website.
If you would like to receive notice of future meetings
or a decision, please provide your contact details today at
the sign in sheet or email me and request to
be circulated in the future. That concludes my presentation. And
I'll turn. The floor back to the chair, noting that
the applicant's agent is here today for a presentation. Thank
you very much. Would the applicants. Agent. Like to come
forward. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Miriam Vasny.
I'm with plan Mos associates and. We're the agent for
the applicant. Claire did a very comprehensive. Slideshow, so I
did prepare in advance. It consists basically up to two
slides. So if we could have the first slide, this
next slide. Up, please. So this is showing the site
plan, existing site plan, and also the existing dwelling. That's
on the property currently, and on the main floor is
the principal residence. And the second floor is an apartment.
Next slide, please. As Claire showed you. This is the
proposed site plan. With the two buildings now connected. The
proposed development. Complies with all the r two zoning provisions
as well as your Aru provision. For it doesn't comply
with the ARU provision for a detached ARU, and we
are asking for the exception for that once the building
is complete. Actually, it comes in under what? Is permitted
under the r two zone, which is 12 meters height.
We will be still at the 8.48. And that is
the presentation. I have nothing else to add, unless you've
got some questions. Any questions of the applicant? No, I
think we're good. Thank you. Good. Thank you. Would any
members of the public like to address council about this
application? Claire Thomas. Was there anyone online who would like
to address council? Thank you. We do have a few
people online if you wish to address council regarding this
application. Please press the raise your hand feature at the
bottom of your screen. Okay, so I'll turn this over
now to council. Would anyone on council have any questions?
Or comments deputy mayor. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Through you
to planner or coordinator. If I could. Sensitive to the
fact that an appeal. To the olt. Could. Have information
that can't be shared, but I just find a little
unusual. So I was hoping to get a little more
clarification of the fact that in this particular case, there
is an appeal going on? We're going to proceed as
we would normally. And get it to the stage that
it has to be held. Until it's determined about the
appeal. So maybe just the clarification. It seems to me.
Like the outcome of the appeal could impact it, but
I'm sure staff have considered that. So could you give
a little more detail in that regard? Yeah, go ahead.
Thank you. And I might pass this over to director
Valentine, who's more involved in the Olt appeal process. Thank
you. And through you chair, the planning act does allow
us to pass zoning bylaws. Which will only come into
force and effect once the official plan comes into force
and effect. So. If there's a left turn during one
of the appeals that could affect this application any zoning
bylaw amendment passed by council would not come into force.
In effect, if it didn't align with the new official
plan. So we're permitted as a municipality to carry on
with our zoning bylaw amendments, assuming a positive result from
the appeals, and if. There is a difference between what
we expect and the results of the appeals. Then those
zoning bylaws would not come into force and effect and
would have to be revisited. Thank you. Any other questions,
Councilor Dougherty? Thank you, mayor. Actually, I have a couple
of questions. And the first would be. Through you to
coordinator D'Souza. Because the official plan is under appeal now,
does it mean that the proponent can't go? Forward. With
this if we approve the zoning bylaw. They still can't
move forward. With their project. Go ahead. Through the chair
to the counselor. Yes, that's correct. The zoning bylaw amendment
wouldn't be in full force in effect until the appeals
have been dealt with to the official plan. The zoning
bylaw would only come into force and effect once that's
dealt with and then the applicant could then pursue. Building
permits and everything that follows. Okay. Thank you. And then
just to follow up. Can you confirm these are all
rentals? That we anticipate. Yes. Grant. Through the chair. Yes.
As far as I know, they will. All be rental
housing, which is part of the reason that I've been
on this file. As sort of the concierge role to
encourage more affordable and purpose built rentals in our community.
Terrific. And speaking as a member of the Affordable Housing
Task force, this is just exactly the kind of. Infill
project. That we look for and is going to benefit
our community greatly, so hopefully those appeals are resolved. Quickly
so our proponent can move forward. Thank you. Any other
questions or comments? I think you're good. Thank you very
much. Thank you. So that ends the public meeting on
four Elm Street. Okay.
Sadly, I have to read the same lengthy sadly for
you, I don't mind reading the same lengthy. Public meeting
introduction. But this time it's for the next public meeting,
for 401 Ragland. Street. So welcome to the public meeting
for 401 Ragland street. This property is located on the
east side of Ragland and the south side of Ron
Emo Road. No decision will be made. This afternoon. The
purpose of this meeting is to introduce and obtain public
comments on the proposed zoning bylaw amendment. The meeting will
begin with present. Presentations by staff and the applicant. Members
of the public will then be invited to offer their
comments. Or questions regarding the proposal. Once the public portion
of the meeting has been completed, no more public comments
or questions will be allowed at today's meeting. I will
then ask council members if they have any questions once.
All public and councilor. Questions and comments have been received.
Staff will have an opportunity to respond. Or provide clarification
if appropriate. All questions. And comments specific to the purpose
of the zoning bylaw amendment will be addressed in a
future staff report. It is very important that the town
received the correct names. Email addresses and mailing addresses include
including postal code of individuals having an interest in this
application. If you plan to speak to council at this
meeting or if you want to be notified of any
future council or committee meetings concerning the application being consider.
Considered, you must provide this information. Public comment and feedback
on development proposals are important to the town of Collingwood
and are a core part of a transparent and inclusive
land use planning process. We encourage you to express comments
verbally or in writing. However, please note that the rights
of third parties to appeal zoning bylaw amendment. Decisions to
the Ontario Land Tribunal have been restricted under the Planning
act. If you do not make a moral submission today
or written submission to council before the council decision, you
may not be. Added to a party as a party
to an appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal unless in
the opinion of the tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to
do so. This meeting is being recorded and streamed on
the municipal YouTube channel and broadcast on Rogers TV. Your
name, address, comments and any other personal information. Are being
recorded. According to the Municipal act and the freedom municipal
freedom of information and protection of privacy act, the minutes
will be available to the general public on the town's
website. I will ask the planning services also confirm that
notification to the public has been given as required. By
the planning act within their presentation this afternoon. Again, I
would like to remind everyone that no decision will be
made today and the zoning bylaw amendment will be considered
by council on a future date, and I will now
turn it over. To community planner Rose. Welcome. Thank you,
Mayor Hamlin. And good afternoon. Council staff and members of
the public. My name is Erica Rose. And I'm the
community planner assigned to the file for 401 Regglin street
today's. Public meeting is legislated under the Planning act and
is required as part of the public process. The purpose
of today's meeting is to introduce an application that has
been received for a zoning bylaw amendment and to hear
questions, comments, and concerns to assist in future decision making.
Next slide, please. Today's meeting will follow the town standard
public meeting format, since Mayor Hamlin has already provided an
introduction. The remainder of the meeting will consist of confirming
the public notice, an overview of the application review process,
a summary of the proposed zoning bylaw amendment, followed by
a review of the proposal from the applicant. And then
we'll open the floor to questions, comments and concerns at
the end and address anything that we're able to today.
Alternatively, anything that cannot be answered will be addressed in
a future recommendation report to council. Next slide. Please. In
accordance with the Planning Act, a notice of complete application
and public meeting was circulated to internal and external agencies
on November 19, and it was also published in the
Collingwood Today online newspaper that same date. Additionally, as a
courtesy, the notice was mailed to property owners within 120
meters of the subject property. Next slide, please. This slide
provides a general overview of the town's development review process.
Everything in green has been completed to date. In the
box outlined in red reflects where we are. Today at
the public meeting. Next steps include a continued review of
the application, including technical reports and receipt of public comments.
Providing comments to the applicant and then receiving any necessary
modifications to the proposal once all outstanding matters have been
addressed. Staff will prepare a recommendation report for the committee
of the whole and council where a decision will be
made on the application. Following council's decision, a notice of
passing will be issued. If the zoning bylaw amendment is
approved and a 20 day appeal period will commence. After
prior to a decision being final. If there are no
appeals, the bylaw will come into force and effect once
the applicable policies under the town's 2024 official plan are
no longer under appeal. Next slide, please. The subject property
is municipally addressed as 401 Ryglin street, which is highlighted
in red. On the screen. The property is approximately 8.56
ha in area. Existing uses on the subject property include
the All Saints Anglican Church cemetery on the west, and
the balance of the property is vacant on the east.
Surrounding uses primarily include a mix of industrial uses to
the north and east, vacant lands to the south. And
community service uses to the west. The purpose of the
proposed zoning bylaw amendment is to rezone approximately 5.8 subject
property from community services to an industrial park exception zone.
The amendment is intended to facilitate a consent application that
would sever the subject portion of the land's and enable
future development of employment uses. The effect of the amendment
will be further discussed later in this presentation. I will
note there has been a slight change to the size
of the area that is proposed. For rezoning. The notice
states that the area is approximately 5.26 ha in size.
However, this has been corrected to 5.8 ha. The applicant's
agent, Colin Travis. From Travis and associates, as well as
John Kirby, on behalf of the All Saints Anglican Church
are also in attendance this afternoon and will be speaking
on the application following this presentation. Next slide, please. This
slide shows the proposed severance of the subject property, and
it identifies the area that is proposed for rezoning. The
area highlighted in green on the left hand side contains
the all Saints Cemetery, which is appropriately zoned and not
subject to the proposal. However, the area that's highlighted in
red on the right hand side represents. The portion of
the property that is being considered for rezoning the applicant's
intent. Is to sever and sell that portion of the
site. To enable future development of employment uses in accordance
with the property's land use designation under the town's new
official plan. For clarity, no development is being proposed at
this time, and the zoning bylaw amendment would simply bring
the permitted uses on the subject property into conformity. With
the applicable land use designation. A consent application is being
processed concurrently with the proposed zoning bylaw amendment and one
of the recommended conditions of consent is the approval of
the proposed zoning bylaw amendment, subject to it being in
full force, in effect, with no appeals. Next slide, please.
Under the town's 2024 official plan, the property is split
designated parks and open space and general employment. The parks
and open space designation applies to the portion of the
site where the cemetery is located, which is a permitted
use. And the general employment designation applies to the balance
of the property, which is currently vacant and considered surplus
to the cemetery's long term needs. The general employment designation
is currently under appeal, so. In order for the zoning
bylaw amendment to come into effect. That designation would have
to no longer be subject to appeals. Next slide, please.
The subject property is entirely zoned community services. The proposed
zoning bylaw Amendment seeks to rezone 5.8 eastern portion of
the site to an industrial park exception zone to facilitate
a consent application that would sever the vacant area of
the property and enable future development uses for. Employment. Next
slide, please. This slide highlights the site specific exceptions that
are being requested in the industrial park exception zone. The
effect of the rezoning is to permit uses that are
consistent with the general employment designation. Due to recent legislation
and policy changes at the provincial level, standalone, commercial, institutional,
and public use. Uses are no longer permitted in employment
areas. Therefore, The industrial park exception zone proposes to prohibit
the list of uses that are identified on the screen.
However, the balance of the uses in the parent industrial
park zone would be permitted. Staff are currently reviewing the
list of prohibited uses that are being proposed through this
amendment, and we note that it may be further refined
as we continue our technical review of the proposal. Any
changes? To this list will be further discussed in a
future recommendation report to council. Next slide, please. Planning services
circulated the application for technical review on November 10, 2025.
Since then, we have received standard comments from Enbridge, Epcore
and the town's development engineering department. With no concerns on
the proposed rezoning. Next slide, please. Today. No comments have
been received from the public on this application. This meeting
is an opportunity to formally hear from the public, and
I would encourage anyone to provide comments that you may
have at the end of this presentation. Next slide, please.
Following this afternoon's public meeting. Next steps include a review
and consideration of comments received from today's meeting, completion of
technical review and providing the proponent with all comments received.
Refining the proposed zoning bylaw amendment as necessary preparation of
a staff report with recommendations to committee. Of the Holing
Council. Council would then render a decision to approve or
refuse the zoning bylaw amendment and a notice of decision
would be circulated to all individuals and organizations who formally
requested notice, and it would also be published in the
Collingwood Today online newspaper. And finally, the associated consent application
will be finalized. Subject to this zoning byl. Bylaw amendment
being approved with no appeals. Next slide, please. Should anyone
wish to submit comments or concerns following this afternoon's meeting,
you're welcome. To email myself, Erica Rose, community planner at
Eros at Collingwood, Ca. Or you can submit written correspondence
to Town hall. Members of the public can provide written
comments up until council renders a decision ver. Verbal comments
will only be accepted during a public meeting or at
a feature committee of the whole meeting. Next slide, please.
To be notified of future agendas or meetings related to
this application. You can view them on our website. If
you would like to receive notice of future meetings or
decision, please provide your contact details today at the sign
in sheet that's located here at the front. And you
can request to be circulated in the future as well
that. Concludes my presentation for today, and my understanding is
that the applicant has a presentation following this. Thank you.
Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Travis.
Good afternoon, Madam mayor, members of council. It's nice to
see you all again. As with the previous presentation, I
can't provide anything more. Planning staff provided a very comprehensive
presentation. Shows the outline of the lens that we're seeking
rezoning. And the nature of that rezoning. Planner Erica Rose
identified the existing official plan, the one that was approved.
In late last year and allowed to designate industrial we
know that the official plan has to be that part
of the official plan and some of the policies relating
to the industrial need to be finally approved, and that,
as with the previous. Application. We would be basically waiting
for that to be resolved before Olt. In the meantime,
we have this public meeting. And again, I don't think
there are any serious technical issues that have been raised
with this application. If there are planning or planning consultant
related questions of council, I'd be more than happy. To
try to answer them. And in the meantime, I have
with me. Michael Peterson from the church and John Kirby.
And I think Michael may have a few words. For
council. To further explain the nature of the other reason
why we're seeking this rezoning. And the severance that will
be heard on Wednesday. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Welcome.
Thank you. Madam Mayor, members of council, my name is
Michael Peterson. I am the priest and incumbent at All
Saints Anglican Church. I just want to. Say a few
words very briefly to explain why we are seeking your
approval for this process. As I'm sure you're all aware,
from attending funerals, burial practices in society. Have changed. Radically
in our lifetimes, there are fewer. Impairments. Most of them
are cremated remains, and we believe that. The cemetery, at
the current rate of use, has more than enough existing
space for several centuries. The reason why we are seeking
this, seeking your approval to suburb. And so the land
is essentially. To allow us to continue the good work
that all Saints does in the community for generations to
come. As you are probably aware, we maintain two historic
buildings in Collingwood at our own expense and out. Of
those buildings. In addition to religious services, we provide. Space
for groups in the community. We provide drop in spaces.
For. Disadvantaged people. For lonely people. At our daytime coffee
hours. We feed several hundred people a month through our
food ministry, and our hope is ultimately to expand our
food services space in the church. To provide other programs,
such as hot breakfast programs in the community. And as
we are an inner city church. We see a lot
of, we see a lot of business, a lot of
street people. And we have a heart for the community
in that regard. So our intention and bring this proposal
to you is simply as I said. To continue the
good work that we are doing and that we hope
to do for generations to come, so I thank you
for your consideration. Thank you very much. Would there be
any members of the public who would like to address
council? There's none in chambers. Would there be any online
clerk, Thomas? Once again, if there's anybody online that would
like to address council regarding this application, please. Press the
raise your hand feature. Now it's time. We'll
close the public portion of the meeting. Would any member
of council have any questions or comments? Okay, I'm seeing
none at this time, so we will now close this
public meeting. Thank you everyone, for coming. The next item
on our agenda is 8.1. And the recommendation is that
the minutes of the council committee of the whole meeting
held December 1, 2025. Excluding committee of the whole recommendations
and council meeting held December 8, 2025. He approved as
presented could I have a mover and a seconder, please?
Councilor Jeffrey seconded by councilor Baines. Any comments? All those
in favor and that's unanimous. Thank you. Is there any
business arising from the previous minutes? Can you see? None.
The next item is 8.3.1. The recommendation is that the
committee of the whole recommendations from its meeting held December
1, 2025. Be hereby approved as presented. There's two items.
The first one is in 2020. 512. Master servicing plan,
award of contract, and the second one is reports and
minutes of other committees and boards. Could I have a
mover in a seconder, please? Councilor Perry, seconded by. Councilor
ring comments here. Seeing none. All those in favor? And
that's unanimous. Thank you. There are two staff reports this
afternoon. The first one is on p 2025 23 development
approvals. Process. The recommendation. Yeah. Thanks. The recommendation before us
is that staff report P 2025 23, development approvals process.
Also known as dap. And fuse review proposed update to
building fees, as amended, be received and that the proposed
update to the building permit fees be effective on January
1, 2026, per appendix be attached here, too, and schedule
a to bylaw 20190 00:39 be replaced to align with
the updated. Fees. I'll get a move in a seconder
before we have the staff presentation. Moved by Councilor McCulloch.
Seconded by Councilor Doherty. And. Who'll be speaking to this?
Director Valentine. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Council will recall
that staff had advanced proposed fee updates for planning, building
and development. Engineering activities flowing from the endorsed development process.
And fees report, also known as the DAP reports. And
implementing council's direction to follow a growth pays for growth
philosophy. We brought the proposed fees scheduled to a public
meeting. You'll recall that was in October of this year,
and delayed returning to council to allow additional time for
targeted consultation with the Georgian Triangle Development Institute or GDTI,
which is our local. Development community advocacy group, as well
as Build, which is a similar organization with a larger
geographic interest in the GTA and beyond. We have received
a follow up letter from GTDI and build and met
with both organizations in December and thank them for their
valuable insights and feedback. This report and the one following
have been amended to add further context to the fees
updates document. The feedback collected and summarized the staff recommendation,
recalling that staff have previous direction from council to implement
the endorsed app reports. So this is on the building
services side speaking specifically to this report. GTDI and build
indicated that they have no concerns with proposed fee update
we did not receive any other comments from public. Or
agencies. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the proposed building
services fee comes into effect January 1. 2026 and chair.
That would conclude my summary for this amended report. CBO
hog is online. Both her and I will be available
should there be any questions, and I'll reserve my further
commentary on the next item for. The planning and engineering
peace report. Thank you. Any questions or comments on this
report? Deputy mayor Fryer. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. And as
director valentine just pointed out, appreciate GTDI has indicated that
they don't have any concerns with this. The question I
was going to ask about was on page seven. It
refers to. The goal of having two years. For the
building department coverage in the reserve and that it would
require a change in policy by council. So I wanted
to ask through you, if I could, to director Valentine.
When I look at the adequacy of. Reserve report that
we get annually. And I look at the target balance
for building department stabilization, which I think is the right
reserve. To be referring to. It shows two point. Three.
Basically 2.349 million as the target balance. So is that
going to have to change in order to meet that
requirement of two years? Director Valentine, is this something you
can answer? Thank you, chair. I was going to defer
that. Or refer to the treasurer, but I see that
she's not present at this moment, so. Perhaps that's a
question that we can come back to. The deputy maron.
Thank you. Okay? Yeah. Okay. He'll get the answer later.
Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, seeing none. We'll vote
on this motion. All those in favor? That's unanimous. Thank
you. Next item. The recommendation is that staff report, p
2025 24 development approvals, process DAP and fees review proposed
update to planning and development engineering fees, as amended, be
received and that the proposed update the planning fees be
effective on January 1, 2026, per appendix. A attached here
too, and. That the proposed update to the development engineering
fees be effective on January 1, 2026, per appendix B
attached here, too, and that the proposed updates to the
planning and development engineering fees be included. In the 2026
town fees and service charges bylaw. So can I get
a mover? In a second or to get this on
the floor, please. Councilor Bain, seconded by deputy mayor. And
now I'll turn it over to director Valentine. Thank you
again, madam Chair. With respect to this item, the feedback
that we receive from GTDI. And bills. Their comments certainly
concentrated on this particular report for the planning and development
engineering service fees. And you will also note that there
was no additional feedback from individual developers, consulting firms, agencies,
or the general public beyond what we received from GTDI
and build. Both organizations raise questions about the fees and
how they were calculated. And while the answers to their
specific concerns are contained in the. Amended staff report. Their
request was that council. Consider one year delay or deferral
in implementing the planning and development engineering fees. Recognizing the
challenging economic conditions facing the development and construction industries, and
they do anticipate those will continue. Into 2026 and potentially
further into 2027. You did hear from President Ken Hale,
representing the GTDI earlier in this meeting, and he articulated
their position. Quite clearly. You also have access to the
letters from GTTI and built in your agenda package. A
deferral is certainly an option that this council may consider
at your sole discretion. However. With great respect to the
GDTI and for our ongoing positive relationship, we would like
to take the opportunity to speak to some of the
points in their presentation. The demand for planning services is
not in a continued decline. Application numbers have remained steady.
An average of 115 applications per year for the last
three years from 2022 to 2024, as indicated. In the
amended report. With only 2025 seeing a projected decrease by
17% from our average. Volume of applications. Planning fee. Revenues
generated from applications ranged in the area from 145,000 to
225,000 per year, and the committee of adjustment, which is
also a type of planning fee. Their revenues ranged from
30,000 to 50,000 annually. And combined, those do not approach
covering renumeration for staff efforts to process those applications leading
to a current taxpayer subsidy of 71% of the costs,
or approximately $500,000 annual impacts on the property tax levery
in a year where we have an average vol. Volume
of applications. Recoverable costs are not based on the budget
book. Full time employee. It's full time equivalents assigned to
the development management subservice. Those employees. While they do work
on development applications, they undertake many tasks that are outside
that process, such as participating in Ontario Land tribunal appeals,
fielding inquiries, undertaking internal process improvements. And responding to requests
of council, it would be, in fact, illegal for us
as a municipality to recover staffing costs that are over
and above what is required to directly manage land use
planning. Applications under the Planning Act. The 2025 and 2026
budgets, though related, have no direct bearing on the fees
recommended in the DAC reports, which were calculated in 2024
to meet the legal requirements under the Planning act and
industry standard efforts. Analysis was used to determine appropriate fee
levels with multiple checks and balances along with adjust. Adjustments
for legislative changes. And internal consistency where consultant recommendations were
not aligned with similar application types. To be clear, the
efforts analysis approach to calculating fees. It doesn't matter if
an organization has one employee or 50 staff dedicated to
development review. It is the average number of human hours
requ? Required to process one application of each application type
that is used to set the fees. Whether there are
sufficient human resources to cover the work required to process
application volumes in an average year. That's a different question,
which was also addressed by the consultants, but has no
impact. On the proposed fees, and we can confirm that
there have been no additions to the staff complement. For
development management. Since the DAP reports. Were completed in 2024.
Lastly, GDTi notes that some fees will triple. This is
correct. It is also a symptom of the fact that.
Staff were not able to find any evidence that Collingwood
has undertaken a comprehensive fee review for development. Applications, and
therefore the town lags far behind our competitors as well
as far behind the 75% cost recovery target. We would
also emphasize that using efforts analysis approach, not all planning
fees are proposed to increase some are proposed to decrease
while others remain the same. To that end, the staff
recommendation is to proceed with the fees update based on
the previous direction. Of council to adopt a general growth
pays for growth philosophy, noting that a number of adjustments
were made to achieve. What we as staff feel is
an appropriate balance to take into account legislative shifts. Province's
goal of increasing housing supply. Internal consistency, current economic conditions,
and the impacts on both the taxpayer and the development
community. With your patients. I would just like to highlight
a few points from the amended staff report. Recognizing that
the current economic situation. Is less and ideal and ensuring
that there is reduced sticker shock for the industry. Any
propose increases to land use planning fees are to be
phased over a four year period on the flip side,
any of the proposed decreases would be implemented immediately starting
January 1, 2026. The proposed fee structure recognizes the community
benefits generated by development, by setting cost recovery for all
planning fees at 25% across the board. Sorry. 75% across
the board, which is a developer discount of 25%, noting
that our current taxpayer subsidy sits at 71%, meaning that
developers are only paying 29% of the costs associated with
processing applications. This does not represent a growth pace for
growth approach and is resulting in an annual subsidy of
approximately $500,000 per year on the tax levy. If the
fee update does not proceed. Or is deferred, the subsidy
would continue at approximately that level for 2026. Staff were
certainly cognizant that housing affordability is influenced not only by
the purchase price, but also by the purchasing power of
individuals and households, which can be impacted by taxation. And
that is how our subsidy is collected. We would also
highlight that development engineering fees are proposed. To be maintained
at current levels, meaning no increase is proposed. Rather, we
are altering the timing of the payment of those fees
so that they align with workload, reduce administrative delays, and
ensure that applicants are aware upfront of. Their overall financial
obligations. Another consideration is ensuring that our fees are competitive
and aligned with neighboring and. Comparative municipalities, noting that the
town of Blue Mountains Council recently updated its planning and
development engineering fees and that was subsequent to the finalization
of our peer review comparison provided by the consulting team.
Meaning that Collingwood was already behind comparable municipalities in 2024
and now continues to fall further behind. Finally, as you
see from today's agenda, for those who are building affordable
housing, there is already a development charge relief through the
province's legislation, and if approved, there will be a local
incentive framework that developers can access to offset the cost
of fees and charges. This certainly bears mentioning as affordability
was brought. Up both by the GTDI and by council
members during our public meetings associated with these fees. That
concludes the summary of the amended report. We have several
staff here to assist with answering questions. Including myself and
director Alcoca. Manager Lial is online and next to me
we have manager Ayers. Thank you, chair, and happy to
respond. To questions or comments as needed. Hey, thank you
for that thorough report. I'll turn this over to council
then. Any questions, comments? Councilor jeffrey. Thank you, Mihan. So
I guess my first question is the anticipated 25% of
increased fees. Coming in for 2026, already contemplated in our
2026 draft budget. Is this a question for the treasurer?
Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin, for you to councilor
Jeffrey. No, the 25% is not included. In the 2026
draft budget. Okay. Oh, sorry, cao.
Thank you. I just thought, for clarity, through the chair.
The potential for increased fees. As well as the potential
for immediate rebates. Both are not included. And. We're not
predicting that there would be an overall change in income,
but this would be starting to restructure. The overall financial
framework of taxpayer and developer balance. So I just wanted
to say that we weren't forecasting regardless of your decision
tonight. Unless I stand corrected by the department or the
treasurer or that we're certain there would. Be a change
in revenue that could potentially be applied to the department
or elsewhere. Okay. I just don't know how you change
fees. And not predict based on increased activity, why there
wouldn't be increased. I'm going to ask the treasurer to
that question. I think she can answer. Treasure. Graham, is
that a question for you or director Valentine? Okay, thank
you. Thank you, chair. And perhaps I might have misunderstood
the CIO's comments, but pending a decision from council today.
There's still an opportunity, as I understand it, to adjust
the. Revenue increase the revenue incomes for Lenny's planning applications
in the 2026 budget and in our report. And of
course, this is an estimate, because we don't know how
many applications and of which type will be coming forward
in 2026. We would estimate. We would be receiving an
additional 125,000 in 2026. If the 25. Percent increase came
into effect. As anticipated on January 1. So there is
an opportunity to adjust the budget by approximately that amount.
Of increased revenues coming through to planning services. Thank you.
Thank you. For that response. That's great. I'm a bit
of. Two minds. And I guess my other question would
be through to director Valentine, because I was curious. Reading
about some of the fees that. The consultant had come
in at, I think, around $847. And staff increased those
to around 4400. And I know that the consultants report
was done in 2024, and I'm just wondering. What impacts
between then and this recommendation would have happened? That would
impact that decision or that recommendation. Go ahead, director Valentine.
Thank you, Taryn. Through you and certainly manage your ayers,
who is deep into the details of this report can
layer on. The changes since 2024 include legislative changes. So,
for example, pre consultation, which used to be requirement is
now voluntary. So in that example, The consultant recommended quite
a boost in the pre consultation fees, which we didn't
think would be appropriate for encouraging folks to come through
a voluntary process. The other component. That has changed, or
I would say is notable, perhaps, is that there's a
number of application types which the town. Has not processed
in the last seven years or more. So when the
consultants were undertaking their efforts, analysis, there was not very
much of any data to drive those fees. So when
we looked at the entire body of what the consultants
recommended. There were certain fees for almost the same efforts,
very similar application types that were extremely different. So we
tried to align those internally so that there was consistency
amongst the fees as an entire body. Thank you. Councilor
Payne. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I'd just like to offer.
My thanks and congratulations to Director Valentine and to all
staff for a very detailed and pointed. Fuel point by
point explanation. For your recommendation. And it would seem to
me, to the TDI request to defer. Other than the
CPI, these increases, in my opinion, I think that just
compounds the issue of kicking it down the road, so
to speak, and particularly the sticker shock if, as and
when it takes effect. So, as unpalatable as that may
be to some, I think it's appropriate to proceed with
the staff recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Council.
Doherty. Thank you, chair. I am. Equally conflicted.
On this staff report. I'm very sympathetic to the development
community. Absolutely. But. Any
lowering of our development applications right now. Is really due
to complexity. Of factors and. It's not development charges alone
or planning fees. It's got a lot to do, also
with market conditions and. I'm not going to put too
fine a footpoint on it. Because we all know it's
a very complex market out there. But. The thing that
really drives my decision. Is the fact that. Our residents
are picking up. So much of the cost. Of our
development applications. And. It's not fair. Growth should properly pay
for growth. My other conclusion. And I hope that I
will be correct. Is that another complaint? That we hear.
With regard to. Planning applications is. How slow the processing
is. So. I am going to assume that. The changes
that are being proposed. And phased. Will have the effect
of allowing. The planning department to apply. The correct. Amount
of resource. To allow applications to be processed more quickly
and in that way. We are going to assist. The
development community. In their costs by making these things faster.
So. I will support. Staff's recommendation. Thank you. Thank you.
Anyone else like to comment? Deputy mayor. Thank you, Mayor
Hamlin. Again being sensitive to. The concerns raised by GTdi.
And very appreciative of the cooperative process. And GTDI has
always been great in that regard, working with our staff.
I do believe staff have taken to heart a lot
of what the input had been coming. And they proposed
a collection of things with phasing in. Reduction of some
of the consultants recommendations of fees. Going to the 75%
level. So I do believe. Made what they think are
the best recommendations possible. In regards to. Trying to help
with the impacts overall. I'm supportive of what they've done.
So I'm going to support the bylaw. To be passed
and implemented as requested for January 1. I do have
some questions that are going to be more in the
budget part of the presentation. But. I just feel like
there is that situation where if we don't do it
now, Would we do it again in 2027? I'm going
to support. The recommendations of staff at this point in
time and hope that there's other ways. That they can
assist. The development community going forward. To help alleviate. On
that particular part of the increase. Thank you. Thank you.
Would anyone else like to speak? Altra said. This is
a really hard one because no one wants to add
additional fees or any fees to anyone, whether they're in
the building industry or, in fact, our own community. But
particularly. The building and development industry. Everyone recognizes. Is not
in a good place right now. But. I am so
mindful of the fact that. The staff's target is to.
Have only 75% of the cost of these applications borne
by. Our. Residential taxpayers. And we're at 29%. We have
a long way to go, so I think a modest
increase this year. Is not a bad way to be
going. We get a chance to review these fees anytime
we want. So I think. We should anyway. For me,
I'm going to support the staff recommendation this afternoon. And
see where we go. Okay, so with that in mind,
we'll bring this to a vote. All those in favor?
And that's unanimous. Thank you. The next item is the
bylaw. Dealing with fees and services. And the. Recommendation is.
This is at 10.1 bylaw number. We're going to sever
out the item for the pool fees, so I'm going
to say. What we're asking to approve is bylaw number
20 25 86 being a life bylaw to adopt the
2026 fees and services charge bylaw. Except relating to the
pool fees. With that. Also, if we sever that out,
does that take out the request from who knows? This
the request from the georgian based wall. So it's georgian
based wall? Yeah. Okay. Everything else other than that. Could
I have a mover in a seconder? So mover is
deputy mayor Friar, the secondary is councillor Jeffrey. Any discussion
on that? All those. Councilor Dougherty. Go ahead. Not the
pool. Yeah. Well, I was going to comment on the
pool that I don't think that we need. To take
out all of the recommended fee changes for the pool.
It's just. For? Well, no, there's. Deputy mayor Friar has
a conflict, so we're taking all of it out. Okay.
For now. Fair enough. Okay. Thing, any other comments? All
those in favor? That's unanimous. Thank you. So now. The
recommendation before you is bylaw number 25 86, being a
bala to adopt the 26 fees. And services charges relating
solely to the pool fees. Be enacted and passed. Okay,
move her in a seconder, please. To get this on
the table. Okay. Councilor McCullough, seconded by Councilor Baines. Councilor
Dougherty. Thank you very much. So what I would like
to do is suggest that we just hold the increase.
On. The squall group. And similar groups that are using
the pool. Where there is. Fairly significant differential between themselves.
And as an organization. Organizations. And just individual public users.
I think we have to list exactly. Yeah, I don't
think we can do that. General of a recommendation. Maybe
you have a question for staff about how you might
scope that. And I could pose that. Can I just
ask the clerk home if she has a comment? Certainly.
Thank you. Staff, through your worship to council Dory stuff
have been talking in the background about what an appropriate
amendment would look like, and the recommendation is to proceed
with the fees as proposed and that you provide a
notice of motion that we waive fees. To the georgian
squall for a fee based on either the base rate
or the youth. Rate or 1.5 rate. Until the PRC
master plan review is done. That's going to be investigating
this policy. Thank you. Okay, so that will bring that
up at the appropriate time. I think now is a
good time. I think now is a good time. Do
you have that? So we could see it. Those words.
There's other groups. That we don't want, but we would
want to lead our most moved. So you would. Waive
fees for. All. I'm just not understanding. So. Really? My
suggestion was not to waive fees, but just to hold
the increase on. These not for profit user groups. Until
we can rationalize. Those fees versus. Other groups, like the
clippers. Director, Cuba. What's your comment on this? Thank you
through your worship. I just thought. It would be important
to caution that. We have nearly a dozen. For profit
businesses that regularly rent our Rec facilities. Including our arenas
and our sports fields, and there's actually two commercial users
at our pool. And in order to consider all of
these businesses fairly inequitably, And maybe avoid a slippery slope.
We'd recommend an overall policy review to address recreational facility.
Fees and how they may be tiered. I also want
to note that this work will have implications to our
current council approved facility allocation. Policy, which also prioritizes allocation
by category. So youth over adults over commercial programming. So
I think, ideally, we'd recommend that this be referred to
the recreation portion of the PRC master plan update that's
currently proposed for 2027. If that is not council's. Desire,
then perhaps. You were looking at. Reduction fees for the
school. And potentially the other current commercial user. At the
pool. Until that work has been done. From the commercial
rate to the current basic rate. Just offer that. Thank
you. And can I just ask a question of that?
And what would you. Do with the fees? For 26.
What are you suggesting? We could consider just not implementing
the commercial rate at the pool, specifically, if that should
be council's. Desire in 2026. Okay, Councilor Dougherty, back to
you. Thank you. I think we have the ability to
differentiate between. Not for profits and. True commercial. Entities. I
don't envision. Reducing. Fees. For all of these groups. If
they're in the business of doing this for profit, but
this particular group. That provided a deputation to us earlier
today. It's a different situation altogether. They're not there for
the prophet and in the meantime. They're excellent users. Of
the pool and taking up capacity. In a good way.
So really my suggestion. To simplify. Perhaps. And Director Cubit,
I think she sort of outlined it, that. We simply
for this particular group. Only that we reduce their fees.
To. The. Equivalent. Other user groups. That are enjoying that
reduced. Fee for? I think it was $59 versus. 100
and change. So just to. Keep the rate at the
lower. Keep it at the lower rate. Sorry. Trying to
make it simple, and I'm not. Okay. Thank you for
that, councilor baines. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I have a
challenge with that. I'm sympathetic to this specific issue, but
it seems to me this all comes back to the
definition of commercial versus not for profit. And if the
review of the recreational master plan will address that. Or
if staff can come back about that. I hate to
set a precedent for one particular group when other groups
could benefit from that categorization. If you will, but it
seems to me. That's the essential point here. And if
we can buy some time to come back. With staff
recommendation about that. The challenge is how you fit that
into the 26 fee increases. I can't address that. Right
now, but I would worry about establishing a precedent at
this point for one specific group. Hey. Anyone else like
to comment on this? Well.
What I'm not understanding. I think it could just be
me. But. Are there others? I guess there's a couple
of choices here. One for 2026. We just moved the.
Georgian base wall back into the basic. While the review
is going on, but if we do that, Director. Qubit,
are we leaving any other group? In a commercial category
this year. That's been moved up into it. Thank you.
At the pool, specifically. Yes. Vo two was also a
commercial renter of that space. Okay, I see. Councilor Jeffrey.
Thank you. Mary Hamlin. So I'm just wondering. If we
can refer. This back and get the information before we
vote on this portion of the bylaw. Is that? I
guess through to the clerk. Is that potential? It would
have to be retroactive. To January 1. Whatever changes we
do, I guess because we aren't going to meet to
receive that information until the new year. But to me,
I'd rather have a clear understanding. Of the landscape before
I vote on it. I'm just trying to understand. What
is it that. We keep the fees the same as
until we change it. Is it just the users of
the group, which is v O two and South Georgian
Bay squall because. They're the two commercial categories. Or do
we want all the pool or all the recreational? Facilities
with commercial like. I think we have to narrow this
somehow. Yeah. I would ask for stuff to narrow that
for us because. I think it does all come down
to just that commercial designation. And if we don't? Institute
that until we get a report back, then. It would
be status quo. Yeah, I have a hard time deciding
this. I totally agree, councilor. Dougherty. Do you have a
thought on this? Yes. Thank you. So I was coming
around to the same conclusion that. We need to just
refer this. It's becoming a little bit more complicated than
it first. Appeared. I like to refer it back to
staff. To review specifically. The fees associated with. This commercial.
Category and see if we can come up with something
that might be a little bit. More equitable. And so
that the increase in fees would be retroactive to January
1. Because, of course, We're not going to be able
to approve it. Before that time. So I just have
a clarification. Click. Almost. Can we do retroactive? These. Thank
you. Thank you. Thanks for your worship, I would agree.
I would support passing the motion. As provided with the
notice motion that it be reviewed for further consideration for
the Georgia squall group and staff information. We would report
back in January, and then if a council supports a
decision being made. We can make it retroactive. So under
that. We would not pass anything to do with pool
fees today. We would just not implement them until we
hear back those two. Fees, okay? Does everyone need further
explanation? Okay, so that's a notice of motion. And then
request to waive, of course. Right. Yeah. Okay. So.
I guess we should deal with that. The bylaw just
for pool fees. Yeah, okay, but this is an amendment
to that. Inducement. Okay. All right, so what we're going
to do now? Is what I read out previously, which
is just the pool fees, and then we're going. To
do an amendment to that. Technically amendment. We'll do a
motion to wait notice to say not the fees till
we hear about. Okay. All right. Did everyone hear that?
Is that okay? Okay. All those in favor? Okay, unanimous.
And then. The amendment to that motion, then is. To
have. To hold the fee increase for the commercial category
and request staff. To review that category and come back
with recommendations. That. May see. More a changed or more
equitable fee structure based on the nature of the organizations.
Okay. And we've asked for a waiving of motion. Reading
of notice of motion. Pardon? Yes. Okay. She's seconding waving
of notice. Okay. Any comment? No. We don't need to
comment. All those in favor? Okay, unanimous. And then the
motion itself. All those in favor? Unless there's comments? Yes,
go ahead. Sure. I thought that I heard the clerk
say that she would want to add that the fees
not be posted until staff come back. Not being pulled,
not be imposed, okay? And just. This is commercial category
for the pool, correct? Yes. And geo, did you have
a comment? Thank you. Through the chair. I was going
to ask for the same clarification commercial category. For the
pool. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Seconder was councilor
Jeffrey. Yeah. All those in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank
you. Thank you for coming. All right, next item. Departmental
updates. Executive director Peg is going to speak to us
about Simcoe. County recycling changes. Over to you. Thank you,
Mayor Hamlin. So council in the community would have received
a memorandum as part of the package, but I am
going to provide a summary of that information. And a
couple additional updates. So, effective January 1, 2026, residential recycling
collection across Simcoe county is going to be transitioning to
circular materials, which is a not for profit organization which
has been appointed under Ontario's. Extended producer responsibility framework. The
county will continue to manage garbage, organics and waste drop
off services, and there are no changes to those programs.
Because recycling is currently a county managed service, the transition
to circular materials is being led by the county of
Simcoe, with the town of Collingwood supporting and amplifying communications
locally. The county has implemented quite a robust, phased communication
strategy to help ensure that residents across the county including
our own and our businesses are informed of the changes.
This includes social media, radio, advertising, news releases online resources
as well as direct outreach and businesses. Have received targeted
communication through mailers, emails and in person visits. The county
has reported that in Collingwood, specifically, 177 businesses identified as
receiving curb side recycling have been contacted directly by county
staff through in person visits, emails and phone calls. The
town has shared county updates through our social media. Our
website newsletters, including our economic development newsletter. Radio municipal digital
displays and ads within Collingwood today. While also working closely
with our local bia. We direct residents to the county's
recycling transition site. And service. Collingwood is also actively responding
to any questions as they come in. Looking ahead. Communications
will continue through our radio campaigns. Mobile signage at key
town entrances. Social media, and we'll continue to post reminders
after January 1. Operationally, the impact to our town facilities
is minimal. We have shared bulk recycling bins already. In
place at key locations. And additional capacity has been added.
Where we've proactively identified a potential need and staff will
continue to monitor the usage to determine if larger bins
are required. The county of Simcoe also recently shared with
the public their new 2026 tonnage rates which include new
rates for blue box recyclables. These rates are now posted
on their website, but it's $200 a ton or $10
minimum fee. In order to have the most up to
date information. We continue to encourage those impacted or interested.
To visit and monitor the county's website at Simco, CA.
It is a great resource lots of up to date
information on what's changing, what to expect. They have a
lengthy, frequently asked questions. There's business specific information and much
more. We did request a county Simco representative to attend
council this afternoon. Unfortunately, they were not available, but certainly
did commit to assist with any follow up questions that
council may have should we not be able to address
them. So thank you, Mayor Hamlin, that is. The overview.
Thank you. Questions, Councilor Jeffrey. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. So
the questions I've been getting, people want to confirm. Number
one. It'll be the same as always. It'll be every
other week. Alternated. With the garbage. Number two I noticed
in the county. Calendar. Online calendar that recycling is no
longer included in their calendar for pickup. And the deputy
mayor was kind enough to follow up for me that
the new company for recycling will have their own calendar.
So now our residents will have to go to two
calendars to ensure. Is there a way that the town
of Collingwood, at least for our residents, I know. The
problem is, nobody wants to take responsibility if the other
person changes their calendar and. Then people have their garbage
out and it doesn't get picked up or something. I
don't. Know, but I just know this is really complicated.
You might seem simple to us, but. For residents. They
just want to know the basics and they want to
know how to get the information easily without reading. A
hole. Thing on the county website. Yes, go ahead. Thank
you, Mayor through to Councilor Jeffrey. So you are correct
that the dates and time for pickup for recyclables is
not changing. It will just be picked up by circular.
Materials as opposed to the county of Simcoe. In addition,
happy to look at our calendars. Online or information that
we might be able to post. At least people may
have a one stop shop for the dates and times
or. At least provide whatever the county is promoting. Thank
you. That would be great. Thank you, Councilor Potts. Thanks,
Mary. I have a question. Potentially through to director peg.
Is there ever potentially an opportunity? And I'm thinking of
the Bia and the downtown businesses that. They could. Have
a centralized location, whether they're in a partnership with the
town, to go through, like a third party company to
be able to collect. And I'll use something like, say,
Miller's or somebody like that. That's. In the business that
can actually. Maybe pick up from there. And go and
how that all works, but I just find it's going
to be such a. Huge inconvenience. And an overall kind
of in this together, and it's really unknown, but is
there any discussions or any potential opportunity that there could
be a centralized location within the municipality, somewhere where they
can get stuff to and then. Have it transported from
there to Lentville. Yes, executive director. Thank your worship. Through
to councilor Potts. It's a great suggestion. It's something that
director Valentine and I have had on our radar, and
it's actually placed in our department heads agenda tomorrow to
see if there might be an opportunity for us. To
explore that type of thinking further. Just a follow up,
if I may. I just look at however many businesses,
let's say 400, that are all facing the challenges. Of
the recycling. And I just think if it's something that
we can make along with some of the other facilities.
Just to see how that would roll out. Because. This
does not make any sense at all to me. At
all. And I just think that if there's anything we
can do, even for the first year or two. Or
even the first. Year to roll something out to work
with the businesses and the other impacted. Areas. I think
it would be something that. Would be certainly an asset.
So looking forward to report back, councilor Paynes. Thank you,
mayor. Hamlin through you again to Ed. Peg, do you
happen to know getting into the weeds on this. Whether
circulate Ontario. Sorry, that's the new organization. At any rate,
whether they have their own trucks or whether they're contracting.
To someone else, whether it's Miller or whomever, just out
of interest for that and. Then I'll have another comment.
Thank you. Yeah, go ahead. Thank your worship. I don't
want to speak out of turn. I don't have those
technical details, we can certainly look to find out. I
understand that circular materials has purchased the bins from the
county, Simcoe, but I'm. Not sure about the trucks. We
shall see. But. To my colleague to my right, here's
comment about that and to critics of municipalities who are
advancing into areas which is not their core mandate, such
as what we've just discussed. Here. There's a reason. Because
other levels of government, for whatever reason, seem to have
been stepping back from this, and it's left to the
poor little municipality to pick up the. Pieces. Thank you.
That's editorial comment. Deputy Mayor Fryer thank you, Mayor Hamlin.
And I've been listening to this for a year and
a half and nothing simple about it. It's so much
more complicated than it really should be, in my opinion,
and I do believe that Simcoe counties done best effort
to try to help guide. The change over to be
as seamless as possible. But unfortunately, the reality is so
the first thing I wanted to say how much I
appreciate our staff in Simple county. Staff? Our staff are.
Working in conjunction. And. They're talking about. They already mentioned
about a couple of steps they're doing to help out.
With. The increased. Bin space. In that they're providing direct
info. To the residents. And providing that conduit to the
Simcoe county site because they are the waste service. Provider,
and they're the ones who are responsible for it and
such. The things that we're just going to also comment
on, I do believe. The trucks that we're picking up
are by a company by the name Mtira. Circular materials
has taken on the contract from the PRo. And an
emptyer, I believe, is the corporate company that's picking up.
I'd be great if we can come up with an
ICI alternative. It's unfortunate that. We had to be in
this position where it's going to be implemented in just
a few weeks. But the reality was county was still
trying to work it out. With circular materials about doing
the pickups. And the one other thing I'll comment on.
It does talk about. And director Peg mentioned this, ed.
Peg mentioned this. Anybody who's taking recycling to the depot.
At the landfill site. There is a $10 minimum. What's
supposed to happen. Is. The condominium areas that we had
who we couldn't do curbside pickup if. They took. They
were delivering it to the site over these past few
years. They didn't. Have to pay anything. And technically, they're
not supposed to have to pay going forward either. But
it's up to circular materials to provide the alternative for
them to have a site. To drop off. And to
our knowledge. We still have not got anything worked out
on that. So if circular material says it's in Berry,
the likelihood is that somebody, if they're going to recycle,
is going to go to the site and. They're going
to have to pay. And even though they had been
getting the service, Because. Simple. County couldn't deliver it because
the curbside pickup wasn't available. So again, I just want
to thank stuff. It's a complicated thing. Coming forward on
January the first. And I really appreciate all the efforts.
I do believe. We're doing the best job we can
on getting the message out there and trying to come
up with any alternatives we can, so thank you. Thank
you. I have a couple of questions. Executive directory. You
mentioned there were 177 businesses affected. Does this include the
institutional users, do you think? Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. That's
something we definitely have to confirm with the county, but.
Happy to follow up with them. Okay. And it struck
me that this is a lot less than the membership
in the bia. This is what's on my mind. If
this. Is primarily bia members. Assuming. Wondering whether the Bi
might be the one best suited to a range collection
for their members. So I'll just leave that with you
for your thoughts, okay? Any other comments? Yes, councilor Dougherty.
Thank you. So as everybody. Has already. Expressed. This is
a major setback. For. Our objective to achieve some sort
of. Circular economy. And to have a waste management system
that's more sustainable, so. But we're not alone. It's 444
municipalities are facing the same complications. And I can provide
assurance to council that this is. A very high priority.
For amo to continue. To negotiate. With the province. To
ensure that. We can. Find a better solution than. What
we're facing right now. Thank you. Thank you for saying
that about amo. Because I was just going to say
the province dropped the ball here. And it was good
that they covered off our residential users, but there's. So
many commercial, industrial. Institutional users, so I'm glad Amos on
this. Thank you for letting us know. Okay. My thought
was to continue to about 05:00 does anyone need a
five minute break right? Now. Everyone's good to go. Okay,
so the next item on the agenda is the consent
agenda. The recommendation is that council received the general consent
agenda and note that the information and opinions provided are
those of the authors and are not verified or approved
as being correct. There's three items listed. One Tennis Canada
letter resupport for proposed tennis facility two Ontario Tennis association
letter resupport for proposed tennis facility. And three, five letters
regarding support for four way stop control at Cedar and
Third street. Could I. Get a mover in a seconder,
please. Deputy mayor, seconded by councilor Perry. All those in
favor? That's unanimous. Anyone want to pull any of these.
Okay seeing none. There are, I believe, three motions here.
This afternoon. So the first one is mine. So I'll
turn the chair over to the deputy mayor. Of course,
just to turn back to you, Mayor Hamlin, to read
it in, and then I will ask for a seconder
and ask if you want to speak first or last.
Thank you. Whereas the town of Collingwood community based strategic
plan prioritizes. Creating a safe and inclusive community, including enhancing
transportation safety for residents and visitors. Therefore, be a resolve
that council pass and enact bylaw 2025 87 to authorize
the installation of a four way stop sign at the
intersection of Cedar street and Third Street. And further, the
council request staff to develop a phased approach for additional
fourway stop intersections prioritizing school zones and community safety zone
zones and further, that these signs be funded through the
2026 traffic calming budget. And they'll ask, do you have
a seconder in mind? Or just turn to the floor.
So seconded by councilor Baines. And I will then ask,
do you want to speak? First or last, so you
go ahead. Thank you. This intersection is one where residents
have come to this chamber a number of times over
the. Going on. Eight years I've been sitting here asking
for a stop sign. This is not the first time,
and there have been numerous accidents and near misses, and
I think also, it's been explained to me this is
a particularly busy intersection. Because it links to our waterfront
park there. There's lights at First street, obviously, at cedar
and first, so. It's always particularly busy. I know. There
are. I think what I hear, it's the most common.
One of the most common. Complaints I hear from residents
is why don't we have four way stops everywhere? Because
it's not intuitive. For people driving to be paying attention,
which is, I know, a sad commentary on our drivers,
probably. Including me? No, I didn't need to say that.
But in any event, what I wanted to say is
this is a very common ask, and I think this
is an easy thing for us to address. With asking
also staff to look forward to the future of how.
We should address the rest of the community. After Abby,
who presented here today, mentioned she had written to me,
and she's written a few times and she wrote to
me after her, she presented today to say, to update,
she's, had a petition signed by people in Collingwood, and
today the number was at 462 and she meant to
say that, but forgot when she was up there, so
I'm just. Sharing that. And that's what I wanted to
say. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to councilor Potts,
then. Thanks, Deputy Merrier. Fryer. I'm very supportive of the
four way stop in this location. The one part. I'm
challenging. I struggle with. Is a number of us members
of council have brought in the past six months to
a year. Brought a lot of different areas forward to
council. Through the town from residents, and it's always been
referred and kicked back to the MMTP. And. I look
at the point of, again, I'm very supportive of this,
but if I was one or two or three residents
on other streets who have been sitting patiently, waiting for
the advice that was given. For. An mtp. To come
back. I would think that it wouldn't be very comforting
for them. In the words of Councilor Baines, the precedent.
That. I just think it's. And again, I'm supportive of
it, but I would be. Interested to know as far
as this plan. I just don't think it's fair across
the town. To approve. Or specifically approve this one just
location because of the number of deputations when there's. Been
a lot of deputations come in from a lot of
different residents. From one end of the town to the
other. So where does that sit, as far as is
that going? To be a recommendation to staff is to
wait for the MMTP, or is this something that would
be a one off if. You will. So I don't
know who that goes. Maybe directory Alcoca. Or. I was
just going to say, councilor Potts, I think I'll direct
to. Cao Skinner and let her. Decide on response. Or
to other if you could, please. Thank you very much.
I am comfortable with this one going right to Director
Alcoca. Thank you for asking. Thank you, chair. So, to
everybody else. Yes. We have a stop sign
policy that we should be following. That's my first point.
I agree that request, direct request for stop sign should
follow a systematic approach, and that's why? We have a
master plan in the works that sets out how we
go about these things. What kind of warrants do you
want? What kind of studies? How can we justify it?
And I would recommend that we follow our own policies
that we're setting for requesting stop. Signs or traffic lights
or any other road feature we focus on. Creating the
road network as a network as a whole, not as
individual locations. And we really need to follow the engineering
principles of. Why would a subsign be installed on a
street rather than. Just by request. Before I go back
for follow up from councilor, do you want to add
anything now to. CEO Skinner. No, thank you. I know
that. There was a safety screening completed as part of
the Master Mobility and transportation plan, which we fondly call
the MMPP and it is slated to come back to
council with the final report. In the first quarter of
2026. Follow up council yeah. And just to follow. Thanks,
deputy mayor. So again, in this case, understanding the intersection,
understanding the history of a lot of things. And I
will support the motion. For a four way stop there.
But again, I'm really torn on it just simply because.
It just seems that. I don't want one intersection or
one area of town to take a precedent over some
or take over somewhere else, especially when there has been
a number of areas where continuously a number of residents
have come forward with concerns. But I do recognize this
intersection of seeing and witnessed my entire life here. Things
that have gone on there and. We'll continue to go
on, so I will support the mayor's motion on this.
Thanks. Okay. Anyone else? Okay, I'm going to turn to
councilor Baines and then councilor Jeffrey and. Then anybody on
this site. Thank you. Vice chair. Then I suppose to
director Akoka to follow. Up on my friend's point here.
Will the MMTP then address specifically as a policy matter?
On streets in Collingwood, four way stops and when and
where they would be recommended. Yes.
Sweet studies. The traffic safety studies will look at every
intersection, and if they're not specifically looked at already. We
have a mechanism to look at them, and the idea
is that if the road requires. Based on traffic counts,
based on incident reports, based on turning movers. Requires a
four way stop. Sign, then it's a four way stop
sign will be installed. But if it does not. Require
a forward stop sign. Then we will install what is
required. The two way or something else. Thank you. No
follow up. Okay. Councilor Jeffrey. Go ahead. Then I suppose
you have brought that up. I'm assuming then the intersection
of third and cedar qualify for your definition of a
four way stop. At the moment. I don't have a
direct answer for that. I need to have it. Go
through the process of studying the warrants. Anything further. Councilor
jeffrey. So. Thank you, Jeff. So I'd ask that these
be severed out. And I do have a problem going
outside. Of the process in terms of the stop signs.
We start assuming personal or council liability for making these
decisions without. The professional backup. And there's no doubt in
my mind. I mean, I remember asking director, McDonald when
he was here. Could we not put a flashing red
sign or whatever like they have? At county road two
and 41. And he said, I can't. I can't do
that because of whatever's in place with. The things that
legislate us on our streets, just trying to make that
corner. More visible in terms of getting people to stop
at that stop sign. So I've been trying since. Before
the mares time to do something for the corner, but
I'm just not sure. About going around the process we
put in place. Otherwise, we're going to have everyone. I
mean, my daughter in law and son got hit at
that corner. Ten years ago. So I understand. The emotions
that go with that. But. I have difficulty on this
one going around. That staff process. We're going to go
with councilor Dougherty and then councilor ring. Thank you. Actually.
I was going to suggest the same thing, that we
sever the two. I don't like to move outside of
the process. However, the need at this particular intersection is
so glaring. That. I can't believe that we'd be making
any kind of a mistake. By putting a four way
stop at that intersection, so I absolutely will support that.
But regarding. Further implementation of four way stops. I really
would like to continue. To have that referred to the
Master transportation plan. I think we're going to see that
in the first quarter, if I can. Ask through you,
deputy mayor to director Alcoca, first quarter of next year.
I think for certain we will have the one report.
That CEO Skinner referred to that they were targeting for
first quarter, I'm not sure about. The MMTP. So maybe
through you see Hoskin. Thank you. I will ask Director
Alcoca. To respond to that one, but I do believe.
I was speaking about the MMTP, and that's also the
one you're speaking. About. Yes. The mftv within the first
quarter? Yes. So therefore, we're not waiting long. And I
know generally that our community. Is looking for. This master
plan with great anticipation. Thank you, Councilor Ring. Some of
the questions were just answered. That I was going to
have. I know it's a bad intersection because I grew
up with Cedar street, so I know. Firsthand, but it's
also on Third street, where there's not a stop sign.
From Birch street to Spruce street either. There you go.
Five blocks there. So. Are we going to put a
four way stop there? And then the residents at Oak
street say we need one. And then after that. Walnut
street. We've got a master plan. Study in the works
right now, and hopefully it is ready for us in
the first quarter. I'm kind of torn here because it
wouldn't bother me to put a four way. Stop there.
But should we not do it right? All at once.
Especially along Third street that's designated. It's going to be
designated as a collector. And that's probably the reason why
there's so few stop signs. Maybe the mmtp is going
to. Say something different about Third street than we already
have. I don't know. I could support. The stop signs
there. I just want to know. We just went through
the same process with another. Street. That. Neighbors have complained
about more than once. On, Stanley. And we did the
traffic studies and found that. They didn't even meet the
policy to put a stop sign there. So is that
something we should do here first? Like I said, I
could support putting a four way there now, but I
just want to say. That. Is this going to be
an ongoing thing? Until we get the master plan done,
I think I could help if I. 'm going to
turn to councilor McCullough, and I was going to say,
Mayor Hamlin. Since we didn't have this at Community hall,
I am going to turn back. To you and let
you have some further comment, because I am expecting I'll
do the same with some of the members, too. So,
councilor McCullough. Thank you, chair. Excuse me. Two points. I
was going to reference the Stanley street discussion. That was
quite recent. But in my mind. And where this one
differentiates itself. Is that there's a history of ongoing incident
sets at this location, as opposed to a perception that
it might be dangerous from people who live there. And
I think those are two very different things. So we
have an incident. We've had a history of incidents, and
I think behooves us to take action, and if it
needs to be changed once we have a master transportation
plan. And it can be changed or modified or improved.
That's great, but I think this is different where we
have neighbors asking for things because of their perception of
a condition, of a road. Or the safety, so that
was one point. Yeah. And then slightly off topic but
related. I have a concern that we'll have the MMT
in our hands in Q one. And it will have
lots of recommendations, and I'm not sure that we will
have the resources or budget to implement those in a
timely manner. So is that a constraint that we will
see next year when we go to implement the MMTP.
Are you directing that question? Okay. Director Alcoca then. That's
a big question. Yes, there would be a lot of
recommendations, and part of the discussion. And. The feedback that
we require from everybody. Will help us set the priorities
of what to be implemented. First, in terms of recommendation.
Any follow up account. No, thank you. So, Mayor Hamlin,
do you want to add some further comments? Yeah, I
just thought to make it easy. I'll just suggest because
I'm not opposed to a deferral. Of the two further
that clauses. So, in other words, my motion today would
just be resolved that we put the four way stop.
At cedar in third and that the phased approach and
the funding be deferred to. The mmtp discussions. Happy with
that. Through to the clerk, then. Can that be done
as a friendly amendment? If the second. Secondary approval of
that, or do we need. To deal with emotion as
it's been circulated. Should be severed right now. So we
can deal with first one and then we get the
other. Ones get the motion to defer them and they
can be combined together. All right, so. I am going
to come back to councilor putts and then pick councilor
ring I think? Looks like. Thanks, Deputy Mary. And this
is just a follow up through you to director Okoka.
I don't really know exactly. How the determination. In the
engineering world comes with traffic counters, but. In that intersection
as well. I would think. There's a lot of other.
Things that might come into factor there, like sight lines.
And stuff as well. Again. Just me thinking. You put
a traffic counter down, you could have ten cars, you
could have. 2000 cars. But the history of the intersection
speaks for itself as far as. Incidents. Are the sight
lines. Has that been looked into as far as that
intersection? Because I do know that there are some challenging
corners on Third street coming on to Third from the
side streets. So I'm just wondering if that's been taken
into consideration as well, because I think that in that
area that plays. A big. Factor. If we decided to
do anything at this intersection, I will hire a specialized
consultant to look at. All of those things to look
at the incident history, traffic, movement, site lines, traffic counts.
We will specifically look at that intersection. And based on
that study, We'll have a recommendation, and that is something
that we probably can offer right away. Now. I can
initiate that study now if council chooses to direct us
this way. Can I respond to that when there's a
minute? Did you have any follow up? I think. I
don't have any follow up on that. Thanks for those
comments. I'll stick. With what initially, my support for this
motion given. The significant concerns in the history of this
intersection that I would support. Implementing a four way stop.
Immediately. Thanks. So I will go back before I come
to you. Councilor Ring. Your comment. Then. Yeah. I just
wanted to comment on director Alcocas about looking at the
number of cars. And the turning movements, but I don't
think that's the whole issue here. And also on the
incidents. What I've heard from the residents over the years
is there's incidents that get reported to the opp, but.
They're very few. Of all the incidents that happens there.
And I think if we were to ask people what
they have on their camera, We'd get. A totally different
and enhanced list. So I don't know. I just know
this from talking. To staff about this intersection and others
over the years. Incidents aren't everything, and so if there's
any way staff can enhance that beyond. The OPP list.
It would be helpful. Thank you. Yeah, I think that
highlights just how difficult it is to deal with. A
specific situation without. The information. I'm going to go to
councilor ring, and then I'll come to you. CEO Skinner.
Thank you. Debut mayor prayer. And. As was mentioned by
Councilor McCullough. I am going to support this. I was
just wondering. If we're going to open up a lot
of other intersections along that street. And I do know
that is a bad corner. I think it's more for.
Not so much. Before we stop, to be honest with
you, I think it's what was. Brought up by councilor
Potts when I lived on Cedar Street. I grew up
as a kid. That intersection was terrible. You couldn't see
nothing west unless you got right in the. Middle of
the intersection. So I think a lot of people are
jumping that stop sign because. They're just hoping that there's
nothing covered, because from what they can see, they can't
see anything coming, so I think. The four ways stop
will alleviate that which I'm all for, so I will
support it. Did anyone else switch? To speak to it.
So we're going to be severing. And does everybody understand?
Whereas in the therefore part of the motion, that'll be
the first consideration. And. We have movers, Mayor Hamlin, seconders,
councilor Baines, and then we'll. Deal with. The second part
after that. Is everybody comfortable with knowing that that's what
we're going to vote on? I'm just going to add,
because everything's being covered that I was concerned with. Which
was the precedent of it that I'm going to be
supportive of as well. I think when we get a
direct request and we get a motion on table that
puts us into a bit of a liability situation, but
it does sound. Promising on the fact that we are
going to be getting to the MMTP. And things about
the stop signs in the very, very near future. So
on that then I will call the matter to the
first part as vote all those in. Favor. And that'd
be unanimous. So the second part. I believe. We're removing
the two and further that. I believe Mayor Hamlin said
that your reference would be. To further study would be
incorporating. With the MMTP. Sorry. To defer that. To defer
those two. The mmtp discussion, okay? Yeah, that's a better
reefer. Can that be done? Reefer. It's a reefer. Okay.
I said refer. The rest of you are saying refurb.
I said reefer. And you're. Saying reefer.
There's a headline. Okay. So on that matter, then. On
the referral. To keep any confusion out of it. All
those in favor? And that too, is unanimous. And I
can turn back to you. Thank you. Thank you very
much. The next motion is from councilor Jeffrey and altern
this over to her. Thank you very much, Mayor Hammond,
so this is lengthy, but members of council had it
well ahead and with the slate amendments. I will read
it in. So whereas the town of Collingwood is committed
within its community based strategic plan under its climate change
and adaptation pillar to work with partners to take action
on climate change. And whereas a key action under that
pillar is to enhance emergency management and stormwater planning, in
the town to help mitigate and adapt to the impacts
of. A more volatile climate and external environment. And whereas
there is little to no budgeted funding in the 2026
budget to pursue proactive stormwater management mitigation. And whereas Greenland
Engineering is finalizing phase two of the stormwater management plan
swmp this month and is the keeper of progressive and
significant. Modeling key to decision making on the impacts of
stormwater in the town of Collingwood. And whereas it is
anticipated that the expected total 100 year flood damages amount
throughout the town documented in the phase two report of
the SWMP has been determined to be devastating. And whereas
there has been overwhelming public and council support at two
previous public information centers, pics including a strong reaction to
address all flooding impact areas throughout the town. And whereas
the cooperator's insurance resilience lab released a call for proposals
on October 6, 2025, for climate change and adapta. Adaptation
projects with clear objectives of risk reduction and resilience, economic
uplift, and municipal leadership with a submission deadline of January
30, 2026 and final selection announcements February 2026. And whereas
successful applicants will receive funding for project costs up to
$250,000. Resilience, lab support and network access, and public recognition,
as well as access to borrowing. 5 million or more
of private equity funding, with rate and other parameters to
be confirmed after completion of a draft term sheet or
business case, identification of a funding payment stream, and a
letter of intent refurbish, private cap. Capital financing by no
later than November 30, 2026. And whereas Greenline engineering is
offering to complete the required documentation to submit a proposal
for the town of Collingwood project to the cooperator's. Insurance
Resilience lab call and whereas the cooperating resilience labs timely
public information session material provide. Provided in October 2025 aligns
with addressing required next steps to advance the stormwater mitigation
solution proposed for flood damage centers FDC number one, number
two and number three within the SWMP and represents an
opportunity for the town of Collingwood to significantly mitigate flooding.
Vulnerabilities in those areas. While at the same time potentially
providing ARu housing possibilities for properties therein. As a result,
of the reduced water table and flooding risks. And whereas
there is no financial impact for the proposal, development submission
and planning phase represented by the proposed submission. Therefore, be
it resolved, the council direct staff to coordinate with Greenland
engineering. At no cost to the town of Collingwood to
complete and submit a grant application for an amount up
to $250,000 to the cooperator's resilience lab to enable progress
on the following, but not limited to development of a
stormwater funding policy, development of preliminary designs and, if funding
permits, detailed designs for up to 15 million. Dollars of
prioritized work, which includes flood damage centers one, two and
three in the SWMP. Prepare for green municipal fund or
other grant opportunities. And if the cooperator's proposal is successful,
it will provide important leveraging to be successful if other
future grants as well and support staff work on a
business case within. The long term strategic plan to show
financial viability to accelerate delivery of stormwater. Master plan recommendations.
Is there a secondary? Yeah. Thank you, councilor pots. Okay,
would you like to speak first or. Last. I think
the motion said it. Could have. I did circulate slime
deck from. And the call for proposals in particularly slide
eleven, the project eligibility criteria. But. I think the motion
and the information sent out said it all. Okay. Thank
you. Would anyone else like to speak to this councilor
Dougherty? Thank you. I am delighted to see this motion
come forward. It is definitely a win win, not just
for the municipality, but for the insurance sector. And I'm
also delighted to see that. Greenland Engineering is the organization
that. We have chosen. To collaborate with. As the keeper
of the most robust and rigorous modeling system. But I
do have a question with regard to the selection of
flood prone areas. Just one, two. And three. We also.
Have areas farther west. Into the resort area and. Over.
To wealth, almost to Gray Road, 21 and Long Point
Road. So, just wondering why. The restriction to those three.
Is this a question for you? Yeah. Okay, sure. Yeah.
I think because. It was the most benefit for the
dollars invested. Out of the recommendations in terms of being
able to solve. And I think the ability to, I
think, create. Increased property values in that area and produce.
Aru in backyards and things, the capability of having an
impact on that part as well. Originally, I thought we
would need software to identify. The viability or feasibility of
that, but the CEO had advised me that we already
have that. Software in our planning department. That could target
the properties by zoning. So I know that while cooperators
have been working with the CAO over quite a period
of time in terms of us trying to develop something
going forward, but they've just since developed this call specific
for projects. So that's where it came out of was
a lot of work over a few months in terms
of out of. The swmp. What would be the highest
impact for the lowest dollars at this time? Any other
questions? Follow up, if I may. So would it be
the intention that once we have. Concluded this study. And
send it through the findings that we would be extending
any learning into. The other. Flood prone areas of our
municipality or flood zone areas of our municipality. Director Okoka.
Well, staff must know if this is going to be
a benefit to other stormwater work in town. Well, I'll
just give my take on my motion first, and then
they can wait for sure, if they wish. For sure.
So I think I described it in the last resolve
paragraph in terms of developing a stormwater. Funding policy is
going to enable us to go forward. In a more.
Fiscal supported way in terms of the other recommendations as
well. And I think. The grant opportunities throughout will free
up our monies going forward in terms of addressing the
other areas of the swMp. Whatever. Stop. Would like that.
Okay. Do staff agree with this? I mean, I know
it's in your motion, but I think. It's relevant to
have stuff provide some advice to us. Okay, CEO, go
ahead. Thank you. Through the chair. I actually had a
couple of items I wanted to mention. So we don't
have the final report from the stormwater master plan, so
we don't. Know from a staff perspective. We haven't analyzed
what the priorities are within that. Report, so. It's mentioned.
That's flood damage centers one, two and three would be
included. I had interpreted that to be not limited to
flood damage centers one, two, and three, because the intention
of the work, as I understand it, is to figure
out what are the priorities. And would council be willing
to borrow money to implement any of these priorities more
quickly? The company. Is offering the part of this offer.
Is because the company would like to lend municipalities money.
Their minimum size is a $5 million loan, and they
will lend up to $15 million. And as councilor Jeffrey
had mentioned, We don't know the parameters for those loans
yet, and I do believe that there's. Quite a few
investment companies that are now getting. Into. Examining whether infrastructure.
Can be, in fact, a profit center for them. That
doesn't mean that's bad. For us necessarily. We are. Municipalities
as a class. Are a group that usually pays off
their loans. There may be win wins here, but there
may not. You may decide that. You don't wish to
borrow money? The lab is not necessarily a lab in
the sense that it gives a scientific feeling about it.
But I think the lab is really looking at solutions
where there could be win wins related to. Investments in
preventing flooding. I note that Greenland is noted here as
doing the application. I had not interpreted that Greenland would
necessarily do all the work. The work noted here does
include some modeling and potentially includes some modeling, and Greenland
is our model keeper, but with the 250,000. If you
voted for it and we did receive it, I would
see that we were open to. Tender the pieces, and
the motion is quite specific around the work that should
happen with respect to policy development. And figuring out how
to get something ready for not only this work and
an understanding of whether it should go forward more quickly.
But also to understand. The finances because at $5 million,
250,000 is just over one year of interest. So we
have to look at this. It sounds like a lot
of money, but it has to. Be looked at from
a wise point of view. And I just wanted to
be also very clear that this work on its own
would not change. The flood lines that are implemented. By
NVCA in the case of most of our municipality, that
there would be subsequent studies required. To adjust those lines.
This work? Wouldn't help that. But there'd be subsequent studies
required that were acceptable to that. Group and peer reviews.
To really open the path for adus. Of course, if
we reduced flooding, one would hope we do those subsequent
studies and then also receive those benefits. Thank you. I
think that covers the question and potentially more. Thank you.
Did you have any follow up? Any further follow up,
okay? Are there any other questions? So I wouldn't mind.
The one thing that had been my mind is because
we don't have our stormwater management report yet. I wanted
to make sure that this wasn't. Directing where the priorities
are before council even looks at it. And I think
the CEO just covered that off. Can I see the
motion? Could we see the motion up again. I just
want to read it. Thank you. Just the end part.
Just what we're voting on. I love your whereas. But.
What it says is. Development of primary designs,
detailed designs, up to 15 million. Of prioritized work, which
includes flood damage centers one, two and three. So co.
How do you read that? To you.
In reading it more carefully, it does say that it
will include those three. I would be more comfortable if
it. Included consideration of those three. They do involve some
of the most expensive preliminary capital costs for the proposed
work, and together would be over 15 million, most of
which is in the first project, a first flood damage
area. Sorry. Just under 15,000,014 and a half. And if
I could just ask you another question. Because I know
there's going to be a lot of recommendations, I'm assuming.
Because, like, I had thought maybe we would. Am I
right to think maybe we wouldn't? Just pick these three.
We may pick one. And six and seven, for example.
Is that a possibility if we amend this a bit?
Yes. Staff have not reviewed the priorities. We've been talking
with director Alcoca today about that. So we don't know
which ones we would put forward as our number one
priorities. We've done seen a preamble of what may come
forward. In the. Public. Information centers, but we couldn't tell
you for sure that number one is the one to
do. There certainly are some quick ones, quick wins that
are smaller investments. And likely would also. Priorities. If staff
had the time to review. So would you consider a
friendly amendment? So in that second bullet, which concludes consideration
of flood damage centers one, two and three. Yeah.
Not to debate with the Cao. But. I don't want
to exclude damage centers one, two and three. Yeah, exactly.
As it may be. Centers one, two and three are
exactly the right ones, but. In case staff's recommendation in
council. 's. Vote on it. Is one, six and seven.
I've made up six and seven. I don't even. Know
if there are seven. Yeah, I'm not sure it's any
different, really. I think it's just. Wordsmithing. Which I hope.
And I would want the CEO to be very clear.
What that change is doing to my. I'm not sure
it's friendly. I want to make sure. Okay. Do you
want. To say it again. The CEO will explain what
she thinks it means. Wording to start with. The very
beginning. And I took it back. She tried to change
my motion and suggestion, and I took it back. I'm
kind of debating with the Cao here. Should council approve
this, I would be happy. That flood damage centers one,
two and three were considered. I would not want to
not consider the other flood damage centers, and I wouldn't
want to preclude that the recommend. Recommendation will be that
one, two and three are the ones that would potentially
go forward. So including requiring the consideration of flood damage
centers one, two and three is fine. I don't want
to exclude the others. Requiring. They're considered not requiring their
prioritized. Yeah, okay. So those can stay there. My understanding
is. If there's a couple there that are like, $34,000.
So if we decide we want to do those two
in terms of with flood damage centers one, two and
three. Then that's not a horrible thing. Okay. And who
is the secretary on this? Councilor Potts, are you agreeable
with that? Okay, any other questions or comments? If everybody's
spoken I just like to speak last and just really.
Anybody who in the Collingwood over a lot of years
has had a flooded basement or anything that goes with.
Us having to manage the stormwater in our town and
knowing what the forecasts and more frequent. Storms, more severe
storms. I think we just have to get going, and
I think this is a win win for us. Because
there's no cost to do it if we get a
grant application or an offer. That we can't settle in
with. And we don't have to take it, but I
think it's incumbent upon us. To start pursuing these things.
Given the cost and no other lender will give us
$250,000 to start with. It. So whether it's only one
years of interest or not. We're always told in infrastructure.
Every amount you put in accumulates over time. So 250,000
in now will save us. A lot over time. That's
it. I just would ask for your support, Councilor Paynes.
Thank you, mayor. Hamlin as someone who backs on the
Oak street canal. Is a board member of the NVCA
and as someone actively trying to start a friends of
the cranberry Marsh, even though it's not in one, two,
or three, I fully support this, and I'm almost jealous.
That Councilor Jeffrey was able to find this pot of
money, but fully supported. Thank you. Yeah, detailed designs can
hurt. Any other comments? Okay, all those in favor? And
that's unanimous. Thank you. So we'll try and squeak in
our last item before the budget, or I should say,
our break, and then we'll. Have a budget discussion after
that, which is the motion? From councilor beans. This is
in response to the province of Ontario wishing to reorganize.
Or propose a reorganization of our 36 conservation authorities. So,
will you read in your motion then? I will. Thank
you. And just full disclosure, because there's a deadline of
December 22 to register comments on the environmental registry. It
will ask for a wave of notice. In this regard,
I think you've already given notice. So we're fine today.
Thank you for reminding me that I've done that. And
whereas. Sorry. Councilor Baines. Just the clerk is correcting me.
We will need to do a weaving before we vote
on this. Okay, we have a secondered. All those in
favor? Unanimous. Okay, go for it. Thank you for that.
Whereas municipalities fund and govern conservation authorities under the conservation
authorities act, whereas the province proposes consolidating 36 conservation authorities
into seven regional entities, including merging NVCA into a Huron
superior regional conservation authority spanning 78 plus. Municipalities. And whereas
this configuration would create a geographically vast. Administratively complex entity
dilute local accountability. And pose significant transition costs, delaying service
delivery and housing approvals. Whereas NVCA has already implemented modernization
measures aligned with provincial objectives within the current watershed based
governance model. Whereas the town of Collingwood is currently served
by two conservation authorities, the Grace sabble, conservation author. Authority
in the Nautawa Saga Valley Conservation Authority, both of which
would be negatively impacted by the proposed changes. Therefore, be
it resolved that the town of Collingwood does not support
the proposed quote. Huron Superior Regional Conservation Authority boundary configuration
outlined in the environmental registry. Notice number 25. 1257 and
does not believe amalgamation is required and that the town
endorses further provincial evaluation of a more geographically coherent, cost
effective, and locally accountable watershed based management model that advances
the government's priorities of efficiency, red tape reduction. And timely
housing delivery and that the town requests that the ministry
engaged directly with all affected municipalities. And conservation authorities before
finalizing any consolidation, excuse me, consolidation boundaries or legislative amendments,
and further, that this resolution with a letter from the
mayor. Be. Forwarded to the Environmental Registry of Ontario Consultations
Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, MPP Saunderson, Amo Conservation
Ontario and the boards of Grace Obel Sageen Valley, Maitland
Valley. A sovable bfield. Lake Simcoe Region and Lakehead regional
conservation authorities. Is there a second or for this motion
counter? McCulloch. Thank you. Comments or did you want to
speak first or last? I'll. Sorry, last. Okay, anyone like.
To speak for. There you go. Deputy mayor supportive of
the motion? As it's been read. I just wondered, as
far as circulation goes. If simple county should be included.
Would that be a friendly amendment? Councilor McCulloch, do you
agreeable? Also agreed. Okay. Any other comments? Councilor Dougherty.
Thank you. I also am going to support this motion.
I can't imagine. How service. Particularly for natural hazards, would
be improved. When. We have a conglomerate of this many
conservation authorities over that kind of. A geographic span makes
no sense. With respect. To the ministry makes no sense.
So I will support this. Thank you. Thank you. I
totally agree. With your comments. I'm also wondering if we
should be including as a copy. All the members of
provincial parliament who are in this vicinity affected by the
78 municipalities. I would take that as a friendly amendment
as well. Okay. Councilor McCoffic. Any other comments? Councilor baines
over to you for the end. Much of it has
been stated in this and the earlier, and thanks to
the clerk, quite frankly. For the edits to a four
page. What was four pages. But I would just say,
from a bureaucratic level, this will require a new overarching
body over. The new seven conservation authorities. And one has
got to ask the question to the province, how will
that bodies, that new bodies costs. Be reclaimed, and I
put it to you. I think this is where it's
going to. Go that the municipalities, as a member of
the new seven conservation authorities, somehow are going to have
to be funding that new upper. Tier overseer, if you
will, of the seven conservation authorities proposed. From. A practical
matter to have 78 municipalities in the new conservation Authority
of Huron Lake superior. Yes, the conservation area of Lake
Superior would be in with us. As well as the
Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority, which itself. Was set up
by. A specific act of the Ontario legislature. Is going
to be a bureaucratic challenge, to say the least. If,
as Naro saga and others are saying, if we limited
it specifically to those conservation areas, In essentially southern Georgian
Bay, whose watersheds empty either onto Lake Huron or georgian
bay. That in itself would seem to me to be
a reasonable, although not necessarily supportable, in my opinion. A
compromise to what is being suggested here, I think. It's
just. Bureaucratically challenging to include. Lake superior on one end
and Lake Simcoe on the other. It's for us in
between. It's just going to be challenged. Thank you. Kane
with that. All those in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank
you. So what we'll do now? We'll take a break
for 40 minutes and then we'll be back. Thank you.
Hey, council. We'll resume our council meeting now. We're starting
with item number 14. And this is the continuation of
our discussions for the 2026 staff proposed budget. And the
recommendation before us this evening. I'll read it in that
staff report t 2025. 22 staff proposed budget draft three
be received. And that council approved the allocation of $336,648
related to the 2023 Ontario provincial police reconciliation to the
2025 fiscal year to be funded from the projected 2025
operating surplus. And that council approved modest and proportionate increases
to the general capital levy and special capital levy. Resulting
in additional funding of $133,203. And $66,777,
respectively, in order to support. As for renewal, priorities identified
in the town's asset managed plan and to maintain a
blended tax rate increase of 2.75%. Could have a mover
in a seconder, please. Then we'll get it. Just to
get it on the table. Councilor McCullough. Seconded by councilor
dougherty. And Councilor Graham, I believe you have a slide
that you want to go treasure. No demotion tonight. Go
ahead. No conflict of interest yet. Thank you. Mary Hamlin.
Yes, I am having the appendix shown on screen while
I just do a quick introduction. To the staff report.
This report. Presents staff proposed budget draft three can you
blow that up a bit for us who have trouble
seeing it. Thank you. Which reflects all directions received from
council at the November 12, November 24, December 1, and
December 8 budget meetings and includes the 1.4 million council
approved amendments which are shown on screen. And detailed in
the appendix. So just to explain how the screen works,
The appendix works on the left hand side. We have
all of the council amendments to date by the funding
source so we can see, even though it is 1.4
million, only 405,000 of those are tax supported amendments that
council has approved to date. 640,000 of the amendments are
to be funded through the. Municipal accommodation tax. 325,000 are
to be funded through reserves, with an additional 35 to
be funded from taxes. On the right hand side, the
ten of Collewood levy. It shows where these fit into
the three different levees, a running total of the total
levy to get us to 44,000,641. 381,000. It also includes
at the bottom, the three staff proposed amendments, which I
will discuss. Soon. I'm not going to read all of
these amendments because I usually do at every meeting, but
they're there for council's reference should they have any questions.
So, as mentioned, draft three also includes two additional staff
recommendations for council's consideration. These recommendations are focused on accuracy,
transparency, and long term financial sustainability, particularly as they relate
to the Tan's asset management plan. Right now, the amp
shows that the town is not putting enough funding each
year to maintain our assets at the current level of
service. To be very clear, the town is not currently
funding its asset management plan at a sufficient level. The
plan identifies that maintaining our existing assets with a replacement
value of approximately 1.1 billion requires average annual funding of
about $23.6 million. When we look at the current funding
sources together, including tax. Taxes, rates, grants and fees. We
are short by roughly $15 million per year. And I
do want to be very clear on this point that
the shortfall relates only to assets that the town currently
owns. It does not include growth projects. It does not
include new facilities. It's strictly about existing infrastructure when the
town bills or acquire something new, even if it is
fully funded by development charges or grants. The moment. It's
built or put in use the obligation and estimated cost
to maintain it and replace it for the course of
its lifetime is added to the asset management plan. That
places additional pressure on reserves and funding sources above and
beyond the 23.6 million already identified for existing assets. Growth
helps with construction, but it does not remove the long
term maintenance and renewal obligation. Service level adjustments in full
retirement of assets can, of course, help reduce costs somewhat,
but they cannot eliminate the gap entirely or make a
significant impact if service levels are reduced too far. The
tanned risks, increased asset failures, higher long term cost, and
an increased risk to public safety. So in this context,
staff are recommending modest proportionate increases to both the general
capital levy and special capital levy. These adjustments, as shown
on screen, generate approximately $200,000 combined in additional capital funding.
This does not solve the problem, but it represents a
measured and responsible step towards supporting asset renewal. Without placing
undue pressure on taxpayers. Staff are also recommending that the
prior year oppiliation amount of $336,000 be allocated to 2025.
This utilizes part of the projected surplus and helps reduce
the tax. Burden in 2026. Together, these changes result in
a blended tax rate increase of 2.75% for Collingwood residents.
New and not in the report was with the approval
of the planning fees increase and recommendation from director Valentine
Council could also direct staff to include revenue increase in
2026 at 125. Thousand, which would further lower the blended
rate to 2.57% in the tan rate to 2.7%. Thank
you. I'm open to any questions you may have. Thank
you for that presentation. Who would like to kick things
off this evening? Okay, debbie. Amir.
Thank you. Mayor Hamlin and I made reference when. I
was. I appreciate the update. By the treasurer. That gets
us all on the same page, I think, and where
we're at. I wanted to ask about. I came across
some things when I was looking at. The matter about
the planning fees. On the update that we got.
I guess it's actually in the budget book. It shows
for that particular. On that particular page, I think it's.
I got the page. Number here. I think it's page
36. Shows transfers from reserves for $575,000.
In the 2026 Base budget. And I do see where
there's purchase. Services have increased quite a bit, so I
wondered. If I could get it a little more explanation
about. Those two numbers because. The transfer. And reserves. I'm
trying to understand overall impact. And I guess I'd like
to know more about that because there was nothing about
transfers. And reserves for 2025 budget. But there is this
substantial amount. In 2026. So, as I said, it's on
page 36, I think it is, which. Is the growth
and development management and it's the operating budget details that
I'm referring to? Is that okay, treasure Graham? That you
know where I am? Okay. Yeah, go ahead. Thank you,
mayor. Hamlin. It is a one time use of development
charges, and it's to fund the master servicing plan work
that's being done. By the engineering group in infrastructure, so
it offsets the increase in purchase services for this year.
So, as you say, it's a one time and it's
the use of dcs. To offset the MSP. Which is
the large increase down below. So that's great on that.
I had also given a heads up that I would
like to talk about transit today. Because I was thinking
about. The money that we're bringing in from Matt. And
that got me thinking about when we had talked about
it before, about the fact that it's helping in all
areas that tourism get involved in. And some of that's
transit, some of that's affordable housing, some of that. Trails,
et cetera. So I also wanted to ask about. That's
page 137, I believe. And it's the operating budget details
there, too. There's a government transfer amount that comes in
both in the 25 budget and the 26. Budget. And
I just wondered what that's associated with. And is that
something that. Is continually coming in on an annual basis,
so it's $370,000 treasure grant. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Through
you to the deputy mayor, that is the provincial gas
tax funding. That we receive. And yes, we do receive
it on an annual basis towards the cost of providing
transit services to our community. Okay. The follow up on
transit under other municipalities. It's showing an increase of about
50% from a revenue standpoint to $222,000. From other municipalities,
and there's reference. In the description. On the previous page
in the book. About expansion. Of the. Boundary service area,
I guess. So is there something happening, root wise, that
is leading to that large. Contribution. From. A larger contribution
from municipalities and through you. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Through
you to the deputy mayor, that amount. Is only. Not
only. It's significant work done by our transit team, particular
manager, coal and transit coordinator Sandy Falcon. To get an
amended agreement with the Tanna Blue Mountain. So this solely
represents an increase in revenue per shared agreement with Hannah
Blue mountains. I don't have the budget book open right
now. I will have to reference where it sells self
servicing. But perhaps I will just defer to Cao's gunner
or director Alcoca. But. That is not planned for 2026,
per my understanding. Who would be the best person to
answer this? Doctor Okoka. Go ahead. Let me ask you
to repeat the question and then I may refer to
Manager call if he's online. If I could, Mayor Hamlin.
Then I noticed in the description part of the explanation
about transit. It made reference to the south boundary expansion.
And when I saw the increased revenue from other municipalities,
I wondered if there was going to be an expansion
of routes. My understanding from what treasury? GRaham just said
is no, that has more to do with the renewed
agreement with town of the mountains. But I've still wondered
about the soaks boundary expansion. Yes. Go ahead. Yeah. In
2026, we're not expanding the south boundary. For the simple
fact that we don't have the bus to do that.
And the bus is in procurement and it's unlikely it's
going to be available. Before the end of the year.
That's 2026. Okay, so that was dependent on the new
bus that's coming in, but now it looks like the
new bus wouldn't be done. Until at the end of
the year at the best. So that explains with that.
I had circulated. Further questions to Treasure Graham in regards
to the OPP billing because I'm struggling a little bit.
With. What we talked about at the meeting and what
we've received in the recommendations. If I recall correctly, at
the previous meeting, it was explained that there had been
an accrual. For $222,000. For 23 costs. And now with
the recommended change. I see the 336. So I'm wondering
if there's some sort of netting there with the previous
accrual. That had been done. And then I had brought
up. And Treasurer Graham had given some detail, but I
was hoping to get a little more clarification. I had
brought up that if we set up an accrual for.
23. Last billing. Against 24 expenses. I would have thought
we'd be looking. That we do the same thing with
24 costs. That have been reconciled on this latest billing
that we received, which is for 2026. So. I'm hoping
I've said that in a plain enough way that treasurer
Graham knows. Where I'm coming from. Luckily, I know she's
thought about this. Go ahead, treasure. Graham. Thank you, Mayor
Hamlin. And thank you, deputy mayor. The OPP annual billing
statement. Is needlessly complicated. I'll say. To start with. So
what happened? Why I needed. To include that 264,000 that
we discussed at the last meeting is when I base
the 11% cap on 2025 billing. I use the amount
that we're actually paying. Before. I didn't include the amount
for the year end adjustment. They are now including the
year end adjustment in the cap again for 2026, and
that is the amount that I wish to accrue in
2025. So you're right. I still included the 265,000 to
make sure that we are at the exact total billing
for 2026 of 6.78 $6 million. But now. I'm actually
deducting 336,000 because that portion, when we look at the
detailed information on how they calculate. It relates to prior
period adjustment. So it is a net. Part of me.
336. Of about $52,000 is the difference that the OPP
adjustments are impacting 2026 budget. Just a follow up. May,
may, may, may, may, may, may, may, may Mayor hamlet.
But if there's. 2024 adjustment. Is that not also requiring
a prior period adjustment? I think these are better questions
offline depumer, which. Policies, treasurers using to decide which column
she's putting funds into. Is beyond what our role at
council is. I'm happy to let the treasurer answer this.
One, because I know she has thought about this. But
I don't know that. This is good for what we're
doing at this table. Treasure, go ahead. Okay, thank you.
Mayor Hamlin. So there is $735,000. In the pre adjusted
calculation for 2026 cost. So to explain it, we received
what would our billing look like if they decided not
to do this 11% cost. And in that there was
a $735,000 adjustment to 2024 recognizing, as we expected there
would be considering that they did. A significant decrease for
all municipalities last year, so. Had they not capped it
at 11%, we would be paying an annual amount of
7.55. Million. We're not paying that. So in my professional
opinion, I use the actual amount that we're paying to
determine which. Amount should be accrued in 2024 and what
I feel would be supported when we are audited as
supporting working papers on why it's appropriate to include that
amount in 2025. Part of me. I said 2024 a
minute ago, Mayor Hamlin. I do appreciate. And I'm asking
my questions respectfully. I'd ask the question at the previous
meeting, and I was just trying to make sure. I
understood the answer. As treasurer, Graham just said, in her
professional opinion, this is what she's recommending. And I'm looking
at things. I'm trying to find things that I hope
would help because right now I'm struggling with approving this
budget. I know that we've received. The summary about the
blended impacts, but when I'm looking at it, It's in
my opinion, over a 5%, close to 6%. Spending from
a year over year basis on the operating side. And
the last two budgets, we've been successful in getting the
operating side down, and we did substantial change. To. The
capital levy side because we recognize the need that we
have there. I'm struggling. I'm trying to find things. So
I'm going to leave. I have a couple of other
questions, but I'm going to lead those for right now.
And let other counselors ask their questions. And just as
they say, I'm struggling to accept the budget as it's
presented. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, Councilor Paynes? Thank
you, Mayor Hamlin. Director Graham here on the hot seat.
I suppose again. This is, again, sort of. If you
will, the working man's question about the amp and how
that relates to this. Whole budget because. We're approximately. Proposed.
44,500,000 is the general levy to our taxpayers. But you
stated, as I think you said, if we were to
fully pay. Either the 2025 or the 2026 Amp. Assessment,
if you will. It would be 23 million, I think
you said. Is that correct? In a real world, if
you added that 23 million to the 44 and a
half million dollar levy. That'd be a horrendous increase. Okay,
I'll just finish with my question. So I'm starting to
think is the province, not looking at municipalities and the
aMP and coming up with suggested best practices as far
as the kind of percentage or the kind of money
that you should be setting aside in the budget. Like
this. This is economics 101 for me. So I look.
Forward to your response. Thank you. Thank you. I think
this is one question we all wondering about. Sure, go
ahead. I'm going to back up a little bit before
I make a comment on the province. That 26.3 million
is not just. Tax related. It's actually a portion of
it is rate related. So if we were to include
the 26.3 million. That wouldn't be just to taxes? There's
a strong portion. I think around 37%, but I can
confirm that amount is actually. Rate applied. So our water
and wastewater rates, and that's why the AMP has said
that our rates are actually too low as well, which.
We're not proposing an increase during this budget. Our next
water wastewater rate study, that council has directed staff to
do is in 2028, and we'll examine the rates at
that. Point. Of that 26.3 million too. We do get
to continuous grants from the province that goes. To war
and the federal government. That does go toward asset renewal.
It's not enough. But we do get osif and we
do get the former federal gas tax as well. Ccbt.
So that 26 point million comes from multiple sources, grants,
taxes. Rates. And that's pretty much it, really. I do
think that the province. By implementing this rigorous AMP requirement
to all municipalities is going to have to recognize that.
We can't possibly fund 87% of infrastructure across the province
with the taxes we get. Off of our residents. It
is not a Collingwood issue. It is a province issue.
And I'm hoping that there is change. Yeah. Any other
questions? Yeah, go ahead. So thank you, Mayor Hamlin. So
I did appreciate the deputy mayor's question on the accruals
because I had the same questions myself in terms of.
I know all the financial statement preps I've done. It
really didn't matter what the expense was that you were
claiming during the year, you were trying to match expenses
with revenue. So if it was an expense in 24.
I had the same question. Why wouldn't. It be being
carried back as an accrued back. And with that said,
I am having trouble too and I want to sort
out in my mind I don't want to talk about
blended rate anymore. I think we need to talk about.
Our municipal rate and be really clear on that. So
I'd like to know where we're at. I think I
heard you say at 2.7. After. The addition of. The
go ahead. Do you want to repeat? Thank you. Yeah,
I would be happy to. Our combined municipals capital and
general levy. So the three different levees, this is inclusive
of the 125,000 additional revenue is 2.7%. Do you have
a follow up? Thank you. No, just trying to look
for things to get it down. I think given the
experience, people and. Businesses had this past weekend. I think
given the state of the economics. And number one, my
comment to the provinces is they don't understand the reality
that they run deficits. We do not. So. They need
to have an understanding that we can't go out and
spend all that money. And run a deficit. I guess
in terms of just trying to find something to get
it down. I think we're doing well enough as a
municipality compared to a lot of the other municipalities. We
are in great shape. And I think some of these
things happen because other municipalities aren't as responsible as what
we have been financially. And so. I think we just
have to find a way to get this down somehow.
Thank you. Well, I agree. I think we're in pretty
good shape. And I had asked. The treasurer if she
could come with some comparisons with other municipalities in some
co county. A lot have settled her right now. Some
are still working through it. I think they all looked
at blended rates, if I'm correct. But anyway, could you
just. Tell us what you found. Thank you. I would
be happy to. You. So we did a scan. Of
the environment of our pure municipalities. On Friday, we are
the third lowest out of the 16. The lowest is
township as Clearview at 2.6%. And again, this is when
we were at two. Point 75, which has now been
lowered with that additional income up to the highest at
5.5% tan of Colleenwood. Our current rate right now that
is being proposed. Is significantly lower than the average. Thank
you. Can you read through them so we know who's
been approved and who hasn't? Coming in at sure, I
would be happy to. And again, this was a scan
that was done on Friday, so hopefully it is still
the most up to date information. Clearview is 2.6 blended
still in the staff proposed budgets phase, and mayor budget
is not anticipated until January eigth. Angela. Tossed. I'm sorry.
I can't say that. But we all know what I'm.
Referring to is 2.545% blended. Approved December 4. Colleen wed
was 2.75 on Friday. Blended with Sega Beach 2.99% blended
approved around December 5. New Takumfa 3.9 approved. November 4
Midland 3.15 December 10 Penitentuishing 3.22 December 10 Severn 3.64,
but discussions are still ongoing as of November 27. From
what we could find. Bradford West Willenbury 3.71% abandonment period
is open until December 17. So they have done their
mayor proposed budget. ESA is 3.87 discussions are still ongoing
as of December 10. Tiny 3.95 discussions still ongoing. Oro
madante 3.98. They do two years budget per the note,
so adopt a 25 26 April 29 Romero 4.5 this
is the town only, so the blended rate would be
a little bit less. Adopted on November 7. Tanna Blue
Mountains again town only is 4.34. Discussions are still ongoing
as of December 1. Spring water 5.15. It's blended, expected
to be adopted this month in Isville 5.5. It's blended.
And say. We could not find any information for Tay.
It's just that the mayor's budget. Is not expected to
be tabled until January 21. Okay, well, that's very helpful.
I know for myself. I think if we apply the
funds relating to the planning fees that we discussed earlier
today for us to get to 2.7% blended. I think
we've done well for our municipality. We're not far off
of where inflation is, and we are delivering a lot
of great things in our budget. So that's where I'm
at. Dep. Deputy thank you, Mayor Hamlin.
I guess. That's the problem. I keep coming back. To
in order to get us down. To the 2.7. I
guess it is right now. We've got $250,000 coming from
Matt helping out with that. We're spending $390,000 of Matt.
And that, to me, that's another percent in a bit
right there of impact. One of the challenges with looking
at what we just looked at with the rate changes.
And co. Skinner mentioned this in the media coverage about
comparing taxes and we really don't know what the other
communities are doing from a capital. Contribution, standpoint or amp?
And we've broken it out, and I think that was
the right thing to do. And that gives us the
ability to show what is going to amp and what's
going to operating. I think eventually all municipalities will have
to do that because I think the follow up for
the province with requiring amp programs is they're going to
want to see. What's happening with taxes to contribute towards
that. That all being said. One of the items that
I looked at as. A possible something that we could
do to reduce was I wanted to take another look
at P 55. And the decision to implement it. So
what I wanted to ask about. With that, because it
does show in the explanation of the almost 1.3 million.
Of payroll change, salary and benefit. Change without the 166.
It does mention the $157,000 adjustment. For p 50. For.
Those ones who needed to be brought up to p
50 appropriately because p 50 had changed over the course
of the year. And got me thinking about the $166,000
for the p 55 adjustment, and I did. Ask the
question earlier today, and I don't know if the information
is available or not. But I wondered. If we could
get an idea of how many employees are impacted by
that 166 adjustment. That is right now approved. And I
think through you to executive director, Peg. Probably, yeah. Our
treasurer? Yes. Treasure has an answer, I think. Sure. Because
it is pay policy related, I'm. Just going to give
a general, high level answer to it, and I hope
that's sufficient so to get to p 50, there's actually
nine pay bands of stuff that are impacted. Out of
our 15 pay bands that we have, and then to
get to p 55. There's ten that would be impacted.
Out of the 15, which makes sense, considering if they're
not at p 50 there's. Certainly not going to be
at p 55. So it is a significant amount of
employees that are not at the p 55 level, and
that's why it's included in the base budget. P 50.
Pardon me? P 55 is not included in the base
budget at all. Sorry. I'm going to put that item
back on the table and see if I get a
seconder to reconsider it. I appreciate that there's ten employees
impacted by it. Sorry. Not ten employees, ten pay bands.
Ten pay bands. Thank you for correcting that. Sorry. But.
I just think with the fact that I consider our
increase to be high. And the fact that. I think.
The investment. Performance this past year has been very strong,
but also there's challenges for the taxpayers out there. So.
I'm going to propose to put that back on the
table to revote on that. And I would look to
see if I could get a seconder. Okay. Councilor Potts.
Is going to second that. And, sir, it's the P
55. Yes. 166,000. I've already explained the reasonings. Why? So
I don't think I have to. Say anything more, Mayor
Hammond. Okay. Would anyone else like to speak to. Would
anyone like to speak. To this. Councilor Potts. Thanks, Mayor
Hamlin. So, just threw you to the treasure just for
clarification. So we have a number of staff within their
paybands that aren't. Even at p 50 yet is what
I'm hearing. So it would be p 50 and then
they would technically jump, wherever they're at now from. P
30 whatever it is, all the way to p 55.
P 40 something, whatever, all the way to p 55.
So that would be a fairly significant increase. If I'm
understanding it right. Yes. Go ahead, treasure. Graham. To be
clear, just to help. Hopefully this helps. The average increase
is just under 2%, so. It isn't a significant increase
to get to p 50. There's just a lot of
employee. So it does add up to that amount. But
per employee itself, It averages about 1.8%. And just follow
up Mayor Hammond. So on top of. That percentage, there
would still be also a call or like a cost
of living as well. That would be included in that
as well. So depending on what that is, It could
be if three, four or 5%, depending on what Cola
comes in at, correct? Yes, go ahead. Cola is in
the base budget at 2.75% for nonunion. Stuff. And yes,
that would be an addition. Thank you. Alfred. Thank
you, chair. I am not going to support this motion.
First of all, I believe that we have come forward.
Staff have come forward with a very reasonable budget. Given
the challenges that we face. In terms of costs. Of
infrastructure renewal. Costs of operating, et cetera. And in particular.
I would not support. The notion of endeavoring to reduce
the budget. By reducing. Earning potential. For some of our
staff. We owe it to hardworking stuff. To pay. Competitive
wages. If we do not, we will have a hard
time attracting good stuff. It's as simple. As that, but.
I just can't emphasize enough, in my view. I think
two point. 70. Is very acceptable. Budget when we look
at. What some of. Our Simcoe county member communities are
budgeting. For 2026. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Baines. Thank
you. I agree and echo my colleague councilor Dorte's comments.
I think staff. Are our greatest strength, if you will,
as an organization here in the town, and it's just
been proven this last weekend. I don't think. It's accessor
of the tall, I think. It's essentially the norm of
what our fellow communities are doing. So I would not
support the deputy mayor's motion in this regard. I'll come
back to council. I just want to see if there's
anybody else. Anyone else like to comment on this? I
think what I'd like to say is. It's always a
hard one. But let's face it, at Steph who's? Running
this municipality, and there are other municipalities out there like
the Missauga beach. I've heard his mayor say a few
times, our goal is to pay the most because we
want to have the best staff, but we're not going
to pay the most. And I think P 55 is
where our competitors are. We approved a list of comparator
municipalities a few months ago. And this is where they're
at. And. We all know what happens when we have
new staff. We have a loss of continuity. The corporate
history is lost. We get behind the ball. Things slow
down because people have to get up to speed. And
I think this is a modest amount. It won't impact.
Our tax rates significantly at all. This would be a
very modest amount. What would it be? Zero, 5% or
something? To make sure we have the best staff that
we're entitled to. So those are my thoughts. Capital. Councilor
Potts. Yeah, thanks. Mary Hamlin. I just wanted to make
a couple. Of points. And I'm not really interested in
comparing with any municipality. My priority is Collingwood. And the
taxpayers at Collingwood. And. When I hear 2.7% is not
an issue, it may not be an issue to some,
but there's a lot of people in this community. The
2.7. 0.1% is too much. So I think looking at
this, if there's. Any way. Stopping getting to a P
50. Sounds like there's going to be a pay increase
anyways, so regardless of that, I think the 2.7 is
still too high. And I know that there's going to
be differences of opinions, but I'm not. Convinced that staff
are leaving Collingwood because of wages. Maybe some, not all.
So I will continue to support the fact that. I
will support the deputy mayor's motion on this. And again.
In these times, we have to look out for the
taxpayer. They can't put meals on tables. They can barely
keep the lights on. And we have comments on the
2.7. Shouldn't be an issue. No problem with that. I
think really, we're not doing any good justice for our
taxpayers. That's just. My opinion. Anyone else like to speak?
Okay, deputy mayor. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. And I want
to repeat, as I've said quite a few different times,
When I've put something on the table here like this.
This is in complete respect to our staff. Our staff
are wonderful. What it comes down to is the operating
increase is just too much on the tax base. And
if the 2.7 had a fairly large. Capital adjustment to
it, then maybe I'd look at it differently. But. I'm
struggling. On approving an operating impact that we're approving here.
And this is one area. That would help with that.
And as I said, I don't want it to reflect
back that I think poorly established, because I don't. I
think they're working hard. So is the taxpayer. To me,
when you look at it, I'm seeing over 5% operating
impact, and that's just too much. So I've got to
look for ways to try to bring that down. Okay.
Thank you. Councilor Potts, I do agree with you to
the extent that people are struggling a lot of people
are struggling. But this tax crease is under. $70 a
year. And. It comes down to should, in my view
anyway, is at the local level of government, who has
no ability to borrow, to run deficits that is totally
dependent on other levels of government. To supplement what we're
doing to get where we're going to cover these bare
necessities that people are not able to meet. And I
hear you and I feel for our residents who are
in those positions. But we have to keep going. And
if maybe the discussion to be had is with our
provincial counterparts. But. We still have to our budget this
year. We're going to be resurfacing over 30 sections of
road. These are important. Things to our community. And, yeah,
we can focus on $166,000 to staff because it makes
headlines. But this budget is not about $166,000. It's about
$100 million worth of capital works and operating to make
that happen. But I hear you, Councilor McCullough. Thank you.
Just. I wanted to throw. Some comments in on. The
subject of staff compensation. I think it's. A very expensive
way to save money. I think it impacts performance, service
delivery, dealing with items that we don't see coming. But
day to day, it puts the burden if staff leave,
puts the burden on the remaining staff and reduces the
way that the town can deliver. So that's my comment
on that piece. It's very tempting to trim operational expenses.
But there's typically a long term cost to those short
term savings. And I read circled a couple of items
that are on the impact of municipal levy, and I
think? There's some flexibility and some work to be done
on some more discretionary items. It would not have an
immediate impact. Yeah. Did you want to raise those? Sorry.
Yeah, I forgot. You're right. Okay, so, shall we bring
to a vote, deputy mayor's? Motion. Councilor Jeffrey. Thank you.
I'd like to respectfully say that I don't think there's
anybody. Here seeking headlines. I think we're trying to do
a good job for our residents and all of us
may see that being done in a different way, but
I don't think it's really a fair comment. I'm certainly
that's not my impotent. Well, I use the wrong words
anyway. We'll just leave it as it is. I totally
understand. Okay, let's bring this to a vote. All those
in favor? 1234 and those opposed? Okay, that fails. Okay,
who would like to. Councilor McCullough, did you have some
things? You wanted to put on the floor. Thank you,
mayor. Two items that I circled that fall under the
municipal levy category of expenses. And I know this is
sacrosanct, but stick with me. $400,000 is the largest line
item on that. That is a discretionary council item. That
was put. On the budget, and I think based on
some of the discussions we had last week regarding town.
Municipal capital facilities or cooperative partnerships with housing initiatives and
being able to provide land at a reduced cost that
a significant impact could be made to affordable housing through
that measure, as opposed to on the back of the
taxpayers. So I think. There's great potential in that piece
of land that could be contributed at a lower cost.
To help facilitate affordable housing, and I think that has
a larger impact than 50 or $100,000. Would. Okay, so
I think maybe you're asking, what's the value of that
land? Perhaps. I think one of the items that was
discussed in that. Would retain ownership of the land and
provided on a land lease basis, which reduces the capital
requirement. To start the development there and get it going.
So what is your motion, then? To the budget. I'll
need help with wording on this clerk Almas. That an
alternative? Means of supporting affordable housing. Is explored through. Options
related to town provided land for affordable housing. Something to
that effect. Sale. A land lease can be at whatever
rate per annum that the town decides is relevant. So
it can be subsidized, it can be free, it can
be market. So how would that impact, like, if we
want to vote on something that does, I presume. What
you're saying is the 400,000 should be reduced. Do you
have a number in mind? We have to get the
motion at first. $100,000.
Would there be a seconder for this? No. Okay, what's
your next item? Okay, we'll have one more kick at
the can. I had certain reservations about
the Georgian Bay accelerator and the way that it was
funding, we've addressed most of those, but I think, again,
that's a discretionary item in light. Of the pressure on
the budget that could be revisited. So, do you have
a suggestion?
Now I've reduced by 50%. Okay.
And that's $130,000 item, I believe. Was that right? Okay.
And councilor. Ring. Are you seconding that? Okay, we have
a second. Seconder. I want to be very sorry, mayor.
I want to be really clear. I wasn't trying. To
reduce the contribution to affordable housing. I was trying to
change the delivery of it and use another method. I
realized that. But we've had five budget meetings, and five
times people have tried to reduce that money to affordable
housing. There's a presentation. Yeah. Thank you.
Okay. Would you like to speak to this to start?
Or is to reduce the amount. Allocated to the Georgian
Bay accelerator, which is now $130,000 by 50%.
Casserbaint. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Before going down this path,
I had some concerns about. The dollar request that this
had, but the implications of such a decision, because it
could be that if we cut it at 50%, they
might say, no, we're done then, because we just can't
deliver. And I'm not sure who on staff's part. Could
reasonably answer such a question that if we cut it
by 50%, Essentially, is it all or nothing? And if
anybody, staff or anywhere, has a response to that, Now
would be the time to. Perhaps my colleague knows. Thank
you, Councilor McCullough. Thank you mayor. I don't have a
direct answer, but I do know there was conversation around
an overlap. Between our economic development people and that group,
and that left me a little bit disconcerted. As to
was that money being applied in the wrong place or
perhaps being duplicated? I totally shared that view. So I
was happy with how our final resolution was on that
because. It wasn't just allocate $130,000. Because. As I see
it. And I think director Valentine can correct me on
this. But I think this will be the year for
the Georgian Bay accelerator. They're either going to fit into
our programming and show us what they're doing all the
time. Supporting Collingwood businesses. And so on, or they're not.
And I see if. They don't step up, that this
will be the last year for them. I am somewhat
worried about just cutting them off, not having a lot
of knowledge about. What businesses they're working with right now.
But, director Valentine, can you remind us what qualifications we
put around. Their funding for 2026. Thank you, chair. It
was Councilor Jeffries. Motion, so I hope I do it
justice, but. It was to ensure that the 130,000 was
directed to support Collingwood businesses. To provide quarterly financial reporting
through to council and to improve coordination between the GBA
and our economic development division. Yeah, that's it. And director
Valentine, how do you like. Do you agree with me
that 26. Will be. Important year for the accelerator. Thank
you for that question. You can say. I don't know.
It's okay. It's hard to crystal ball through that, but
I will say that staff have had reservations. With Collingwood
being the primary municipal funder. Of an organization that does
great work, undoubtedly, but is focused across multiple. Regions in
south Georgia Bay and beyond to Gray and Bruce as
well. Through their own statistics indicated that. The business is
supported. In 2025, only 40% were from Collingwood and have
been challenged to find other funding opportunities. So a decrease
in funding is supportable by staff, but I think the
mayor is probably correct. In her crystal ball that if
that money were to decrease significantly, the accelerator may be
challenged to make up that money either from other municipal
contributors or other orders of government. The only other piece
that staff had thought of that hasn't been mentioned today.
Is the potential for the accelerator to do a fee
for service. When businesses approach that are not from Collingwood,
which could augment. Their revenue intake as well as to
seek corporate sponsors. So those are other options available to
the accelerator. So it is certainly a complicated topic. But.
There is a potential that the accelerator may fold if
it does not receive the full funding from the town.
Any other thoughts on this? Okay, we'll bring this to
a vote. 50% reduction. All in favor? 1234.
123-4567 opposed. To carries. Okay.
So. That's half of that is, what, 65? And we
had 120. What was the other amount that we added
in? Brought us down to 2.7. Will this make any
difference to the tax rate? Yeah, go. Ahead. Tell us
what it will be. I would be happy too. I'm
keeping a running. Total. So this has decreased the town's
portion, not the blended rate, the towns portion to 2.55%.
And for those that are interested in the blended rate,
it's 2.47%. Okay, awesome. Thank you. Councilor Potts. Thanks, Mayor
Hamlet. Moving on. I think if it's council's wish to
maintain. The p 55, then I would table and probably
separate, but the removal of the 54,000 for human resources.
And also the economic development coordinator. It's at 120, but
I think. It would matter. I don't know if there
was funding for that. But it would be removing those
two staff resources. Okay. Would there be a seconder for
that? Deputy mayor. Okay. Do you want to speak to
why you. Just think looking at it again. Additional staff
resources. If we're looking at with budget items and trying
to work things here. And obviously it's council's wish to
maintain and to move to the P 55. I think,
given the year coming up, And I think removing those.
It's just something that I'm putting forward, so I think
I've exhausted all my reasons why over the last number
of months. Okay. Thank you. Can I just ask staff
to comment on the economic development coordinator position, how we
are going to fund that and what the role of
that person was. I can speak to how we're funding
it, but I think I'll look to director Valentine on
the role. This is funded through the municipal accommodation tax.
The percentage that relates to the town of Collingwood. So
this would be an ongoing annual expense, but. Again. Fund
it through the municipal accommodation tax and not taxes. And
I'll ask director Valentine. If she doesn't mind, to elaborate
on the position. So if it's funded through the municipal
accommodation tax, if we remove that person, would it change
the tax increase? No, it would not change the tax
increase. It would decrease the amount of municipal accommodation tax
that has been allocated. And there is 250,000 that's being
allocated so far. That's just reducing. The tax base, so
that would lower that amount. So less reliance on the
MAT to lower tax. Okay, go ahead and can you
explain with this person's job is. Thank you. Thank you.
Chair. And through you both the downtown master plan and
the tourism master plan. Each suggested that the town would
require additional resources over and above those available in economic
development to drive forward those plans. So one resource each.
We felt that that was an unreasonable request of council.
And also felt that the two plans have synergies in
terms of their focus on sustainable tourism. And the vitality
of our downtown corps, which is also, well, both our
strategic priorities of this community. So our suggestion was a
single position. To essentially spearhead. The advancement of both of
those plans, one that has a life cycle of about
three years and the other one of 20 plus years
being the downtown master plan. So that would be the
focus. Of that individual funded through the mat. Thank you.
Follow up Maryland for me, of course. To treasure Graham.
No additional cost from the taxpayer. It's coming under the
mat. There's no additional cost when it comes to even.
With wages, benefits, tax, anything along that line, there'd be
nothing. This would be solely. Everything's funded solely from the
mat. Go ahead for this position. Yes, you're correct. It
would be funded solely through the mat. The way that
council has approved the amendment to date. Thank you. I
still don't support the additional staff resources, so I'll maintain
that. Okay. Thank you. And the other position? If I'm
remembering correctly. That was taking a part time to a
full time. Could someone speak to what that person does?
And why we need a full time. Executive director. Peg,
go ahead. Thank you, worship. Through you to council. So
the HR support position currently is an eight month contract.
So the proposal for council's consideration was converting that to
a full time continuous. Human resources operations in talent management
has a lot of accountability. In, I'll say our people
and the investment in the people across the organization adjusting
this resource is to recognize. The challenges, we'll say, of
running a modern workforce, and a lot of that responsibility
falls. Within the HR team. With an eight month contract,
although we've been blessed to. Get decent applications, and we've
had some really great people work for the town in
the past the loss of continuity. With an eight month
contract is challenging. You train someone as soon as they're
up to speed, they leave and you're recruiting again. You
hire someone else. So we thought that the. Cost benefit
of the additional four months. And benefits. Was an investment
well made. The role would help with the ERP transition.
So moving from great plains to a new product. HR
processes, policy updates, recruitment, training and development. Whole gamut of
HR practices. And again, we have an eight month contract
right now. It's just challenging with continuous turnover in those
positions. And I see Theo Skinner may want to contribute
to that, okay? Thank you. Through the chair. I just
wanted to, I was doing my 54 comment that that
particular item was, I believe, 54,000 in the, in the.
Difference. And since I am speaking, I would also just
want to say that. If we don't do the economic
development coordinator for the downtown work. And. The downtown master
plan and the tourism work. There's quite a bit of
work there that I think we'd have to think. Through
what can move forward. We don't currently have someone to
deliver those pieces, and Collingwood is pretty special in our
downtown. We've done over the years, a lot of things
with the bia's help. And support and in many cases,
funds. A lot of changes that make this, keep this
place really special. And I think that piece of investment.
Is not essential. It's council's discretion, but it is, I
think, an important one to continuing. This track record of
unusual success. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Baines. Thank you, Mayor
Hamlin. Through you to Ed Peg, just on this? 54,000.
I'm assuming that if we did not or rescinded. This
54,000 to take it from eight months to twelve months
that you still have the budget for the eight months
continuing. It's just the top up from. Eight to twelve
that the 54 would remove. Go ahead. Thank you. Through
the merit of councilor Baines. That is correct. So we
would still have the eight month contract. Another possibility for
council's consideration would be a twelve month contract that would
eliminate benefit costs. But allow for position continuity. Thank you.
So could you just clarify that? What would the cost
of that be, do you know? That's a third, I
guess. Is the third benefit. Sorry. Go ahead. Sorry, I
just spoke at a turn. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. We
do have about 30% is what we budget for full
time. And then about 14% because we still have to
pay CPP and EI and those kind of benefits. It's
just not the health. And Omars is actually optional for
part. Time as well. So what would the savings be
if we did a twelve month contract as opposed to.
Twelve. Month full time person. It would be about $8,000
in savings of that 54,000. Okay, thank you. Councilor Potts.
Councilor? You already spoke, councilor ring. Yes. Thank you, Mayor
Hamlet. We're talking about two different jobs here. Are we
going to vote on them separately? We are okay. Because
I could probably go one either way, but I want
to make sure because. If it's a package deal, it
might not go the way I would normally. Okay. Did
you want to say anything else? Yeah, I was just
going to say. We got off the first one. The.
Development. One economic development. I supported the first time. For
the reasons I'm going to support it again this time.
We got two master plans that both recommended that we
had somebody administrate the programs. For each one of them.
And instead of getting two people, we're going to do
it. With two, which I think is reasonable. And because.
It's not. Adding any extra money to the taxpayer. I
could support it as long as it's being paid through
Matt. So that's why I voted for the first time,
and I will support it again this time. Okay? Thank
you. Mayor thank you, Mayor Hamlin. And on that particular
position, I'm looking at it differently than it's been explained
because. The four that group together for the 390,000, which
was the 2025. Mat that we had to work with.
We've approved the coordinator out of that. 2027 would still
have to be decided on, and I'm looking at that
as quite possibly coming back onto the municipal tax base.
So. How it will continue to be paid. I'm looking
at it differently than others, I guess. The other concern
I have is. We are putting $215,000 in for implementation
of the plan. So I'd like to think that there
may be some room there to figure out. As CEO
Skinner just referred to how to implement some of those
quick moving things in that first year. And then make
the decision about the coordinator in 2027. So I'm supportive
of. Both things that are being put forward. And just
wanted to explain that I'm looking at the development coordinator
differently. Yes, it's. In Matt. I understand that, but it
still means we're spending money. It's just a different alternate.
It's an alternate revenue source. And it's going to be
an ongoing expense. And right now, I don't see it
being covered by 2027, Matt, because we haven't made any
decisions about that. So those are my comments. Okay. Thank
you. Councilor Jeffrey thank you, Mayor Hamlin. So just as
clarification, I know in previous budgets. I've asked about making
positions contract and HR told me that even if you
make them contract for twelve months. After two years they
become full time benefited jobs. So I would just like
to have some clarity on that as to where the
benefit would be. To go to twelve months when after
two years it reverts into. A full time job in
any event. Executive director Pink.
Thank you. Chair through to councilor Jeffrey so the position
does not automatically revert into a continuous full time position
under ESA. At some point, the municipality would have the
requirement to provide benefits but we wouldn't offer in a
contract that would trigger that requirement if we did not.
Have council approval to do so. Yeah. So I'm just
wondering why I would have been advised that maybe things
have changed. Since I asked that question. Go ahead. Is
that gifter? Sorry. My apologies. Maybe I wasn't clear if
we have. Long term contracts. We do provide benefits, but
the intention with the HR support moving to a twelve
month is that we wouldn't retain the same employee in
that position long enough that it would. Trigger benefits unless
we had council approval to do so. Thank you. Okay,
well, I'm going to bring this to a vote in
a minute. I'll just address. I want to just offer
my thoughts about. The person hired. If a person is
hired. To implement the downtown master plan and the tourism
master plan through the map funds. This will be a
decision, of course. Of the Tourism Collingwood board as to
how. They're going to be using their funding. And they
could always choose not to have a staff person, but
then nothing would happen. So I feel fairly certain that
that position, as staff has indicated so far, would continue
on as a mat funding funded position. And. If it
was going to come. On to the general tax base.
That'll be a decision for council at a future budget.
Meeting. I don't think we can worry about what's going
to happen and whether council approve or not approve? A
position in two years from now, so I just wanted
to offer my view on that, okay? So we're going
to sever these. So for the firstly vote on eliminating
the economic development coordinator. Position. All those in favor? Okay.
One, two in favor and those opposed? So that fails.
And the second position. Your memo, your emotion. Was to
eliminate that position. Okay. And there's been a suggestion from
our executive director that it become a contract position. So
I should, I guess, ask if anyone wanted to put
that amendment on the table. Is that the correct order,
or do we vote his motion first? Okay. All right.
Okay, good. All right. So to eliminate. The $54,000. For
the HR person to go from part time to full
time. All those in favor? 12345 and those opposed? 1234
that passes. Okay. All right. Anything else? Deputy mayor. Thank
you, Mayor Hamlin. And through you to treasure Graham. We've
made adjustment. For the fact that we approved. Earlier in
the council meeting, the planning department. First year of phase
in. For the new fees. We also approved the building
department. Changes. So I wondered if maybe the 125 takes
that into account. So I guess that would be my
question. I would have thought there'd be some impact that
wasn't already in the budget. Because you weren't doing that.
Because it hadn't been passed. So is the 125. Include
boast planning and building department. Yes, go ahead. No, it's
planning only. The building. A fee increase will help increase
our building stabilization reserve fund. As we were at the
end of 2024. We were in a shortfall of our
targeted balance, which is to fund two years of almost
$1 million. So each year when I do, my annual
statement of reserve funds, and I apologize. Because I think
this question was asked when I was ejected to get
some water earlier. That target balance is based. On the
prior year actuals. So this year, when I report on
my annual statement, it will be a combination of 2025
actuals of what it actually costs the building department plus
the 2026 budget, and that will determine what our minimum
target is to get to the two years right now
because of the way our building permit revenue. Has seen
a decline in activity. We are in a shortfall in
that building civilization reserve fund. So any increase of the
fees. That were appropriately approved will be going to help
replenish. That reserve fund. Just as a follow up, if
I may, Mayor Hamlin, then can you tell me. What
the quantum is. A year with those increased fees. I
do not have that information at hand. Look to director
Valentine as the author of that report to see if
she could quantify it. If not, I'm happy to work
with Director Valentine and get back to you in January.
Chair. I apologize. I don't have that number. It's a
rate support budget, so. It doesn't impact the operational levy,
so I wasn't expecting that question tonight. I guess that's
where I'm struggling. I'm thinking of maybe. Trying to have
it impact the operating levy because. I understand. We talked
about needing to have two years there. And hopefully we
can accumulate that. But that's going to be close to
two and a half million dollars. That's just going to
sit there for the what ifs, if no revenue comes
in. And we already have 1.4 million at the end
of 2024. So. I was thinking that that might be
another. Source to help with those changes. So we don't
have that information, though. So I'm not going to put
anything on the floor. Unfortunately. The recommendations.
I'm going to ask for them to be severed because.
I'm not going to support the special capital levy and
capital levy increases. I'm the one who brought forward the
extra increases in the last two budgets for Amp. But
as I said, that was based on being able to
get the operating impacts down. And we aren't able to
do that. I got confidence that I know. Large millions
of dollars. I already explained that in a couple of
other meetings. I guess. Estimated about $4 million is going
into lifecycle reserve for 2025. That wasn't expected. So. I'm
definitely a proponent for. Getting asset management. In the best
shape possible. But. When we vote on those two recommendations,
I'm not going to support the capital change, just because
the overall impact is too high. Thank you. What is
the overall impact of those two levees? Treasure Graham. Of
the two. Capital levy specifically? Or do you mean where
we're at now, that council? Has reduced this. Actually, both.
I had both on my mind. So thank you for
clarifying with the 54,000 reduction, which includes the increase to
the two levees. We're at. A tax Collingwood rate of
2.43. And a blended rate of 2.39. The special capital
levy and the general capital levy have a year over
year change of $77,000 for the special capital in 153,000.
For the general capital levy, which. Is just shy of
half a percent impact. That's close enough. Need it. Okay.
That's good. Councilor McCullough. Sorry, just a quick clarification question
for Director Graham. Was the accelerator. Fund reduction factored in
that as well. Thank you. Any other comments? Councilor Baines.
I understand and respect that deputy mayor's point about reducing.
The capital levy. But. In the same response, I suppose
I would say I cannot an all good conscience vote
to do. That. At the same time, I realize your
position, and I hope you realize mine. Because. I just
want to put as much money as we can afford.
And I understand your response, but. Just want to let
you know. Thank you. Yeah, sure. You do, councilor Baines,
especially after this weekend we've just been through. We have?
To be ready. And if we need to line every
water pipe or replace them or whatever needs to be
done. And I know we're not talking anymore. About. Hiring
a person to look after our capital assets. But as
much as we can put into. Maintaining our capital and
improving it. This is a very modest. Amount. And it
amounts to, I think it was a 4% increase, which
is good because. In our last meeting, we drove the
increase down to zero. So next year, if we were
to put anything into these categories. You have to start
at 4% and then add on top. Start at 9%.
That's what the amount was originally. Right? So this at
least we're starting it for. Anyway, I have concerns also,
but. All right. Are there any other comments for tonight?
Okay. So. I'm going to divide the emotion on the
table into three. So the first one is. That we
receive. This third budget draft. Are you moving that? Yes.
Okay, good. And seconded, Councilor Dougherty. The main motion we've
got other than seconder? Oh, for all of it. But
I was going to vote on it separately. Okay, so
to receive it, all those in favor? Unanimous. Okay. The
next part was to approve the allocation. Of the opp.
Okay. Approve the allocation of the $336 related to the
23 op reconciliation. To the 2025 fiscal year to be
funded from our operating surplus. All those in favor? That's
unanimous. Okay. And the council approved modest and proportionate increases
to the general capital levy and special capital. Levy, resulting
in additional funding of $133,203 and 66,077 $7 in order
to support asset renewal priorities identified in the town's asset.
Management. Management plan. And we'll stop there. All those in
favor? I thought you just did. I thought I heard
it. Okay, so what we have here for this art
then? And so stopping. About before we get to maintaining
the blended tax rate increase? Go ahead. Thank you. And
I just. Want to be clear. I'm a proponent for
taking care of our assets. I didn't say anything about
that. What happened this weekend is the water, and that
is user based, it's rate based. It's not municipal tax.
$200,000 when you're putting 4 million. in the year already
Is substantial. And then on top of that, we've got
the unrealized gains that are in the upwards of $7
million amount. That. I just can't have those kinds of
investment returns coming. To us and then not turning around
and trying to help out the taxpayer at the end
of the day. So I'm not going to support this.
Okay. Thank you, treasure. Graham. I just wanted to provide
some clarification. It's not $4 million that's being allocated to
the lifecycle reserve, so. As I spoke in the prior
council meeting, the additional investment income is allocated proportionately across
our discretion. Our obligatory and discretionary reserve funds. The biggest
portion of that will actually be going to development charge
reserve funds, which. Does not support asset renewal. I believe
I calculated a closer amount. It's about 1 million of
that would be. Going to lifecycle, but not the 4
million, just to be clear. Thank you for clarifying that
depth. From there, I'll clarify too. I understand that has
to do with the investment income, but we put 1.7
million of general Reserve adjustment over into lifecycle reserve. And
then I was taking into account the extra. Surplus that
came in for 2024, and the surplus that was forecast,
which is a little smaller. Now. So when I accumulated
all those together, I got closer to $4 million. So
that's. Where I was coming from when I was using
my figures. Okay. Anyone else want to speak on this
part? So, all those in favor? 12345. Those opposed.
Four that carries. And the blended tax rate increase at
this point. Jennifer. Treasurer Graham, could you tell us, is
it still 2.39%? Yes, it is. 2.395. So closer to
2.4 if we're rounding up. And the resident. The town
of Collingwood portion only is 2.43. Okay, so we don't.
Have to vote on that. That's just what we voted
on tonight. Okay, so that was good hard work we've
done over these meetings. And I appreciate that.
Have something to say. Councilor ring. You're not thinking, okay.
This is my first budget. Under the strong mayor legislation.
And while. The. Legislation certainly gives the mayor a lot
of authority. My priority was to make sure that this
budget would be grounded in our collaborative process. That Collingwood
knows, which, of course, includes council staff and our public.
And I was also clear. When I spoke to the
treasurer in the summer that our residents need stability. Families
are stretch businesses. Are really feeling it, and so that's
why. I asked staff to keep any increase to 2.75%.
While I am so pleased that tonight council has done
better than that. And 2.39% is a very good number
for our community. We know this is a difficult year.
Our growth is very limited. It's the lowest in many
years, which means we don't. Have additional assessment. We don't
have additional property taxes. And we're not unique. It's the
same story across the province. Everyone's dealing with this. So
I am grateful to staff. They are well aware of
this. And when they started the budget. Process. I know
they went through it line by line to reduce, defer
or eliminate where possible. While still keeping our long term
priorities and our core services. So thank you to the
treasurer and her team for. All the discipline and care
that's gone on. The median. Increase for the median assessed
home. Increase. I don't even know what it is, do
you? Know what it'll be now. Treasure. Yeah. Yes, I
do. It is $62. $61.90 will be the median increase
on an annual basis. Thank you. So part of this
increase reflexar continued. Commitment to affordable housing. And although we
had a few challenges. As councilor ring has pointed out,
this year we've directed $400,000 of property tax revenue into
that account. And we've allocated all of the funds from
the cuthbert. Estate for the same purpose. We know our
leadership in the affordable housing sector has been recognized by
the association of municipalities of Ontario, and I'm really looking
forward to hearing about this report later in our meeting.
Where we're going to hear about some new. Incentives to
make an even greater impact. In looking through the budget.
I am so pleased that we are continuing to make
important investments in our community. Such as completing the Wilson
Sheffield Park Fin 26, the dry dog Junction park, and
the outdoor roof rink. We'll be moving ahead with what
we're doing to get ourself. Into a good position for
the recreation center and the art center. Continuing construction on
our new water treatment plant major road resurfacing program to
improve over 30 sections of road. Two new fire trucks.
This is always a good one and so much more.
Finally. We've been reflecting on the past weekend. And we
saw the best of Collingwood, didn't we? Neighbors checking in
on neighbors, businesses, adapting. Residents showing patients and care. And
this shared sense of responsibilities, what this budget is built
on. I truly believe that this budget takes care of
today. Plans responsibly for tomorrow and protects what we've built
together. We've got a lot of things packed into this
budget tonight. I really want to thank staff. And all
of council for the hard work that's got us to
this point tonight. Okay, so with that. I think we're
changing seats. Councilor Perry. So we have a motion here,
that council herein move. Sorry. Okay. Motion to extend. Any
takers? Deputy mayor seconded by councilor Perry. All those in
favor. Unanimous. Okay. Now, we're having a motion council move
into committee the whole session. Move her in a seconder
for that. Councilor Bain, seconded by councilor Potts. All those
in favor? Unanimous. And so we'll just take a five
minute break while councilor Perry becomes chair. Perry and we
change. These.
Okay. There we go. Okay. Welcome to. Collingwood Committee of
the whole meeting for December 15, 2025. And we'll go
right to staff reports. 15.2.1, p 2025. 30 municipal capital
facility bylaw and affordable housing incentive pilot program, and I'll
turn it over to director Valentine. Thank you, chair Perry.
We have a comprehensive presentation for you today on the
topic of incentivizing. Affordable housing, so I'll keep my introductory
remarks relatively brief. The preparation of an incentive program to
flow benefits to for profit and nonprofit developers or housing
organizations to support the construction of affordable housing is one
of the key recommendations of the council endorsed affordable housing
master plan, and it's been on part of staff's 2025
work program. Under. The affordable housing support subservice. While there
are a few different ways to structure incentive programs. The
master plan. Recommends a municipal capital facilities bylaw, which I
will trip on over and over again, or MCFB as
the most effective tool for Collingwood. And our context, and
it is a stackable form of incentives. With those offered
from other orders of government. So, after many months of
research, jurisdictional scanning, background work, legal review and documentation preparation.
We have a proposal package for council or committee's consideration.
Which pairs the MCFB with a strategic policy to guide
implementation of the program. Given the level of funding and
resources available, we are suggesting that we start with the
launch of a pilot program as an initial step, but
we've also set up the parent bylaw. To facilitate program
expansion in the future. Before handing the floor to coordinator
Sousa. We wanted to recognize our colleagues in finance who
have been integral partners in this initiative and will continue
to support us through program implementation should it be approved.
And to the affordable housing Task force, who got a
sneak peek of the draft proposed framework and they provided
valuable. Insights that have been incorporated into the materials that
are before you today. We also wanted to share our
excitement over bringing this incentive framework forward as another key
milestone in Collingwood's recognized and continued leadership in the affordable
housing space among small urban municipalities. So chair with those
remarks. You're a concurrence. So I'd pass the floor to
coordinator de. Sousa. Thank you. And good evening, chair Perry,
Mayor Hamlin, and members of council. I'm back to discuss
the proposed municipal capital facility by law and incentive pilot
programs that will allow the town to offer financial support
to enable the creation. of affordable housing so we'll go
to the next slide please Through the affordable housing master
plan process. It became quite clear that nonprofits and for
profit sectors will struggle to build affordable housing without significant
financial support from all orders of government. The town does
not currently have a legal framework in place to incentivize
affordable housing. In a fair and transparent manner. A municipal
capital facility bylaw is a framework to guide fair and
transparent provision of affordable or of support to nonprofit and
for profit housing providers. The Mc. MCFB is also a
key recommendation from the affordable housing master plan to ensure
the town can support developers and housing providers that are
hoping to create affordable housing. Next slide, please. So what
is an MCFB? An MCFB is a tool legislated under
the Municipal act that allows municipalities to offer financial incentives
to for profit and nonprofit housing providers for affordable units.
The act enables a range of incentives that a municipality
can provide, including giving or lending money. Giving leasing or
selling property, guaranteeing borrowing, reducing wholly or partially development charges
and property taxes. Now, before we get any further, I
did want to make a distinction between the MCFB and
the incentive program. So the MCFB is what needs to
be in place before municipality can start offering financial assistance.
And it's really a framework that will guide how the
town is to provide that financial assistance to housing providers.
The associated incentive. Pilot program will inform how municipal support
will be made available. To eligible. Projects, including project guidelines,
eligibility criteria, type of incentives available, application and review process,
details regarding agreements and reporting, among other things. Next slide,
please. Now, another common tool that you may be more
familiar with is a community improvement plan or a Cip.
This is a similar tool and is actually more popular
among lower tier municipalities, which is why you might be
more familiar with it. CIPs and MCFBs generally have the
same intent and they can do the same things. However,
they have a few key differences, including that CIPs are
enabled under the planning act. They require public meetings and.
They also carry appeal rates, so they're generally less flexible
than mcfbs, which is the reason that our master plan
consultants recommended us move forward with an MCFB for this
added flexibility. Next slide, please. Now, in order to design
a program that was in line with the town's current
level of funding and resources staff reviewed other municipalities incentive
programs across the province, and in 2020, NBLC which was
our consultants. For our master plan, they prepared a report
for the region of peel which. Included. A jurisdictional scan.
Of many municipalities across Ontario that have implemented incentive programs,
and the report really evaluated their overall strengths. And weaknesses.
And this report was really the starting point for the
research that followed. Staff focused our research on three different
programs across Ontario. The region of Peel's affordable rental Incentives
Program, or parap City of Peterborough's dual CIP and MCFB
program and closer to home is the city of Berry's
CIP program. Next slide, please. We learned a lot from
our research into these three programs and some of the
key learnings are provided on this slide, and I'll just
go over them briefly. We learned that per unit funding
requirements for projects will vary significantly across different projects. There's
no magic number that is consistent with all projects. You
will see in the next slides that the per unit
funding amount really depends on a variety of factors and,
of course, on project performance. We. Learned that incentivizing the
creation of rental housing is much easier to administer than
ownership. Tenure, and that's the recommended route. We learned that
it's important to provide flexible incentives rather than fixed incentives.
An example of a fixed incentive is like the grants
we have available through our rapid ARU program where we
provide $10,000 to every eligible applicant who gets approved. When
we're dealing with higher order incentive amounts, let's say. We
choose. A fixed incentive of $100,000, you run the risk
of either over incentivizing. Or underincentivizing a project. So the
recommendation is to provide flexible incentives where the applicant requests
a specific amount of money and provides rationale for that
amount being requested, including financial documentation. And then staff make
a decision or the evaluation committee makes a decision. Another
key step is to cap incentive amounts, especially when you're
offering flexible incentives. You can offer the flexible incentive up
to a certain maximum in order to not drain the
reserve fund. It's critical to enable stacking across funding programs.
So it's likely that any project that receives funding from
the town will require more funding over and above what
the town can provide. So it's important to leave your
program open enough to ensure that someone can easily. Access
other levels of funding. It's critical or recommended to have
an annual call for applications. It leads to consistency and
transparency by reviewing applications at the same time and not
on an ad hoc basis. And the last point here
is that most incentive programs that we looked at have
five plus million dollars available to offer through incentives. Most
of these programs have received funding from the Federal Housing
Accelerator Fund or the provincial build faster fund. And really,
the amount of funding you have available in your program
will dictate how that program is designed, the types of
incentives you can offer. And the affordability threshold as well.
Next slide, please. So I'll just give you an idea
of the level of funding that. Other programs had. The
next two slides include a quick overview of the results
from the region of Peel and the city of Berry's
programs. So this first slide is the region of Peel.
As you can see here, the per unit funding amounts
ranged from. $44,000 per unit on the low end. And
over $500,000 per unit on the high end. So it
was actually through my discussions with Peel region that I
learned that it's really important to cap your incentive amount.
Or else you can see these really high order per
unit incentives. And the lower incentive amount you see here
was delivered by a nonprofit housing provider. So the type
of applicant. Obtaining the funds can also determine the funding
required, and the last row here shows that from 2021
to 2023, Peel's program incented a total of 175 affordable
units. Utilizing $23 million in funding with an average per
unit incentive amount of 130,000. Next slide, please. The City
of Berry had $10 million available for their CIP program.
A portion of this was from their own reserve fund,
and many of the additional funds came from both the
province and the federal government to supplement their program. The
city released a CIP, not an MCFB, but the findings
are still applicable here because it was a per door
grant program, so it's still per unit funding. Again, you
can see here that the incentives required range from 200,000.
30,000 and as low as 3000 per unit. Those units
were actually delivered by the county. Of Simcoe. Next slide,
please. So those two slides were really meant to give
you an idea of other programs and the level of
funding required to incent affordability for the town's proposed pilot
program. We anticipate having about $1.5 million available in the
Affordable Housing Reserve fund in 2026. To offer through. The
incentive program. Given the available funding and the resource levels,
we propose to start with a pilot program that can
be expanded in future years if more funding becomes available.
The program name that we have come up with is
chip or Collingwood housing incentives pilot program and at a
high level. It includes capital grants for administrative efficiency. Two
funding streams to realize more units with limited funds, flexible
incentives capped at a certain maximum and we will only
incent affordable rental units. We're not going to be looking
at ownership. At this time. Next slide, please. The next
several slides will take you through the proposed chip program.
So at a high level, we're starting with two funding
streams. The first proposed stream is an affordable additional residential
unit stream. Or ARU stream. Under this stream, we are
proposing to offer flexible capital grants of up to $70,000
for. Affordable ar use offered for rent. This stream would
fund a minimum of one Aru per lot. And a
maximum of three air use per lot to align with
our zoning bylaw, the stream is geared towards smaller scale
developers and housing providers that are mainly focusing on infill
and intensification projects and ever. Since we did go up
to that four unit. Permitted on residential lots. As of
right, we're seeing a lot more of those developments happen.
So. If we can target those developments and see if
they can make them affordable, we think we could. Get
realized some units there. The second stream is the affordable
multi unit rental stream. And this stream is geared towards
larger scale developments, including buildings that meet the definition of
apartment under the zoning bylaw so these are buildings with
five or more. Residential units in them under this stream.
We propose that we would provide flexible capital grants of
up to $200,000 for affordable rental units. A minimum of
one unit within an apartment building must be affordable to
qualify for the funding and a maximum of five units
per project will be eligible in an effort to distribute
funding more evenly across projects. The program. Also has additional
flexibility to consider other built forms that might not meet
the definition of an apartment. If there are sufficient funds
available in our program. Next slide, please. Now, in terms
of program eligibility, We are proposing that applicants can either
be for profit or nonprofit housing providers. We propose, though,
that the evaluation matrix. Will be adjusted to award more
points to a nonprofit housing provider. For stream one, eligible
units must meet the definition of Aru per the town's
zoning bylaw and of course they must be offered at
affordable rents and for stream two eligible units. Include apartment
dwelling units that meet the definition of apartment in the
zoning bylaw, and units can be located. Within mixed use
buildings or buildings with a mix of a market and
affordable rents. But only the affordable. Units are eligible for
the funding. As I mentioned before, the town may consider
other built forms that don't meet the definition. Of apartment
dwelling, subject to program uptake and available funding. Next slide.
Now for affordability. So eligible units must meet the definition
of affordable and for the purposes of this program, we
propose to align the definition of affordable with the affordable
rental rates as determined by the provincial bulletin for the
exemption of development charges for affordable units the next. Slide
will provide a glimpse. Glimpse into what this exactly looks.
Like and what those numbers are set at currently. Affordable
units must be maintained as affordable for a minimum of
25 years, and to ensure the units are made available
to moderate income households, which is our overall target and
mandate for affordable housing. The town will cap the annual
tenant household income to $80,000 per year, which aligns with
the. Household income of the fourth to 6th income deciles.
Next slide, please. So. This chart here shows two different
options for setting the affordability threshold. The bolded numbers in
the bottom row shows the affordable rents that the program
will require. These align again with the province's affordable rates
for Collingwood for the purposes of DC exemptions. And we
wanted to align our program here so that applicants could
take advantage of the funding. From the town's program, so
the capital grants we have available. And they could take
advantage of the DC exemptions that the province is already
providing. So. This really allows for that stack ability that
we were hoping for. The top column shows the CMHC
average market rental data for Collingwood. It's a lot more
common for other programs to be more aligned with CMHC
AMR data. However, we wanted to go with the province's
numbers again to ensure stackability. But as you can see,
the affordable rates between the two different options are quite
similar. The program also includes some additional flexibility to revert
to the CMHC AMR metric if the province ceases the
production of the bulletin or changes the definition of affordability
that no longer aligns with our priorities. Now, it's challenging
to directly compare these. Numbers with our numbers in the
affordable housing master plan, as those numbers are not categorized
across unit type. They are categorized across income decile. However.
We've compared the numbers. And they do align well. The
range. The affordable range for our master plan is about
1100 to 1700, so it's all within. It's captured within
those provincial numbers as well. Next slide, please. Now, in
addition to affordability, there are several other requirements that projects
must meet under our proposed program. First of all, they
must be located in Collingwood. They must be new construction
resulting in net new affordable units. They must be on
lands owned by the applicant or affiliated with the applicant.
They can include mixed use or mixed income buildings. And
projects that are shovel ready or near shovel ready will
be scored higher on our evaluation matrix. To ensure we
can unlock units quicker. Next slide, please. Now, once funding
agreements are in place, council would direct staff to enter
into municipal housing project agreements. Which include the following items.
So the number of housing units to be provided, the
level of affordability the term of the agreement household eligibility
for the units, financial assistance being provided by the town
to the provider, conditions for any future sale of the
property, annual reporting requirements, consequences, and enforcement. If the agreement.
Is breached. And then, of course, the agreement would be
registered on title. Next slide, please. The pilot program is
proposed to be administered through an annual call for applications
with an opportunity to extend that window or create additional
intake windows. Depending on program uptake, applications will be reviewed
against an evaluation matrix by a predetermined evaluation committee. Once
applications are recommended for funding, a staff report would go
to council with that recommendation and council will ultimately decide
on the funding and then. If the funding is approved,
they would enact a site specific bylaw for that project
and direct staff to enter into a municipal housing project
facility. Agreement with the applicant. Agreements would include all the
terms and conditions tied to the funding, several of which
I've already mentioned, and then the agreement would be registered
on title. Next slide, please. So that should give you
an overview of the program. We've designed and that we're
proposing today. But we did want to acknowledge some of
the limitations we are up against. The average per unit
incentive amount in most programs across the province is about
$200,000. Per unit. With a reserve fund of $1.5 million.
Using the $200,000 average we're looking at maybe seven units.
However, we do have that additional ARU stream, which will
incent more units at a lower incentive amount. So you
could see more through that program as well. The program
has also been designed to only use a maximum of
90% of the reserve fund. So that's about 1.3 million
for 2026 as. To not deplete the reserve fund in
its entirety. Now, once that maximum is reached, and without
funding from other orders of government, the town would effectively
be starting from scratch after year one of the pilot
program. So in terms of long term consistency, and sustainability
of the program. That's something to consider. Next slide, please.
Now following council direction from December 8 at the municipal
capital facility, by law has been revised to include the
potential for the sale or lease of municipality owned lands
prior to launching the incentive program. Staff would report back
to council on expanding that pilot program to include the
sale or lease of municipal lands. Specifically the lands at
the corner of high and Poplar. And this would be?
An additional incentive stream available through that program. And the
parameters for the disposition of these lands would align with
the existing criteria developed under the framework with minor adjustments
as appropriate, and through further discussion this evening. Next slide,
please. Given the limitations I've outlined, staff have prepared a
few options to counsel. The first is the recommended option,
which is to approve the MCFB and incentive pilot program
and direct staff to launch the pilot program in 2026
but also report back on the town. Land divestment options.
The second option is to approve the MCFB and incentive
pilot program in principal, but direct staff to hold on
launching the program until more funds are available. And the
third is to direct staff to explore alternative uses for
the reserve fund, including investigating opportunities with the county of
Simcoe. These options are aimed at balancing the recommendations from
the master plan. And the overall intent of the reserve
fund, which is to incent the creation of units. But
also with the current realities of the level of funding
and the required funding to achieve affordability next slide, please.
So, pending council directions, staff would begin action on any
of the recommendations selected. And should council proceed with option
one? We would look into developing a program for education
and promotion, which may include. Public information sessions, press releases,
social media posts, targeted engagement with the development community to
ensure we're seeing the level of uptake in our program
that we're hoping for. So that concludes my presentation. And
I'd be happy to take any questions. Thank you, coordinator
D. Souza. I'll look to the gallery. Nobody there. Nobody
online. Okay. All right. I will read in the recommendation.
Just bear with me here. It's kind of long. That
staff report, p. 2025. 30 municipal capital. Facility bylaw and
affordable housing incentive pilot program dated December 15, 2025, be
received and that council approve and enact the municipal capital
facility bylaw. In accordance with section one 10 of the
Municipal Act. 2001, as amended, and that council approved Collingwood
Housing Incentive pilot program policy and direct staff to work
toward launching the pilot program. As soon as practical, including
preparation of any remaining supporting materials as required. And that
prior to launching the pilot program, staff be directed to
report back to council on options. And parameters for the
sale or lease of town owned lands through the MCFB
incentive framework and provide recommendations on policy amendments necessary to
expand the pilot program to. Consider the disposition of the
municipal lands at the corner of Poplar side Road and
High Street. For affordable, affordable housing. And that council authorizes
the director of growth in development and or the treasurer
to approve and execute funding agreements along with such further
ancillary documents necessary to implement the pilot program on financial
terms satisfactory to the town treasure. Treasurer and on legal
terms satisfactory to the town solicitor. Can I have a
mover? Councilor Dougherty, seconded by deputy mayor Friar, and I'll
put it on the floor for questions or comments. I'll
get you. Vice chair, bains thank you. No, I was
just thinking that would have been great if it doesn't
matter. I know. Anyway. If I may, through you two,
coordinator de Sousa. Absolutely. I'm assuming from all this that
we take it as a given that before the feds
or the province would gift us with half a million
bucks or a million bucks or something. Like that, we
would need either a CIP or an MCFB in place.
Certainly the. Mfcb. Before the money could come. Is that
correct? Through the chair. Yeah. I guess you don't need
an MCFB in place to get federal funding for housing.
Necessarily. I think it helps. So I think the way
that, for example, the Housing Accelerator fund program was designed
was based on. Your action plan for achieving affordable units.
And part of our action plan was this, to show
that we are ready to provide that financial support. To
applicants. And, hey, it would be great if we had
some funds to help us do that. So it certainly
helps, but it wasn't necessarily necessary for those applications. Great.
Thank you. And a follow up, if I may. Does
either a ch I p p. Or. I suppose a
cip. Require either its own board of directors or staff
going forward. Will we need that, particularly if we receive
a million bucks or so in gutter dispensers. Will we
require that sort? Of support and staff resources. Through the
chair? Not at this time. Especially the pilot program. It's
really staff led, so. We'll have an evaluation committee. To
evaluate the applications. But the program at this stage has
been designed under the assumption that myself and director Valentine
are the only staff resources. If we received a bunch
of money and wanted to expand that pilot program to
look something differently. I think we'd have to explore that
at that time. Deputy mayor Friar thank you, chair Perry.
And I got a comment, and then I do have
a question. But firstly, I would say I fully agree
with your coordinator, Desos. Statement that all orders of government
need to be involved. Regarding the high street property. It
only makes sense to study the possibilities that can work
in conjunction. With the MCF bylaw, so supportive of its
inclusion is outlined. Also fully supportive of an affordable housing
incentive pilot program because. We have had generous support put
forward by the Welton family. The sunvale homes. The Cuthbert
State and the Johnson family and those have been monetary
basis. And staff's proposing to utilize the funds through the
incentive pilot. The outcome of that pilot will provide council
and staff with a strong indication of how to move.
Forward on a more permanent basis. Regarding the $400,000 annual
tax levy, most of which moves into the reserve, I
would submit that this is how council is chosen to
show that our local work is a partnership with the
contributors, both the monetary ones that we mentioned and those
developers that choose to do something like roughed in accessory
uni. Units or apportioning some of their development. Towards affordable
units. In the scheme of things. Although our affordable housing
successes may appear to be minimal, To some. They aren't
to the families that are going to be housed. And
in the more favorable situation than they would have been
if we weren't putting these things forward. And perhaps it
wouldn't have any housing at all. So the question I
did have, because the high street property is being discussed
in other ways today. I think it's important that. We
note, nothing can happen with that property until the road
is completed in the development beside it. We don't have
a crystal ball, but we know it'll take some time
before. That can happen. But you have the opportunity to
explore the options with what you're putting forward with the
MCF. I just wanted to clarify. That. If I could,
through you just explain about the fact that it's going
to take accessibility. Before that property can be developed. Through
the chair to the deputy mayor. You're exactly right. The
property. Is hopefully going to be more development ready soon
with the adjacent summit view phase three subdivision receiving approvals
in July. Which gets it one step closer. To construction
eventually. We don't know when that will be, given current
market conditions. So as the lands are right now. They're
not necessarily ready to be built out yet. But the
idea is that through the municipal capital facility, by law,
we could add an incentive stream. To dispose of those
lands, to set an organization up for the future development
of that site, but. We would acknowledge that that site
isn't shovel ready. Who knows how long I don't have
a crystal ball. Councilor Jeffrey thank you very much, Mr.
Chair. Soldier to coordinator to Susa. I think the stars
have aligned for us in affordable housing. I think we
have the right staff, the right council. The right affordable
housing committee, and we're really doing some outstanding things here.
So I really. love this report My only question is
it always comes up with these incentivized programs with limited
years. If, say, in the case of the region of
Peel, we did 172 units and they all come. Up.
Into fair market. At the end of 25 years, what
is the strategy? Or is there one through this that
helps? US bridge so that we don't have that. Drop
in units. Yeah, through the chair to Councilor Jeffrey. That's
a really good question. And. I don't think I know
what the strategy is, but. It is something. I've, through
my research, have seen is that almost every incentive program.
Has that 25 year term. CMHC also has that same
25 year term, so it's a really interesting conundrum because.
Incentivizing units. We've done a lot on a federal level
across the last few years. So those 25 year terms
could all be coming up around the same time. And
then municipalities and other orders of government are faced with
what happens after that. So I'm not sure if Director
Valentine has any other thoughts. But yeah. Dr. Valentine, thank
you, chair, and fully agree with coordinator Jacob's comments. And
if we had tens of millions of dollars to play
with. We would continue this program year after year. And
then, therefore, would stagger those 25 year renewals. I think
part of. The important consideration is that nonprofits tend to
be the most likely type of organization that would go
beyond those 25 years, or potentially even in perpetuity. And
as coordinator D'Souza mentioned, it would be our recommendation that.
In the evaluation matrix for this funding, that nonprofits would
score higher than for profit. So we're doing the best
with the tools we have to try to maximize or
partner. With developers that may be looking to longer term
affordability, and we can always keep our fingers and toes
crossed. That will come up positive with the feds or
the province at some point. In the near future and
be able to offer this program for multiple years. No,
just thank you very much for that. I think the
work is great, and I just hope we always have
our thinking caps on in terms of maybe spreading out
our investments in ways that maybe they don't all come
up at once. Thank you. Any other bear, Hamlin. Yeah,
I'll just also add my thanks. What a bleer. Wonderfully
delivered program with lots of thought gone into it. So,
really, thank you to everybody who's been involved in this.
It's good work. And really, the only thing I wanted
to add was. Hopefully we're going to have so many
applicants. And. It would be helpful to have the whole
list that you think are worthwhile. Available, even though you're
going to pick a few. Because with that list, it's
such a good piece of paper, if I can call
it. That to go to where we think funding could
be available. And I'm happy to help. But say, look,
we could be building another 100 units if we had.
Right, so I think that's really good. I was a
bit worried we'd be. Oversubscribed when you were talking about
this, and I thought, no, that's a. Good thing. Very
good thing. Okay. So anyway, thank you. Councilor Dougherty. Thank
you. And terrific report. I'm so excited about this initiative,
and in the scheme of things, we've brought this forward
pretty quickly. Since our affordable housing task force was created.
So what was that, three years ago, four years ago?
So not bad. I did have a couple of questions,
and one of them is. So if we establish. What
the affordable rate is. In order to qualify for the
incentive. Do we put stipulations in place as to the
annual? The maximum annual. Rent increase. Through the chair to
Councilor Dougherty. Great question, and yes. So we can. Include
stipulations around rent increases. In the agreements. I don't think
we would expect. Housing providers to freeze the rents for
25 years. So. We would base. The sort of incremental
rent increase year over year. With whatever the provinces are
at for I think buildings constructed pre 2018. I think
that has been a recent change, but yes. We could
include those stipulations in the agreement to ensure that those
rents can go up, at least nominally. Follow. Just two
more questions. The second one. Is. Can we or could
we? Accept. Private contributions to the fund. And issue tax
receipts. Because of the nature of. Our bylaw. That might
be a question for Treasurer Parker. Graham. Sorry. I did
it again. So many Jennifers. There's a lot of us.
That's quite okay. Thank you. Thank you. Chair through you
to canceller Doherty. Yes, we can issue charitable tax receipts
for funds. Used for that purpose that we received. Thank
you. That's huge. If we can do that. And then
my final question is. Because I know that this was
a situation that was a real conundrum in the city.
Of Berry. But. What control do we have in place?
So if we say you must have household income, maximum
of $80,000 per year. But suddenly, all of a sudden.
Not all of a sudden, but in some time shortly
thereafter. That same tenant gets a big pay increase or
changes jobs, and all of a sudden they're. Making $100,000
a year. What do we do then? Through the chair.
Another great question. And. The way the wording is in
the bylaw right now is that. Housing providers must verify
tenant income at initial occupancy and then anytime the unit
is turned over, so anytime. A new tenant has access
to unit, but also in the annual reporting requirements. Housing
provider is reporting that. Their units are still meeting all
of the terms and conditions of the agreement, which includes
household. Income levels, so. We're not necessarily. I don't think
we necessarily are allowed to request that tenant. Income is
verified every single year. But. We certainly are requesting it
at unit turnover and at initial occupancy, and then through
annual reporting, the applicant or housing provider is agreeing that
they are meeting the terms of the agreement. Still. Great.
Okay. Thank you. Good work. Premier Halen. Yeah, I'll just
weigh in to say I don't think that. Would be
grounds for terminating a tenancy that the tenant is earning
too much. But I just want to throw that in
there. But also, I think at the county we've. Had
this discussion, and I think the head of the county's
housing authority says that once people are earning more income
than what would be the reason they got in the
housing they usually like to upgrade their housing, so they
haven't found that to be a problem. Over time if
people's income go up. Any other questions? Comments? I'd like
to echo everybody. This fantastic report. Thank you very much.
I'd venture to say you're probably going to be an
envy of a lot. Of municipalities, so be prepared to
be emailed and your brains picked. Anyhow. I will put
the recommendation on the floor. For a vote. All those
in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank you, coordinator to Susan.
Director Valentine. Okay. On to item 15.2.2. T 2025 21
development charges bylaw amendment for seasonal structures Treasurer Graham. Thank
you, Chair Perry. You're welcome. This report responds to direction
staff received from council at the November 17 meeting, where
staff were asked to review the financial, legal and policy
implications of amending the TAN's development charges bylaw to establish
an exemption for qualifying, temporary or seasonal structures. This request
was brought forward in response to the Georgian Bay Rackets
Initiative, a volunteer based group proposing a seasonal, air supported
dome over existing permitted outdoor tennis courts under the Tan's
current development charges bylaw. There is no exemption for temporary
or seasonal structures. Any structure that requires a. Building permit,
including temporary structures, is subject to development charges based on
type, use and gross floor area. For nonresidential development such
as this. The current rate is $326.17 per square meter.
From a land use and servicing perspective, the site in
question is already permitted and historically used for outdoor tennis.
The dome would be erected over existing courts. No new
municipal water wastewater connections are proposed and washroom needs would
be met through portable facilities. Functionally, this proposal enables yearand
use of an existing recreational facility rather than creating a
more intensive or permanently service use. Staff reviewed development charges
bylaws across Simpco. County and include at the town of
Blue Mountains as they are direct neighbor and other municipalities.
And his findings are detailed in the appendix. While several
municipalities provide exemptions for temporary structures. They are generally based
on a continuous duration, such as structures remaining in place
no longer than six to twelve months. None of the
comparator bylaws explicitly addressed recurring seasonal air supported domes that
are erected. And removed annually and put back the following
year. This creates a degree of amphuite and without clear
wording, interpretation could ultimately be determined. By the Ontario Land
Tribunal staff have us legal cancel to review OLt hearings
for similar cases. And are waiting to hear back. One
notable exception is the city of Burlington, which explicitly defines
an exempt seasonal ar supported structures in its DC bylaw.
This provides a clear and defensible model. Shall cancel. Wish
to proceed. From a financial perspective, exempting a seasonal dome
would result in foregone DC revenue that otherwise would have
been collect. Collected. Out. Permit issuance. However, as mentioned, the
dome does not create new servicing capacity demands. It covers
an existing permitted recreational use and in aligns with the
Tan's community based strategic plan objective to promote healthy and
active living. Should council direct staff to proceed? The legislative
steps to amend the DC bylaw would include preparing a
draft amended bylaw limited to adding a new discretionary exemption.
Completing the legal review mentioned before for clarity and compliance.
Confirming whether a public meeting is required and is anticipated
that it would not be with the changes that have
been made to the DC act, bringing the bylaw to
council for passage and approval. Providing notice of passage and
completing the legislative appeal period. As the impact of the
change to the bylaw is actually, in essence, reducing dcs
a full background study is not required through legislation. Staff
would propose to retain Hempson Consulting, who prepared the current
bylaw and background study. To assist with drafting the amendment
and supporting analysis. The estimated cost is a ceiling of
$5,000 which would be fully funded from the development charge
administration category with no impact on the tax levy council
has. Two options. The first is to direct staff to
proceed with a narrowly scoped DC bylaw. Amendment to exempt
qualifying temporary or seasonal structures, including. Air supported Dome or
to maintain the current DC bylaw with no exemption. Staff
are in the staff report are recommending option one. If
council supports this direction, staff will return with the draft
bylaw in January and supporting materials in accordance with legislative
timelines. Thank you. Thanks, Treasurer Graham. So I'll look to
the gallery. No. Online clerk no. Okay. I will read
in the recommendation that staff report t 2025 21 development
charges bylaw amendment for seasonal structures be received and that
council directs staff to proceed with preparing an amending bylaw
to establish a DC exemption for qualifying temporary or seasonal
structures. Including seasonal air supported domes. Can I have a
mover? Councilor McCulloch seconded. Mayor hamlin. And any questions or
comments. Vice chair, Baines. Thank you. Chair through you to
the treasure. This is not to say that anybody coming
forward with an application like this in the future, they
would still pay development charges. On essentially the cement pad
for the tennis courts themselves. What they wouldn't pay is
going forward a development charge on the temporary structure of
the bubble, correct? I should ask Director Valentine. Director Valentine.
Apologies. Chair, could you please repeat the question? An applicant
coming forward in the future to build one. Would not
pay a development chart or would pay a development charge
on the cement pad upon which the bubble would sit,
but they would not pay a development charge on the
bubble itself. That's a trick question. No, it's not. They
have to pay something for the development of the property
to put the tennis court or whatever. It is in
cement. Treasure. Graham. I'd like to return with my answer
to that. If that development of the tennis court required
a billing permit, then absolutely the DCs would be applicable.
I just would like to confirm with the CBO or
chief building officer if a billing permit would be issued
for that. I can't say that I know the answer
to that. With certainty. Okay. But I would be happy
to find out for you. Thank you. Trick question? No,
I just don't know. No, but as soon as you
asked it, I. Thought. Oh, that's going to be a
tough one. Well, I will wait to hear the response,
Councilor ring. Thank you, chair. Through you two to the
treasurer. And then. You've answered, I guess, for the best
of your knowledge on that right now, would you? Not
think that the initial cost, I guess there'd be DC
charge, but I guess that would only depend on whether
there was a building permit granted. I'm saying the original
cost to install it the first time would be a
DC char. Charge. And what they're looking for is exemption
from every other year after that, because I think without
the bylaw amendment. Every time. The way our bylaw reads
now, every time they want to put that back up.
They're going to be charged. DC charged treasure Graham. Well,
I do know the answer to this? Because I did
speak with the CBO. So the way our bylaw reads
now is when there's a demolition permit issued on a
property within five years. The DC is exempt. For no
more than what the demolition credit would be. Meaning? We
can't go into credit. And owe developers money. So the
way this would work, if we were to charge development
charges, the first time they erected the seasonal dome when
they took it down. The CBO would issue a demolition
permit and then. When they were to erect it again
the following year, the demolition credit that they would have
received. Would cancel any further DC charges. So in essence,
they would just be paying the one time at the
first time the dome was erected. Follow up. Just a
comment because I thought when the presentation was made to
us by the original, presenter. That was his beef, was
that it was going to cost him $250,000 in dcs.
Because every year he's going to have to pay the
dcs and that's. What he was getting. I thought that's
what he was getting the exemption for, but. I could
have been wrong. Deputy mayor. Megan. Okay, mayor hamlin.
Yeah, just to clarify. Staff will correct me if I'm
wrong. I'm sure. But I think. What's? Before us. Is
an exemption from development charges for one of. These bubbles.
I'll call them so that the applicant would never pay.
Development charges. If they were bringing one of these structures
forward. As it would be defined by bylaw, which I
take. It's why it's going to cost us some money
to make sure we get a good definition. So it
isn't too broadly interpreted. Thank you, deputy mayor. And that's
what I was recollecting. I thought that that's the way
it was going to work out. I really appreciate the
report from Treasure Graham. And I'm supportive of the recommendation.
I do have guarded concerns. And we have a question.
You've put forward. This is community, the whole so we
can get the answer for when we're dealing it with
it in council. Because I'm concerned about. Untended precedent. But
the report says. Staff is going to work closely with
legal to try to put the clear wording in place.
And I think. That's certainly the basis that I'm putting
my support forward on. And then when we see things
come back. We'll be able to discern that a little
bit better. Right. Thank you, Councilor McCullough. Thank you, chair.
Yeah. I think it's become clear what it is that's
being approved. And I think from my perspective, it was
important to understand that this is not triggering expenses for
the town. It's using existing services on an existing use
on a property that's zoned appropriately for this use, and
it's contributing a community rec facility which effectively takes that
potential future need off the town's book. Books. There's no
ongoing costs, and it satisfies a demonstrated need within the
town. So I think it's a win win. Thank you.
Any other comments, questions? So I'll put the recommendation to
the vote. All those in favor? And that's unanimous. Okay,
onto item 15. Oh, I need a motion to extend
for another hour. Can I have a mover, councilor? McCullough.
Seconded. Councilor Dougherty. All those in favor? And that's unanimous.
Okay, item 15.2.3. T 2025 22 amendment to the council
Community grant policy and Treasurer Graham, it's yours. Again. Thank
you, chair Perry. This report brings forward a revised council
community grant and in kind support. Policy for council's consideration.
The purpose of the policy is to provide a clear
and structured. Framework that allows council to consider funding request
consistently, fairly, and transparently, while continuing to support the many
community organizations and volunteers who enhance life in colleenwed. The
town recognizes and greatly values the contributions of volunteers, community
organizations, and local agencies that deliver programs and services. Benef.
Benefiting our residents. Providing grants or inkind support reflects council's
commitment to partnering with these groups while also recognizing that
the town has financial constraints that limit its ability to
deliver all of these services directly. Each year as part
of the annual budget process, cancel allocates a defined amount
of funding for this purpose. Staff were asked to develop
and refine a policy that helps cancel allocate those funds.
In a way that is fair, predictable and aligned with
cancel's priorities. Historically before this policy funding request came to
cancel at different times throughout the year and through various
channels, including deputations. Over the past few years, the Tan
and council have moved towards a more streamlined and structured
process, and this revised policy builds on that progress. The
updates reflect and they're included in the appendix and highlighted
what the changes that staff are proposing for council to
consider. It reflects feedback from prior years input that from
a 2025 council survey and best practices used by other
municipalities. The recommendations updates focus on clarity, equity, and accountability
in particular. First. A maximum award limit is being introduced
for cancel to consider no more than 10,000 in funding
and or 10,000 in inkind support per applicant. This helps
ensures. Equitable distribution of limited resources and sets clear expectations
for applicants from the beginning. Second, the policy introduces a
restriction on additional funding requests for the same program within
the same fiscal year. Once the funding is awarded, recipients
may not return through deputations and request more funding. For
the same initiative. This would help promote fairness of predictability.
Third, the organizational existence requirement has been removed. To broaden
eligibility and allows newer or less formal community groups to
apply while still maintaining accountability through the application and review
process. And finally, the policy a stronger language to clarify
that the funding may not be used for general operating
costs such as salaries. And other operating cost. Requests must
be tied to specific projects, initiatives, or programs that deliver
a clear community benefit. I'm happy to answer any questions
that you may have and. If there's other additional amendments
that you would like to see, I'm happy to. Take
that into the feedback and return with a revised policy.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Look to the gallery. No
online. Thank you, clerk. So I will read in the
recommendation that staff report 20 25 22 amendment to the
council community grant policy be received and that council hereby
adopts the amendments to the council community grant. Policy. As
detailed in appendix a. Can I have a mover? Councilor
Doherty seconded. Councilor jeffrey. And councilor Potts. Thanks, chair Perry.
Just very brief. I fully support. This. I think the
one thing that I'm quite satisfied with is the maximum
award limit. I know it gets a little bit challenging,
and this really puts some kind of guardrails on limits,
and I think. It offers more of. I guess a
fair process across the board. As far as for anybody
that's applying for the funding. It may provide more opportunity
for more organizations to get funding than taking up the
pot of what's there. So I'm in full support of
this and I'm quite happy. With. These changes. So those
are just my comments. Councilor ring. Thank you very much,
chair Perry through. You two. Treasurer Graham. The II him
in favor of all the amendments. But I have a
question. With just the one that. Was taken out. What
was the rationale? For taking off the minimum of one
year an organization has to be before. That makes them
eligible. There's your Graham. Thank you. Chair, Perry. Through you
to camp. Fliring the rationale. Was to open it up
for more organizations to apply. Again, it was a suggestion.
If we want to reinstate it, that's okay too, but.
The rationale was. Trying to not limit it to being
in existence for more than one year. Yeah. Thank you
very much, and I appreciate that. It's not that big
a deal. I just wondered what the rationale was. I
would have thought that maybe an organization should have been
around at least a year before we start giving grants.
But if that's the will of everybody else, and I
will support it. The other question, Mayor Hamlin. Thank you.
I'm in support of this. I just have a question.
One of the issues we seem to have run into
last year is. The particular group would have applied for
a certain amount. And we were trying to divide it
up fairly, and so they didn't get enough funds. To
deliver the program they were seeking money for. And I'm
wondering if this year. In the application process. There can
be more information on that provided to council. Thank you.
Director graham. Thank you, Chair Perry. I agree. That was
a challenge last year and part of the reason why.
Staff and through council feedback that we received through the
survey. To recommend a maximum limit of 10,000 is to
clearly state at the very beginning that that is the
most that they can do. I don't believe the intent
is to fully fund any initiative, it's to contribute. Toward
a special project that a community group is doing. And,
in fact, the application that we have right now is
meant to show other funding sources. I don't think it
does say already in the policy that it's not meant.
To be fully funded from the town of Collingwood and
having that guardrail of the maximum amount. I think would
temper expectations. From applicants to know that that would be
the most that they could potentially receive. Okay. Thank you.
Councilor ring. No, just another quick question on the maximum.
The maximum can be 20,000, can it not? Be 20,000
total. Treasurer Graham. You're actually correct with the
way that it's written with the and or I believe
it should be or, and the and should be removed.
That's an excellent catch. Thank you very much. That was
the attend. I was going to make an amendment because
the way I read it, they could have up to
20,000. No, that's an excellent catch. Thank you okay? I
do read some of the reports. Councilor Potts. Thanks again,
chair Perry. And just talking about. The maximum limit through
you to the treasurer. Is there any way that. They
could put on almost. A minimum. Maximum, so. Basically because
I think sometimes. With the best intentions of council to
provide money to be able to help them out. Not
going to use the word insult, but if somebody asked
for $5,000 and they get 300. I think it's a
waste of time and resources and finances. So I think
I look at. Is there kind of an expectation of
what they're, here's the maximum. But is there an expectation
of what? At least, the very least a minimum. I
don't know if it makes any sense, but just to
kind of, because if I'm looking at it, I'm going
well, I'm trying to spread the wealth to ensure that
all these organizations are looked after. I would want to
hope that I wouldn't be kind of. I want them
to feel like they're worth something as well, instead of
getting a minuscule amount. Treasurer Graham. Thank you, Chair Perry.
I think that's an excellent idea. We absolutely could update
the application form. To. Include that in it. We would
put the maximum you are applying for, noting that you
may not receive at all what? Is the minimum. That
you would accept, I suppose. Really? To be able to
use this funding. So, yes, we can update the application
to include that. Councilor jeffrey. So. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So, further to councilor Ring's question, I was having a
problem with Yandor because. I thought maybe we were trying
to find a way. I'm assuming people can still do
a combination like 5000 in kind and 5000 cash, and
that really wasn't clarified in there. So I'd like to
think it was up to a maximum of ten. Thousand.
Distributed however they want, between if they want. Treasure Graham.
Thank you, chair Perry. Absolutely. So we'll just make sure
that that wording. Is more explicit that it's 10,000 is
a maximum. A combination of inkind. Or financial support. So.
Just one sec. Just so I'm clear that. We're not
making an amendment for any of this. It's going to
be or 10,000, like it's one one or the. Other,
right? Well, no. I know. It could be five. Thousand
grant and 5000 in kind, but it's going to be
a total of 10,000 total of 10,000. Okay. All right.
Vice chair, bains. Thank you. Chair. Just to follow up
to councilor Potts question. It's sort of like in the
application that staff might be asking the applicants something to.
The tune that if, in the event you are unsuccessful
at getting the choose a number. $5,000 you're requesting. I
know what the answer would be. Are you confident? You
can deliver. Oh, gee, I'm thinking out loud here. The
program that you are promising to deliver for the lesser
amount of money. I have to think this through. Sorry.
Yeah, for another time. So there's a minute and a
half I'm not getting back.
Councilor Potts kind of took the words right out of
my mouth when I saw the maximum. And I didn't
read it as clearly as councilor ring, but when I
saw a maximum there. I was quite pleased to see
that. And looking at it in the bottom end. It'd
be nice. It's nice to have a minimum, too, because
I know when I was filling out the form last
year, there was one that I can't remember the figure,
but it was almost. Like councilor Pott said, it was
almost an insult. And I find every year we're getting
better and better at this. I know. The first year
we didn't have anything. And it was a bit of
a nightmare. We're getting it better and better. I know
I can probably speak for most people at this table
that it's a stressful time of year doing these grants
because you're trying to make everybody happy. And the more
guidance we get from up above, the better. Anyhow, those
are my comments. So I'll put the recommendation on the
floor. All those in favor? And that's unanimous. Okay, thank
you. Thank you, Treasurer Graham. And that's with the correction
of the and or. Yeah, I just wanted to make
sure we weren't going to do an amendment on that.
We'll correct it in the. Right. Okay. Thank you. Be
corrected in the amended section when it comes to council.
Perfect. Okay. Thank you. Deputations unregistered. Okay. No deputations, reports,
minutes of other committees are boards. The recommendation is that
the following minutes of other committees and boards be received
and the recommendations contain therein be approved. Calling with public
Library Board October 23, 2025. The trail is an active
transportation advisory committee. November 13, 2025. And the Collingwood Public
Library Board November 27. 2025. Can I have a mover?
Councilor McCulloch seconded. Deputy Mayor Friar. All those in favor?
And that's unanimous. Thank you. Old or deferred business. Councilor
Potts. Okay, all right. Other business. Older, deferred. Oh, no,
I just did that. Sorry. Other business. Councilor Potts, this
will be very brief, and it'll be something that I
would. Like to bring forward in the new year. I
just thought maybe if I dropped it now and. It
would give staff some time, but I would like to
look at the potential of bringing back the shipyard whistle
to the town of Collingwood so that we could have.
Something to. Bring us back quite a few years ago,
and I know that I've seen a documentary. On tv
last night after the one about Collingwood, that there are
still some municipalities that do that. And whether it was
set up somehow, but I would like to just put
it there to see. If there was any appetite to
bring that back. West. Councilor McCullough. This isn't. A terribly
serious comment, but I did say to someone over the
weekend it would be nice if we had an air
raid siren so that we could notify the entire town
all at once. Of something like a water leak. So
maybe the whistle would do that job. Councilor ring. I
think it's a great idea and. I certainly support it.
I'm just wondering, do you know where it is? Or
just get one. Not sure we're supposed to be chatting
about it. Or can we? Why? Okay. No, that's fine.
Go ahead. Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.
I think my point was, I don't think you'd be
looking for the exact. One. And if it was, my
vision would be something. Whether through the museum. It wouldn't
have to be three times a day or two times
a day, because the tremont is not there to go
to anymore, but back in the day. But I think
it would be something that would be really bring back
the history of the shipyard, especially with the naming. Of
the park. With the shipyard. The dry dock junction and
just the whole history piece, I think, would be something
that would be. Extremely valuable. And historical to Collingwood. So
I wanted to kind of. Drop actually, after the documentary
last night and seen that there are many policies to
do that. I want to bring something forward in the
new year, but allow staff some time. And. To maybe
potentially come up with how we can move forward on
that. Yeah, very interesting. Councilor ring. Sorry, I didn't mean
to cut you off that's. Okay. Just one quick comment.
The first time they heard that whistle going, I'll tell
you, all the old guys would be on their bicycles.
But their lunch. Palestinian. Back to the shipyard. Deputy mayor.
I thought about a couple of things in regards to
budget, and I just want to mention them. Here. And
ask. I wanted to ask through you, if I could,
to treasure Graham. We have the special capital levy charge,
and we have the capital charge now. And we have
the capital charge. Split out. Originally, the special capital levy
was introduced because we didn't have that split out. Is
there any reason in your mind why those two. Couldn't
be brought together. Into one. Spot instead of having two
spots. And just asking that. And if there is, then
I'll bring that forward at budget time. To combine those
two. But there may be reasons why you would like
to have those two splits. So I won't ask that
if I could. Thank you, chair Perry. It was actually
a council direction in the 2025 budget to split it.
Out to show the history of the special capital. Levy
was meant to close the funding gap and the general
capital levy was meant to highlight the amount that we
were at the town was contributing. Annually to our regular
capital program. I'm in favor of having one capital levy.
I think it's clear that we have a lot of
work to do to close. Our capital. Deficit that we're
in, and it probably would make a lot of sense
to residents if it was just called capital Levy and
didn't have the word special in front of it. Unfortunately,
we're going to be able to close our gap. Soon
without. Significant help from the other levels of government, so
I would be in favor of having just one. Capital
levy. Thank you. Thanks. And I was just thinking back
to when we originally created the special. Capital levy. It
was because we wanted to show that we were starting
to put effort into increases. But it was because the
rest. Of the capital levy was combined in the municipal
levy, so now we've got that out. As treasurer, Graham
said, we decided to split those out. For this year.
I'm going to bring that forward. And the last thing
I'll just mention is I was hoping that we could
get an outline. On the dollar impact for the water
and wastewater changes. When we are talking about budget and
finalization. Okay. Thank you. Councilor Dougherty. Sorry, sale.
Thank you. I just thought the deputy mayor was talking
about budget finalization. And I think that, well, there would
be the mayor's budget. Put forward. And then I guess
we'll have to have some discussion about if that would
come up. As another agenda item. Would. Okay. Council can
make an amendment to it can make an amendment at
that time. So there would be that amendment process. Available
for these questions, or we could follow up thereafter. Treasurer
Graham. Just to add just a little bit more information
to the CAO's comments. The mayor's budget when it's stable
doesn't have to be tabled. At a council meeting. I
think the intention is to. And I could be misspeaking
is. To have it tabled this week. Once that's tabled,
there still is 30 days. To make any amendment. So
if there are further conversations, there still will be. Opportunity
for cancel to have an opportunity. Okay. Thank you. Councilor
Dougherty, you had an Amo update. Do you want to
give us or not? Well, I did. But I want
to give you. The super short version because I feel
like. We've mentioned Amo a number of times this evening,
and some of the work that is ongoing right now.
But I will say. At our last board of directors
meeting for 2025. The focus. Was obviously on. Producer responsibility.
For recycling and all of the issues that have emerged.
And so that was very high on the discussion and
priority list. To deal with. Healthy democracy. Project. Is also
front and center right now. As we head into municipal
elections in Ontario. We tabled a budget. Our new CEO
presented strat plan for 2026. And there was also some
discussion about omers and changes that are underfoot there as
a result of governance review. And this also is a
priority. For amo because, of course, Omar's as a pension
fund also offers great incentives. To join the municipal sector.
Joel. If you want any details, ask me. Lair. Wonderful.
Thank you. Councilor Baines. Did you remember what you wanted
to say yet? No. I've forgotten already. Okay. Any notice
of motions? No. All right, so item 15.8.1. Rise from
committee of the whole. The recommendation is that council hearing.
Rise from committee of the whole. And return to the
regular council meeting. Can I have a mover? Councilor Pott?
Seconded. Councilor, ring all those in favor? And that's unanimous.
Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Thank you. Palas bylaw is the
following that bylaw number 2025. 88 being a bylaw to
confirm the proceedings. Of the meet. Oh, my goodness. That's
a regular meeting of council held December 15, 2025. Be
enacted in past this 19th day of December, 2025. Move
on a second. She says, barely gasping. Councilor Paynes and
councilor pots, all those in favor? Deputy mayor, you can
do the adjournment. Okay, all those in favor?
Okay, we got it. Thanks, guys. Have a merry Christmas.