[8:28] Hello, council. I'll call to call to order our meeting
[8:31] of Monday, December the 15th and. We're going to start
[8:34] by standing for the playing of our national anthem.
[9:42] Councilor Potts going to read the land acknowledgment this afternoon.
[9:51] For more than 15,000 years, the first nations walked upon
[9:54] and cared for the lands we now call home. And
[9:56] if schnawk, hardenishanivaway and many others who are families, friends
[10:01] and communities the way we are today. The town of
[10:04] Columbia Technologies, the Lake Simcoe. Nadosaga Treaty of 1818 and
[10:08] the relationship it establishes for the original inhabit. Inhabitants of
[10:12] Turtle island, we acknowledge the reality of our shared history.
[10:16] And the current contributions of indigenous people within our community,
[10:19] we seek to continue empowering expressions of pride amongst all
[10:22] of the diverse stakeholders in this area. We seek to
[10:25] do better and to continue to recognize, learn and grow
[10:28] in friendship and community, nation to nation. Thank you. Before
[10:36] we get into the formal part of the agenda. I
[10:40] just wanted to speak for a few moments. And that
[10:43] our COO will add a few comments. More than I
[10:46] will about our water and our water issues over the
[10:50] weekend. As I'm sure you know now. I'm pleased to
[10:55] let everyone here and all of our residents and businesses
[10:59] know that the boil water advisory for all the effective
[11:03] areas in Collingwood has now been lifted. The Simple Muskoka
[11:07] District Health Unit has completed all required testing and is
[11:11] confirmed that our water is safe for normal use. Our
[11:16] water treatment plant is fully operational. I know this was
[11:20] so inconvenient and caused real concern, and I want to
[11:23] thank residents and businesses for their patients and cooperation. Protecting
[11:29] public health guided every decision throughout this response. I want
[11:34] to sincerely thank town staff, and I'll start by narrowing
[11:39] in on our department. Heads who participated in our emergency
[11:43] operations center. They had not only meetings throughout the weekend,
[11:47] but had an open chat line where they all could
[11:50] participate, ask questions. Share thoughts and what was happening on
[11:55] the ground 24/7. I was fortunate to be part of
[11:58] that, and I can tell you it was very active.
[12:02] And there was many staff members behind those department heads
[12:05] who were also working all weekend. So I want to
[12:08] start by thanking all of them. I want to thank
[12:11] Arnold Construction, who worked through the night, Friday night to
[12:14] locate that water main. Break. It was a tricky one.
[12:16] And get it repaired. And our partners at the Simcoe
[12:19] Muskoka. District health unit for their careful and timely work.
[12:24] And also, let's not forget the many community partners and
[12:27] volunteers who stepped up to support our residents and businesses.
[12:32] Collingwood is a community that looks out for one another,
[12:34] and I'm truly grateful for that. And on behalf of
[12:38] council and town staff, thank you, and I'll turn this
[12:42] over to Ocio Skinner. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. It was
[12:47] a team effort with the community and staff over the
[12:50] weekend. Some of us feel like it's Monday again. With
[12:54] the first Monday we worked Friday night. So the event
[12:59] did first start on Friday afternoon. We noticed that we
[13:02] had a water main break. There was water evident that
[13:05] the intersection of Pretty River Parkway Highway 26 in Hume
[13:09] street, initially the location wasn't clear, but. There's two large
[13:14] mains underground that area, and water was surfacing in large
[13:17] amounts. At three locations around the intersection, so we knew
[13:20] there was a significant problem. The positive pressure that the
[13:26] team kept in the pipes kept groundwater contamination from coming
[13:30] in. So. We were insured. That continued while we were
[13:34] locating the break. The break was so large, though. That
[13:38] we had an immediate drop in the system pressure and
[13:40] the water level in the water tower. Lowered significantly. And
[13:46] in response, the south area of town was affected as
[13:49] a Dave B reservoir tried to feed water into the
[13:52] downtown area. Residents and businesses in Summit View and mountain
[13:57] craft subdivisions experienced low water pressure and no water and
[14:01] similar to residents and businesses in the east end of
[14:04] Collingwood. Given that we used a lot of water. In
[14:09] addressing this, we deeply appreciate all the businesses and homeowners
[14:13] who minimize their use of water over Friday and Saturday,
[14:16] allowing our storage facilities to be refilled. The break in
[14:21] the areas with low pressure were reported to the health
[14:23] unit. The provincial spills action center. And others, and using
[14:27] appropriate caution around human health. As the mayor mentioned, the
[14:30] health unit issued the boil water advisory on Friday night.
[14:36] At that time, town staff thought it could take up
[14:39] to five days to rectify. So now that we're sitting
[14:44] here on Monday morning, With just two and a bit
[14:46] days. Monday afternoon, two and a bit days later, I
[14:50] think. That the folks who worked on this did it
[14:53] with lightning speed. We had to find the brake, fix
[14:57] it, flush the system, take tests across town. Take those
[15:01] water. Samples down to Mississauga. And bring them to the
[15:05] lab. And the testing takes about two days as the
[15:07] cultures need to grow before. The test. Lab attendants can
[15:14] provide their formal results. So with help from ice water
[15:20] springs, we were also able to hand out water starting
[15:23] Saturday morning. From several locations. And by Saturday, before dinner,
[15:28] there was an evidence based decision made by the health
[15:30] unit, supported by material from our staff announcing that we
[15:34] could substantially reduce the geographic area of the boil water
[15:37] advisory. And I give a lot of folks credit for
[15:40] that. It was appropriate to put it on the town.
[15:45] As a health unit did, and it was also appropriate,
[15:47] given the evidence, to reduce it as soon as practical.
[15:53] We often talk about asset management. And as town staff,
[15:59] we probably not as effectively as we should describe how
[16:03] the work helps us. Avoid immediate crises. With our infrastructure,
[16:08] we do monitor age and condition, as well as the
[16:11] risk demonstrated by brakes and other patterns. When our teams
[16:14] go out from water, wastewater and public works, for example.
[16:19] And we're making excellent strides in our asset management work
[16:23] as a municipality, council and staff. Have been supporting this
[16:27] over a number of years. You'll see some construction on
[16:31] Highway 26 on the blue mountain side of Collingwood where
[16:35] we are relining one water line so we can address
[16:38] some water breaks that were happening there in a smaller
[16:41] line. We have included in our 2026 budget funds for
[16:45] a dedicated assessment of. A large diameter transmission main that
[16:49] feeds the Davy reservoir. And new to comsus and we'll
[16:52] continue with these types of assessments as well as major
[16:56] upgrades. That are shown in our ten year capital plan.
[17:01] So some of the work that the town does is
[17:02] really visible, and you see it and you probably have
[17:05] heard it at this table over the last few meetings
[17:07] as council has talked about the items that we're addressing
[17:11] this year. We do have in any given year, about
[17:15] $100 million of capital work. Some of it is less
[17:18] visible, but it's essential to keep the town running. So
[17:22] we have our experts and our supporting consultants working on
[17:25] that and that making sure that infrastructure runs. It was
[17:28] demonstrated this weekend. How important that is to our residents,
[17:31] businesses and visitors. I wanted to thank you, our community
[17:35] as well, our staff and the many others who helped
[17:38] us. Get through this weekend of challenges. Thank you for
[17:42] allowing me to give that more technical part of the
[17:45] update there. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so we're going to
[17:50] move on to the adoption of the agenda. Item three.
[17:56] That the content of the council committee of the whole
[17:58] agenda for December 15, 2025 be adopted. As amended. Two
[18:02] amendments proposed addition of the memorandum for item 11.1, Simcoe
[18:07] county recycling changes and addition of staff report for item
[18:12] 14. Budget discussions continued. Could I have a mover? In
[18:15] a second, or, please. Councilor Bain seconded by councilor bots.
[18:18] Comments. All those in favor. And that's. Are you unanimous?
[18:26] Okay, sorry. Okay. Dr. Nanos. Are there any declarations of
[18:32] pecuniar interest today, Deputy Mayor? Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I
[18:37] have two declarations to provide to council agenda items 7.2
[18:42] which is 401 Ragland street zoning bylaw amendment. Have a
[18:49] non pecuniary code of conduct disqualifying interest as the east.
[18:52] Side of the proposed severed lot about my father in
[18:55] law's property. At 80, Sanford Fleming Drive. So even though
[19:00] no decisions are being made today, I will follow the
[19:02] integrity commissioner's. Recommended protocol remaining at table for presentation but
[19:07] not participate. If there's any ensuing discuss. Discussion also for
[19:11] item ten, fees and charges. From a previous declaration. That's
[19:16] the bylaw I'm going to ask for severing of the
[19:20] centennial pool and. I'll have a non pecuniary code of
[19:25] conduct disqualifying interest. As well there for my daughter is
[19:28] employed at the facility. Are there any others? Okay. If
[19:34] you find yourself in that position during the meeting, please
[19:37] let me know. Community announcements and we'll start with the
[19:40] deputy mayor. Thank you. And on the heels of your
[19:43] very significant community announcement. That you and CIo skin are
[19:49] provided. Excellent summary. And I want to echo the thoughts
[19:55] as you conveyed. I wanted to recognize the environment network,
[19:58] who this month are celebrating 30 years of operation. I
[20:02] recall back in 1993 when the organization was established in
[20:06] no small part as an integral partner of the Collingwood
[20:09] harbor and remedial action plan. That successfully led to the
[20:12] hot. Hotspot, the listing of Collingwood harbor in 1994. Another
[20:17] initial initiative the environment network worked with us on was
[20:21] the Envira park that has now been renewed as sunset
[20:24] point. Play space. Over the years, the environment network has
[20:28] evolved its initiatives, but. Always focused on making our community
[20:32] more aware in support of the environment. The plans are
[20:36] to have a formal recognition in the spring and council
[20:39] will have a chance to join with them, then. For
[20:43] now, I want to say on behalf of Comingwood, we
[20:46] are very appreciative. Of their efforts, both past, current and
[20:49] future. You help make our community more sustainable in many
[20:53] different ways. Also want to express appreciation again to the
[20:58] efforts of all the volunteers who are assisting Chris and
[21:01] Andrea Dop as part of the Christmas Day feast team.
[21:06] It's the return of the free community Meal project that
[21:09] is open and welcome to anyone who needs a place
[21:12] to go, whether they are going to spend the day
[21:14] alone. Experience food insecurity or simply looking to connect with
[21:19] others. It's open to all denominations in ages. It will
[21:24] take place from 1230 to 02:00. P.m. at the legion
[21:27] 390 on Terrorist street. We are so grateful for the
[21:30] team, bringing people together in the spirit of care and
[21:33] community. Would also add that an additional thanks to Chris
[21:38] and Andrea for their efforts. With the 25th annual turkey
[21:42] dinner giveaway over. The time, it has grown from 25
[21:47] to a tremendously generous but unfortunately needed 250. Which, starting
[21:53] at 09:00 a.m. on December 23, they will be available
[21:57] on a first come, first serve basis at the Mortgage
[22:00] center, 192 1st street. If anyone is wanting more detail.
[22:04] They can call 705 445-1300 and that's what I have.
[22:10] Thank you, Councilor Jeffrey. Thank you very much, Mayor Hamlin.
[22:14] So, firstly, I just want to remind my council colleagues
[22:19] that the coldest night of the year is going to
[22:20] be upon us again for February 28, so if you
[22:23] market in your calendars. I'll get the team set up
[22:25] and hopefully everybody. Will participate, and we can help some
[22:29] unhoused youth. And the next. It was a pleasure. To
[22:32] do. Some pipe drops and presentations at the Silverstick regional
[22:36] tournament yesterday at the Eddie bush arena. And we had
[22:40] one calling with team in the finals and they won
[22:43] their game. And our administrative coordinator, I believe, is her
[22:48] title. Her son was on the team, so it was.
[22:49] A pleasure to present. To those champions who were participate
[22:54] in the international tournament in pellum on January 8. So
[22:58] congratulations. To coaches, players, and for a game well played.
[23:03] And then just. I think this is our last. Meeting
[23:06] before our holiday break, so I would just wish residents
[23:09] and staff and my colleagues the best. For the season
[23:13] and I celebrate. Merry Christmas. So merry Christmas. But happy
[23:16] holidays for everybody else. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Dougherty.
[23:22] Thank you, mayor. This is just to remind the community
[23:26] that the association and municipalities of Ontario is offering. A
[23:32] webinar series entitled stronger leaders and stronger communities. And it
[23:38] offers. Information and guidance for individuals seeking election for the
[23:44] first time to municipal government. Or even members of council
[23:51] now who are seeking reelection. The registration was so strong
[23:56] that. It was sold out. Or I shouldn't even say
[24:02] sold because it's free, but. It was. Totally subscribed. So
[24:09] another stream. Of webinars is offered starting in February. And
[24:16] if you would like more information, you can find it
[24:18] at the association and municipalities of Ontario. Website. Amo on
[24:24] ca. And I also would like to wish my colleagues
[24:31] and staff. And our community the very, very best of
[24:35] the holiday season. And good luck, good health and prosperity
[24:41] in 2020. Six. Can't believe I said that. Thank you,
[24:46] mayor. 2027. Why not? Thank you for all those wishes.
[24:52] Okay, Councilor Potts. Thanks. Mary Hamlin. I messaged a couple
[24:56] of messages from the BIA. The BIA would like to
[24:59] pass. On their sincere appreciation for town staff. This past
[25:04] weekend. For those that repaired the break to the team,
[25:07] they kept our office informed of updates as they happen.
[25:10] So we communicate to our members quickly. So, please, the
[25:13] town and health unit. We're able to work together to
[25:15] determine that our downtown was able to open as soon
[25:17] as possible as this critical time for our small business
[25:20] community. Also, the final Christmas market is back this Friday.
[25:25] December 19 at 05:00 p.m. to 08:00 p.m. find the
[25:28] perfect gift from our downtown merchants and market vendors enjoy
[25:32] strolling entertainers along the street, taking a free horse and
[25:35] wagon ride, leaving from town hall and visit sand in
[25:38] the Big Red slay at 84 here, Ontario street, across
[25:41] from town hall. Santa will be back there on Saturday,
[25:44] December 20 from noon. To three for his final visit
[25:47] to Colio before he heads back to the North Pole
[25:49] to get ready for the big night. And just another
[25:53] note, just with the weather events we've had in the
[25:55] last week, like to pass on my appreciation to the
[25:57] public works team. For the diligent snow removal and road
[26:02] maintenance and sidewalk maintenance. It's gone very noticed. And to
[26:07] all my colleagues and the residents of the community, happy.
[26:11] Holidays. And all the best for 2026. Thanks. Thank you.
[26:18] Councilor ring thank you very much, Mayor Hamlin. No announcements
[26:22] to make, but I, too, would like to wish all
[26:24] of council staff and residents of Collingwood happy holidays and
[26:28] a very merry Christmas. Happy, healthy and prosperous. 2026. Thank
[26:36] you, Councilor Baines. Following up on that. For those of
[26:41] you who follow social media, you might have seen all
[26:43] the postings from the Christmas market last Friday, particularly in
[26:47] regard to our wonderful museum's booth and the number of
[26:51] items that they were selling. So I would say to
[26:53] all, if you have not yet purchased as some of
[26:57] us haven't. All of your Christmas gifts, or, indeed, any
[27:00] of them. Attend the Christmas market this coming Friday night.
[27:06] December the 19th. And you can pick up everything you
[27:08] need for your stockings and under the tree. In addition,
[27:11] afterwards, you might consider taking in the wonderful Collingwood Blues,
[27:15] who will be playing at the Eddie Bush arena. And
[27:19] whilst there, you might purchase 50. 50 tickets. Yours truly
[27:24] will be selling 50. 50 tickets. I point out to
[27:27] all of you that if you are lucky enough to
[27:29] win in the last pots have been somewhere between 900
[27:32] to one. $100. That's tax free. Well, at least we
[27:35] don't tell cra. And it could fund the purchase of
[27:38] those Christmas gifts outside on here, Ontario Street. So. You've
[27:45] got lots to consider. And I, too, would love to
[27:47] add my best wishes for the holidays and for Christmas
[27:50] to our staff and to all my colleagues as well,
[27:54] because I think it's been a challenging and hard working
[27:58] year for all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks
[28:01] for the gift tips. Councilor Perry. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin.
[28:06] I do have a couple of library announcements. This is
[28:09] a repeat, but it's starting today. The library will be
[28:13] looking seasonal with winter. I spy you can pick up
[28:17] your game card in the children's area, and the search
[28:20] will take you through both floors of the library. Once
[28:22] you find all the items, submit a ballot for a
[28:25] chance to win your own board game. All ages are
[28:28] welcome to play, and it runs from December 15 to
[28:31] December 23. And I bring seasoned greetings from the Collingwood
[28:35] Public Library. As the year comes to a close, we
[28:39] extend our heartfelt gratitude to our community for your continued
[28:43] support and encouragement. Engagement. Sorry. Libraries are more than books.
[28:47] They are places of connection, learning and inspiration. And that's
[28:51] possible because of our community. This holiday season bring joy,
[28:55] peace. And time to enjoy a good book. We look
[29:00] forward to. Welcoming you in the new year as we
[29:03] continue to grow together. Happy holidays and best wishes for
[29:07] 2026. Thank you, Councilor McCullough. Thank you, Mary. Nothing to
[29:13] add on public announcements, but just to echo my colleagues
[29:17] statements. Very happy holidays to staff, colleagues and everyone else
[29:22] with an earshot and all the best for a happy,
[29:25] healthy, prosperous 2026. Well, I don't think I need to
[29:29] say it again, but thank you, everyone, for saying. It
[29:32] for me and really looking forward to the end of
[29:35] this year. And great next year, and I hope everyone
[29:40] has a great holiday, so thank you. Okay, so next
[29:44] we are doing deputations, and there are three today. Abby
[29:48] Westlake will. Be speaking first. Is that? Be online, perhaps?
[29:55] Oh, you're there. Oh, sir, I didn't see you back
[29:56] there. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to
[30:06] come up and speak today. I had brought forward to
[30:13] Yvonne Hamlin with regards our concern for Third street and
[30:17] the safety on that street and had presented a letter
[30:20] as well, which I'm to read. I'm writing as a
[30:23] fourth generation resident of Collingwood and a parent who is
[30:26] deeply concerned about the ongoing safety issues at the intersection
[30:30] of Third and Third street and cedar. On November 25,
[30:34] our 16 year old son was traveling west on Third
[30:36] street when he was struck. By a driver who failed
[30:38] to stop properly at the Cedar street stop sign. The
[30:41] collision caused significant damage to his vehicle. Has now been
[30:45] declared a total loss. This particular vehicle was especially meaningful
[30:49] to him, as he had purchased it with his own
[30:51] money and spent considerable time refurbishing both the body and
[30:54] the engine himself. A tremendous achievement for a young person
[30:58] of his age, seeing that hard work destroyed. In an
[31:01] instant has been devastating to him and our family. More
[31:05] importantly, This is not the first time our son has
[31:07] been involved in a serious collision with inadequate traffic. Control
[31:10] in this area. When he was just six years old,
[31:13] he was struck by a driver at Maple and Third
[31:16] street. It is deeply troubling that nearly a decade later,
[31:20] similar conditions continue. To put our community. And particularly youth
[31:24] and pedestrians at risk. The third street corridor experiences heavily
[31:28] pedestrian traffic, including students, families and local residents. The current
[31:33] two way stop at third and cedar is no longer
[31:35] sufficient to manage the volume and behavior of drivers using
[31:39] this route, as shown by repeated collisions and near misses.
[31:42] The lack of. Fourway stop creates unnecessary danger. For those
[31:46] reasons, I am formally requesting that the town of Collingwood
[31:49] install a four way stop at the intersection of. Third
[31:53] street and Cedar street. This improvement is overdue and would
[31:57] significantly enhance safety for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians alike. We
[32:01] appreciate the town's commitment to road safety and hope this
[32:03] matter will be reviewed promptly and given the serious condition
[32:07] consideration it deserves. Our family and many others in the
[32:10] community believe that proactive action is needed. Before another preventable
[32:15] accident occurs. Thank you for your attention and concern with
[32:18] this. I was also given a letter from a girlfriend
[32:22] and didn't know if that should be read as well.
[32:25] You can if you'd like. Okay. Just want to tickle
[32:28] over. I think she submitted
[32:38] it, so I'm okay at this time, not. To. Yeah.
[32:47] Thank you very much. Okay, did anyone want to ask
[32:49] any questions of Abby while she's here? No, we'll be
[32:53] dealing with the motion later in the agenda. Thank you.
[32:56] Thank you. Kenneth Hale is our next deputy. On behalf
[33:01] of the Gergun Triangle Development Institute. Mayors, Deputy Mayor
[33:10] Council thank you for having me today. On. This agenda.
[33:19] My name is Kenneth Hale. I'm president of the Georgian
[33:21] Triangle Development institute. I'm here today to respectfully request a
[33:27] deferral on the planning fees increase. Through 2026. And I
[33:31] would first like to start by thanking you for deferring
[33:34] the decision in November to allow us to continue to
[33:37] work with staff in our discussions, and we did. Have
[33:41] a follow up meeting on December 5. And this is
[33:44] a follow up to that meeting, so I would like
[33:47] to thank the CIO. And also director Valentine, director Alcoca,
[33:52] for taking their time to work with us. Next slide,
[33:56] please. So I've just iterated the request. We're asking that
[34:01] you defer any decision on a rate increase until 2026,
[34:05] continuing to benchmark the current planning fees with CPI as
[34:09] currently done. Next slide, please. I want to give you
[34:14] a little bit about who we are at GTI and
[34:16] build, build. Has been working with us on this presentation
[34:20] is strictly from GTI. Today we haven't. Had a time
[34:22] to coordinate on this representation, but they have been in
[34:24] all of the meetings with staff and are also concerned
[34:27] about the post rate increases. But as far as GTI
[34:30] is, we've been around since 1992. Incorporated 1992. And we
[34:34] are the largest collective group. We represent the largest collective
[34:37] group of employers in our region. We have members ranging
[34:42] in all facets of the development and building from the
[34:46] people in the field to the people at Arnett construction.
[34:52] To. The engineers and the architects and the planners and
[34:54] the municipality. And most of us live here. Most of
[34:57] us raise families here. Most of us are here for
[35:00] the long haul. And we are proud of that, that
[35:06] we are part of this community. We are proud that
[35:08] we support this community, and we're here for the long
[35:11] haul. So thank you. Next slide. So when we were
[35:15] going through. This. We noticed the town planning review services,
[35:23] development review services is seeing what we're seeing. In the
[35:27] industry, a marked decline in the need for development and
[35:31] bus development services. We note that in the reports, the
[35:37] Collingwood planning applications for development are down some 23. Percent
[35:42] this year, and that is following a three year trend
[35:45] of averaging. A 17 year annual decline. Next slide, please.
[35:50] Okay. What is not picked up in here? So this
[35:53] is from the 2026 budget in here. And I had
[35:59] highlighted, but. It's not on the slide. Is that if
[36:03] we look at the 2025 budget, Under expenses and services.
[36:07] This is for the growth and development management. We'll note
[36:10] that the budget for 2025 was $2.26 million, and it's
[36:15] proposed to go to, if I can read that. 3.281
[36:18] million dollars in 2026. So that is a marked increase
[36:22] in the growth and development budget. In 2026 when applications
[36:27] are down. Next slide, please. What we have here is.
[36:34] The part of the budget which is dedicated to planning
[36:37] and review services fees. So. These are the full time
[36:40] equivalents that. The town uses to provide the services to
[36:45] the development and building industry, or development industry, and we
[36:48] know, in 2025, there were 10.5 full time equivalents assigned
[36:53] to those tasks, and in 2026. It's proposed that that
[36:56] goes up to 12.7. So we're increasing the recoverable cost.
[37:02] To the planning and development fees. Next slide, please. So
[37:07] what we're saying is that there's a demand for town
[37:10] planning services. There's a continued decline in anecdotally, no one
[37:15] has a crystal ball of 2026. But I can say
[37:18] comfortably that the industry wide is playing for further decline
[37:21] in 26 as far as the need. For development services.
[37:27] What we notice in this budget is that the budget
[37:30] is increasing from two point three to three. Point three
[37:32] million dollars for those services and at the town recoverable
[37:36] costs. The cost that will be borne by development application
[37:40] fees is going from ten and a half full time
[37:42] equivalents to 12.7. Next slide, please. So what is the
[37:48] pros fanning fee increase? We'd like to note that
[37:58] the planning fees, although haven't been adjusted since 2010. They
[38:03] have been, to our knowledge, as noted in the staff
[38:05] report. A continued CPI index every year. Consumer price index
[38:10] every year. The town is proposing to triple or more.
[38:14] Some of the planning fees in here, for example, official
[38:16] plan amendments and some zoning by law stuff. And the
[38:21] town is proposing not to implement that all at once.
[38:24] They're proposing to do. It over a graduated four year
[38:26] schedule. So in 2026, the first tranche would be 25%.
[38:31] Of the ultimate proposed increase. So we do recognize that.
[38:36] Next slide, please. What we fear in the development industry
[38:42] is that there could be some unintended consequences here. And
[38:46] that is if applications are down year over year and
[38:50] the continuing decline if we increase now. Fees now and
[38:54] continue to try to recover more cost. From a declining
[38:58] customer pool. We're going to further exasperate the customer pool
[39:02] that we have and that is applications that would otherwise
[39:06] come forward. That probably will not. In 2026. So the
[39:11] offsetting revenue that you might collect from increasing fees. Will
[39:16] decline because. You're going to have continued further collapse of
[39:19] your customer base. So that would be an unintended consequence
[39:25] that we fear that you'll see some. Of those applications
[39:28] that would otherwise come forward may not come forward in
[39:30] 2026. And it's not just about the fees. It's about
[39:33] those projects that would bring in more housing. More affordable
[39:37] housing to the town of Hollywood that we're concerned that
[39:40] we want to see. That. As we come out of
[39:44] this downturn. So next slide, please. So, in conclusion, we
[39:49] are requesting the council continued benchmarking the fees with CPI
[39:54] through 2026. And defer decision on rate increases until. Through
[40:00] 2026. Thank you. And I'm here to answer any of
[40:03] your questions. Okay, thanks very much. We do actually have
[40:07] a report on this later in the agenda, but would
[40:10] anyone have any questions for Mr. Hale while he's here?
[40:13] Councilor Paynes, give Mayor Hamlin to Mr. Hale. I think
[40:16] just questions of clarification. Sure. I'm assuming those fees that
[40:21] you wish are deferment on are exactly those ones. In
[40:25] the schedule you showed and are proposed to go from
[40:29] 2.3 to 3.3. As you indicated. In revenue. Yes, go
[40:34] ahead. Through the mayor to councilor. No, that was the
[40:38] 2026 budget. The fees that I'm. Requesting are as noted
[40:41] in the original slide staff report, p specifically, the planning
[40:48] and engineering. Fee increases. Our members have no comment on
[40:52] the building fee increase. It's the planning fees. That our
[40:55] members have comment on it is that staff report that
[40:58] we're wishing a deferral on. Understood. And as a follow
[41:00] up and the deferment you're looking for is essentially for
[41:03] the year 2026, tax year. What we're looking for is
[41:07] that. This be paused until next year. Then revisit it.
[41:12] What? We prefer not to see. Is it passed, and
[41:16] then they just get triggered in 2027 rather than 2026,
[41:19] I think. We need to have a pause to see
[41:20] how 2026 turns out in terms of number of applications,
[41:24] the needs for service, and then have this discussion in
[41:26] a year's time. Understood. Thank you. No further questions. Okay.
[41:30] All right. Thanks very much for coming. Thank you, everybody.
[41:35] And the next reputation is on behalf of the Georgian
[41:38] Bay School. I have here nancy black and janice McDonald.
[41:51] Good afternoon, Mayor Hamlin, members of council, thank you for
[41:54] the opportunity to speak. As mentioned, I'm Nancy Black. This
[41:57] is my partner, Janice, who doesn't get the microphone very
[41:59] often. But she's here with me. We're here to address
[42:04] by law number 2025 86. The 2026 fees and service.
[42:09] Charge by loads you're going to be facing and a
[42:11] fee classification. Therein. Our club uses the same pool in
[42:16] the same way to deliver the same community benefit as
[42:18] other. Groups. Yet we do face, and we are charged
[42:21] with dramatically different fees now, and even more so with
[42:24] the proposed changes. We're asking what might sound like special
[42:28] treatment, and I was going to delete that. Line, but
[42:30] I thought maybe that's okay to be asking for special
[42:32] treatment. We are special. And a little different. We'd like
[42:38] you to align our fees with community impact and with
[42:40] the town's. Own strategic goals, so it requires only a
[42:43] bylaw adjustment. For you to change the whole bylaw itself.
[42:47] But just an amendment to it. Next slide, please. So
[42:51] what mentioned were the squall three time provincial Masters champions
[42:54] and bringing some pride to the community. We host events.
[42:57] We bring visitors to Collingwood who contribute to the economy.
[43:01] Also in our strategic planning, hopefully through our member development.
[43:04] We're deeply involved in the community because we really do
[43:07] work hard. To be model citizens inside and outside the
[43:11] pool. I'm going to go through the first couple of
[43:12] slides pretty quickly because I'm going to get to the
[43:14] meat of our presentation. So, next slide, please. Although I
[43:16] hope you had a chance to read those regarding community
[43:20] impact, we have over 140 members, and they're adults, of
[43:23] course, of all ages, including a paralympic hopeful. Who's training
[43:27] for the 2028 Olympics. Our club is living proof of
[43:31] Canada's sport for life model, delivering safe, coached, inclusive adult
[43:36] fitness with strong social connection. Those are all their tenements,
[43:39] sometimes weirdly called cradle to grave, which I find is
[43:43] a weird expression, but you get the idea. Of that
[43:46] trajectory. We run six workouts a week. And all of
[43:50] them but an early morning one, have waitlists we consistently.
[43:55] Fill every lane. Our waitlist is about 30 people, and
[43:57] we don't try to recruit. We've stopped doing that. We're
[43:59] telling people, don't even come to us. Demand is high.
[44:02] Supply lane time is a constraint. Next slide, please. So
[44:08] wherein is the issue? Is that you have a lot
[44:12] of things to cover. I get it. I'll try to.
[44:13] Condense this down to these points, which is this? Youth,
[44:16] not profit, clubs or rentals pay. $55 an hour currently.
[44:21] We pay $110 an hour currently, which is 100% more
[44:25] than that same pool space, so. While we knew this,
[44:28] and we reluctantly accepted it. We were okay? Not really.
[44:33] But until we learned that we were now being moved
[44:35] from the basic category into commercial category, adding another 10%
[44:39] increase on the plan, 2% increase, which we kind of
[44:42] knew about. Your own facility. Delegation policy defines commercial users
[44:47] as organizations whose primary purposes to make a profit. That
[44:52] is not us. By your own definition, we do not
[44:55] belong in that category. At a minimum, we request to
[44:58] remain invasive. And to save you all time, I could
[45:02] leave there because I feel like that's one. Step of
[45:05] the things we were hoping to accomplish today. But I'm
[45:08] still going to talk. As my swimmers well know, there's
[45:12] always more. But now that this classification, this was brought
[45:15] to the forefront, for us to really look at this,
[45:19] We're asking a bigger question. Why do adults pay double
[45:23] what the kids pay? For identical use and identical public
[45:27] benefit in this town. The difference is not based on
[45:31] usage cost react. It's based solely on age category and
[45:35] potentially tax structured classification. So. While this practice does exist
[45:41] in some other Ontario municipalities, because this policy didn't come
[45:44] out of the blue. But in a town that promotes
[45:47] healthy act of living and has a disproportionately large adult
[45:49] and senior population. This. Call it age based price gap.
[45:54] Works against your own public health goals. Not to deviate
[45:58] too far. But internationally, countries that have large adult fitness
[46:02] numbers or their adult population is healthier, like Australia, Sweden,
[46:06] Denmark, Finland. They actually have tighter policies that align kids
[46:11] with adults. There isn't a distinction. And so Ontario. While
[46:14] it's changing, Ontario does sit kind of at the high
[46:17] end of that spectrum. For adult aquatics, and it shows
[46:20] because. In our country. I don't have Ontario's jets. 46%
[46:24] of the population is. As fit, as out of population,
[46:26] as fit as it should be. So our adults aren't.
[46:28] As healthy as some of those aforementioned countries that treat
[46:30] those two entities as one, but they can be here.
[46:34] Municipal recreation policy should classify users based on community benefit.
[46:38] Like, not corporate paperwork. And I know that some of
[46:40] the stuff you have to deal with all the time.
[46:41] I just realized when I'm saying corporate paperwork or municipal
[46:44] paperwork, I'm sure you have a lot of it. Master
[46:48] swim clubs typically operate like not for profits, whether or
[46:51] not they are formally structured in that way. So typically,
[46:54] profits aren't taken so that fees can go literally into
[46:57] the pool. Rental competition. Special training, coaches and insurance, just
[47:00] like it does on the kids club. If the town
[47:03] believes the corporate structure is relevant, then I ask plainly
[47:07] if we. Switch to not profit status. Would you align
[47:11] our fees directly with that youth rate? And if you
[47:15] don't, then the corporate structures are not really the issue.
[47:18] Next slide, please. So sort of why this caused pools
[47:22] have this came up in the executive presentation regarding. Our
[47:27] potential new pool in town. Pools have pretty high fixed
[47:29] costs, and they don't change. When prices rise, they change
[47:33] when the lane sipped empty. So cost recovery is driven
[47:36] by utilization, not higher fees. We rent year round off
[47:40] peak times and reliably fill all the lanes. We provide
[47:44] predictable. And that's kind of a key word here, stable
[47:46] re. Revenue. And that will matter a lot. It matters
[47:49] now, but it'll also matter a lot. If we all
[47:51] get a new pool. So we've repeatedly asked for additional
[47:54] pool time, including Sunday mornings when the pool does sit
[47:57] empty. And there are reasons for that, including lifeguarding. However.
[48:00] It could be a priority to get the pool open
[48:03] for longer hours because this pool is under opened relative
[48:06] to other municipal pools? I don't know. That's not a
[48:09] real word. Please don't anticipate recorded. You can delete that?
[48:12] Somebody does. It's a good thank you. Just this past
[48:17] season, this full season. If we had 2 hours of
[48:20] pool time on Sunday mornings in this season, we would
[48:23] have denvered $8,140 at the current rates, way more than
[48:28] you'd produce in sort of these incremental increases. Increasing utilization
[48:35] generates more revenue than increasing rates, so giving more pool
[48:38] time to high demand users like us is a win
[48:39] win. More access for residents, more revenue for the town.
[48:43] And we don't. Have enough time, this presentation. But if
[48:44] this bylaw is about money, which. Was part of what
[48:49] I saw in the rationale points that were sent to
[48:51] me. But this speaks to then the priorities that you
[48:55] have regarding who uses a pool and how it's used,
[48:58] and that's too big of a conversation to get into,
[49:00] but it does. Have to do with. Our usage is
[49:03] stable and full. Compared to how the town itself sometimes
[49:08] might make the pool available. So, next slide, please. We're
[49:13] proposing a straightforward solution. So one off was to remove
[49:16] the Georgia based wall from the commercial category and. I
[49:21] feel like. I hope that we can agree to that.
[49:22] I don't need to have nods at the head. Because
[49:24] I know you're going to be discussing it later because
[49:25] we're looking for. A specific amendment. So one is, let's
[49:32] start with that. Then the other would be, hey. Hang
[49:34] on a second. Back to this whole we're a basic
[49:37] user, then there are other kids, not for profits. Why
[49:40] do we live in this other world? We're not like
[49:42] some. Of the basic other renters, which can include a
[49:46] number of entities. So maybe. You actually devise a category
[49:51] that's called a community health sport provider. Community sport provider.
[49:55] Probably is too general, because that could include. A number
[49:59] of entities, but we are unique in what we offer.
[50:02] So kind of worst cases that you keep us in
[50:05] basic better is that you have an impact based rate.
[50:08] It would be really interesting for you to look at
[50:10] that, where maybe instead of us paying 100%, More than
[50:15] the kids pay that we pay 50% more. Like I'm
[50:18] a reasonable person. I'm reasonable. And as I say those
[50:22] numbers, I'm saying we're happy. To pay 50% more, and
[50:25] it's still a little bit. Weird to say that, right?
[50:31] That the fees aren't in line, that this adult club
[50:33] that does all these same things. As a kids would
[50:35] pay. Why? And I haven't had anybody give me an
[50:39] answer, ever. As to. Why kids programs should be funded
[50:45] differently than adult programs, or, conversely, why adult programs should
[50:49] be charged more. I also want to clarify the corporate
[50:53] structure once and for all. Because this has been dealt
[50:56] with other communities where they deal with this profit, not
[50:58] for profit, and who's doing what. If the organization is
[51:01] benefiting the town and providing a service that you need
[51:03] and you can't provide. I don't mean be so flippant
[51:07] about it, but who cares how it's? Set up. I've
[51:10] been a not for profit. It's truly required for equitable
[51:11] fees. We will make that change. But Felign should reflect
[51:16] function and public benefit, not necessarily forms so, next slide,
[51:19] please. I thought this would be wording that you'd be
[51:23] familiar with, because I know that. It's important to have
[51:25] things like whereas, and whereas, and whereas. Because you do
[51:30] have to outline. Sort of. Why did you get to
[51:33] your point where you're saying therefore or that and that.
[51:37] And so I wrote some of these thinking that, okay,
[51:40] let's prop up. Let's. Prop this up so you can
[51:42] actually have this. But since I wrote that, I had
[51:44] to submit. This on last Friday at noon. Some of
[51:48] them would change. Because at first I'm thinking, fine, just
[51:49] keep us out of the commercial category. That's not what
[51:51] we're asking here anymore. Because we'd like you to take
[51:54] a pretty good look at this, and I don't. Know
[51:56] how much time I think I'm okay for time. Oh,
[51:59] perfect for wrap up. There are some words. There is
[52:02] somewhere in there that we could use. I think Daniel
[52:04] has access. To it that can put it into your
[52:05] paperwork so you don't have to rewrite. This kind of
[52:07] stuff, but through quest of motion, actually. I think that's
[52:12] it. Well, I want to make sure that we're excluded
[52:15] from the first, as I mentioned. Sorry. I'm just going
[52:19] to quickly go into the last one. So, the last
[52:21] slide, please. The next slide, please. Yeah. Thank you. Sorry.
[52:25] On this, I'm going to tell you this. I'd like
[52:26] you to flip at our club. Or we'd like you
[52:28] to look. At our club as a youth at heart.
[52:30] So if you're called a youth club, where youth at
[52:32] Heart Club. We are community health asset. We're a reliable
[52:35] partner in the pool. In terms of its utilization and
[52:38] cost recovery. So do I need to recap the items
[52:40] that we were. Really clear, but thank you. And you
[52:45] know what? Thank you for explaining how you use the
[52:47] pool. And the nature of your organization. Thank you. The
[52:50] fact you could even use more lanes. Yes, we really
[52:53] could. Yeah, I hear you. Thank you for letting us
[52:55] speak today. Thank you. And there may be a question
[52:58] here in this moment. Council thanks, Mayor Hamlin, and thanks
[53:01] for the presentation that's a very good. Motion. I have
[53:05] a question. I think this is for staff. When we
[53:07] talk about the Sunday mornings sitting vacant or sitting. And
[53:10] this will be through to director Cuban. Understanding is probably
[53:14] operational, so I don't think there'd be any direction that
[53:16] would be needed. But is there a possibility? Or what
[53:19] would it take? Or what is the process to get
[53:21] that lane time opened? I know. There's staffing, probably. Challenges,
[53:25] but. What would be the next process to get it
[53:28] open to those times would be available. Thanks. Yeah. Go
[53:32] ahead. Thank you, Siri. Mayor Hanlin, I'm going to need
[53:35] to take this. Back to staff. We'll get a better
[53:37] understanding and provide to you why it is that. We
[53:40] do have some time available and how we intend to
[53:43] address that. Thank you, Councilor Dougherty. Thank you, mayor.
[53:53] I'd like to put forward a notice of motion to
[53:56] hold the fee increase for this. User group. Until we
[54:02] have had a chance and staff have had a chance
[54:05] to take a look at your proposal and recommendations and
[54:09] then come back. With a possible solution and. I also
[54:16] would ask council to allow me to waive notice just
[54:20] based on the timing and that these fees would be.
[54:24] Going up imminently. Thank you. Thank you. Should we deal
[54:28] with this now, madam Clerk, or should we hold it?
[54:32] Thank you, worship. We do have the fees and charges
[54:34] motion that's coming up, and it could. Be an amendment
[54:36] to that piece, so I'll just confirm with the treasurer
[54:38] when that arises. We can confirm. Okay, so we'll hold
[54:43] it for now. Thank you. Okay. And also councilor Baines.
[54:47] Thank you. Mayor Hamlin, just a clarification question, if I
[54:50] might. I've had this discussion just recently with a number
[54:54] of other groups, and it is a question about the
[54:57] nonprofit status, or, in your case, the reason that you
[55:01] haven't applied for that. And secondly. Are you aware of
[55:08] any other compatriot groups like yours? Seniors leagues, if you
[55:12] will. That have. Achieved nonprofit status. And results as a
[55:18] result of that, are they having, quote, more success? I'm
[55:21] just trying to get that. I think it might be
[55:23] a consideration of yours to register for a nonprofit status.
[55:30] Who do I answer through? So we can do that.
[55:33] So when you say, have they had more success, do
[55:35] you mean more? Success as a club, because if we
[55:37] went to not for profit, and we can do that.
[55:41] We would not have greater. I think you meant success
[55:42] in getting pool time. Right? Money, actually. Not the. We're
[55:47] not asking for money, but I guess what the impetus
[55:49] would be. Imagine the fact that many not for profits
[55:52] can do exactly, or many clubs can do exactly that.
[55:56] Apply for not for profit status, run their organization. In
[56:01] any way. There's no control over how you run your
[56:03] organization just because you're. Not for profits. So that's where
[56:05] it's in. You need us to go. Do that. We
[56:07] can go do that. To comply with what you need.
[56:10] It doesn't make our organization run any better or do
[56:13] anything? For anybody. But we're saying if in your bylaw
[56:18] works, it's a requirement. It's. Something that has been through
[56:21] all. Your work, and I don't want to do a
[56:24] workaround on that. We're just saying. Typically. It's not something
[56:28] that I mentioned that's happened to other communities where it
[56:30] doesn't. Matter how. You're set up. It matters what product
[56:34] you're delivering to the community. But if your wording as
[56:37] such isn't to come back around to that. Then people
[56:40] go ahead and set themselves up a not for profit
[56:42] and do the same things. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
[56:47] Right. Thank you for the questions. Thank you. The next
[56:56] items on our agenda are public meetings, and we have
[56:59] two. The first one is for four elm street. And
[57:03] I have to read for each of them. A lengthy.
[57:09] Explanation of the process. So I'll start then with the
[57:11] first one for four elm street. This is owning bylaw.
[57:14] Amendment. So welcome. This is public planning meeting for a
[57:19] proposed zoning bylaw amendment for four elm street. No decision
[57:25] is going to be made this afternoon. Purpose of this
[57:28] meeting is to introduce and obtain public comments. On the
[57:31] proposed zoning bylaw amendment. The meeting will begin with presentations
[57:36] by staff and. The applicant. Members of the public will
[57:39] then be invited to offer their comments or questions regarding
[57:43] the proposal. Once the public portion of the meeting has
[57:46] been completed, no more public comments or questions. Will be
[57:49] allowed at today's meeting. I will then ask council members
[57:53] if they have any questions. Once all public can counsel,
[57:56] their questions and comments have been received. Staff will have
[57:59] an opportunity to respond or provide clarification if appropriate. All
[58:04] questions and comments specific to the purpose of the Sony
[58:07] Balla amendment will be addressed in a future staff report.
[58:12] It is very important that the town received the correct
[58:14] names, email addresses and mailing addresses, including postal code of
[58:18] individuals having an interest in this application. If you plan
[58:22] to speak to council at this meeting or if you
[58:25] want to be notified of any future council or committee
[58:28] meetings concerning the application, you must provide this information. Public
[58:33] comment and feedback on development proposals are important to the
[58:36] town of Collingwood and are a core part of a
[58:39] transparent and inclusive land use planning process. We encourage you
[58:44] to express comments verbally or in writing. However, please note
[58:48] that the rights of third parties to appeal zoning by
[58:50] law, amendment decisions to the Ontario Land Tribunal have been
[58:54] restricted under the Planning act. If you do not make
[58:57] a neural submission today or a written submission to council.
[59:00] Before the council decision, you may not be added as
[59:03] a party. To an appeal before the Ontario Land tribunal
[59:06] unless, in the opinion of the tribunal, there are reasonable
[59:09] grounds to do so. This meeting is being recorded and
[59:12] streamed on the municipal YouTube channel and broadcast on Rogers
[59:15] TV. Your name, address, comments and any other personal information
[59:19] are being recorded. According to the Missile act and the
[59:22] Municipal Freedom of information and protection of privacy act. The
[59:26] minutes will be available to the general public. On the
[59:28] town website. I will ask that planning services also confirm
[59:32] that notification to the public has been given as required.
[59:35] By the planning act within their presentation this afternoon. Again,
[59:39] I would like to remind everyone that no decision will
[59:41] be made today, and the zoning bylaw amendment will be
[59:44] considered by council on a future date. And now I'll
[59:48] turn the microphone over to housing development coordinator to Sousa.
[59:52] Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. And good afternoon, members
[59:55] of council staff and members of the public. My name
[59:59] is Claire de Souza, and I am the housing development
[1:00:02] coordinator for the town and one of the planners assigned
[1:00:05] this file. Erica Ro. Rose, community planner, is also here
[1:00:09] with us this afternoon as we are both working on
[1:00:11] this file. Together. Today's public meeting is legislated under the
[1:00:14] Planning act and is required as part of the public
[1:00:17] process. The purpose of today's meeting is to introduce an
[1:00:21] application that was received for a zoning by law amendment
[1:00:24] and to hear questions, comments and concerns to assist in
[1:00:27] future decision making. Next slide, please. Today's meeting will follow
[1:00:32] the town's standard public meeting format. Since Mayor Hamlin has
[1:00:36] already provided an introduction. The remainder of the meeting will
[1:00:39] consist of confirming the public notice, an overview of the
[1:00:42] application review process, an overview of the proposed zoning bylaw
[1:00:46] amendment, followed by a review of the proposal from the
[1:00:49] agent, and then. We'll be opening the floor to questions,
[1:00:53] comments and concerns at the end and address anything. We
[1:00:56] are able to today. Otherwise, anything that cannot be answered
[1:01:00] will be addressed in a future staff. Report, next slide,
[1:01:03] please. Notice of complete application and public meeting was circulated
[1:01:08] to internal and external agencies on November 19, 2025 and
[1:01:13] was also published in the Collingwood Today online newspaper on
[1:01:16] the same date. Additionally, as a courtesy. The notice was
[1:01:19] mailed to property owners and condo owners or condo corporations
[1:01:23] within 120 meters. Of the property. Next slide, please. This
[1:01:27] slide provides a general overview of the town's development review
[1:01:31] process. Everything in green has been completed to date, and
[1:01:34] the box outlined in red reflects where we are today.
[1:01:38] Next steps include a continued review of the application, including
[1:01:41] technical reports and receipt of public comments, providing comments to
[1:01:45] the applicant and then receiving any necessary modifications from the
[1:01:49] applicant. Once all outstanding matters have been addressed, staff will
[1:01:53] prepare a recommendation report for the committee of the whole
[1:01:56] and council, where a decision will be made on the
[1:01:58] application. Following council's decision. If approved, a notice of passing
[1:02:03] of the zoning bylaw amendment will be issued and a
[1:02:05] 20 day appeal period will commence prior to being final.
[1:02:09] The zoning bylaw will not come into force and effect
[1:02:11] or, sorry, the zoning bylaw amendment. Will not come into
[1:02:13] force and effect until appeals impacting the 2024 official plan
[1:02:17] are dealt. With and the full official plan is in
[1:02:20] force. Next slide, please. Now we will get into some
[1:02:24] of the details of the application. The property subject to
[1:02:27] the proposed application is municipally addressed as four elm street,
[1:02:31] which is highlighted in red on the screen. The property
[1:02:34] is zero point 83 ha in area and currently contains
[1:02:38] a single detached dwelling with an internal additional residential unit,
[1:02:41] or ARU. To the north of the property, there is
[1:02:44] a mix of commercial and residential uses. Residential uses surround
[1:02:48] the property to the east, and commercial uses surround the
[1:02:51] property. To the south and west. The purpose of the.
[1:02:54] Proposed zoning bylaw amendment is to rezone the subject property
[1:02:57] from resort commercial c three zone to a residential second
[1:03:01] density exception zone to permit a residential building containing four
[1:03:05] dwelling units. The development is proposed to be constructed in
[1:03:09] two phases, and the phased construction approach impacts the site
[1:03:13] specific exceptions being requested. Phase one will include the construction
[1:03:18] of a detached Aru in the rear. Yard. And phase
[1:03:21] two will involve the demolition of the existing single detached
[1:03:25] dwelling in the front yard. And the construction of a.
[1:03:28] Residential building containing two dwelling units and then connecting the
[1:03:31] two buildings from phase one and two via a common
[1:03:35] corridor, creating one building with four dwelling units. So once
[1:03:39] phase one is completed, the structure in the rear yard
[1:03:41] will be temporarily considered a detached Aru and a site
[1:03:45] specific provision for increased maximum height. Will address a zoning
[1:03:48] conformity matter at the end of phase two, the final
[1:03:52] development on site. Will be one building with four dwelling
[1:03:55] units. Next slide, please. This slide shows the site plan
[1:03:59] for the proposed development in its final stage. As you
[1:04:02] can see, here on the slide. The result will be
[1:04:04] a two story building with four units, two in the
[1:04:07] rear and two in the front, connected by a corridor.
[1:04:10] Four parking spaces will be provided in the front yard
[1:04:12] and a pathway will connect residents from the parking area
[1:04:16] to the building. Next slide, please. Under the town's 2024
[1:04:21] official plan, the property is designated existing neighborhood. The existing
[1:04:25] neighborhood designation permits residential units and low rise and mid
[1:04:31] rise buildings, including additional residential units the proposed development meets
[1:04:36] the general purpose and intent of the existing neighborhood designation
[1:04:39] and low rise built form policies. The existing neighborhood designation
[1:04:44] is under appeal, and as such, the proposed zoning bylaw
[1:04:47] amendment will not come into force and effect until the
[1:04:49] appeals of the 2020 official plan. 2024 official plan are
[1:04:52] dealt with. Next slide, please. The subject property is currently
[1:04:57] zoned resort commercial, or c three, the proposed zoning bylaw
[1:05:01] amendment seeks to rezone the subject property to a residential
[1:05:04] second density exception zone to bring the property in line
[1:05:08] with the official plan designation and to facilitate the proposal.
[1:05:12] Next slide, please. This slide highlights the site specific exceptions
[1:05:16] being requested in the residential second density exception zone. The
[1:05:22] R two exception zone proposes to establish site specific provisions
[1:05:26] for a detached, additional residential unit, including an increased maximum
[1:05:30] height of 8.48 meters, where 7.5 meters is permitted. And
[1:05:35] this is an increase of just under a meter, so
[1:05:37] zero point 98 meters. This exception is being sought as
[1:05:41] the proposed development is being constructed in two phases. As
[1:05:44] I mentioned, once the first phase is completed and before
[1:05:47] the second phase begins, the structure will be considered a
[1:05:50] detached ARU once both phases are completed, the development is
[1:05:54] finished the building will be one building with four units.
[1:05:57] Aside from these exceptions, all other provisions of the zoning
[1:06:00] bylaw would apply. Next slide, please. Planning services circulated the
[1:06:06] application for technical review on November 19, and since then
[1:06:09] we have received standard public comments or, sorry, standard comments
[1:06:12] from Enbridge and Rogers, as well as comments from the
[1:06:16] town's. Parks, recreation and culture department and building services. Next
[1:06:20] slide, please. We have not received any public comments to
[1:06:23] date. However, today's meeting is an opportunity to formally hear
[1:06:28] from the public. Next slide, please. Following this afternoon's public
[1:06:32] meeting. Next steps include a review and consideration of comments
[1:06:36] received from today's meeting completion of a technical review, receiving
[1:06:41] results from peer reviews, and providing the proponent with all
[1:06:43] comments received. Refining the proposed zoning bylaw amendment as necessary.
[1:06:48] Preparing a staff report with recommendations to the comm. Committee
[1:06:51] of the whole and council council would then render a
[1:06:54] decision to approve or refuse the zoning bylaw amendment and
[1:06:57] a notice of decision would be circulated to all individuals
[1:07:00] and organizations who formally request a notice and would be
[1:07:04] published in Collingwood Today Online's newspaper. If the proposed ZBA
[1:07:09] is approved, it would not come into force and effect
[1:07:12] until the existing neighborhood policies of the 2024 official plan
[1:07:16] are in full force in effect. Next slide, please. Should
[1:07:20] anyone wish to submit comments or concerns following this afternoon's
[1:07:23] meeting, you are welcome to email myself Claire de Sousa,
[1:07:26] housing development coordinator at C. De Sousa at Collingwood, CA
[1:07:30] or community. Planner Erica Rose at Eros at Collingwood, Ca.
[1:07:36] Or you can submit written correspondence to town hall members
[1:07:39] of the public can provide written comments up until council
[1:07:42] renders a decision. Verbal comments will only be accepted during
[1:07:45] a public meeting or at a future committee of the
[1:07:47] whole meeting for anyone. Wishing to provide comments today, we
[1:07:51] ask that you please add your name to the. Sign
[1:07:53] in sheet available at the front here. Next slide, please.
[1:07:58] To be notified of future agendas or meetings related to
[1:08:00] these applications. You can view them online on our website.
[1:08:04] If you would like to receive notice of future meetings
[1:08:07] or a decision, please provide your contact details today at
[1:08:10] the sign in sheet or email me and request to
[1:08:13] be circulated in the future. That concludes my presentation. And
[1:08:17] I'll turn. The floor back to the chair, noting that
[1:08:19] the applicant's agent is here today for a presentation. Thank
[1:08:23] you very much. Would the applicants. Agent. Like to come
[1:08:29] forward. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Miriam Vasny.
[1:08:33] I'm with plan Mos associates and. We're the agent for
[1:08:39] the applicant. Claire did a very comprehensive. Slideshow, so I
[1:08:44] did prepare in advance. It consists basically up to two
[1:08:47] slides. So if we could have the first slide, this
[1:08:50] next slide. Up, please. So this is showing the site
[1:08:54] plan, existing site plan, and also the existing dwelling. That's
[1:08:57] on the property currently, and on the main floor is
[1:09:01] the principal residence. And the second floor is an apartment.
[1:09:04] Next slide, please. As Claire showed you. This is the
[1:09:11] proposed site plan. With the two buildings now connected. The
[1:09:16] proposed development. Complies with all the r two zoning provisions
[1:09:22] as well as your Aru provision. For it doesn't comply
[1:09:26] with the ARU provision for a detached ARU, and we
[1:09:31] are asking for the exception for that once the building
[1:09:34] is complete. Actually, it comes in under what? Is permitted
[1:09:37] under the r two zone, which is 12 meters height.
[1:09:40] We will be still at the 8.48. And that is
[1:09:44] the presentation. I have nothing else to add, unless you've
[1:09:46] got some questions. Any questions of the applicant? No, I
[1:09:51] think we're good. Thank you. Good. Thank you. Would any
[1:09:54] members of the public like to address council about this
[1:09:57] application? Claire Thomas. Was there anyone online who would like
[1:10:02] to address council? Thank you. We do have a few
[1:10:06] people online if you wish to address council regarding this
[1:10:09] application. Please press the raise your hand feature at the
[1:10:11] bottom of your screen. Okay, so I'll turn this over
[1:10:21] now to council. Would anyone on council have any questions?
[1:10:24] Or comments deputy mayor. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Through you
[1:10:32] to planner or coordinator. If I could. Sensitive to the
[1:10:41] fact that an appeal. To the olt. Could. Have information
[1:10:48] that can't be shared, but I just find a little
[1:10:51] unusual. So I was hoping to get a little more
[1:10:52] clarification of the fact that in this particular case, there
[1:10:56] is an appeal going on? We're going to proceed as
[1:11:00] we would normally. And get it to the stage that
[1:11:03] it has to be held. Until it's determined about the
[1:11:07] appeal. So maybe just the clarification. It seems to me.
[1:11:14] Like the outcome of the appeal could impact it, but
[1:11:17] I'm sure staff have considered that. So could you give
[1:11:19] a little more detail in that regard? Yeah, go ahead.
[1:11:22] Thank you. And I might pass this over to director
[1:11:24] Valentine, who's more involved in the Olt appeal process. Thank
[1:11:29] you. And through you chair, the planning act does allow
[1:11:32] us to pass zoning bylaws. Which will only come into
[1:11:35] force and effect once the official plan comes into force
[1:11:38] and effect. So. If there's a left turn during one
[1:11:41] of the appeals that could affect this application any zoning
[1:11:44] bylaw amendment passed by council would not come into force.
[1:11:49] In effect, if it didn't align with the new official
[1:11:51] plan. So we're permitted as a municipality to carry on
[1:11:55] with our zoning bylaw amendments, assuming a positive result from
[1:11:58] the appeals, and if. There is a difference between what
[1:12:02] we expect and the results of the appeals. Then those
[1:12:05] zoning bylaws would not come into force and effect and
[1:12:07] would have to be revisited. Thank you. Any other questions,
[1:12:12] Councilor Dougherty? Thank you, mayor. Actually, I have a couple
[1:12:17] of questions. And the first would be. Through you to
[1:12:22] coordinator D'Souza. Because the official plan is under appeal now,
[1:12:30] does it mean that the proponent can't go? Forward. With
[1:12:36] this if we approve the zoning bylaw. They still can't
[1:12:40] move forward. With their project. Go ahead. Through the chair
[1:12:44] to the counselor. Yes, that's correct. The zoning bylaw amendment
[1:12:48] wouldn't be in full force in effect until the appeals
[1:12:52] have been dealt with to the official plan. The zoning
[1:12:56] bylaw would only come into force and effect once that's
[1:12:59] dealt with and then the applicant could then pursue. Building
[1:13:03] permits and everything that follows. Okay. Thank you. And then
[1:13:08] just to follow up. Can you confirm these are all
[1:13:12] rentals? That we anticipate. Yes. Grant. Through the chair. Yes.
[1:13:18] As far as I know, they will. All be rental
[1:13:21] housing, which is part of the reason that I've been
[1:13:23] on this file. As sort of the concierge role to
[1:13:27] encourage more affordable and purpose built rentals in our community.
[1:13:32] Terrific. And speaking as a member of the Affordable Housing
[1:13:36] Task force, this is just exactly the kind of. Infill
[1:13:41] project. That we look for and is going to benefit
[1:13:45] our community greatly, so hopefully those appeals are resolved. Quickly
[1:13:51] so our proponent can move forward. Thank you. Any other
[1:13:55] questions or comments? I think you're good. Thank you very
[1:13:58] much. Thank you. So that ends the public meeting on
[1:14:03] four Elm Street. Okay.
[1:14:12] Sadly, I have to read the same lengthy sadly for
[1:14:16] you, I don't mind reading the same lengthy. Public meeting
[1:14:21] introduction. But this time it's for the next public meeting,
[1:14:24] for 401 Ragland. Street. So welcome to the public meeting
[1:14:29] for 401 Ragland street. This property is located on the
[1:14:33] east side of Ragland and the south side of Ron
[1:14:35] Emo Road. No decision will be made. This afternoon. The
[1:14:39] purpose of this meeting is to introduce and obtain public
[1:14:42] comments on the proposed zoning bylaw amendment. The meeting will
[1:14:46] begin with present. Presentations by staff and the applicant. Members
[1:14:49] of the public will then be invited to offer their
[1:14:52] comments. Or questions regarding the proposal. Once the public portion
[1:14:56] of the meeting has been completed, no more public comments
[1:14:59] or questions will be allowed at today's meeting. I will
[1:15:02] then ask council members if they have any questions once.
[1:15:05] All public and councilor. Questions and comments have been received.
[1:15:09] Staff will have an opportunity to respond. Or provide clarification
[1:15:13] if appropriate. All questions. And comments specific to the purpose
[1:15:17] of the zoning bylaw amendment will be addressed in a
[1:15:19] future staff report. It is very important that the town
[1:15:23] received the correct names. Email addresses and mailing addresses include
[1:15:27] including postal code of individuals having an interest in this
[1:15:32] application. If you plan to speak to council at this
[1:15:34] meeting or if you want to be notified of any
[1:15:37] future council or committee meetings concerning the application being consider.
[1:15:41] Considered, you must provide this information. Public comment and feedback
[1:15:46] on development proposals are important to the town of Collingwood
[1:15:49] and are a core part of a transparent and inclusive
[1:15:52] land use planning process. We encourage you to express comments
[1:15:56] verbally or in writing. However, please note that the rights
[1:16:00] of third parties to appeal zoning bylaw amendment. Decisions to
[1:16:04] the Ontario Land Tribunal have been restricted under the Planning
[1:16:07] act. If you do not make a moral submission today
[1:16:10] or written submission to council before the council decision, you
[1:16:14] may not be. Added to a party as a party
[1:16:17] to an appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal unless in
[1:16:20] the opinion of the tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to
[1:16:23] do so. This meeting is being recorded and streamed on
[1:16:27] the municipal YouTube channel and broadcast on Rogers TV. Your
[1:16:31] name, address, comments and any other personal information. Are being
[1:16:35] recorded. According to the Municipal act and the freedom municipal
[1:16:38] freedom of information and protection of privacy act, the minutes
[1:16:42] will be available to the general public on the town's
[1:16:44] website. I will ask the planning services also confirm that
[1:16:49] notification to the public has been given as required. By
[1:16:52] the planning act within their presentation this afternoon. Again, I
[1:16:56] would like to remind everyone that no decision will be
[1:16:58] made today and the zoning bylaw amendment will be considered
[1:17:02] by council on a future date, and I will now
[1:17:05] turn it over. To community planner Rose. Welcome. Thank you,
[1:17:09] Mayor Hamlin. And good afternoon. Council staff and members of
[1:17:13] the public. My name is Erica Rose. And I'm the
[1:17:16] community planner assigned to the file for 401 Regglin street
[1:17:20] today's. Public meeting is legislated under the Planning act and
[1:17:23] is required as part of the public process. The purpose
[1:17:26] of today's meeting is to introduce an application that has
[1:17:29] been received for a zoning bylaw amendment and to hear
[1:17:32] questions, comments, and concerns to assist in future decision making.
[1:17:36] Next slide, please. Today's meeting will follow the town standard
[1:17:40] public meeting format, since Mayor Hamlin has already provided an
[1:17:44] introduction. The remainder of the meeting will consist of confirming
[1:17:47] the public notice, an overview of the application review process,
[1:17:52] a summary of the proposed zoning bylaw amendment, followed by
[1:17:55] a review of the proposal from the applicant. And then
[1:17:58] we'll open the floor to questions, comments and concerns at
[1:18:01] the end and address anything that we're able to today.
[1:18:05] Alternatively, anything that cannot be answered will be addressed in
[1:18:08] a future recommendation report to council. Next slide. Please. In
[1:18:13] accordance with the Planning Act, a notice of complete application
[1:18:17] and public meeting was circulated to internal and external agencies
[1:18:20] on November 19, and it was also published in the
[1:18:23] Collingwood Today online newspaper that same date. Additionally, as a
[1:18:27] courtesy, the notice was mailed to property owners within 120
[1:18:31] meters of the subject property. Next slide, please. This slide
[1:18:36] provides a general overview of the town's development review process.
[1:18:41] Everything in green has been completed to date. In the
[1:18:43] box outlined in red reflects where we are. Today at
[1:18:46] the public meeting. Next steps include a continued review of
[1:18:50] the application, including technical reports and receipt of public comments.
[1:18:55] Providing comments to the applicant and then receiving any necessary
[1:18:58] modifications to the proposal once all outstanding matters have been
[1:19:03] addressed. Staff will prepare a recommendation report for the committee
[1:19:06] of the whole and council where a decision will be
[1:19:09] made on the application. Following council's decision, a notice of
[1:19:13] passing will be issued. If the zoning bylaw amendment is
[1:19:16] approved and a 20 day appeal period will commence. After
[1:19:20] prior to a decision being final. If there are no
[1:19:23] appeals, the bylaw will come into force and effect once
[1:19:26] the applicable policies under the town's 2024 official plan are
[1:19:30] no longer under appeal. Next slide, please. The subject property
[1:19:35] is municipally addressed as 401 Ryglin street, which is highlighted
[1:19:39] in red. On the screen. The property is approximately 8.56
[1:19:43] ha in area. Existing uses on the subject property include
[1:19:47] the All Saints Anglican Church cemetery on the west, and
[1:19:50] the balance of the property is vacant on the east.
[1:19:55] Surrounding uses primarily include a mix of industrial uses to
[1:19:58] the north and east, vacant lands to the south. And
[1:20:02] community service uses to the west. The purpose of the
[1:20:05] proposed zoning bylaw amendment is to rezone approximately 5.8 subject
[1:20:11] property from community services to an industrial park exception zone.
[1:20:16] The amendment is intended to facilitate a consent application that
[1:20:19] would sever the subject portion of the land's and enable
[1:20:22] future development of employment uses. The effect of the amendment
[1:20:26] will be further discussed later in this presentation. I will
[1:20:30] note there has been a slight change to the size
[1:20:32] of the area that is proposed. For rezoning. The notice
[1:20:35] states that the area is approximately 5.26 ha in size.
[1:20:39] However, this has been corrected to 5.8 ha. The applicant's
[1:20:45] agent, Colin Travis. From Travis and associates, as well as
[1:20:48] John Kirby, on behalf of the All Saints Anglican Church
[1:20:51] are also in attendance this afternoon and will be speaking
[1:20:54] on the application following this presentation. Next slide, please. This
[1:20:59] slide shows the proposed severance of the subject property, and
[1:21:02] it identifies the area that is proposed for rezoning. The
[1:21:06] area highlighted in green on the left hand side contains
[1:21:09] the all Saints Cemetery, which is appropriately zoned and not
[1:21:13] subject to the proposal. However, the area that's highlighted in
[1:21:17] red on the right hand side represents. The portion of
[1:21:20] the property that is being considered for rezoning the applicant's
[1:21:24] intent. Is to sever and sell that portion of the
[1:21:27] site. To enable future development of employment uses in accordance
[1:21:32] with the property's land use designation under the town's new
[1:21:35] official plan. For clarity, no development is being proposed at
[1:21:39] this time, and the zoning bylaw amendment would simply bring
[1:21:42] the permitted uses on the subject property into conformity. With
[1:21:45] the applicable land use designation. A consent application is being
[1:21:51] processed concurrently with the proposed zoning bylaw amendment and one
[1:21:54] of the recommended conditions of consent is the approval of
[1:21:57] the proposed zoning bylaw amendment, subject to it being in
[1:22:01] full force, in effect, with no appeals. Next slide, please.
[1:22:06] Under the town's 2024 official plan, the property is split
[1:22:09] designated parks and open space and general employment. The parks
[1:22:13] and open space designation applies to the portion of the
[1:22:16] site where the cemetery is located, which is a permitted
[1:22:20] use. And the general employment designation applies to the balance
[1:22:24] of the property, which is currently vacant and considered surplus
[1:22:27] to the cemetery's long term needs. The general employment designation
[1:22:31] is currently under appeal, so. In order for the zoning
[1:22:34] bylaw amendment to come into effect. That designation would have
[1:22:39] to no longer be subject to appeals. Next slide, please.
[1:22:44] The subject property is entirely zoned community services. The proposed
[1:22:48] zoning bylaw Amendment seeks to rezone 5.8 eastern portion of
[1:22:53] the site to an industrial park exception zone to facilitate
[1:22:58] a consent application that would sever the vacant area of
[1:23:01] the property and enable future development uses for. Employment. Next
[1:23:06] slide, please. This slide highlights the site specific exceptions that
[1:23:10] are being requested in the industrial park exception zone. The
[1:23:14] effect of the rezoning is to permit uses that are
[1:23:16] consistent with the general employment designation. Due to recent legislation
[1:23:21] and policy changes at the provincial level, standalone, commercial, institutional,
[1:23:26] and public use. Uses are no longer permitted in employment
[1:23:29] areas. Therefore, The industrial park exception zone proposes to prohibit
[1:23:35] the list of uses that are identified on the screen.
[1:23:38] However, the balance of the uses in the parent industrial
[1:23:41] park zone would be permitted. Staff are currently reviewing the
[1:23:45] list of prohibited uses that are being proposed through this
[1:23:48] amendment, and we note that it may be further refined
[1:23:50] as we continue our technical review of the proposal. Any
[1:23:54] changes? To this list will be further discussed in a
[1:23:57] future recommendation report to council. Next slide, please. Planning services
[1:24:03] circulated the application for technical review on November 10, 2025.
[1:24:08] Since then, we have received standard comments from Enbridge, Epcore
[1:24:12] and the town's development engineering department. With no concerns on
[1:24:16] the proposed rezoning. Next slide, please. Today. No comments have
[1:24:21] been received from the public on this application. This meeting
[1:24:24] is an opportunity to formally hear from the public, and
[1:24:27] I would encourage anyone to provide comments that you may
[1:24:30] have at the end of this presentation. Next slide, please.
[1:24:35] Following this afternoon's public meeting. Next steps include a review
[1:24:38] and consideration of comments received from today's meeting, completion of
[1:24:43] technical review and providing the proponent with all comments received.
[1:24:47] Refining the proposed zoning bylaw amendment as necessary preparation of
[1:24:52] a staff report with recommendations to committee. Of the Holing
[1:24:56] Council. Council would then render a decision to approve or
[1:25:00] refuse the zoning bylaw amendment and a notice of decision
[1:25:03] would be circulated to all individuals and organizations who formally
[1:25:07] requested notice, and it would also be published in the
[1:25:10] Collingwood Today online newspaper. And finally, the associated consent application
[1:25:15] will be finalized. Subject to this zoning byl. Bylaw amendment
[1:25:18] being approved with no appeals. Next slide, please. Should anyone
[1:25:23] wish to submit comments or concerns following this afternoon's meeting,
[1:25:27] you're welcome. To email myself, Erica Rose, community planner at
[1:25:31] Eros at Collingwood, Ca. Or you can submit written correspondence
[1:25:35] to Town hall. Members of the public can provide written
[1:25:39] comments up until council renders a decision ver. Verbal comments
[1:25:43] will only be accepted during a public meeting or at
[1:25:45] a feature committee of the whole meeting. Next slide, please.
[1:25:49] To be notified of future agendas or meetings related to
[1:25:52] this application. You can view them on our website. If
[1:25:56] you would like to receive notice of future meetings or
[1:25:58] decision, please provide your contact details today at the sign
[1:26:02] in sheet that's located here at the front. And you
[1:26:05] can request to be circulated in the future as well
[1:26:08] that. Concludes my presentation for today, and my understanding is
[1:26:13] that the applicant has a presentation following this. Thank you.
[1:26:16] Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Travis.
[1:26:30] Good afternoon, Madam mayor, members of council. It's nice to
[1:26:32] see you all again. As with the previous presentation, I
[1:26:37] can't provide anything more. Planning staff provided a very comprehensive
[1:26:41] presentation. Shows the outline of the lens that we're seeking
[1:26:45] rezoning. And the nature of that rezoning. Planner Erica Rose
[1:26:52] identified the existing official plan, the one that was approved.
[1:26:58] In late last year and allowed to designate industrial we
[1:27:02] know that the official plan has to be that part
[1:27:05] of the official plan and some of the policies relating
[1:27:07] to the industrial need to be finally approved, and that,
[1:27:11] as with the previous. Application. We would be basically waiting
[1:27:16] for that to be resolved before Olt. In the meantime,
[1:27:20] we have this public meeting. And again, I don't think
[1:27:23] there are any serious technical issues that have been raised
[1:27:26] with this application. If there are planning or planning consultant
[1:27:31] related questions of council, I'd be more than happy. To
[1:27:33] try to answer them. And in the meantime, I have
[1:27:37] with me. Michael Peterson from the church and John Kirby.
[1:27:42] And I think Michael may have a few words. For
[1:27:45] council. To further explain the nature of the other reason
[1:27:49] why we're seeking this rezoning. And the severance that will
[1:27:53] be heard on Wednesday. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Welcome.
[1:28:03] Thank you. Madam Mayor, members of council, my name is
[1:28:05] Michael Peterson. I am the priest and incumbent at All
[1:28:10] Saints Anglican Church. I just want to. Say a few
[1:28:13] words very briefly to explain why we are seeking your
[1:28:15] approval for this process. As I'm sure you're all aware,
[1:28:19] from attending funerals, burial practices in society. Have changed. Radically
[1:28:24] in our lifetimes, there are fewer. Impairments. Most of them
[1:28:29] are cremated remains, and we believe that. The cemetery, at
[1:28:34] the current rate of use, has more than enough existing
[1:28:38] space for several centuries. The reason why we are seeking
[1:28:44] this, seeking your approval to suburb. And so the land
[1:28:46] is essentially. To allow us to continue the good work
[1:28:51] that all Saints does in the community for generations to
[1:28:53] come. As you are probably aware, we maintain two historic
[1:29:00] buildings in Collingwood at our own expense and out. Of
[1:29:03] those buildings. In addition to religious services, we provide. Space
[1:29:07] for groups in the community. We provide drop in spaces.
[1:29:13] For. Disadvantaged people. For lonely people. At our daytime coffee
[1:29:19] hours. We feed several hundred people a month through our
[1:29:25] food ministry, and our hope is ultimately to expand our
[1:29:28] food services space in the church. To provide other programs,
[1:29:33] such as hot breakfast programs in the community. And as
[1:29:35] we are an inner city church. We see a lot
[1:29:38] of, we see a lot of business, a lot of
[1:29:40] street people. And we have a heart for the community
[1:29:43] in that regard. So our intention and bring this proposal
[1:29:51] to you is simply as I said. To continue the
[1:29:55] good work that we are doing and that we hope
[1:29:57] to do for generations to come, so I thank you
[1:29:59] for your consideration. Thank you very much. Would there be
[1:30:09] any members of the public who would like to address
[1:30:12] council? There's none in chambers. Would there be any online
[1:30:16] clerk, Thomas? Once again, if there's anybody online that would
[1:30:21] like to address council regarding this application, please. Press the
[1:30:24] raise your hand feature. Now it's time. We'll
[1:30:34] close the public portion of the meeting. Would any member
[1:30:38] of council have any questions or comments? Okay, I'm seeing
[1:30:42] none at this time, so we will now close this
[1:30:45] public meeting. Thank you everyone, for coming. The next item
[1:30:54] on our agenda is 8.1. And the recommendation is that
[1:31:00] the minutes of the council committee of the whole meeting
[1:31:03] held December 1, 2025. Excluding committee of the whole recommendations
[1:31:11] and council meeting held December 8, 2025. He approved as
[1:31:15] presented could I have a mover and a seconder, please?
[1:31:19] Councilor Jeffrey seconded by councilor Baines. Any comments? All those
[1:31:23] in favor and that's unanimous. Thank you. Is there any
[1:31:27] business arising from the previous minutes? Can you see? None.
[1:31:33] The next item is 8.3.1. The recommendation is that the
[1:31:39] committee of the whole recommendations from its meeting held December
[1:31:42] 1, 2025. Be hereby approved as presented. There's two items.
[1:31:47] The first one is in 2020. 512. Master servicing plan,
[1:31:53] award of contract, and the second one is reports and
[1:31:56] minutes of other committees and boards. Could I have a
[1:31:58] mover in a seconder, please? Councilor Perry, seconded by. Councilor
[1:32:02] ring comments here. Seeing none. All those in favor? And
[1:32:07] that's unanimous. Thank you. There are two staff reports this
[1:32:13] afternoon. The first one is on p 2025 23 development
[1:32:21] approvals. Process. The recommendation. Yeah. Thanks. The recommendation before us
[1:32:29] is that staff report P 2025 23, development approvals process.
[1:32:39] Also known as dap. And fuse review proposed update to
[1:32:43] building fees, as amended, be received and that the proposed
[1:32:47] update to the building permit fees be effective on January
[1:32:50] 1, 2026, per appendix be attached here, too, and schedule
[1:32:55] a to bylaw 20190 00:39 be replaced to align with
[1:33:00] the updated. Fees. I'll get a move in a seconder
[1:33:03] before we have the staff presentation. Moved by Councilor McCulloch.
[1:33:07] Seconded by Councilor Doherty. And. Who'll be speaking to this?
[1:33:14] Director Valentine. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Council will recall
[1:33:18] that staff had advanced proposed fee updates for planning, building
[1:33:23] and development. Engineering activities flowing from the endorsed development process.
[1:33:30] And fees report, also known as the DAP reports. And
[1:33:33] implementing council's direction to follow a growth pays for growth
[1:33:36] philosophy. We brought the proposed fees scheduled to a public
[1:33:40] meeting. You'll recall that was in October of this year,
[1:33:43] and delayed returning to council to allow additional time for
[1:33:46] targeted consultation with the Georgian Triangle Development Institute or GDTI,
[1:33:51] which is our local. Development community advocacy group, as well
[1:33:55] as Build, which is a similar organization with a larger
[1:33:58] geographic interest in the GTA and beyond. We have received
[1:34:03] a follow up letter from GTDI and build and met
[1:34:07] with both organizations in December and thank them for their
[1:34:10] valuable insights and feedback. This report and the one following
[1:34:15] have been amended to add further context to the fees
[1:34:18] updates document. The feedback collected and summarized the staff recommendation,
[1:34:23] recalling that staff have previous direction from council to implement
[1:34:27] the endorsed app reports. So this is on the building
[1:34:30] services side speaking specifically to this report. GTDI and build
[1:34:34] indicated that they have no concerns with proposed fee update
[1:34:38] we did not receive any other comments from public. Or
[1:34:42] agencies. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the proposed building
[1:34:47] services fee comes into effect January 1. 2026 and chair.
[1:34:51] That would conclude my summary for this amended report. CBO
[1:34:55] hog is online. Both her and I will be available
[1:34:58] should there be any questions, and I'll reserve my further
[1:35:01] commentary on the next item for. The planning and engineering
[1:35:06] peace report. Thank you. Any questions or comments on this
[1:35:10] report? Deputy mayor Fryer. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. And as
[1:35:15] director valentine just pointed out, appreciate GTDI has indicated that
[1:35:19] they don't have any concerns with this. The question I
[1:35:22] was going to ask about was on page seven. It
[1:35:26] refers to. The goal of having two years. For the
[1:35:31] building department coverage in the reserve and that it would
[1:35:35] require a change in policy by council. So I wanted
[1:35:39] to ask through you, if I could, to director Valentine.
[1:35:42] When I look at the adequacy of. Reserve report that
[1:35:47] we get annually. And I look at the target balance
[1:35:50] for building department stabilization, which I think is the right
[1:35:54] reserve. To be referring to. It shows two point. Three.
[1:36:00] Basically 2.349 million as the target balance. So is that
[1:36:06] going to have to change in order to meet that
[1:36:09] requirement of two years? Director Valentine, is this something you
[1:36:14] can answer? Thank you, chair. I was going to defer
[1:36:17] that. Or refer to the treasurer, but I see that
[1:36:19] she's not present at this moment, so. Perhaps that's a
[1:36:22] question that we can come back to. The deputy maron.
[1:36:24] Thank you. Okay? Yeah. Okay. He'll get the answer later.
[1:36:29] Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, seeing none. We'll vote
[1:36:34] on this motion. All those in favor? That's unanimous. Thank
[1:36:39] you. Next item. The recommendation is that staff report, p
[1:36:46] 2025 24 development approvals, process DAP and fees review proposed
[1:36:53] update to planning and development engineering fees, as amended, be
[1:36:57] received and that the proposed update the planning fees be
[1:37:00] effective on January 1, 2026, per appendix. A attached here
[1:37:04] too, and. That the proposed update to the development engineering
[1:37:10] fees be effective on January 1, 2026, per appendix B
[1:37:14] attached here, too, and that the proposed updates to the
[1:37:17] planning and development engineering fees be included. In the 2026
[1:37:22] town fees and service charges bylaw. So can I get
[1:37:25] a mover? In a second or to get this on
[1:37:26] the floor, please. Councilor Bain, seconded by deputy mayor. And
[1:37:33] now I'll turn it over to director Valentine. Thank you
[1:37:37] again, madam Chair. With respect to this item, the feedback
[1:37:41] that we receive from GTDI. And bills. Their comments certainly
[1:37:45] concentrated on this particular report for the planning and development
[1:37:48] engineering service fees. And you will also note that there
[1:37:53] was no additional feedback from individual developers, consulting firms, agencies,
[1:37:57] or the general public beyond what we received from GTDI
[1:38:01] and build. Both organizations raise questions about the fees and
[1:38:06] how they were calculated. And while the answers to their
[1:38:09] specific concerns are contained in the. Amended staff report. Their
[1:38:14] request was that council. Consider one year delay or deferral
[1:38:17] in implementing the planning and development engineering fees. Recognizing the
[1:38:22] challenging economic conditions facing the development and construction industries, and
[1:38:27] they do anticipate those will continue. Into 2026 and potentially
[1:38:31] further into 2027. You did hear from President Ken Hale,
[1:38:36] representing the GTDI earlier in this meeting, and he articulated
[1:38:40] their position. Quite clearly. You also have access to the
[1:38:44] letters from GTTI and built in your agenda package. A
[1:38:48] deferral is certainly an option that this council may consider
[1:38:51] at your sole discretion. However. With great respect to the
[1:38:54] GDTI and for our ongoing positive relationship, we would like
[1:38:58] to take the opportunity to speak to some of the
[1:38:59] points in their presentation. The demand for planning services is
[1:39:04] not in a continued decline. Application numbers have remained steady.
[1:39:08] An average of 115 applications per year for the last
[1:39:12] three years from 2022 to 2024, as indicated. In the
[1:39:15] amended report. With only 2025 seeing a projected decrease by
[1:39:20] 17% from our average. Volume of applications. Planning fee. Revenues
[1:39:27] generated from applications ranged in the area from 145,000 to
[1:39:31] 225,000 per year, and the committee of adjustment, which is
[1:39:36] also a type of planning fee. Their revenues ranged from
[1:39:39] 30,000 to 50,000 annually. And combined, those do not approach
[1:39:45] covering renumeration for staff efforts to process those applications leading
[1:39:50] to a current taxpayer subsidy of 71% of the costs,
[1:39:55] or approximately $500,000 annual impacts on the property tax levery
[1:40:00] in a year where we have an average vol. Volume
[1:40:03] of applications. Recoverable costs are not based on the budget
[1:40:07] book. Full time employee. It's full time equivalents assigned to
[1:40:12] the development management subservice. Those employees. While they do work
[1:40:16] on development applications, they undertake many tasks that are outside
[1:40:20] that process, such as participating in Ontario Land tribunal appeals,
[1:40:26] fielding inquiries, undertaking internal process improvements. And responding to requests
[1:40:31] of council, it would be, in fact, illegal for us
[1:40:34] as a municipality to recover staffing costs that are over
[1:40:37] and above what is required to directly manage land use
[1:40:41] planning. Applications under the Planning Act. The 2025 and 2026
[1:40:47] budgets, though related, have no direct bearing on the fees
[1:40:50] recommended in the DAC reports, which were calculated in 2024
[1:40:55] to meet the legal requirements under the Planning act and
[1:40:58] industry standard efforts. Analysis was used to determine appropriate fee
[1:41:01] levels with multiple checks and balances along with adjust. Adjustments
[1:41:05] for legislative changes. And internal consistency where consultant recommendations were
[1:41:11] not aligned with similar application types. To be clear, the
[1:41:15] efforts analysis approach to calculating fees. It doesn't matter if
[1:41:19] an organization has one employee or 50 staff dedicated to
[1:41:24] development review. It is the average number of human hours
[1:41:28] requ? Required to process one application of each application type
[1:41:31] that is used to set the fees. Whether there are
[1:41:34] sufficient human resources to cover the work required to process
[1:41:38] application volumes in an average year. That's a different question,
[1:41:41] which was also addressed by the consultants, but has no
[1:41:44] impact. On the proposed fees, and we can confirm that
[1:41:47] there have been no additions to the staff complement. For
[1:41:51] development management. Since the DAP reports. Were completed in 2024.
[1:41:57] Lastly, GDTi notes that some fees will triple. This is
[1:41:59] correct. It is also a symptom of the fact that.
[1:42:04] Staff were not able to find any evidence that Collingwood
[1:42:07] has undertaken a comprehensive fee review for development. Applications, and
[1:42:12] therefore the town lags far behind our competitors as well
[1:42:16] as far behind the 75% cost recovery target. We would
[1:42:20] also emphasize that using efforts analysis approach, not all planning
[1:42:25] fees are proposed to increase some are proposed to decrease
[1:42:28] while others remain the same. To that end, the staff
[1:42:32] recommendation is to proceed with the fees update based on
[1:42:34] the previous direction. Of council to adopt a general growth
[1:42:37] pays for growth philosophy, noting that a number of adjustments
[1:42:41] were made to achieve. What we as staff feel is
[1:42:44] an appropriate balance to take into account legislative shifts. Province's
[1:42:48] goal of increasing housing supply. Internal consistency, current economic conditions,
[1:42:53] and the impacts on both the taxpayer and the development
[1:42:57] community. With your patients. I would just like to highlight
[1:43:00] a few points from the amended staff report. Recognizing that
[1:43:04] the current economic situation. Is less and ideal and ensuring
[1:43:09] that there is reduced sticker shock for the industry. Any
[1:43:13] propose increases to land use planning fees are to be
[1:43:16] phased over a four year period on the flip side,
[1:43:19] any of the proposed decreases would be implemented immediately starting
[1:43:22] January 1, 2026. The proposed fee structure recognizes the community
[1:43:28] benefits generated by development, by setting cost recovery for all
[1:43:31] planning fees at 25% across the board. Sorry. 75% across
[1:43:37] the board, which is a developer discount of 25%, noting
[1:43:42] that our current taxpayer subsidy sits at 71%, meaning that
[1:43:46] developers are only paying 29% of the costs associated with
[1:43:50] processing applications. This does not represent a growth pace for
[1:43:54] growth approach and is resulting in an annual subsidy of
[1:43:57] approximately $500,000 per year on the tax levy. If the
[1:44:01] fee update does not proceed. Or is deferred, the subsidy
[1:44:05] would continue at approximately that level for 2026. Staff were
[1:44:09] certainly cognizant that housing affordability is influenced not only by
[1:44:13] the purchase price, but also by the purchasing power of
[1:44:16] individuals and households, which can be impacted by taxation. And
[1:44:22] that is how our subsidy is collected. We would also
[1:44:25] highlight that development engineering fees are proposed. To be maintained
[1:44:29] at current levels, meaning no increase is proposed. Rather, we
[1:44:32] are altering the timing of the payment of those fees
[1:44:36] so that they align with workload, reduce administrative delays, and
[1:44:39] ensure that applicants are aware upfront of. Their overall financial
[1:44:42] obligations. Another consideration is ensuring that our fees are competitive
[1:44:47] and aligned with neighboring and. Comparative municipalities, noting that the
[1:44:52] town of Blue Mountains Council recently updated its planning and
[1:44:55] development engineering fees and that was subsequent to the finalization
[1:44:59] of our peer review comparison provided by the consulting team.
[1:45:03] Meaning that Collingwood was already behind comparable municipalities in 2024
[1:45:06] and now continues to fall further behind. Finally, as you
[1:45:11] see from today's agenda, for those who are building affordable
[1:45:15] housing, there is already a development charge relief through the
[1:45:18] province's legislation, and if approved, there will be a local
[1:45:22] incentive framework that developers can access to offset the cost
[1:45:26] of fees and charges. This certainly bears mentioning as affordability
[1:45:30] was brought. Up both by the GTDI and by council
[1:45:33] members during our public meetings associated with these fees. That
[1:45:37] concludes the summary of the amended report. We have several
[1:45:39] staff here to assist with answering questions. Including myself and
[1:45:42] director Alcoca. Manager Lial is online and next to me
[1:45:46] we have manager Ayers. Thank you, chair, and happy to
[1:45:50] respond. To questions or comments as needed. Hey, thank you
[1:45:54] for that thorough report. I'll turn this over to council
[1:45:57] then. Any questions, comments? Councilor jeffrey. Thank you, Mihan. So
[1:46:05] I guess my first question is the anticipated 25% of
[1:46:10] increased fees. Coming in for 2026, already contemplated in our
[1:46:14] 2026 draft budget. Is this a question for the treasurer?
[1:46:19] Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin, for you to councilor
[1:46:23] Jeffrey. No, the 25% is not included. In the 2026
[1:46:27] draft budget. Okay. Oh, sorry, cao.
[1:46:37] Thank you. I just thought, for clarity, through the chair.
[1:46:42] The potential for increased fees. As well as the potential
[1:46:46] for immediate rebates. Both are not included. And. We're not
[1:46:54] predicting that there would be an overall change in income,
[1:46:56] but this would be starting to restructure. The overall financial
[1:47:02] framework of taxpayer and developer balance. So I just wanted
[1:47:08] to say that we weren't forecasting regardless of your decision
[1:47:12] tonight. Unless I stand corrected by the department or the
[1:47:16] treasurer or that we're certain there would. Be a change
[1:47:20] in revenue that could potentially be applied to the department
[1:47:24] or elsewhere. Okay. I just don't know how you change
[1:47:28] fees. And not predict based on increased activity, why there
[1:47:36] wouldn't be increased. I'm going to ask the treasurer to
[1:47:39] that question. I think she can answer. Treasure. Graham, is
[1:47:42] that a question for you or director Valentine? Okay, thank
[1:47:45] you. Thank you, chair. And perhaps I might have misunderstood
[1:47:51] the CIO's comments, but pending a decision from council today.
[1:47:55] There's still an opportunity, as I understand it, to adjust
[1:47:58] the. Revenue increase the revenue incomes for Lenny's planning applications
[1:48:03] in the 2026 budget and in our report. And of
[1:48:07] course, this is an estimate, because we don't know how
[1:48:09] many applications and of which type will be coming forward
[1:48:11] in 2026. We would estimate. We would be receiving an
[1:48:15] additional 125,000 in 2026. If the 25. Percent increase came
[1:48:22] into effect. As anticipated on January 1. So there is
[1:48:25] an opportunity to adjust the budget by approximately that amount.
[1:48:28] Of increased revenues coming through to planning services. Thank you.
[1:48:34] Thank you. For that response. That's great. I'm a bit
[1:48:39] of. Two minds. And I guess my other question would
[1:48:42] be through to director Valentine, because I was curious. Reading
[1:48:45] about some of the fees that. The consultant had come
[1:48:50] in at, I think, around $847. And staff increased those
[1:48:56] to around 4400. And I know that the consultants report
[1:49:01] was done in 2024, and I'm just wondering. What impacts
[1:49:05] between then and this recommendation would have happened? That would
[1:49:09] impact that decision or that recommendation. Go ahead, director Valentine.
[1:49:15] Thank you, Taryn. Through you and certainly manage your ayers,
[1:49:18] who is deep into the details of this report can
[1:49:21] layer on. The changes since 2024 include legislative changes. So,
[1:49:26] for example, pre consultation, which used to be requirement is
[1:49:30] now voluntary. So in that example, The consultant recommended quite
[1:49:35] a boost in the pre consultation fees, which we didn't
[1:49:39] think would be appropriate for encouraging folks to come through
[1:49:43] a voluntary process. The other component. That has changed, or
[1:49:49] I would say is notable, perhaps, is that there's a
[1:49:52] number of application types which the town. Has not processed
[1:49:56] in the last seven years or more. So when the
[1:49:59] consultants were undertaking their efforts, analysis, there was not very
[1:50:03] much of any data to drive those fees. So when
[1:50:07] we looked at the entire body of what the consultants
[1:50:10] recommended. There were certain fees for almost the same efforts,
[1:50:14] very similar application types that were extremely different. So we
[1:50:18] tried to align those internally so that there was consistency
[1:50:21] amongst the fees as an entire body. Thank you. Councilor
[1:50:27] Payne. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I'd just like to offer.
[1:50:34] My thanks and congratulations to Director Valentine and to all
[1:50:37] staff for a very detailed and pointed. Fuel point by
[1:50:42] point explanation. For your recommendation. And it would seem to
[1:50:48] me, to the TDI request to defer. Other than the
[1:50:54] CPI, these increases, in my opinion, I think that just
[1:50:59] compounds the issue of kicking it down the road, so
[1:51:01] to speak, and particularly the sticker shock if, as and
[1:51:04] when it takes effect. So, as unpalatable as that may
[1:51:09] be to some, I think it's appropriate to proceed with
[1:51:12] the staff recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Council.
[1:51:20] Doherty. Thank you, chair. I am. Equally conflicted.
[1:51:31] On this staff report. I'm very sympathetic to the development
[1:51:38] community. Absolutely. But. Any
[1:51:48] lowering of our development applications right now. Is really due
[1:51:54] to complexity. Of factors and. It's not development charges alone
[1:52:01] or planning fees. It's got a lot to do, also
[1:52:06] with market conditions and. I'm not going to put too
[1:52:10] fine a footpoint on it. Because we all know it's
[1:52:14] a very complex market out there. But. The thing that
[1:52:22] really drives my decision. Is the fact that. Our residents
[1:52:29] are picking up. So much of the cost. Of our
[1:52:34] development applications. And. It's not fair. Growth should properly pay
[1:52:42] for growth. My other conclusion. And I hope that I
[1:52:51] will be correct. Is that another complaint? That we hear.
[1:52:58] With regard to. Planning applications is. How slow the processing
[1:53:05] is. So. I am going to assume that. The changes
[1:53:12] that are being proposed. And phased. Will have the effect
[1:53:18] of allowing. The planning department to apply. The correct. Amount
[1:53:25] of resource. To allow applications to be processed more quickly
[1:53:32] and in that way. We are going to assist. The
[1:53:38] development community. In their costs by making these things faster.
[1:53:45] So. I will support. Staff's recommendation. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:53:55] Anyone else like to comment? Deputy mayor. Thank you, Mayor
[1:54:01] Hamlin. Again being sensitive to. The concerns raised by GTdi.
[1:54:10] And very appreciative of the cooperative process. And GTDI has
[1:54:16] always been great in that regard, working with our staff.
[1:54:20] I do believe staff have taken to heart a lot
[1:54:23] of what the input had been coming. And they proposed
[1:54:27] a collection of things with phasing in. Reduction of some
[1:54:33] of the consultants recommendations of fees. Going to the 75%
[1:54:38] level. So I do believe. Made what they think are
[1:54:43] the best recommendations possible. In regards to. Trying to help
[1:54:50] with the impacts overall. I'm supportive of what they've done.
[1:54:58] So I'm going to support the bylaw. To be passed
[1:55:02] and implemented as requested for January 1. I do have
[1:55:10] some questions that are going to be more in the
[1:55:13] budget part of the presentation. But. I just feel like
[1:55:20] there is that situation where if we don't do it
[1:55:22] now, Would we do it again in 2027? I'm going
[1:55:29] to support. The recommendations of staff at this point in
[1:55:35] time and hope that there's other ways. That they can
[1:55:39] assist. The development community going forward. To help alleviate. On
[1:55:45] that particular part of the increase. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:55:49] Would anyone else like to speak? Altra said. This is
[1:55:54] a really hard one because no one wants to add
[1:55:57] additional fees or any fees to anyone, whether they're in
[1:56:01] the building industry or, in fact, our own community. But
[1:56:08] particularly. The building and development industry. Everyone recognizes. Is not
[1:56:14] in a good place right now. But. I am so
[1:56:19] mindful of the fact that. The staff's target is to.
[1:56:25] Have only 75% of the cost of these applications borne
[1:56:28] by. Our. Residential taxpayers. And we're at 29%. We have
[1:56:36] a long way to go, so I think a modest
[1:56:39] increase this year. Is not a bad way to be
[1:56:44] going. We get a chance to review these fees anytime
[1:56:48] we want. So I think. We should anyway. For me,
[1:56:52] I'm going to support the staff recommendation this afternoon. And
[1:56:57] see where we go. Okay, so with that in mind,
[1:57:01] we'll bring this to a vote. All those in favor?
[1:57:05] And that's unanimous. Thank you. The next item is the
[1:57:09] bylaw. Dealing with fees and services. And the. Recommendation is.
[1:57:17] This is at 10.1 bylaw number. We're going to sever
[1:57:22] out the item for the pool fees, so I'm going
[1:57:25] to say. What we're asking to approve is bylaw number
[1:57:28] 20 25 86 being a life bylaw to adopt the
[1:57:32] 2026 fees and services charge bylaw. Except relating to the
[1:57:38] pool fees. With that. Also, if we sever that out,
[1:57:47] does that take out the request from who knows? This
[1:57:50] the request from the georgian based wall. So it's georgian
[1:57:53] based wall? Yeah. Okay. Everything else other than that. Could
[1:57:59] I have a mover in a seconder? So mover is
[1:58:02] deputy mayor Friar, the secondary is councillor Jeffrey. Any discussion
[1:58:07] on that? All those. Councilor Dougherty. Go ahead. Not the
[1:58:12] pool. Yeah. Well, I was going to comment on the
[1:58:17] pool that I don't think that we need. To take
[1:58:19] out all of the recommended fee changes for the pool.
[1:58:24] It's just. For? Well, no, there's. Deputy mayor Friar has
[1:58:29] a conflict, so we're taking all of it out. Okay.
[1:58:33] For now. Fair enough. Okay. Thing, any other comments? All
[1:58:36] those in favor? That's unanimous. Thank you. So now. The
[1:58:42] recommendation before you is bylaw number 25 86, being a
[1:58:47] bala to adopt the 26 fees. And services charges relating
[1:58:51] solely to the pool fees. Be enacted and passed. Okay,
[1:58:56] move her in a seconder, please. To get this on
[1:59:01] the table. Okay. Councilor McCullough, seconded by Councilor Baines. Councilor
[1:59:06] Dougherty. Thank you very much. So what I would like
[1:59:14] to do is suggest that we just hold the increase.
[1:59:21] On. The squall group. And similar groups that are using
[1:59:27] the pool. Where there is. Fairly significant differential between themselves.
[1:59:35] And as an organization. Organizations. And just individual public users.
[1:59:42] I think we have to list exactly. Yeah, I don't
[1:59:48] think we can do that. General of a recommendation. Maybe
[1:59:50] you have a question for staff about how you might
[1:59:53] scope that. And I could pose that. Can I just
[2:00:02] ask the clerk home if she has a comment? Certainly.
[2:00:06] Thank you. Staff, through your worship to council Dory stuff
[2:00:09] have been talking in the background about what an appropriate
[2:00:12] amendment would look like, and the recommendation is to proceed
[2:00:15] with the fees as proposed and that you provide a
[2:00:18] notice of motion that we waive fees. To the georgian
[2:00:23] squall for a fee based on either the base rate
[2:00:27] or the youth. Rate or 1.5 rate. Until the PRC
[2:00:32] master plan review is done. That's going to be investigating
[2:00:36] this policy. Thank you. Okay, so that will bring that
[2:00:40] up at the appropriate time. I think now is a
[2:00:45] good time. I think now is a good time. Do
[2:00:52] you have that? So we could see it. Those words.
[2:00:56] There's other groups. That we don't want, but we would
[2:01:01] want to lead our most moved. So you would. Waive
[2:01:04] fees for. All. I'm just not understanding. So. Really? My
[2:01:12] suggestion was not to waive fees, but just to hold
[2:01:15] the increase on. These not for profit user groups. Until
[2:01:21] we can rationalize. Those fees versus. Other groups, like the
[2:01:29] clippers. Director, Cuba. What's your comment on this? Thank you
[2:01:37] through your worship. I just thought. It would be important
[2:01:42] to caution that. We have nearly a dozen. For profit
[2:01:48] businesses that regularly rent our Rec facilities. Including our arenas
[2:01:52] and our sports fields, and there's actually two commercial users
[2:01:56] at our pool. And in order to consider all of
[2:01:59] these businesses fairly inequitably, And maybe avoid a slippery slope.
[2:02:05] We'd recommend an overall policy review to address recreational facility.
[2:02:10] Fees and how they may be tiered. I also want
[2:02:14] to note that this work will have implications to our
[2:02:16] current council approved facility allocation. Policy, which also prioritizes allocation
[2:02:21] by category. So youth over adults over commercial programming. So
[2:02:27] I think, ideally, we'd recommend that this be referred to
[2:02:30] the recreation portion of the PRC master plan update that's
[2:02:35] currently proposed for 2027. If that is not council's. Desire,
[2:02:39] then perhaps. You were looking at. Reduction fees for the
[2:02:45] school. And potentially the other current commercial user. At the
[2:02:52] pool. Until that work has been done. From the commercial
[2:02:56] rate to the current basic rate. Just offer that. Thank
[2:03:01] you. And can I just ask a question of that?
[2:03:05] And what would you. Do with the fees? For 26.
[2:03:11] What are you suggesting? We could consider just not implementing
[2:03:16] the commercial rate at the pool, specifically, if that should
[2:03:21] be council's. Desire in 2026. Okay, Councilor Dougherty, back to
[2:03:25] you. Thank you. I think we have the ability to
[2:03:30] differentiate between. Not for profits and. True commercial. Entities. I
[2:03:39] don't envision. Reducing. Fees. For all of these groups. If
[2:03:47] they're in the business of doing this for profit, but
[2:03:50] this particular group. That provided a deputation to us earlier
[2:03:56] today. It's a different situation altogether. They're not there for
[2:04:02] the prophet and in the meantime. They're excellent users. Of
[2:04:10] the pool and taking up capacity. In a good way.
[2:04:16] So really my suggestion. To simplify. Perhaps. And Director Cubit,
[2:04:23] I think she sort of outlined it, that. We simply
[2:04:28] for this particular group. Only that we reduce their fees.
[2:04:35] To. The. Equivalent. Other user groups. That are enjoying that
[2:04:43] reduced. Fee for? I think it was $59 versus. 100
[2:04:49] and change. So just to. Keep the rate at the
[2:04:56] lower. Keep it at the lower rate. Sorry. Trying to
[2:04:59] make it simple, and I'm not. Okay. Thank you for
[2:05:02] that, councilor baines. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I have a
[2:05:06] challenge with that. I'm sympathetic to this specific issue, but
[2:05:09] it seems to me this all comes back to the
[2:05:10] definition of commercial versus not for profit. And if the
[2:05:15] review of the recreational master plan will address that. Or
[2:05:19] if staff can come back about that. I hate to
[2:05:22] set a precedent for one particular group when other groups
[2:05:25] could benefit from that categorization. If you will, but it
[2:05:29] seems to me. That's the essential point here. And if
[2:05:32] we can buy some time to come back. With staff
[2:05:36] recommendation about that. The challenge is how you fit that
[2:05:40] into the 26 fee increases. I can't address that. Right
[2:05:43] now, but I would worry about establishing a precedent at
[2:05:47] this point for one specific group. Hey. Anyone else like
[2:05:51] to comment on this? Well.
[2:06:01] What I'm not understanding. I think it could just be
[2:06:03] me. But. Are there others? I guess there's a couple
[2:06:09] of choices here. One for 2026. We just moved the.
[2:06:14] Georgian base wall back into the basic. While the review
[2:06:18] is going on, but if we do that, Director. Qubit,
[2:06:22] are we leaving any other group? In a commercial category
[2:06:27] this year. That's been moved up into it. Thank you.
[2:06:33] At the pool, specifically. Yes. Vo two was also a
[2:06:36] commercial renter of that space. Okay, I see. Councilor Jeffrey.
[2:06:44] Thank you. Mary Hamlin. So I'm just wondering. If we
[2:06:49] can refer. This back and get the information before we
[2:06:53] vote on this portion of the bylaw. Is that? I
[2:06:56] guess through to the clerk. Is that potential? It would
[2:06:59] have to be retroactive. To January 1. Whatever changes we
[2:07:03] do, I guess because we aren't going to meet to
[2:07:06] receive that information until the new year. But to me,
[2:07:10] I'd rather have a clear understanding. Of the landscape before
[2:07:13] I vote on it. I'm just trying to understand. What
[2:07:19] is it that. We keep the fees the same as
[2:07:23] until we change it. Is it just the users of
[2:07:26] the group, which is v O two and South Georgian
[2:07:28] Bay squall because. They're the two commercial categories. Or do
[2:07:33] we want all the pool or all the recreational? Facilities
[2:07:36] with commercial like. I think we have to narrow this
[2:07:38] somehow. Yeah. I would ask for stuff to narrow that
[2:07:45] for us because. I think it does all come down
[2:07:48] to just that commercial designation. And if we don't? Institute
[2:07:53] that until we get a report back, then. It would
[2:07:57] be status quo. Yeah, I have a hard time deciding
[2:08:00] this. I totally agree, councilor. Dougherty. Do you have a
[2:08:03] thought on this? Yes. Thank you. So I was coming
[2:08:08] around to the same conclusion that. We need to just
[2:08:13] refer this. It's becoming a little bit more complicated than
[2:08:15] it first. Appeared. I like to refer it back to
[2:08:20] staff. To review specifically. The fees associated with. This commercial.
[2:08:28] Category and see if we can come up with something
[2:08:30] that might be a little bit. More equitable. And so
[2:08:37] that the increase in fees would be retroactive to January
[2:08:42] 1. Because, of course, We're not going to be able
[2:08:45] to approve it. Before that time. So I just have
[2:08:51] a clarification. Click. Almost. Can we do retroactive? These. Thank
[2:08:56] you. Thank you. Thanks for your worship, I would agree.
[2:08:59] I would support passing the motion. As provided with the
[2:09:03] notice motion that it be reviewed for further consideration for
[2:09:07] the Georgia squall group and staff information. We would report
[2:09:11] back in January, and then if a council supports a
[2:09:15] decision being made. We can make it retroactive. So under
[2:09:19] that. We would not pass anything to do with pool
[2:09:24] fees today. We would just not implement them until we
[2:09:28] hear back those two. Fees, okay? Does everyone need further
[2:09:34] explanation? Okay, so that's a notice of motion. And then
[2:09:42] request to waive, of course. Right. Yeah. Okay. So.
[2:09:52] I guess we should deal with that. The bylaw just
[2:09:56] for pool fees. Yeah, okay, but this is an amendment
[2:10:00] to that. Inducement. Okay. All right, so what we're going
[2:10:05] to do now? Is what I read out previously, which
[2:10:10] is just the pool fees, and then we're going. To
[2:10:13] do an amendment to that. Technically amendment. We'll do a
[2:10:17] motion to wait notice to say not the fees till
[2:10:19] we hear about. Okay. All right. Did everyone hear that?
[2:10:23] Is that okay? Okay. All those in favor? Okay, unanimous.
[2:10:28] And then. The amendment to that motion, then is. To
[2:10:35] have. To hold the fee increase for the commercial category
[2:10:42] and request staff. To review that category and come back
[2:10:47] with recommendations. That. May see. More a changed or more
[2:10:55] equitable fee structure based on the nature of the organizations.
[2:11:00] Okay. And we've asked for a waiving of motion. Reading
[2:11:05] of notice of motion. Pardon? Yes. Okay. She's seconding waving
[2:11:13] of notice. Okay. Any comment? No. We don't need to
[2:11:17] comment. All those in favor? Okay, unanimous. And then the
[2:11:22] motion itself. All those in favor? Unless there's comments? Yes,
[2:11:26] go ahead. Sure. I thought that I heard the clerk
[2:11:29] say that she would want to add that the fees
[2:11:31] not be posted until staff come back. Not being pulled,
[2:11:36] not be imposed, okay? And just. This is commercial category
[2:11:43] for the pool, correct? Yes. And geo, did you have
[2:11:47] a comment? Thank you. Through the chair. I was going
[2:11:50] to ask for the same clarification commercial category. For the
[2:11:54] pool. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Seconder was councilor
[2:12:00] Jeffrey. Yeah. All those in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank
[2:12:05] you. Thank you for coming. All right, next item. Departmental
[2:12:13] updates. Executive director Peg is going to speak to us
[2:12:16] about Simcoe. County recycling changes. Over to you. Thank you,
[2:12:23] Mayor Hamlin. So council in the community would have received
[2:12:26] a memorandum as part of the package, but I am
[2:12:29] going to provide a summary of that information. And a
[2:12:33] couple additional updates. So, effective January 1, 2026, residential recycling
[2:12:38] collection across Simcoe county is going to be transitioning to
[2:12:42] circular materials, which is a not for profit organization which
[2:12:46] has been appointed under Ontario's. Extended producer responsibility framework. The
[2:12:53] county will continue to manage garbage, organics and waste drop
[2:12:57] off services, and there are no changes to those programs.
[2:13:01] Because recycling is currently a county managed service, the transition
[2:13:06] to circular materials is being led by the county of
[2:13:08] Simcoe, with the town of Collingwood supporting and amplifying communications
[2:13:13] locally. The county has implemented quite a robust, phased communication
[2:13:18] strategy to help ensure that residents across the county including
[2:13:22] our own and our businesses are informed of the changes.
[2:13:26] This includes social media, radio, advertising, news releases online resources
[2:13:32] as well as direct outreach and businesses. Have received targeted
[2:13:36] communication through mailers, emails and in person visits. The county
[2:13:42] has reported that in Collingwood, specifically, 177 businesses identified as
[2:13:47] receiving curb side recycling have been contacted directly by county
[2:13:52] staff through in person visits, emails and phone calls. The
[2:13:56] town has shared county updates through our social media. Our
[2:14:00] website newsletters, including our economic development newsletter. Radio municipal digital
[2:14:07] displays and ads within Collingwood today. While also working closely
[2:14:11] with our local bia. We direct residents to the county's
[2:14:15] recycling transition site. And service. Collingwood is also actively responding
[2:14:20] to any questions as they come in. Looking ahead. Communications
[2:14:24] will continue through our radio campaigns. Mobile signage at key
[2:14:29] town entrances. Social media, and we'll continue to post reminders
[2:14:33] after January 1. Operationally, the impact to our town facilities
[2:14:38] is minimal. We have shared bulk recycling bins already. In
[2:14:43] place at key locations. And additional capacity has been added.
[2:14:48] Where we've proactively identified a potential need and staff will
[2:14:51] continue to monitor the usage to determine if larger bins
[2:14:54] are required. The county of Simcoe also recently shared with
[2:14:59] the public their new 2026 tonnage rates which include new
[2:15:04] rates for blue box recyclables. These rates are now posted
[2:15:08] on their website, but it's $200 a ton or $10
[2:15:13] minimum fee. In order to have the most up to
[2:15:16] date information. We continue to encourage those impacted or interested.
[2:15:23] To visit and monitor the county's website at Simco, CA.
[2:15:27] It is a great resource lots of up to date
[2:15:29] information on what's changing, what to expect. They have a
[2:15:33] lengthy, frequently asked questions. There's business specific information and much
[2:15:38] more. We did request a county Simco representative to attend
[2:15:43] council this afternoon. Unfortunately, they were not available, but certainly
[2:15:48] did commit to assist with any follow up questions that
[2:15:51] council may have should we not be able to address
[2:15:54] them. So thank you, Mayor Hamlin, that is. The overview.
[2:16:00] Thank you. Questions, Councilor Jeffrey. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. So
[2:16:05] the questions I've been getting, people want to confirm. Number
[2:16:09] one. It'll be the same as always. It'll be every
[2:16:11] other week. Alternated. With the garbage. Number two I noticed
[2:16:16] in the county. Calendar. Online calendar that recycling is no
[2:16:21] longer included in their calendar for pickup. And the deputy
[2:16:26] mayor was kind enough to follow up for me that
[2:16:29] the new company for recycling will have their own calendar.
[2:16:33] So now our residents will have to go to two
[2:16:35] calendars to ensure. Is there a way that the town
[2:16:39] of Collingwood, at least for our residents, I know. The
[2:16:43] problem is, nobody wants to take responsibility if the other
[2:16:46] person changes their calendar and. Then people have their garbage
[2:16:49] out and it doesn't get picked up or something. I
[2:16:51] don't. Know, but I just know this is really complicated.
[2:16:55] You might seem simple to us, but. For residents. They
[2:16:57] just want to know the basics and they want to
[2:16:59] know how to get the information easily without reading. A
[2:17:03] hole. Thing on the county website. Yes, go ahead. Thank
[2:17:11] you, Mayor through to Councilor Jeffrey. So you are correct
[2:17:13] that the dates and time for pickup for recyclables is
[2:17:16] not changing. It will just be picked up by circular.
[2:17:18] Materials as opposed to the county of Simcoe. In addition,
[2:17:22] happy to look at our calendars. Online or information that
[2:17:25] we might be able to post. At least people may
[2:17:27] have a one stop shop for the dates and times
[2:17:30] or. At least provide whatever the county is promoting. Thank
[2:17:35] you. That would be great. Thank you, Councilor Potts. Thanks,
[2:17:38] Mary. I have a question. Potentially through to director peg.
[2:17:45] Is there ever potentially an opportunity? And I'm thinking of
[2:17:48] the Bia and the downtown businesses that. They could. Have
[2:17:54] a centralized location, whether they're in a partnership with the
[2:17:57] town, to go through, like a third party company to
[2:18:00] be able to collect. And I'll use something like, say,
[2:18:03] Miller's or somebody like that. That's. In the business that
[2:18:05] can actually. Maybe pick up from there. And go and
[2:18:10] how that all works, but I just find it's going
[2:18:12] to be such a. Huge inconvenience. And an overall kind
[2:18:18] of in this together, and it's really unknown, but is
[2:18:21] there any discussions or any potential opportunity that there could
[2:18:25] be a centralized location within the municipality, somewhere where they
[2:18:30] can get stuff to and then. Have it transported from
[2:18:34] there to Lentville. Yes, executive director. Thank your worship. Through
[2:18:39] to councilor Potts. It's a great suggestion. It's something that
[2:18:42] director Valentine and I have had on our radar, and
[2:18:45] it's actually placed in our department heads agenda tomorrow to
[2:18:48] see if there might be an opportunity for us. To
[2:18:50] explore that type of thinking further. Just a follow up,
[2:18:53] if I may. I just look at however many businesses,
[2:18:58] let's say 400, that are all facing the challenges. Of
[2:19:02] the recycling. And I just think if it's something that
[2:19:06] we can make along with some of the other facilities.
[2:19:10] Just to see how that would roll out. Because. This
[2:19:14] does not make any sense at all to me. At
[2:19:16] all. And I just think that if there's anything we
[2:19:19] can do, even for the first year or two. Or
[2:19:22] even the first. Year to roll something out to work
[2:19:24] with the businesses and the other impacted. Areas. I think
[2:19:29] it would be something that. Would be certainly an asset.
[2:19:33] So looking forward to report back, councilor Paynes. Thank you,
[2:19:36] mayor. Hamlin through you again to Ed. Peg, do you
[2:19:41] happen to know getting into the weeds on this. Whether
[2:19:44] circulate Ontario. Sorry, that's the new organization. At any rate,
[2:19:49] whether they have their own trucks or whether they're contracting.
[2:19:54] To someone else, whether it's Miller or whomever, just out
[2:19:57] of interest for that and. Then I'll have another comment.
[2:19:58] Thank you. Yeah, go ahead. Thank your worship. I don't
[2:20:02] want to speak out of turn. I don't have those
[2:20:04] technical details, we can certainly look to find out. I
[2:20:08] understand that circular materials has purchased the bins from the
[2:20:11] county, Simcoe, but I'm. Not sure about the trucks. We
[2:20:15] shall see. But. To my colleague to my right, here's
[2:20:19] comment about that and to critics of municipalities who are
[2:20:24] advancing into areas which is not their core mandate, such
[2:20:27] as what we've just discussed. Here. There's a reason. Because
[2:20:30] other levels of government, for whatever reason, seem to have
[2:20:33] been stepping back from this, and it's left to the
[2:20:36] poor little municipality to pick up the. Pieces. Thank you.
[2:20:39] That's editorial comment. Deputy Mayor Fryer thank you, Mayor Hamlin.
[2:20:44] And I've been listening to this for a year and
[2:20:47] a half and nothing simple about it. It's so much
[2:20:50] more complicated than it really should be, in my opinion,
[2:20:53] and I do believe that Simcoe counties done best effort
[2:20:59] to try to help guide. The change over to be
[2:21:03] as seamless as possible. But unfortunately, the reality is so
[2:21:07] the first thing I wanted to say how much I
[2:21:09] appreciate our staff in Simple county. Staff? Our staff are.
[2:21:13] Working in conjunction. And. They're talking about. They already mentioned
[2:21:18] about a couple of steps they're doing to help out.
[2:21:22] With. The increased. Bin space. In that they're providing direct
[2:21:28] info. To the residents. And providing that conduit to the
[2:21:34] Simcoe county site because they are the waste service. Provider,
[2:21:37] and they're the ones who are responsible for it and
[2:21:40] such. The things that we're just going to also comment
[2:21:44] on, I do believe. The trucks that we're picking up
[2:21:49] are by a company by the name Mtira. Circular materials
[2:21:55] has taken on the contract from the PRo. And an
[2:22:00] emptyer, I believe, is the corporate company that's picking up.
[2:22:05] I'd be great if we can come up with an
[2:22:06] ICI alternative. It's unfortunate that. We had to be in
[2:22:15] this position where it's going to be implemented in just
[2:22:17] a few weeks. But the reality was county was still
[2:22:21] trying to work it out. With circular materials about doing
[2:22:26] the pickups. And the one other thing I'll comment on.
[2:22:29] It does talk about. And director Peg mentioned this, ed.
[2:22:37] Peg mentioned this. Anybody who's taking recycling to the depot.
[2:22:45] At the landfill site. There is a $10 minimum. What's
[2:22:50] supposed to happen. Is. The condominium areas that we had
[2:22:56] who we couldn't do curbside pickup if. They took. They
[2:23:01] were delivering it to the site over these past few
[2:23:04] years. They didn't. Have to pay anything. And technically, they're
[2:23:08] not supposed to have to pay going forward either. But
[2:23:11] it's up to circular materials to provide the alternative for
[2:23:15] them to have a site. To drop off. And to
[2:23:19] our knowledge. We still have not got anything worked out
[2:23:22] on that. So if circular material says it's in Berry,
[2:23:27] the likelihood is that somebody, if they're going to recycle,
[2:23:30] is going to go to the site and. They're going
[2:23:33] to have to pay. And even though they had been
[2:23:35] getting the service, Because. Simple. County couldn't deliver it because
[2:23:42] the curbside pickup wasn't available. So again, I just want
[2:23:46] to thank stuff. It's a complicated thing. Coming forward on
[2:23:51] January the first. And I really appreciate all the efforts.
[2:23:56] I do believe. We're doing the best job we can
[2:23:59] on getting the message out there and trying to come
[2:24:01] up with any alternatives we can, so thank you. Thank
[2:24:05] you. I have a couple of questions. Executive directory. You
[2:24:11] mentioned there were 177 businesses affected. Does this include the
[2:24:15] institutional users, do you think? Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. That's
[2:24:20] something we definitely have to confirm with the county, but.
[2:24:23] Happy to follow up with them. Okay. And it struck
[2:24:26] me that this is a lot less than the membership
[2:24:28] in the bia. This is what's on my mind. If
[2:24:34] this. Is primarily bia members. Assuming. Wondering whether the Bi
[2:24:43] might be the one best suited to a range collection
[2:24:46] for their members. So I'll just leave that with you
[2:24:49] for your thoughts, okay? Any other comments? Yes, councilor Dougherty.
[2:24:56] Thank you. So as everybody. Has already. Expressed. This is
[2:25:05] a major setback. For. Our objective to achieve some sort
[2:25:14] of. Circular economy. And to have a waste management system
[2:25:20] that's more sustainable, so. But we're not alone. It's 444
[2:25:26] municipalities are facing the same complications. And I can provide
[2:25:32] assurance to council that this is. A very high priority.
[2:25:38] For amo to continue. To negotiate. With the province. To
[2:25:46] ensure that. We can. Find a better solution than. What
[2:25:52] we're facing right now. Thank you. Thank you for saying
[2:25:56] that about amo. Because I was just going to say
[2:25:59] the province dropped the ball here. And it was good
[2:26:03] that they covered off our residential users, but there's. So
[2:26:08] many commercial, industrial. Institutional users, so I'm glad Amos on
[2:26:13] this. Thank you for letting us know. Okay. My thought
[2:26:19] was to continue to about 05:00 does anyone need a
[2:26:22] five minute break right? Now. Everyone's good to go. Okay,
[2:26:27] so the next item on the agenda is the consent
[2:26:30] agenda. The recommendation is that council received the general consent
[2:26:35] agenda and note that the information and opinions provided are
[2:26:41] those of the authors and are not verified or approved
[2:26:43] as being correct. There's three items listed. One Tennis Canada
[2:26:50] letter resupport for proposed tennis facility two Ontario Tennis association
[2:26:56] letter resupport for proposed tennis facility. And three, five letters
[2:27:02] regarding support for four way stop control at Cedar and
[2:27:05] Third street. Could I. Get a mover in a seconder,
[2:27:08] please. Deputy mayor, seconded by councilor Perry. All those in
[2:27:13] favor? That's unanimous. Anyone want to pull any of these.
[2:27:18] Okay seeing none. There are, I believe, three motions here.
[2:27:25] This afternoon. So the first one is mine. So I'll
[2:27:30] turn the chair over to the deputy mayor. Of course,
[2:27:34] just to turn back to you, Mayor Hamlin, to read
[2:27:36] it in, and then I will ask for a seconder
[2:27:39] and ask if you want to speak first or last.
[2:27:41] Thank you. Whereas the town of Collingwood community based strategic
[2:27:45] plan prioritizes. Creating a safe and inclusive community, including enhancing
[2:27:51] transportation safety for residents and visitors. Therefore, be a resolve
[2:27:56] that council pass and enact bylaw 2025 87 to authorize
[2:28:02] the installation of a four way stop sign at the
[2:28:05] intersection of Cedar street and Third Street. And further, the
[2:28:08] council request staff to develop a phased approach for additional
[2:28:12] fourway stop intersections prioritizing school zones and community safety zone
[2:28:19] zones and further, that these signs be funded through the
[2:28:22] 2026 traffic calming budget. And they'll ask, do you have
[2:28:27] a seconder in mind? Or just turn to the floor.
[2:28:34] So seconded by councilor Baines. And I will then ask,
[2:28:38] do you want to speak? First or last, so you
[2:28:40] go ahead. Thank you. This intersection is one where residents
[2:28:46] have come to this chamber a number of times over
[2:28:49] the. Going on. Eight years I've been sitting here asking
[2:28:53] for a stop sign. This is not the first time,
[2:28:55] and there have been numerous accidents and near misses, and
[2:28:59] I think also, it's been explained to me this is
[2:29:02] a particularly busy intersection. Because it links to our waterfront
[2:29:07] park there. There's lights at First street, obviously, at cedar
[2:29:11] and first, so. It's always particularly busy. I know. There
[2:29:19] are. I think what I hear, it's the most common.
[2:29:21] One of the most common. Complaints I hear from residents
[2:29:24] is why don't we have four way stops everywhere? Because
[2:29:26] it's not intuitive. For people driving to be paying attention,
[2:29:32] which is, I know, a sad commentary on our drivers,
[2:29:35] probably. Including me? No, I didn't need to say that.
[2:29:39] But in any event, what I wanted to say is
[2:29:41] this is a very common ask, and I think this
[2:29:45] is an easy thing for us to address. With asking
[2:29:51] also staff to look forward to the future of how.
[2:29:55] We should address the rest of the community. After Abby,
[2:30:00] who presented here today, mentioned she had written to me,
[2:30:03] and she's written a few times and she wrote to
[2:30:05] me after her, she presented today to say, to update,
[2:30:10] she's, had a petition signed by people in Collingwood, and
[2:30:13] today the number was at 462 and she meant to
[2:30:15] say that, but forgot when she was up there, so
[2:30:18] I'm just. Sharing that. And that's what I wanted to
[2:30:20] say. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to councilor Potts,
[2:30:24] then. Thanks, Deputy Merrier. Fryer. I'm very supportive of the
[2:30:28] four way stop in this location. The one part. I'm
[2:30:33] challenging. I struggle with. Is a number of us members
[2:30:36] of council have brought in the past six months to
[2:30:39] a year. Brought a lot of different areas forward to
[2:30:42] council. Through the town from residents, and it's always been
[2:30:47] referred and kicked back to the MMTP. And. I look
[2:30:51] at the point of, again, I'm very supportive of this,
[2:30:54] but if I was one or two or three residents
[2:30:56] on other streets who have been sitting patiently, waiting for
[2:31:00] the advice that was given. For. An mtp. To come
[2:31:06] back. I would think that it wouldn't be very comforting
[2:31:09] for them. In the words of Councilor Baines, the precedent.
[2:31:16] That. I just think it's. And again, I'm supportive of
[2:31:18] it, but I would be. Interested to know as far
[2:31:21] as this plan. I just don't think it's fair across
[2:31:25] the town. To approve. Or specifically approve this one just
[2:31:31] location because of the number of deputations when there's. Been
[2:31:34] a lot of deputations come in from a lot of
[2:31:36] different residents. From one end of the town to the
[2:31:38] other. So where does that sit, as far as is
[2:31:41] that going? To be a recommendation to staff is to
[2:31:44] wait for the MMTP, or is this something that would
[2:31:47] be a one off if. You will. So I don't
[2:31:49] know who that goes. Maybe directory Alcoca. Or. I was
[2:31:53] just going to say, councilor Potts, I think I'll direct
[2:31:56] to. Cao Skinner and let her. Decide on response. Or
[2:32:02] to other if you could, please. Thank you very much.
[2:32:07] I am comfortable with this one going right to Director
[2:32:09] Alcoca. Thank you for asking. Thank you, chair. So, to
[2:32:13] everybody else. Yes. We have a stop sign
[2:32:23] policy that we should be following. That's my first point.
[2:32:28] I agree that request, direct request for stop sign should
[2:32:31] follow a systematic approach, and that's why? We have a
[2:32:35] master plan in the works that sets out how we
[2:32:38] go about these things. What kind of warrants do you
[2:32:41] want? What kind of studies? How can we justify it?
[2:32:45] And I would recommend that we follow our own policies
[2:32:47] that we're setting for requesting stop. Signs or traffic lights
[2:32:51] or any other road feature we focus on. Creating the
[2:32:56] road network as a network as a whole, not as
[2:32:59] individual locations. And we really need to follow the engineering
[2:33:04] principles of. Why would a subsign be installed on a
[2:33:07] street rather than. Just by request. Before I go back
[2:33:13] for follow up from councilor, do you want to add
[2:33:15] anything now to. CEO Skinner. No, thank you. I know
[2:33:23] that. There was a safety screening completed as part of
[2:33:29] the Master Mobility and transportation plan, which we fondly call
[2:33:33] the MMPP and it is slated to come back to
[2:33:37] council with the final report. In the first quarter of
[2:33:40] 2026. Follow up council yeah. And just to follow. Thanks,
[2:33:45] deputy mayor. So again, in this case, understanding the intersection,
[2:33:49] understanding the history of a lot of things. And I
[2:33:53] will support the motion. For a four way stop there.
[2:33:58] But again, I'm really torn on it just simply because.
[2:34:06] It just seems that. I don't want one intersection or
[2:34:09] one area of town to take a precedent over some
[2:34:11] or take over somewhere else, especially when there has been
[2:34:14] a number of areas where continuously a number of residents
[2:34:17] have come forward with concerns. But I do recognize this
[2:34:21] intersection of seeing and witnessed my entire life here. Things
[2:34:25] that have gone on there and. We'll continue to go
[2:34:29] on, so I will support the mayor's motion on this.
[2:34:32] Thanks. Okay. Anyone else? Okay, I'm going to turn to
[2:34:40] councilor Baines and then councilor Jeffrey and. Then anybody on
[2:34:44] this site. Thank you. Vice chair. Then I suppose to
[2:34:47] director Akoka to follow. Up on my friend's point here.
[2:34:51] Will the MMTP then address specifically as a policy matter?
[2:34:57] On streets in Collingwood, four way stops and when and
[2:35:01] where they would be recommended. Yes.
[2:35:12] Sweet studies. The traffic safety studies will look at every
[2:35:15] intersection, and if they're not specifically looked at already. We
[2:35:18] have a mechanism to look at them, and the idea
[2:35:21] is that if the road requires. Based on traffic counts,
[2:35:28] based on incident reports, based on turning movers. Requires a
[2:35:32] four way stop. Sign, then it's a four way stop
[2:35:35] sign will be installed. But if it does not. Require
[2:35:37] a forward stop sign. Then we will install what is
[2:35:40] required. The two way or something else. Thank you. No
[2:35:45] follow up. Okay. Councilor Jeffrey. Go ahead. Then I suppose
[2:35:49] you have brought that up. I'm assuming then the intersection
[2:35:53] of third and cedar qualify for your definition of a
[2:35:57] four way stop. At the moment. I don't have a
[2:36:00] direct answer for that. I need to have it. Go
[2:36:03] through the process of studying the warrants. Anything further. Councilor
[2:36:13] jeffrey. So. Thank you, Jeff. So I'd ask that these
[2:36:19] be severed out. And I do have a problem going
[2:36:25] outside. Of the process in terms of the stop signs.
[2:36:33] We start assuming personal or council liability for making these
[2:36:37] decisions without. The professional backup. And there's no doubt in
[2:36:41] my mind. I mean, I remember asking director, McDonald when
[2:36:45] he was here. Could we not put a flashing red
[2:36:49] sign or whatever like they have? At county road two
[2:36:52] and 41. And he said, I can't. I can't do
[2:36:56] that because of whatever's in place with. The things that
[2:37:01] legislate us on our streets, just trying to make that
[2:37:05] corner. More visible in terms of getting people to stop
[2:37:09] at that stop sign. So I've been trying since. Before
[2:37:14] the mares time to do something for the corner, but
[2:37:17] I'm just not sure. About going around the process we
[2:37:20] put in place. Otherwise, we're going to have everyone. I
[2:37:24] mean, my daughter in law and son got hit at
[2:37:26] that corner. Ten years ago. So I understand. The emotions
[2:37:32] that go with that. But. I have difficulty on this
[2:37:38] one going around. That staff process. We're going to go
[2:37:43] with councilor Dougherty and then councilor ring. Thank you. Actually.
[2:37:51] I was going to suggest the same thing, that we
[2:37:53] sever the two. I don't like to move outside of
[2:38:00] the process. However, the need at this particular intersection is
[2:38:06] so glaring. That. I can't believe that we'd be making
[2:38:11] any kind of a mistake. By putting a four way
[2:38:15] stop at that intersection, so I absolutely will support that.
[2:38:20] But regarding. Further implementation of four way stops. I really
[2:38:27] would like to continue. To have that referred to the
[2:38:33] Master transportation plan. I think we're going to see that
[2:38:38] in the first quarter, if I can. Ask through you,
[2:38:43] deputy mayor to director Alcoca, first quarter of next year.
[2:38:49] I think for certain we will have the one report.
[2:38:54] That CEO Skinner referred to that they were targeting for
[2:38:57] first quarter, I'm not sure about. The MMTP. So maybe
[2:39:02] through you see Hoskin. Thank you. I will ask Director
[2:39:06] Alcoca. To respond to that one, but I do believe.
[2:39:10] I was speaking about the MMTP, and that's also the
[2:39:13] one you're speaking. About. Yes. The mftv within the first
[2:39:17] quarter? Yes. So therefore, we're not waiting long. And I
[2:39:23] know generally that our community. Is looking for. This master
[2:39:31] plan with great anticipation. Thank you, Councilor Ring. Some of
[2:39:38] the questions were just answered. That I was going to
[2:39:45] have. I know it's a bad intersection because I grew
[2:39:50] up with Cedar street, so I know. Firsthand, but it's
[2:39:55] also on Third street, where there's not a stop sign.
[2:39:58] From Birch street to Spruce street either. There you go.
[2:40:00] Five blocks there. So. Are we going to put a
[2:40:05] four way stop there? And then the residents at Oak
[2:40:09] street say we need one. And then after that. Walnut
[2:40:13] street. We've got a master plan. Study in the works
[2:40:19] right now, and hopefully it is ready for us in
[2:40:22] the first quarter. I'm kind of torn here because it
[2:40:26] wouldn't bother me to put a four way. Stop there.
[2:40:28] But should we not do it right? All at once.
[2:40:38] Especially along Third street that's designated. It's going to be
[2:40:41] designated as a collector. And that's probably the reason why
[2:40:45] there's so few stop signs. Maybe the mmtp is going
[2:40:50] to. Say something different about Third street than we already
[2:40:55] have. I don't know. I could support. The stop signs
[2:40:59] there. I just want to know. We just went through
[2:41:01] the same process with another. Street. That. Neighbors have complained
[2:41:08] about more than once. On, Stanley. And we did the
[2:41:15] traffic studies and found that. They didn't even meet the
[2:41:18] policy to put a stop sign there. So is that
[2:41:23] something we should do here first? Like I said, I
[2:41:26] could support putting a four way there now, but I
[2:41:28] just want to say. That. Is this going to be
[2:41:33] an ongoing thing? Until we get the master plan done,
[2:41:37] I think I could help if I. 'm going to
[2:41:41] turn to councilor McCullough, and I was going to say,
[2:41:42] Mayor Hamlin. Since we didn't have this at Community hall,
[2:41:46] I am going to turn back. To you and let
[2:41:47] you have some further comment, because I am expecting I'll
[2:41:50] do the same with some of the members, too. So,
[2:41:54] councilor McCullough. Thank you, chair. Excuse me. Two points. I
[2:41:59] was going to reference the Stanley street discussion. That was
[2:42:03] quite recent. But in my mind. And where this one
[2:42:07] differentiates itself. Is that there's a history of ongoing incident
[2:42:11] sets at this location, as opposed to a perception that
[2:42:14] it might be dangerous from people who live there. And
[2:42:17] I think those are two very different things. So we
[2:42:19] have an incident. We've had a history of incidents, and
[2:42:22] I think behooves us to take action, and if it
[2:42:25] needs to be changed once we have a master transportation
[2:42:28] plan. And it can be changed or modified or improved.
[2:42:32] That's great, but I think this is different where we
[2:42:34] have neighbors asking for things because of their perception of
[2:42:37] a condition, of a road. Or the safety, so that
[2:42:40] was one point. Yeah. And then slightly off topic but
[2:42:45] related. I have a concern that we'll have the MMT
[2:42:48] in our hands in Q one. And it will have
[2:42:50] lots of recommendations, and I'm not sure that we will
[2:42:54] have the resources or budget to implement those in a
[2:42:57] timely manner. So is that a constraint that we will
[2:43:00] see next year when we go to implement the MMTP.
[2:43:05] Are you directing that question? Okay. Director Alcoca then. That's
[2:43:14] a big question. Yes, there would be a lot of
[2:43:18] recommendations, and part of the discussion. And. The feedback that
[2:43:25] we require from everybody. Will help us set the priorities
[2:43:29] of what to be implemented. First, in terms of recommendation.
[2:43:34] Any follow up account. No, thank you. So, Mayor Hamlin,
[2:43:43] do you want to add some further comments? Yeah, I
[2:43:45] just thought to make it easy. I'll just suggest because
[2:43:49] I'm not opposed to a deferral. Of the two further
[2:43:53] that clauses. So, in other words, my motion today would
[2:43:58] just be resolved that we put the four way stop.
[2:44:01] At cedar in third and that the phased approach and
[2:44:04] the funding be deferred to. The mmtp discussions. Happy with
[2:44:12] that. Through to the clerk, then. Can that be done
[2:44:19] as a friendly amendment? If the second. Secondary approval of
[2:44:23] that, or do we need. To deal with emotion as
[2:44:27] it's been circulated. Should be severed right now. So we
[2:44:34] can deal with first one and then we get the
[2:44:36] other. Ones get the motion to defer them and they
[2:44:39] can be combined together. All right, so. I am going
[2:44:47] to come back to councilor putts and then pick councilor
[2:44:49] ring I think? Looks like. Thanks, Deputy Mary. And this
[2:44:54] is just a follow up through you to director Okoka.
[2:44:58] I don't really know exactly. How the determination. In the
[2:45:03] engineering world comes with traffic counters, but. In that intersection
[2:45:07] as well. I would think. There's a lot of other.
[2:45:12] Things that might come into factor there, like sight lines.
[2:45:15] And stuff as well. Again. Just me thinking. You put
[2:45:20] a traffic counter down, you could have ten cars, you
[2:45:23] could have. 2000 cars. But the history of the intersection
[2:45:26] speaks for itself as far as. Incidents. Are the sight
[2:45:31] lines. Has that been looked into as far as that
[2:45:33] intersection? Because I do know that there are some challenging
[2:45:36] corners on Third street coming on to Third from the
[2:45:39] side streets. So I'm just wondering if that's been taken
[2:45:42] into consideration as well, because I think that in that
[2:45:45] area that plays. A big. Factor. If we decided to
[2:45:50] do anything at this intersection, I will hire a specialized
[2:45:53] consultant to look at. All of those things to look
[2:45:56] at the incident history, traffic, movement, site lines, traffic counts.
[2:46:01] We will specifically look at that intersection. And based on
[2:46:04] that study, We'll have a recommendation, and that is something
[2:46:12] that we probably can offer right away. Now. I can
[2:46:15] initiate that study now if council chooses to direct us
[2:46:18] this way. Can I respond to that when there's a
[2:46:22] minute? Did you have any follow up? I think. I
[2:46:31] don't have any follow up on that. Thanks for those
[2:46:33] comments. I'll stick. With what initially, my support for this
[2:46:38] motion given. The significant concerns in the history of this
[2:46:41] intersection that I would support. Implementing a four way stop.
[2:46:47] Immediately. Thanks. So I will go back before I come
[2:46:51] to you. Councilor Ring. Your comment. Then. Yeah. I just
[2:46:57] wanted to comment on director Alcocas about looking at the
[2:47:01] number of cars. And the turning movements, but I don't
[2:47:03] think that's the whole issue here. And also on the
[2:47:07] incidents. What I've heard from the residents over the years
[2:47:11] is there's incidents that get reported to the opp, but.
[2:47:17] They're very few. Of all the incidents that happens there.
[2:47:20] And I think if we were to ask people what
[2:47:22] they have on their camera, We'd get. A totally different
[2:47:26] and enhanced list. So I don't know. I just know
[2:47:29] this from talking. To staff about this intersection and others
[2:47:32] over the years. Incidents aren't everything, and so if there's
[2:47:36] any way staff can enhance that beyond. The OPP list.
[2:47:40] It would be helpful. Thank you. Yeah, I think that
[2:47:43] highlights just how difficult it is to deal with. A
[2:47:48] specific situation without. The information. I'm going to go to
[2:47:52] councilor ring, and then I'll come to you. CEO Skinner.
[2:47:57] Thank you. Debut mayor prayer. And. As was mentioned by
[2:48:03] Councilor McCullough. I am going to support this. I was
[2:48:07] just wondering. If we're going to open up a lot
[2:48:11] of other intersections along that street. And I do know
[2:48:16] that is a bad corner. I think it's more for.
[2:48:22] Not so much. Before we stop, to be honest with
[2:48:23] you, I think it's what was. Brought up by councilor
[2:48:26] Potts when I lived on Cedar Street. I grew up
[2:48:28] as a kid. That intersection was terrible. You couldn't see
[2:48:31] nothing west unless you got right in the. Middle of
[2:48:34] the intersection. So I think a lot of people are
[2:48:36] jumping that stop sign because. They're just hoping that there's
[2:48:39] nothing covered, because from what they can see, they can't
[2:48:41] see anything coming, so I think. The four ways stop
[2:48:46] will alleviate that which I'm all for, so I will
[2:48:49] support it. Did anyone else switch? To speak to it.
[2:48:57] So we're going to be severing. And does everybody understand?
[2:49:04] Whereas in the therefore part of the motion, that'll be
[2:49:07] the first consideration. And. We have movers, Mayor Hamlin, seconders,
[2:49:13] councilor Baines, and then we'll. Deal with. The second part
[2:49:18] after that. Is everybody comfortable with knowing that that's what
[2:49:22] we're going to vote on? I'm just going to add,
[2:49:26] because everything's being covered that I was concerned with. Which
[2:49:28] was the precedent of it that I'm going to be
[2:49:32] supportive of as well. I think when we get a
[2:49:36] direct request and we get a motion on table that
[2:49:39] puts us into a bit of a liability situation, but
[2:49:42] it does sound. Promising on the fact that we are
[2:49:45] going to be getting to the MMTP. And things about
[2:49:51] the stop signs in the very, very near future. So
[2:49:55] on that then I will call the matter to the
[2:49:57] first part as vote all those in. Favor. And that'd
[2:50:01] be unanimous. So the second part. I believe. We're removing
[2:50:09] the two and further that. I believe Mayor Hamlin said
[2:50:15] that your reference would be. To further study would be
[2:50:20] incorporating. With the MMTP. Sorry. To defer that. To defer
[2:50:25] those two. The mmtp discussion, okay? Yeah, that's a better
[2:50:33] reefer. Can that be done? Reefer. It's a reefer. Okay.
[2:50:40] I said refer. The rest of you are saying refurb.
[2:50:44] I said reefer. And you're. Saying reefer.
[2:50:55] There's a headline. Okay. So on that matter, then. On
[2:51:05] the referral. To keep any confusion out of it. All
[2:51:09] those in favor? And that too, is unanimous. And I
[2:51:12] can turn back to you. Thank you. Thank you very
[2:51:15] much. The next motion is from councilor Jeffrey and altern
[2:51:20] this over to her. Thank you very much, Mayor Hammond,
[2:51:23] so this is lengthy, but members of council had it
[2:51:27] well ahead and with the slate amendments. I will read
[2:51:32] it in. So whereas the town of Collingwood is committed
[2:51:35] within its community based strategic plan under its climate change
[2:51:37] and adaptation pillar to work with partners to take action
[2:51:41] on climate change. And whereas a key action under that
[2:51:44] pillar is to enhance emergency management and stormwater planning, in
[2:51:48] the town to help mitigate and adapt to the impacts
[2:51:50] of. A more volatile climate and external environment. And whereas
[2:51:56] there is little to no budgeted funding in the 2026
[2:51:59] budget to pursue proactive stormwater management mitigation. And whereas Greenland
[2:52:04] Engineering is finalizing phase two of the stormwater management plan
[2:52:08] swmp this month and is the keeper of progressive and
[2:52:11] significant. Modeling key to decision making on the impacts of
[2:52:15] stormwater in the town of Collingwood. And whereas it is
[2:52:18] anticipated that the expected total 100 year flood damages amount
[2:52:23] throughout the town documented in the phase two report of
[2:52:26] the SWMP has been determined to be devastating. And whereas
[2:52:31] there has been overwhelming public and council support at two
[2:52:34] previous public information centers, pics including a strong reaction to
[2:52:39] address all flooding impact areas throughout the town. And whereas
[2:52:43] the cooperator's insurance resilience lab released a call for proposals
[2:52:47] on October 6, 2025, for climate change and adapta. Adaptation
[2:52:51] projects with clear objectives of risk reduction and resilience, economic
[2:52:55] uplift, and municipal leadership with a submission deadline of January
[2:52:59] 30, 2026 and final selection announcements February 2026. And whereas
[2:53:06] successful applicants will receive funding for project costs up to
[2:53:09] $250,000. Resilience, lab support and network access, and public recognition,
[2:53:16] as well as access to borrowing. 5 million or more
[2:53:19] of private equity funding, with rate and other parameters to
[2:53:22] be confirmed after completion of a draft term sheet or
[2:53:26] business case, identification of a funding payment stream, and a
[2:53:29] letter of intent refurbish, private cap. Capital financing by no
[2:53:33] later than November 30, 2026. And whereas Greenline engineering is
[2:53:37] offering to complete the required documentation to submit a proposal
[2:53:41] for the town of Collingwood project to the cooperator's. Insurance
[2:53:44] Resilience lab call and whereas the cooperating resilience labs timely
[2:53:49] public information session material provide. Provided in October 2025 aligns
[2:53:53] with addressing required next steps to advance the stormwater mitigation
[2:53:57] solution proposed for flood damage centers FDC number one, number
[2:54:02] two and number three within the SWMP and represents an
[2:54:06] opportunity for the town of Collingwood to significantly mitigate flooding.
[2:54:10] Vulnerabilities in those areas. While at the same time potentially
[2:54:13] providing ARu housing possibilities for properties therein. As a result,
[2:54:17] of the reduced water table and flooding risks. And whereas
[2:54:20] there is no financial impact for the proposal, development submission
[2:54:24] and planning phase represented by the proposed submission. Therefore, be
[2:54:28] it resolved, the council direct staff to coordinate with Greenland
[2:54:31] engineering. At no cost to the town of Collingwood to
[2:54:34] complete and submit a grant application for an amount up
[2:54:37] to $250,000 to the cooperator's resilience lab to enable progress
[2:54:42] on the following, but not limited to development of a
[2:54:45] stormwater funding policy, development of preliminary designs and, if funding
[2:54:49] permits, detailed designs for up to 15 million. Dollars of
[2:54:53] prioritized work, which includes flood damage centers one, two and
[2:54:56] three in the SWMP. Prepare for green municipal fund or
[2:55:00] other grant opportunities. And if the cooperator's proposal is successful,
[2:55:04] it will provide important leveraging to be successful if other
[2:55:08] future grants as well and support staff work on a
[2:55:11] business case within. The long term strategic plan to show
[2:55:15] financial viability to accelerate delivery of stormwater. Master plan recommendations.
[2:55:31] Is there a secondary? Yeah. Thank you, councilor pots. Okay,
[2:55:35] would you like to speak first or. Last. I think
[2:55:41] the motion said it. Could have. I did circulate slime
[2:55:48] deck from. And the call for proposals in particularly slide
[2:55:54] eleven, the project eligibility criteria. But. I think the motion
[2:55:59] and the information sent out said it all. Okay. Thank
[2:56:03] you. Would anyone else like to speak to this councilor
[2:56:05] Dougherty? Thank you. I am delighted to see this motion
[2:56:12] come forward. It is definitely a win win, not just
[2:56:17] for the municipality, but for the insurance sector. And I'm
[2:56:22] also delighted to see that. Greenland Engineering is the organization
[2:56:28] that. We have chosen. To collaborate with. As the keeper
[2:56:35] of the most robust and rigorous modeling system. But I
[2:56:40] do have a question with regard to the selection of
[2:56:45] flood prone areas. Just one, two. And three. We also.
[2:56:52] Have areas farther west. Into the resort area and. Over.
[2:57:01] To wealth, almost to Gray Road, 21 and Long Point
[2:57:05] Road. So, just wondering why. The restriction to those three.
[2:57:12] Is this a question for you? Yeah. Okay, sure. Yeah.
[2:57:18] I think because. It was the most benefit for the
[2:57:21] dollars invested. Out of the recommendations in terms of being
[2:57:26] able to solve. And I think the ability to, I
[2:57:31] think, create. Increased property values in that area and produce.
[2:57:39] Aru in backyards and things, the capability of having an
[2:57:43] impact on that part as well. Originally, I thought we
[2:57:47] would need software to identify. The viability or feasibility of
[2:57:53] that, but the CEO had advised me that we already
[2:57:57] have that. Software in our planning department. That could target
[2:58:00] the properties by zoning. So I know that while cooperators
[2:58:05] have been working with the CAO over quite a period
[2:58:09] of time in terms of us trying to develop something
[2:58:12] going forward, but they've just since developed this call specific
[2:58:15] for projects. So that's where it came out of was
[2:58:18] a lot of work over a few months in terms
[2:58:20] of out of. The swmp. What would be the highest
[2:58:26] impact for the lowest dollars at this time? Any other
[2:58:30] questions? Follow up, if I may. So would it be
[2:58:39] the intention that once we have. Concluded this study. And
[2:58:48] send it through the findings that we would be extending
[2:58:51] any learning into. The other. Flood prone areas of our
[2:58:56] municipality or flood zone areas of our municipality. Director Okoka.
[2:59:09] Well, staff must know if this is going to be
[2:59:10] a benefit to other stormwater work in town. Well, I'll
[2:59:15] just give my take on my motion first, and then
[2:59:17] they can wait for sure, if they wish. For sure.
[2:59:21] So I think I described it in the last resolve
[2:59:24] paragraph in terms of developing a stormwater. Funding policy is
[2:59:28] going to enable us to go forward. In a more.
[2:59:33] Fiscal supported way in terms of the other recommendations as
[2:59:37] well. And I think. The grant opportunities throughout will free
[2:59:43] up our monies going forward in terms of addressing the
[2:59:46] other areas of the swMp. Whatever. Stop. Would like that.
[2:59:52] Okay. Do staff agree with this? I mean, I know
[2:59:56] it's in your motion, but I think. It's relevant to
[2:59:59] have stuff provide some advice to us. Okay, CEO, go
[3:00:04] ahead. Thank you. Through the chair. I actually had a
[3:00:08] couple of items I wanted to mention. So we don't
[3:00:13] have the final report from the stormwater master plan, so
[3:00:16] we don't. Know from a staff perspective. We haven't analyzed
[3:00:20] what the priorities are within that. Report, so. It's mentioned.
[3:00:26] That's flood damage centers one, two and three would be
[3:00:29] included. I had interpreted that to be not limited to
[3:00:35] flood damage centers one, two, and three, because the intention
[3:00:38] of the work, as I understand it, is to figure
[3:00:40] out what are the priorities. And would council be willing
[3:00:44] to borrow money to implement any of these priorities more
[3:00:48] quickly? The company. Is offering the part of this offer.
[3:00:55] Is because the company would like to lend municipalities money.
[3:00:59] Their minimum size is a $5 million loan, and they
[3:01:01] will lend up to $15 million. And as councilor Jeffrey
[3:01:06] had mentioned, We don't know the parameters for those loans
[3:01:10] yet, and I do believe that there's. Quite a few
[3:01:14] investment companies that are now getting. Into. Examining whether infrastructure.
[3:01:21] Can be, in fact, a profit center for them. That
[3:01:24] doesn't mean that's bad. For us necessarily. We are. Municipalities
[3:01:30] as a class. Are a group that usually pays off
[3:01:35] their loans. There may be win wins here, but there
[3:01:37] may not. You may decide that. You don't wish to
[3:01:41] borrow money? The lab is not necessarily a lab in
[3:01:46] the sense that it gives a scientific feeling about it.
[3:01:49] But I think the lab is really looking at solutions
[3:01:52] where there could be win wins related to. Investments in
[3:01:58] preventing flooding. I note that Greenland is noted here as
[3:02:04] doing the application. I had not interpreted that Greenland would
[3:02:10] necessarily do all the work. The work noted here does
[3:02:15] include some modeling and potentially includes some modeling, and Greenland
[3:02:19] is our model keeper, but with the 250,000. If you
[3:02:23] voted for it and we did receive it, I would
[3:02:25] see that we were open to. Tender the pieces, and
[3:02:28] the motion is quite specific around the work that should
[3:02:31] happen with respect to policy development. And figuring out how
[3:02:35] to get something ready for not only this work and
[3:02:38] an understanding of whether it should go forward more quickly.
[3:02:43] But also to understand. The finances because at $5 million,
[3:02:49] 250,000 is just over one year of interest. So we
[3:02:56] have to look at this. It sounds like a lot
[3:02:58] of money, but it has to. Be looked at from
[3:02:59] a wise point of view. And I just wanted to
[3:03:03] be also very clear that this work on its own
[3:03:06] would not change. The flood lines that are implemented. By
[3:03:12] NVCA in the case of most of our municipality, that
[3:03:15] there would be subsequent studies required. To adjust those lines.
[3:03:20] This work? Wouldn't help that. But there'd be subsequent studies
[3:03:24] required that were acceptable to that. Group and peer reviews.
[3:03:28] To really open the path for adus. Of course, if
[3:03:31] we reduced flooding, one would hope we do those subsequent
[3:03:34] studies and then also receive those benefits. Thank you. I
[3:03:38] think that covers the question and potentially more. Thank you.
[3:03:42] Did you have any follow up? Any further follow up,
[3:03:47] okay? Are there any other questions? So I wouldn't mind.
[3:03:52] The one thing that had been my mind is because
[3:03:55] we don't have our stormwater management report yet. I wanted
[3:03:58] to make sure that this wasn't. Directing where the priorities
[3:04:02] are before council even looks at it. And I think
[3:04:06] the CEO just covered that off. Can I see the
[3:04:08] motion? Could we see the motion up again. I just
[3:04:11] want to read it. Thank you. Just the end part.
[3:04:15] Just what we're voting on. I love your whereas. But.
[3:04:35] What it says is. Development of primary designs,
[3:04:45] detailed designs, up to 15 million. Of prioritized work, which
[3:04:51] includes flood damage centers one, two and three. So co.
[3:04:57] How do you read that? To you.
[3:05:09] In reading it more carefully, it does say that it
[3:05:13] will include those three. I would be more comfortable if
[3:05:17] it. Included consideration of those three. They do involve some
[3:05:23] of the most expensive preliminary capital costs for the proposed
[3:05:29] work, and together would be over 15 million, most of
[3:05:33] which is in the first project, a first flood damage
[3:05:37] area. Sorry. Just under 15,000,014 and a half. And if
[3:05:45] I could just ask you another question. Because I know
[3:05:48] there's going to be a lot of recommendations, I'm assuming.
[3:05:52] Because, like, I had thought maybe we would. Am I
[3:05:55] right to think maybe we wouldn't? Just pick these three.
[3:05:58] We may pick one. And six and seven, for example.
[3:06:03] Is that a possibility if we amend this a bit?
[3:06:07] Yes. Staff have not reviewed the priorities. We've been talking
[3:06:12] with director Alcoca today about that. So we don't know
[3:06:15] which ones we would put forward as our number one
[3:06:18] priorities. We've done seen a preamble of what may come
[3:06:22] forward. In the. Public. Information centers, but we couldn't tell
[3:06:29] you for sure that number one is the one to
[3:06:31] do. There certainly are some quick ones, quick wins that
[3:06:36] are smaller investments. And likely would also. Priorities. If staff
[3:06:43] had the time to review. So would you consider a
[3:06:46] friendly amendment? So in that second bullet, which concludes consideration
[3:06:52] of flood damage centers one, two and three. Yeah.
[3:07:05] Not to debate with the Cao. But. I don't want
[3:07:14] to exclude damage centers one, two and three. Yeah, exactly.
[3:07:28] As it may be. Centers one, two and three are
[3:07:31] exactly the right ones, but. In case staff's recommendation in
[3:07:36] council. 's. Vote on it. Is one, six and seven.
[3:07:43] I've made up six and seven. I don't even. Know
[3:07:44] if there are seven. Yeah, I'm not sure it's any
[3:07:48] different, really. I think it's just. Wordsmithing. Which I hope.
[3:07:54] And I would want the CEO to be very clear.
[3:07:57] What that change is doing to my. I'm not sure
[3:08:00] it's friendly. I want to make sure. Okay. Do you
[3:08:01] want. To say it again. The CEO will explain what
[3:08:04] she thinks it means. Wording to start with. The very
[3:08:07] beginning. And I took it back. She tried to change
[3:08:09] my motion and suggestion, and I took it back. I'm
[3:08:13] kind of debating with the Cao here. Should council approve
[3:08:17] this, I would be happy. That flood damage centers one,
[3:08:22] two and three were considered. I would not want to
[3:08:26] not consider the other flood damage centers, and I wouldn't
[3:08:29] want to preclude that the recommend. Recommendation will be that
[3:08:33] one, two and three are the ones that would potentially
[3:08:36] go forward. So including requiring the consideration of flood damage
[3:08:41] centers one, two and three is fine. I don't want
[3:08:43] to exclude the others. Requiring. They're considered not requiring their
[3:08:48] prioritized. Yeah, okay. So those can stay there. My understanding
[3:08:55] is. If there's a couple there that are like, $34,000.
[3:08:59] So if we decide we want to do those two
[3:09:01] in terms of with flood damage centers one, two and
[3:09:04] three. Then that's not a horrible thing. Okay. And who
[3:09:10] is the secretary on this? Councilor Potts, are you agreeable
[3:09:14] with that? Okay, any other questions or comments? If everybody's
[3:09:19] spoken I just like to speak last and just really.
[3:09:21] Anybody who in the Collingwood over a lot of years
[3:09:24] has had a flooded basement or anything that goes with.
[3:09:30] Us having to manage the stormwater in our town and
[3:09:34] knowing what the forecasts and more frequent. Storms, more severe
[3:09:40] storms. I think we just have to get going, and
[3:09:45] I think this is a win win for us. Because
[3:09:47] there's no cost to do it if we get a
[3:09:50] grant application or an offer. That we can't settle in
[3:09:54] with. And we don't have to take it, but I
[3:09:57] think it's incumbent upon us. To start pursuing these things.
[3:10:01] Given the cost and no other lender will give us
[3:10:06] $250,000 to start with. It. So whether it's only one
[3:10:11] years of interest or not. We're always told in infrastructure.
[3:10:16] Every amount you put in accumulates over time. So 250,000
[3:10:19] in now will save us. A lot over time. That's
[3:10:23] it. I just would ask for your support, Councilor Paynes.
[3:10:26] Thank you, mayor. Hamlin as someone who backs on the
[3:10:29] Oak street canal. Is a board member of the NVCA
[3:10:33] and as someone actively trying to start a friends of
[3:10:36] the cranberry Marsh, even though it's not in one, two,
[3:10:39] or three, I fully support this, and I'm almost jealous.
[3:10:43] That Councilor Jeffrey was able to find this pot of
[3:10:45] money, but fully supported. Thank you. Yeah, detailed designs can
[3:10:50] hurt. Any other comments? Okay, all those in favor? And
[3:10:56] that's unanimous. Thank you. So we'll try and squeak in
[3:10:59] our last item before the budget, or I should say,
[3:11:02] our break, and then we'll. Have a budget discussion after
[3:11:05] that, which is the motion? From councilor beans. This is
[3:11:11] in response to the province of Ontario wishing to reorganize.
[3:11:17] Or propose a reorganization of our 36 conservation authorities. So,
[3:11:20] will you read in your motion then? I will. Thank
[3:11:23] you. And just full disclosure, because there's a deadline of
[3:11:27] December 22 to register comments on the environmental registry. It
[3:11:33] will ask for a wave of notice. In this regard,
[3:11:35] I think you've already given notice. So we're fine today.
[3:11:38] Thank you for reminding me that I've done that. And
[3:11:41] whereas. Sorry. Councilor Baines. Just the clerk is correcting me.
[3:11:48] We will need to do a weaving before we vote
[3:11:51] on this. Okay, we have a secondered. All those in
[3:11:54] favor? Unanimous. Okay, go for it. Thank you for that.
[3:12:00] Whereas municipalities fund and govern conservation authorities under the conservation
[3:12:04] authorities act, whereas the province proposes consolidating 36 conservation authorities
[3:12:10] into seven regional entities, including merging NVCA into a Huron
[3:12:15] superior regional conservation authority spanning 78 plus. Municipalities. And whereas
[3:12:22] this configuration would create a geographically vast. Administratively complex entity
[3:12:28] dilute local accountability. And pose significant transition costs, delaying service
[3:12:34] delivery and housing approvals. Whereas NVCA has already implemented modernization
[3:12:40] measures aligned with provincial objectives within the current watershed based
[3:12:44] governance model. Whereas the town of Collingwood is currently served
[3:12:48] by two conservation authorities, the Grace sabble, conservation author. Authority
[3:12:51] in the Nautawa Saga Valley Conservation Authority, both of which
[3:12:55] would be negatively impacted by the proposed changes. Therefore, be
[3:12:59] it resolved that the town of Collingwood does not support
[3:13:01] the proposed quote. Huron Superior Regional Conservation Authority boundary configuration
[3:13:07] outlined in the environmental registry. Notice number 25. 1257 and
[3:13:13] does not believe amalgamation is required and that the town
[3:13:17] endorses further provincial evaluation of a more geographically coherent, cost
[3:13:23] effective, and locally accountable watershed based management model that advances
[3:13:28] the government's priorities of efficiency, red tape reduction. And timely
[3:13:32] housing delivery and that the town requests that the ministry
[3:13:36] engaged directly with all affected municipalities. And conservation authorities before
[3:13:41] finalizing any consolidation, excuse me, consolidation boundaries or legislative amendments,
[3:13:48] and further, that this resolution with a letter from the
[3:13:51] mayor. Be. Forwarded to the Environmental Registry of Ontario Consultations
[3:13:56] Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, MPP Saunderson, Amo Conservation
[3:14:02] Ontario and the boards of Grace Obel Sageen Valley, Maitland
[3:14:06] Valley. A sovable bfield. Lake Simcoe Region and Lakehead regional
[3:14:13] conservation authorities. Is there a second or for this motion
[3:14:18] counter? McCulloch. Thank you. Comments or did you want to
[3:14:25] speak first or last? I'll. Sorry, last. Okay, anyone like.
[3:14:28] To speak for. There you go. Deputy mayor supportive of
[3:14:32] the motion? As it's been read. I just wondered, as
[3:14:35] far as circulation goes. If simple county should be included.
[3:14:41] Would that be a friendly amendment? Councilor McCulloch, do you
[3:14:45] agreeable? Also agreed. Okay. Any other comments? Councilor Dougherty.
[3:14:57] Thank you. I also am going to support this motion.
[3:15:04] I can't imagine. How service. Particularly for natural hazards, would
[3:15:14] be improved. When. We have a conglomerate of this many
[3:15:20] conservation authorities over that kind of. A geographic span makes
[3:15:26] no sense. With respect. To the ministry makes no sense.
[3:15:32] So I will support this. Thank you. Thank you. I
[3:15:35] totally agree. With your comments. I'm also wondering if we
[3:15:38] should be including as a copy. All the members of
[3:15:42] provincial parliament who are in this vicinity affected by the
[3:15:46] 78 municipalities. I would take that as a friendly amendment
[3:15:51] as well. Okay. Councilor McCoffic. Any other comments? Councilor baines
[3:15:59] over to you for the end. Much of it has
[3:16:02] been stated in this and the earlier, and thanks to
[3:16:04] the clerk, quite frankly. For the edits to a four
[3:16:07] page. What was four pages. But I would just say,
[3:16:11] from a bureaucratic level, this will require a new overarching
[3:16:16] body over. The new seven conservation authorities. And one has
[3:16:22] got to ask the question to the province, how will
[3:16:24] that bodies, that new bodies costs. Be reclaimed, and I
[3:16:29] put it to you. I think this is where it's
[3:16:32] going to. Go that the municipalities, as a member of
[3:16:35] the new seven conservation authorities, somehow are going to have
[3:16:39] to be funding that new upper. Tier overseer, if you
[3:16:44] will, of the seven conservation authorities proposed. From. A practical
[3:16:50] matter to have 78 municipalities in the new conservation Authority
[3:16:55] of Huron Lake superior. Yes, the conservation area of Lake
[3:16:59] Superior would be in with us. As well as the
[3:17:02] Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority, which itself. Was set up
[3:17:07] by. A specific act of the Ontario legislature. Is going
[3:17:12] to be a bureaucratic challenge, to say the least. If,
[3:17:16] as Naro saga and others are saying, if we limited
[3:17:21] it specifically to those conservation areas, In essentially southern Georgian
[3:17:27] Bay, whose watersheds empty either onto Lake Huron or georgian
[3:17:31] bay. That in itself would seem to me to be
[3:17:35] a reasonable, although not necessarily supportable, in my opinion. A
[3:17:42] compromise to what is being suggested here, I think. It's
[3:17:45] just. Bureaucratically challenging to include. Lake superior on one end
[3:17:53] and Lake Simcoe on the other. It's for us in
[3:17:57] between. It's just going to be challenged. Thank you. Kane
[3:18:03] with that. All those in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank
[3:18:07] you. So what we'll do now? We'll take a break
[3:18:12] for 40 minutes and then we'll be back. Thank you.
[4:05:43] Hey, council. We'll resume our council meeting now. We're starting
[4:05:49] with item number 14. And this is the continuation of
[4:05:53] our discussions for the 2026 staff proposed budget. And the
[4:05:59] recommendation before us this evening. I'll read it in that
[4:06:02] staff report t 2025. 22 staff proposed budget draft three
[4:06:07] be received. And that council approved the allocation of $336,648
[4:06:15] related to the 2023 Ontario provincial police reconciliation to the
[4:06:21] 2025 fiscal year to be funded from the projected 2025
[4:06:27] operating surplus. And that council approved modest and proportionate increases
[4:06:33] to the general capital levy and special capital levy. Resulting
[4:06:37] in additional funding of $133,203. And $66,777,
[4:06:46] respectively, in order to support. As for renewal, priorities identified
[4:06:51] in the town's asset managed plan and to maintain a
[4:06:54] blended tax rate increase of 2.75%. Could have a mover
[4:06:59] in a seconder, please. Then we'll get it. Just to
[4:07:02] get it on the table. Councilor McCullough. Seconded by councilor
[4:07:04] dougherty. And Councilor Graham, I believe you have a slide
[4:07:09] that you want to go treasure. No demotion tonight. Go
[4:07:15] ahead. No conflict of interest yet. Thank you. Mary Hamlin.
[4:07:20] Yes, I am having the appendix shown on screen while
[4:07:23] I just do a quick introduction. To the staff report.
[4:07:29] This report. Presents staff proposed budget draft three can you
[4:07:35] blow that up a bit for us who have trouble
[4:07:37] seeing it. Thank you. Which reflects all directions received from
[4:07:42] council at the November 12, November 24, December 1, and
[4:07:47] December 8 budget meetings and includes the 1.4 million council
[4:07:51] approved amendments which are shown on screen. And detailed in
[4:07:55] the appendix. So just to explain how the screen works,
[4:08:00] The appendix works on the left hand side. We have
[4:08:03] all of the council amendments to date by the funding
[4:08:07] source so we can see, even though it is 1.4
[4:08:10] million, only 405,000 of those are tax supported amendments that
[4:08:15] council has approved to date. 640,000 of the amendments are
[4:08:19] to be funded through the. Municipal accommodation tax. 325,000 are
[4:08:25] to be funded through reserves, with an additional 35 to
[4:08:28] be funded from taxes. On the right hand side, the
[4:08:32] ten of Collewood levy. It shows where these fit into
[4:08:35] the three different levees, a running total of the total
[4:08:38] levy to get us to 44,000,641. 381,000. It also includes
[4:08:46] at the bottom, the three staff proposed amendments, which I
[4:08:49] will discuss. Soon. I'm not going to read all of
[4:08:53] these amendments because I usually do at every meeting, but
[4:08:56] they're there for council's reference should they have any questions.
[4:09:00] So, as mentioned, draft three also includes two additional staff
[4:09:03] recommendations for council's consideration. These recommendations are focused on accuracy,
[4:09:09] transparency, and long term financial sustainability, particularly as they relate
[4:09:13] to the Tan's asset management plan. Right now, the amp
[4:09:18] shows that the town is not putting enough funding each
[4:09:20] year to maintain our assets at the current level of
[4:09:23] service. To be very clear, the town is not currently
[4:09:26] funding its asset management plan at a sufficient level. The
[4:09:29] plan identifies that maintaining our existing assets with a replacement
[4:09:33] value of approximately 1.1 billion requires average annual funding of
[4:09:38] about $23.6 million. When we look at the current funding
[4:09:42] sources together, including tax. Taxes, rates, grants and fees. We
[4:09:46] are short by roughly $15 million per year. And I
[4:09:50] do want to be very clear on this point that
[4:09:52] the shortfall relates only to assets that the town currently
[4:09:55] owns. It does not include growth projects. It does not
[4:09:58] include new facilities. It's strictly about existing infrastructure when the
[4:10:03] town bills or acquire something new, even if it is
[4:10:07] fully funded by development charges or grants. The moment. It's
[4:10:11] built or put in use the obligation and estimated cost
[4:10:13] to maintain it and replace it for the course of
[4:10:16] its lifetime is added to the asset management plan. That
[4:10:20] places additional pressure on reserves and funding sources above and
[4:10:24] beyond the 23.6 million already identified for existing assets. Growth
[4:10:29] helps with construction, but it does not remove the long
[4:10:32] term maintenance and renewal obligation. Service level adjustments in full
[4:10:37] retirement of assets can, of course, help reduce costs somewhat,
[4:10:41] but they cannot eliminate the gap entirely or make a
[4:10:43] significant impact if service levels are reduced too far. The
[4:10:47] tanned risks, increased asset failures, higher long term cost, and
[4:10:50] an increased risk to public safety. So in this context,
[4:10:55] staff are recommending modest proportionate increases to both the general
[4:10:59] capital levy and special capital levy. These adjustments, as shown
[4:11:03] on screen, generate approximately $200,000 combined in additional capital funding.
[4:11:09] This does not solve the problem, but it represents a
[4:11:12] measured and responsible step towards supporting asset renewal. Without placing
[4:11:17] undue pressure on taxpayers. Staff are also recommending that the
[4:11:21] prior year oppiliation amount of $336,000 be allocated to 2025.
[4:11:29] This utilizes part of the projected surplus and helps reduce
[4:11:33] the tax. Burden in 2026. Together, these changes result in
[4:11:37] a blended tax rate increase of 2.75% for Collingwood residents.
[4:11:42] New and not in the report was with the approval
[4:11:45] of the planning fees increase and recommendation from director Valentine
[4:11:50] Council could also direct staff to include revenue increase in
[4:11:53] 2026 at 125. Thousand, which would further lower the blended
[4:11:58] rate to 2.57% in the tan rate to 2.7%. Thank
[4:12:03] you. I'm open to any questions you may have. Thank
[4:12:07] you for that presentation. Who would like to kick things
[4:12:12] off this evening? Okay, debbie. Amir.
[4:12:25] Thank you. Mayor Hamlin and I made reference when. I
[4:12:29] was. I appreciate the update. By the treasurer. That gets
[4:12:34] us all on the same page, I think, and where
[4:12:37] we're at. I wanted to ask about. I came across
[4:12:42] some things when I was looking at. The matter about
[4:12:46] the planning fees. On the update that we got.
[4:12:56] I guess it's actually in the budget book. It shows
[4:13:00] for that particular. On that particular page, I think it's.
[4:13:03] I got the page. Number here. I think it's page
[4:13:05] 36. Shows transfers from reserves for $575,000.
[4:13:15] In the 2026 Base budget. And I do see where
[4:13:20] there's purchase. Services have increased quite a bit, so I
[4:13:24] wondered. If I could get it a little more explanation
[4:13:28] about. Those two numbers because. The transfer. And reserves. I'm
[4:13:37] trying to understand overall impact. And I guess I'd like
[4:13:41] to know more about that because there was nothing about
[4:13:44] transfers. And reserves for 2025 budget. But there is this
[4:13:48] substantial amount. In 2026. So, as I said, it's on
[4:13:53] page 36, I think it is, which. Is the growth
[4:13:56] and development management and it's the operating budget details that
[4:14:01] I'm referring to? Is that okay, treasure Graham? That you
[4:14:05] know where I am? Okay. Yeah, go ahead. Thank you,
[4:14:09] mayor. Hamlin. It is a one time use of development
[4:14:13] charges, and it's to fund the master servicing plan work
[4:14:17] that's being done. By the engineering group in infrastructure, so
[4:14:22] it offsets the increase in purchase services for this year.
[4:14:27] So, as you say, it's a one time and it's
[4:14:29] the use of dcs. To offset the MSP. Which is
[4:14:35] the large increase down below. So that's great on that.
[4:14:41] I had also given a heads up that I would
[4:14:43] like to talk about transit today. Because I was thinking
[4:14:48] about. The money that we're bringing in from Matt. And
[4:14:53] that got me thinking about when we had talked about
[4:14:56] it before, about the fact that it's helping in all
[4:14:58] areas that tourism get involved in. And some of that's
[4:15:02] transit, some of that's affordable housing, some of that. Trails,
[4:15:06] et cetera. So I also wanted to ask about. That's
[4:15:11] page 137, I believe. And it's the operating budget details
[4:15:16] there, too. There's a government transfer amount that comes in
[4:15:22] both in the 25 budget and the 26. Budget. And
[4:15:27] I just wondered what that's associated with. And is that
[4:15:33] something that. Is continually coming in on an annual basis,
[4:15:38] so it's $370,000 treasure grant. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Through
[4:15:44] you to the deputy mayor, that is the provincial gas
[4:15:47] tax funding. That we receive. And yes, we do receive
[4:15:49] it on an annual basis towards the cost of providing
[4:15:52] transit services to our community. Okay. The follow up on
[4:15:58] transit under other municipalities. It's showing an increase of about
[4:16:05] 50% from a revenue standpoint to $222,000. From other municipalities,
[4:16:12] and there's reference. In the description. On the previous page
[4:16:16] in the book. About expansion. Of the. Boundary service area,
[4:16:23] I guess. So is there something happening, root wise, that
[4:16:28] is leading to that large. Contribution. From. A larger contribution
[4:16:34] from municipalities and through you. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Through
[4:16:39] you to the deputy mayor, that amount. Is only. Not
[4:16:45] only. It's significant work done by our transit team, particular
[4:16:49] manager, coal and transit coordinator Sandy Falcon. To get an
[4:16:54] amended agreement with the Tanna Blue Mountain. So this solely
[4:16:57] represents an increase in revenue per shared agreement with Hannah
[4:16:59] Blue mountains. I don't have the budget book open right
[4:17:03] now. I will have to reference where it sells self
[4:17:05] servicing. But perhaps I will just defer to Cao's gunner
[4:17:09] or director Alcoca. But. That is not planned for 2026,
[4:17:14] per my understanding. Who would be the best person to
[4:17:18] answer this? Doctor Okoka. Go ahead. Let me ask you
[4:17:26] to repeat the question and then I may refer to
[4:17:31] Manager call if he's online. If I could, Mayor Hamlin.
[4:17:35] Then I noticed in the description part of the explanation
[4:17:40] about transit. It made reference to the south boundary expansion.
[4:17:47] And when I saw the increased revenue from other municipalities,
[4:17:52] I wondered if there was going to be an expansion
[4:17:54] of routes. My understanding from what treasury? GRaham just said
[4:17:59] is no, that has more to do with the renewed
[4:18:02] agreement with town of the mountains. But I've still wondered
[4:18:05] about the soaks boundary expansion. Yes. Go ahead. Yeah. In
[4:18:09] 2026, we're not expanding the south boundary. For the simple
[4:18:15] fact that we don't have the bus to do that.
[4:18:19] And the bus is in procurement and it's unlikely it's
[4:18:22] going to be available. Before the end of the year.
[4:18:26] That's 2026. Okay, so that was dependent on the new
[4:18:30] bus that's coming in, but now it looks like the
[4:18:33] new bus wouldn't be done. Until at the end of
[4:18:36] the year at the best. So that explains with that.
[4:18:41] I had circulated. Further questions to Treasure Graham in regards
[4:18:48] to the OPP billing because I'm struggling a little bit.
[4:18:53] With. What we talked about at the meeting and what
[4:18:57] we've received in the recommendations. If I recall correctly, at
[4:19:02] the previous meeting, it was explained that there had been
[4:19:05] an accrual. For $222,000. For 23 costs. And now with
[4:19:13] the recommended change. I see the 336. So I'm wondering
[4:19:21] if there's some sort of netting there with the previous
[4:19:23] accrual. That had been done. And then I had brought
[4:19:27] up. And Treasurer Graham had given some detail, but I
[4:19:30] was hoping to get a little more clarification. I had
[4:19:33] brought up that if we set up an accrual for.
[4:19:37] 23. Last billing. Against 24 expenses. I would have thought
[4:19:46] we'd be looking. That we do the same thing with
[4:19:50] 24 costs. That have been reconciled on this latest billing
[4:19:54] that we received, which is for 2026. So. I'm hoping
[4:20:00] I've said that in a plain enough way that treasurer
[4:20:03] Graham knows. Where I'm coming from. Luckily, I know she's
[4:20:06] thought about this. Go ahead, treasure. Graham. Thank you, Mayor
[4:20:09] Hamlin. And thank you, deputy mayor. The OPP annual billing
[4:20:13] statement. Is needlessly complicated. I'll say. To start with. So
[4:20:19] what happened? Why I needed. To include that 264,000 that
[4:20:23] we discussed at the last meeting is when I base
[4:20:26] the 11% cap on 2025 billing. I use the amount
[4:20:31] that we're actually paying. Before. I didn't include the amount
[4:20:37] for the year end adjustment. They are now including the
[4:20:41] year end adjustment in the cap again for 2026, and
[4:20:45] that is the amount that I wish to accrue in
[4:20:47] 2025. So you're right. I still included the 265,000 to
[4:20:53] make sure that we are at the exact total billing
[4:20:57] for 2026 of 6.78 $6 million. But now. I'm actually
[4:21:02] deducting 336,000 because that portion, when we look at the
[4:21:07] detailed information on how they calculate. It relates to prior
[4:21:11] period adjustment. So it is a net. Part of me.
[4:21:17] 336. Of about $52,000 is the difference that the OPP
[4:21:23] adjustments are impacting 2026 budget. Just a follow up. May,
[4:21:29] may, may, may, may, may, may, may, may Mayor hamlet.
[4:21:30] But if there's. 2024 adjustment. Is that not also requiring
[4:21:38] a prior period adjustment? I think these are better questions
[4:21:43] offline depumer, which. Policies, treasurers using to decide which column
[4:21:52] she's putting funds into. Is beyond what our role at
[4:21:56] council is. I'm happy to let the treasurer answer this.
[4:21:59] One, because I know she has thought about this. But
[4:22:02] I don't know that. This is good for what we're
[4:22:06] doing at this table. Treasure, go ahead. Okay, thank you.
[4:22:09] Mayor Hamlin. So there is $735,000. In the pre adjusted
[4:22:16] calculation for 2026 cost. So to explain it, we received
[4:22:21] what would our billing look like if they decided not
[4:22:24] to do this 11% cost. And in that there was
[4:22:27] a $735,000 adjustment to 2024 recognizing, as we expected there
[4:22:32] would be considering that they did. A significant decrease for
[4:22:36] all municipalities last year, so. Had they not capped it
[4:22:40] at 11%, we would be paying an annual amount of
[4:22:45] 7.55. Million. We're not paying that. So in my professional
[4:22:49] opinion, I use the actual amount that we're paying to
[4:22:53] determine which. Amount should be accrued in 2024 and what
[4:22:56] I feel would be supported when we are audited as
[4:23:00] supporting working papers on why it's appropriate to include that
[4:23:03] amount in 2025. Part of me. I said 2024 a
[4:23:06] minute ago, Mayor Hamlin. I do appreciate. And I'm asking
[4:23:12] my questions respectfully. I'd ask the question at the previous
[4:23:17] meeting, and I was just trying to make sure. I
[4:23:19] understood the answer. As treasurer, Graham just said, in her
[4:23:25] professional opinion, this is what she's recommending. And I'm looking
[4:23:31] at things. I'm trying to find things that I hope
[4:23:34] would help because right now I'm struggling with approving this
[4:23:38] budget. I know that we've received. The summary about the
[4:23:44] blended impacts, but when I'm looking at it, It's in
[4:23:49] my opinion, over a 5%, close to 6%. Spending from
[4:23:55] a year over year basis on the operating side. And
[4:23:59] the last two budgets, we've been successful in getting the
[4:24:02] operating side down, and we did substantial change. To. The
[4:24:10] capital levy side because we recognize the need that we
[4:24:13] have there. I'm struggling. I'm trying to find things. So
[4:24:20] I'm going to leave. I have a couple of other
[4:24:24] questions, but I'm going to lead those for right now.
[4:24:26] And let other counselors ask their questions. And just as
[4:24:29] they say, I'm struggling to accept the budget as it's
[4:24:32] presented. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, Councilor Paynes? Thank
[4:24:40] you, Mayor Hamlin. Director Graham here on the hot seat.
[4:24:44] I suppose again. This is, again, sort of. If you
[4:24:50] will, the working man's question about the amp and how
[4:24:53] that relates to this. Whole budget because. We're approximately. Proposed.
[4:24:59] 44,500,000 is the general levy to our taxpayers. But you
[4:25:04] stated, as I think you said, if we were to
[4:25:07] fully pay. Either the 2025 or the 2026 Amp. Assessment,
[4:25:13] if you will. It would be 23 million, I think
[4:25:15] you said. Is that correct? In a real world, if
[4:25:19] you added that 23 million to the 44 and a
[4:25:22] half million dollar levy. That'd be a horrendous increase. Okay,
[4:25:28] I'll just finish with my question. So I'm starting to
[4:25:30] think is the province, not looking at municipalities and the
[4:25:34] aMP and coming up with suggested best practices as far
[4:25:37] as the kind of percentage or the kind of money
[4:25:41] that you should be setting aside in the budget. Like
[4:25:43] this. This is economics 101 for me. So I look.
[4:25:48] Forward to your response. Thank you. Thank you. I think
[4:25:50] this is one question we all wondering about. Sure, go
[4:25:53] ahead. I'm going to back up a little bit before
[4:25:56] I make a comment on the province. That 26.3 million
[4:26:00] is not just. Tax related. It's actually a portion of
[4:26:05] it is rate related. So if we were to include
[4:26:07] the 26.3 million. That wouldn't be just to taxes? There's
[4:26:12] a strong portion. I think around 37%, but I can
[4:26:16] confirm that amount is actually. Rate applied. So our water
[4:26:20] and wastewater rates, and that's why the AMP has said
[4:26:23] that our rates are actually too low as well, which.
[4:26:27] We're not proposing an increase during this budget. Our next
[4:26:30] water wastewater rate study, that council has directed staff to
[4:26:33] do is in 2028, and we'll examine the rates at
[4:26:37] that. Point. Of that 26.3 million too. We do get
[4:26:41] to continuous grants from the province that goes. To war
[4:26:45] and the federal government. That does go toward asset renewal.
[4:26:48] It's not enough. But we do get osif and we
[4:26:52] do get the former federal gas tax as well. Ccbt.
[4:26:56] So that 26 point million comes from multiple sources, grants,
[4:27:00] taxes. Rates. And that's pretty much it, really. I do
[4:27:07] think that the province. By implementing this rigorous AMP requirement
[4:27:13] to all municipalities is going to have to recognize that.
[4:27:19] We can't possibly fund 87% of infrastructure across the province
[4:27:24] with the taxes we get. Off of our residents. It
[4:27:27] is not a Collingwood issue. It is a province issue.
[4:27:30] And I'm hoping that there is change. Yeah. Any other
[4:27:37] questions? Yeah, go ahead. So thank you, Mayor Hamlin. So
[4:27:42] I did appreciate the deputy mayor's question on the accruals
[4:27:45] because I had the same questions myself in terms of.
[4:27:49] I know all the financial statement preps I've done. It
[4:27:53] really didn't matter what the expense was that you were
[4:27:55] claiming during the year, you were trying to match expenses
[4:27:58] with revenue. So if it was an expense in 24.
[4:28:02] I had the same question. Why wouldn't. It be being
[4:28:06] carried back as an accrued back. And with that said,
[4:28:10] I am having trouble too and I want to sort
[4:28:12] out in my mind I don't want to talk about
[4:28:15] blended rate anymore. I think we need to talk about.
[4:28:17] Our municipal rate and be really clear on that. So
[4:28:24] I'd like to know where we're at. I think I
[4:28:26] heard you say at 2.7. After. The addition of. The
[4:28:35] go ahead. Do you want to repeat? Thank you. Yeah,
[4:28:38] I would be happy to. Our combined municipals capital and
[4:28:42] general levy. So the three different levees, this is inclusive
[4:28:46] of the 125,000 additional revenue is 2.7%. Do you have
[4:28:52] a follow up? Thank you. No, just trying to look
[4:28:59] for things to get it down. I think given the
[4:29:02] experience, people and. Businesses had this past weekend. I think
[4:29:07] given the state of the economics. And number one, my
[4:29:10] comment to the provinces is they don't understand the reality
[4:29:13] that they run deficits. We do not. So. They need
[4:29:18] to have an understanding that we can't go out and
[4:29:20] spend all that money. And run a deficit. I guess
[4:29:25] in terms of just trying to find something to get
[4:29:27] it down. I think we're doing well enough as a
[4:29:32] municipality compared to a lot of the other municipalities. We
[4:29:37] are in great shape. And I think some of these
[4:29:39] things happen because other municipalities aren't as responsible as what
[4:29:43] we have been financially. And so. I think we just
[4:29:48] have to find a way to get this down somehow.
[4:29:53] Thank you. Well, I agree. I think we're in pretty
[4:29:56] good shape. And I had asked. The treasurer if she
[4:29:58] could come with some comparisons with other municipalities in some
[4:30:02] co county. A lot have settled her right now. Some
[4:30:08] are still working through it. I think they all looked
[4:30:13] at blended rates, if I'm correct. But anyway, could you
[4:30:16] just. Tell us what you found. Thank you. I would
[4:30:19] be happy to. You. So we did a scan. Of
[4:30:21] the environment of our pure municipalities. On Friday, we are
[4:30:24] the third lowest out of the 16. The lowest is
[4:30:27] township as Clearview at 2.6%. And again, this is when
[4:30:31] we were at two. Point 75, which has now been
[4:30:33] lowered with that additional income up to the highest at
[4:30:36] 5.5% tan of Colleenwood. Our current rate right now that
[4:30:40] is being proposed. Is significantly lower than the average. Thank
[4:30:45] you. Can you read through them so we know who's
[4:30:48] been approved and who hasn't? Coming in at sure, I
[4:30:53] would be happy to. And again, this was a scan
[4:30:54] that was done on Friday, so hopefully it is still
[4:30:56] the most up to date information. Clearview is 2.6 blended
[4:31:03] still in the staff proposed budgets phase, and mayor budget
[4:31:07] is not anticipated until January eigth. Angela. Tossed. I'm sorry.
[4:31:12] I can't say that. But we all know what I'm.
[4:31:15] Referring to is 2.545% blended. Approved December 4. Colleen wed
[4:31:21] was 2.75 on Friday. Blended with Sega Beach 2.99% blended
[4:31:27] approved around December 5. New Takumfa 3.9 approved. November 4
[4:31:33] Midland 3.15 December 10 Penitentuishing 3.22 December 10 Severn 3.64,
[4:31:42] but discussions are still ongoing as of November 27. From
[4:31:45] what we could find. Bradford West Willenbury 3.71% abandonment period
[4:31:51] is open until December 17. So they have done their
[4:31:56] mayor proposed budget. ESA is 3.87 discussions are still ongoing
[4:32:00] as of December 10. Tiny 3.95 discussions still ongoing. Oro
[4:32:07] madante 3.98. They do two years budget per the note,
[4:32:11] so adopt a 25 26 April 29 Romero 4.5 this
[4:32:16] is the town only, so the blended rate would be
[4:32:18] a little bit less. Adopted on November 7. Tanna Blue
[4:32:22] Mountains again town only is 4.34. Discussions are still ongoing
[4:32:28] as of December 1. Spring water 5.15. It's blended, expected
[4:32:33] to be adopted this month in Isville 5.5. It's blended.
[4:32:38] And say. We could not find any information for Tay.
[4:32:42] It's just that the mayor's budget. Is not expected to
[4:32:44] be tabled until January 21. Okay, well, that's very helpful.
[4:32:50] I know for myself. I think if we apply the
[4:32:54] funds relating to the planning fees that we discussed earlier
[4:33:00] today for us to get to 2.7% blended. I think
[4:33:05] we've done well for our municipality. We're not far off
[4:33:09] of where inflation is, and we are delivering a lot
[4:33:12] of great things in our budget. So that's where I'm
[4:33:16] at. Dep. Deputy thank you, Mayor Hamlin.
[4:33:26] I guess. That's the problem. I keep coming back. To
[4:33:31] in order to get us down. To the 2.7. I
[4:33:34] guess it is right now. We've got $250,000 coming from
[4:33:39] Matt helping out with that. We're spending $390,000 of Matt.
[4:33:47] And that, to me, that's another percent in a bit
[4:33:50] right there of impact. One of the challenges with looking
[4:33:54] at what we just looked at with the rate changes.
[4:33:59] And co. Skinner mentioned this in the media coverage about
[4:34:01] comparing taxes and we really don't know what the other
[4:34:05] communities are doing from a capital. Contribution, standpoint or amp?
[4:34:11] And we've broken it out, and I think that was
[4:34:14] the right thing to do. And that gives us the
[4:34:17] ability to show what is going to amp and what's
[4:34:20] going to operating. I think eventually all municipalities will have
[4:34:25] to do that because I think the follow up for
[4:34:27] the province with requiring amp programs is they're going to
[4:34:30] want to see. What's happening with taxes to contribute towards
[4:34:35] that. That all being said. One of the items that
[4:34:40] I looked at as. A possible something that we could
[4:34:44] do to reduce was I wanted to take another look
[4:34:47] at P 55. And the decision to implement it. So
[4:34:52] what I wanted to ask about. With that, because it
[4:34:55] does show in the explanation of the almost 1.3 million.
[4:35:00] Of payroll change, salary and benefit. Change without the 166.
[4:35:08] It does mention the $157,000 adjustment. For p 50. For.
[4:35:18] Those ones who needed to be brought up to p
[4:35:21] 50 appropriately because p 50 had changed over the course
[4:35:25] of the year. And got me thinking about the $166,000
[4:35:30] for the p 55 adjustment, and I did. Ask the
[4:35:33] question earlier today, and I don't know if the information
[4:35:35] is available or not. But I wondered. If we could
[4:35:40] get an idea of how many employees are impacted by
[4:35:43] that 166 adjustment. That is right now approved. And I
[4:35:51] think through you to executive director, Peg. Probably, yeah. Our
[4:35:57] treasurer? Yes. Treasure has an answer, I think. Sure. Because
[4:36:00] it is pay policy related, I'm. Just going to give
[4:36:03] a general, high level answer to it, and I hope
[4:36:06] that's sufficient so to get to p 50, there's actually
[4:36:10] nine pay bands of stuff that are impacted. Out of
[4:36:15] our 15 pay bands that we have, and then to
[4:36:17] get to p 55. There's ten that would be impacted.
[4:36:23] Out of the 15, which makes sense, considering if they're
[4:36:25] not at p 50 there's. Certainly not going to be
[4:36:27] at p 55. So it is a significant amount of
[4:36:31] employees that are not at the p 55 level, and
[4:36:35] that's why it's included in the base budget. P 50.
[4:36:39] Pardon me? P 55 is not included in the base
[4:36:41] budget at all. Sorry. I'm going to put that item
[4:36:47] back on the table and see if I get a
[4:36:49] seconder to reconsider it. I appreciate that there's ten employees
[4:36:55] impacted by it. Sorry. Not ten employees, ten pay bands.
[4:37:02] Ten pay bands. Thank you for correcting that. Sorry. But.
[4:37:09] I just think with the fact that I consider our
[4:37:12] increase to be high. And the fact that. I think.
[4:37:20] The investment. Performance this past year has been very strong,
[4:37:23] but also there's challenges for the taxpayers out there. So.
[4:37:28] I'm going to propose to put that back on the
[4:37:30] table to revote on that. And I would look to
[4:37:34] see if I could get a seconder. Okay. Councilor Potts.
[4:37:37] Is going to second that. And, sir, it's the P
[4:37:41] 55. Yes. 166,000. I've already explained the reasonings. Why? So
[4:37:49] I don't think I have to. Say anything more, Mayor
[4:37:51] Hammond. Okay. Would anyone else like to speak to. Would
[4:37:54] anyone like to speak. To this. Councilor Potts. Thanks, Mayor
[4:37:58] Hamlin. So, just threw you to the treasure just for
[4:38:00] clarification. So we have a number of staff within their
[4:38:04] paybands that aren't. Even at p 50 yet is what
[4:38:07] I'm hearing. So it would be p 50 and then
[4:38:10] they would technically jump, wherever they're at now from. P
[4:38:14] 30 whatever it is, all the way to p 55.
[4:38:18] P 40 something, whatever, all the way to p 55.
[4:38:21] So that would be a fairly significant increase. If I'm
[4:38:25] understanding it right. Yes. Go ahead, treasure. Graham. To be
[4:38:30] clear, just to help. Hopefully this helps. The average increase
[4:38:35] is just under 2%, so. It isn't a significant increase
[4:38:39] to get to p 50. There's just a lot of
[4:38:42] employee. So it does add up to that amount. But
[4:38:44] per employee itself, It averages about 1.8%. And just follow
[4:38:51] up Mayor Hammond. So on top of. That percentage, there
[4:38:55] would still be also a call or like a cost
[4:38:58] of living as well. That would be included in that
[4:39:00] as well. So depending on what that is, It could
[4:39:03] be if three, four or 5%, depending on what Cola
[4:39:06] comes in at, correct? Yes, go ahead. Cola is in
[4:39:10] the base budget at 2.75% for nonunion. Stuff. And yes,
[4:39:15] that would be an addition. Thank you. Alfred. Thank
[4:39:25] you, chair. I am not going to support this motion.
[4:39:32] First of all, I believe that we have come forward.
[4:39:36] Staff have come forward with a very reasonable budget. Given
[4:39:43] the challenges that we face. In terms of costs. Of
[4:39:49] infrastructure renewal. Costs of operating, et cetera. And in particular.
[4:39:59] I would not support. The notion of endeavoring to reduce
[4:40:04] the budget. By reducing. Earning potential. For some of our
[4:40:14] staff. We owe it to hardworking stuff. To pay. Competitive
[4:40:23] wages. If we do not, we will have a hard
[4:40:27] time attracting good stuff. It's as simple. As that, but.
[4:40:33] I just can't emphasize enough, in my view. I think
[4:40:37] two point. 70. Is very acceptable. Budget when we look
[4:40:45] at. What some of. Our Simcoe county member communities are
[4:40:51] budgeting. For 2026. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Baines. Thank
[4:41:01] you. I agree and echo my colleague councilor Dorte's comments.
[4:41:07] I think staff. Are our greatest strength, if you will,
[4:41:13] as an organization here in the town, and it's just
[4:41:15] been proven this last weekend. I don't think. It's accessor
[4:41:20] of the tall, I think. It's essentially the norm of
[4:41:24] what our fellow communities are doing. So I would not
[4:41:27] support the deputy mayor's motion in this regard. I'll come
[4:41:33] back to council. I just want to see if there's
[4:41:34] anybody else. Anyone else like to comment on this? I
[4:41:40] think what I'd like to say is. It's always a
[4:41:43] hard one. But let's face it, at Steph who's? Running
[4:41:46] this municipality, and there are other municipalities out there like
[4:41:50] the Missauga beach. I've heard his mayor say a few
[4:41:52] times, our goal is to pay the most because we
[4:41:55] want to have the best staff, but we're not going
[4:41:57] to pay the most. And I think P 55 is
[4:42:01] where our competitors are. We approved a list of comparator
[4:42:04] municipalities a few months ago. And this is where they're
[4:42:08] at. And. We all know what happens when we have
[4:42:13] new staff. We have a loss of continuity. The corporate
[4:42:17] history is lost. We get behind the ball. Things slow
[4:42:23] down because people have to get up to speed. And
[4:42:25] I think this is a modest amount. It won't impact.
[4:42:31] Our tax rates significantly at all. This would be a
[4:42:34] very modest amount. What would it be? Zero, 5% or
[4:42:38] something? To make sure we have the best staff that
[4:42:42] we're entitled to. So those are my thoughts. Capital. Councilor
[4:42:46] Potts. Yeah, thanks. Mary Hamlin. I just wanted to make
[4:42:48] a couple. Of points. And I'm not really interested in
[4:42:53] comparing with any municipality. My priority is Collingwood. And the
[4:42:58] taxpayers at Collingwood. And. When I hear 2.7% is not
[4:43:05] an issue, it may not be an issue to some,
[4:43:07] but there's a lot of people in this community. The
[4:43:09] 2.7. 0.1% is too much. So I think looking at
[4:43:14] this, if there's. Any way. Stopping getting to a P
[4:43:19] 50. Sounds like there's going to be a pay increase
[4:43:23] anyways, so regardless of that, I think the 2.7 is
[4:43:26] still too high. And I know that there's going to
[4:43:30] be differences of opinions, but I'm not. Convinced that staff
[4:43:34] are leaving Collingwood because of wages. Maybe some, not all.
[4:43:40] So I will continue to support the fact that. I
[4:43:43] will support the deputy mayor's motion on this. And again.
[4:43:50] In these times, we have to look out for the
[4:43:52] taxpayer. They can't put meals on tables. They can barely
[4:43:57] keep the lights on. And we have comments on the
[4:44:00] 2.7. Shouldn't be an issue. No problem with that. I
[4:44:04] think really, we're not doing any good justice for our
[4:44:06] taxpayers. That's just. My opinion. Anyone else like to speak?
[4:44:11] Okay, deputy mayor. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. And I want
[4:44:19] to repeat, as I've said quite a few different times,
[4:44:23] When I've put something on the table here like this.
[4:44:25] This is in complete respect to our staff. Our staff
[4:44:27] are wonderful. What it comes down to is the operating
[4:44:32] increase is just too much on the tax base. And
[4:44:36] if the 2.7 had a fairly large. Capital adjustment to
[4:44:42] it, then maybe I'd look at it differently. But. I'm
[4:44:46] struggling. On approving an operating impact that we're approving here.
[4:44:53] And this is one area. That would help with that.
[4:44:58] And as I said, I don't want it to reflect
[4:45:03] back that I think poorly established, because I don't. I
[4:45:05] think they're working hard. So is the taxpayer. To me,
[4:45:11] when you look at it, I'm seeing over 5% operating
[4:45:14] impact, and that's just too much. So I've got to
[4:45:18] look for ways to try to bring that down. Okay.
[4:45:21] Thank you. Councilor Potts, I do agree with you to
[4:45:26] the extent that people are struggling a lot of people
[4:45:29] are struggling. But this tax crease is under. $70 a
[4:45:36] year. And. It comes down to should, in my view
[4:45:40] anyway, is at the local level of government, who has
[4:45:43] no ability to borrow, to run deficits that is totally
[4:45:48] dependent on other levels of government. To supplement what we're
[4:45:51] doing to get where we're going to cover these bare
[4:45:55] necessities that people are not able to meet. And I
[4:45:59] hear you and I feel for our residents who are
[4:46:01] in those positions. But we have to keep going. And
[4:46:06] if maybe the discussion to be had is with our
[4:46:08] provincial counterparts. But. We still have to our budget this
[4:46:14] year. We're going to be resurfacing over 30 sections of
[4:46:19] road. These are important. Things to our community. And, yeah,
[4:46:22] we can focus on $166,000 to staff because it makes
[4:46:27] headlines. But this budget is not about $166,000. It's about
[4:46:33] $100 million worth of capital works and operating to make
[4:46:37] that happen. But I hear you, Councilor McCullough. Thank you.
[4:46:46] Just. I wanted to throw. Some comments in on. The
[4:46:51] subject of staff compensation. I think it's. A very expensive
[4:46:59] way to save money. I think it impacts performance, service
[4:47:02] delivery, dealing with items that we don't see coming. But
[4:47:07] day to day, it puts the burden if staff leave,
[4:47:11] puts the burden on the remaining staff and reduces the
[4:47:14] way that the town can deliver. So that's my comment
[4:47:18] on that piece. It's very tempting to trim operational expenses.
[4:47:22] But there's typically a long term cost to those short
[4:47:25] term savings. And I read circled a couple of items
[4:47:32] that are on the impact of municipal levy, and I
[4:47:35] think? There's some flexibility and some work to be done
[4:47:38] on some more discretionary items. It would not have an
[4:47:41] immediate impact. Yeah. Did you want to raise those? Sorry.
[4:47:46] Yeah, I forgot. You're right. Okay, so, shall we bring
[4:47:49] to a vote, deputy mayor's? Motion. Councilor Jeffrey. Thank you.
[4:47:57] I'd like to respectfully say that I don't think there's
[4:47:59] anybody. Here seeking headlines. I think we're trying to do
[4:48:02] a good job for our residents and all of us
[4:48:04] may see that being done in a different way, but
[4:48:07] I don't think it's really a fair comment. I'm certainly
[4:48:10] that's not my impotent. Well, I use the wrong words
[4:48:14] anyway. We'll just leave it as it is. I totally
[4:48:16] understand. Okay, let's bring this to a vote. All those
[4:48:19] in favor? 1234 and those opposed? Okay, that fails. Okay,
[4:48:27] who would like to. Councilor McCullough, did you have some
[4:48:30] things? You wanted to put on the floor. Thank you,
[4:48:34] mayor. Two items that I circled that fall under the
[4:48:37] municipal levy category of expenses. And I know this is
[4:48:43] sacrosanct, but stick with me. $400,000 is the largest line
[4:48:49] item on that. That is a discretionary council item. That
[4:48:53] was put. On the budget, and I think based on
[4:48:56] some of the discussions we had last week regarding town.
[4:49:01] Municipal capital facilities or cooperative partnerships with housing initiatives and
[4:49:05] being able to provide land at a reduced cost that
[4:49:08] a significant impact could be made to affordable housing through
[4:49:11] that measure, as opposed to on the back of the
[4:49:14] taxpayers. So I think. There's great potential in that piece
[4:49:19] of land that could be contributed at a lower cost.
[4:49:23] To help facilitate affordable housing, and I think that has
[4:49:26] a larger impact than 50 or $100,000. Would. Okay, so
[4:49:31] I think maybe you're asking, what's the value of that
[4:49:34] land? Perhaps. I think one of the items that was
[4:49:39] discussed in that. Would retain ownership of the land and
[4:49:46] provided on a land lease basis, which reduces the capital
[4:49:50] requirement. To start the development there and get it going.
[4:49:55] So what is your motion, then? To the budget. I'll
[4:50:00] need help with wording on this clerk Almas. That an
[4:50:08] alternative? Means of supporting affordable housing. Is explored through. Options
[4:50:18] related to town provided land for affordable housing. Something to
[4:50:25] that effect. Sale. A land lease can be at whatever
[4:50:33] rate per annum that the town decides is relevant. So
[4:50:37] it can be subsidized, it can be free, it can
[4:50:41] be market. So how would that impact, like, if we
[4:50:46] want to vote on something that does, I presume. What
[4:50:49] you're saying is the 400,000 should be reduced. Do you
[4:50:54] have a number in mind? We have to get the
[4:51:01] motion at first. $100,000.
[4:51:12] Would there be a seconder for this? No. Okay, what's
[4:51:21] your next item? Okay, we'll have one more kick at
[4:51:26] the can. I had certain reservations about
[4:51:35] the Georgian Bay accelerator and the way that it was
[4:51:38] funding, we've addressed most of those, but I think, again,
[4:51:41] that's a discretionary item in light. Of the pressure on
[4:51:44] the budget that could be revisited. So, do you have
[4:51:50] a suggestion?
[4:52:05] Now I've reduced by 50%. Okay.
[4:52:16] And that's $130,000 item, I believe. Was that right? Okay.
[4:52:21] And councilor. Ring. Are you seconding that? Okay, we have
[4:52:25] a second. Seconder. I want to be very sorry, mayor.
[4:52:29] I want to be really clear. I wasn't trying. To
[4:52:31] reduce the contribution to affordable housing. I was trying to
[4:52:35] change the delivery of it and use another method. I
[4:52:42] realized that. But we've had five budget meetings, and five
[4:52:43] times people have tried to reduce that money to affordable
[4:52:46] housing. There's a presentation. Yeah. Thank you.
[4:52:56] Okay. Would you like to speak to this to start?
[4:53:02] Or is to reduce the amount. Allocated to the Georgian
[4:53:07] Bay accelerator, which is now $130,000 by 50%.
[4:53:19] Casserbaint. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Before going down this path,
[4:53:26] I had some concerns about. The dollar request that this
[4:53:32] had, but the implications of such a decision, because it
[4:53:36] could be that if we cut it at 50%, they
[4:53:39] might say, no, we're done then, because we just can't
[4:53:41] deliver. And I'm not sure who on staff's part. Could
[4:53:46] reasonably answer such a question that if we cut it
[4:53:48] by 50%, Essentially, is it all or nothing? And if
[4:53:52] anybody, staff or anywhere, has a response to that, Now
[4:53:57] would be the time to. Perhaps my colleague knows. Thank
[4:53:59] you, Councilor McCullough. Thank you mayor. I don't have a
[4:54:03] direct answer, but I do know there was conversation around
[4:54:05] an overlap. Between our economic development people and that group,
[4:54:10] and that left me a little bit disconcerted. As to
[4:54:12] was that money being applied in the wrong place or
[4:54:15] perhaps being duplicated? I totally shared that view. So I
[4:54:23] was happy with how our final resolution was on that
[4:54:28] because. It wasn't just allocate $130,000. Because. As I see
[4:54:36] it. And I think director Valentine can correct me on
[4:54:39] this. But I think this will be the year for
[4:54:42] the Georgian Bay accelerator. They're either going to fit into
[4:54:45] our programming and show us what they're doing all the
[4:54:49] time. Supporting Collingwood businesses. And so on, or they're not.
[4:54:55] And I see if. They don't step up, that this
[4:55:00] will be the last year for them. I am somewhat
[4:55:03] worried about just cutting them off, not having a lot
[4:55:07] of knowledge about. What businesses they're working with right now.
[4:55:11] But, director Valentine, can you remind us what qualifications we
[4:55:15] put around. Their funding for 2026. Thank you, chair. It
[4:55:21] was Councilor Jeffries. Motion, so I hope I do it
[4:55:26] justice, but. It was to ensure that the 130,000 was
[4:55:31] directed to support Collingwood businesses. To provide quarterly financial reporting
[4:55:37] through to council and to improve coordination between the GBA
[4:55:41] and our economic development division. Yeah, that's it. And director
[4:55:48] Valentine, how do you like. Do you agree with me
[4:55:51] that 26. Will be. Important year for the accelerator. Thank
[4:55:58] you for that question. You can say. I don't know.
[4:56:04] It's okay. It's hard to crystal ball through that, but
[4:56:09] I will say that staff have had reservations. With Collingwood
[4:56:14] being the primary municipal funder. Of an organization that does
[4:56:19] great work, undoubtedly, but is focused across multiple. Regions in
[4:56:25] south Georgia Bay and beyond to Gray and Bruce as
[4:56:27] well. Through their own statistics indicated that. The business is
[4:56:33] supported. In 2025, only 40% were from Collingwood and have
[4:56:37] been challenged to find other funding opportunities. So a decrease
[4:56:42] in funding is supportable by staff, but I think the
[4:56:45] mayor is probably correct. In her crystal ball that if
[4:56:48] that money were to decrease significantly, the accelerator may be
[4:56:52] challenged to make up that money either from other municipal
[4:56:56] contributors or other orders of government. The only other piece
[4:57:01] that staff had thought of that hasn't been mentioned today.
[4:57:06] Is the potential for the accelerator to do a fee
[4:57:09] for service. When businesses approach that are not from Collingwood,
[4:57:14] which could augment. Their revenue intake as well as to
[4:57:19] seek corporate sponsors. So those are other options available to
[4:57:23] the accelerator. So it is certainly a complicated topic. But.
[4:57:29] There is a potential that the accelerator may fold if
[4:57:32] it does not receive the full funding from the town.
[4:57:36] Any other thoughts on this? Okay, we'll bring this to
[4:57:44] a vote. 50% reduction. All in favor? 1234.
[4:57:52] 123-4567 opposed. To carries. Okay.
[4:58:06] So. That's half of that is, what, 65? And we
[4:58:11] had 120. What was the other amount that we added
[4:58:15] in? Brought us down to 2.7. Will this make any
[4:58:21] difference to the tax rate? Yeah, go. Ahead. Tell us
[4:58:23] what it will be. I would be happy too. I'm
[4:58:25] keeping a running. Total. So this has decreased the town's
[4:58:29] portion, not the blended rate, the towns portion to 2.55%.
[4:58:33] And for those that are interested in the blended rate,
[4:58:35] it's 2.47%. Okay, awesome. Thank you. Councilor Potts. Thanks, Mayor
[4:58:42] Hamlet. Moving on. I think if it's council's wish to
[4:58:49] maintain. The p 55, then I would table and probably
[4:58:53] separate, but the removal of the 54,000 for human resources.
[4:58:58] And also the economic development coordinator. It's at 120, but
[4:59:03] I think. It would matter. I don't know if there
[4:59:05] was funding for that. But it would be removing those
[4:59:08] two staff resources. Okay. Would there be a seconder for
[4:59:12] that? Deputy mayor. Okay. Do you want to speak to
[4:59:17] why you. Just think looking at it again. Additional staff
[4:59:24] resources. If we're looking at with budget items and trying
[4:59:28] to work things here. And obviously it's council's wish to
[4:59:32] maintain and to move to the P 55. I think,
[4:59:36] given the year coming up, And I think removing those.
[4:59:42] It's just something that I'm putting forward, so I think
[4:59:45] I've exhausted all my reasons why over the last number
[4:59:48] of months. Okay. Thank you. Can I just ask staff
[4:59:53] to comment on the economic development coordinator position, how we
[4:59:57] are going to fund that and what the role of
[4:59:59] that person was. I can speak to how we're funding
[5:00:03] it, but I think I'll look to director Valentine on
[5:00:06] the role. This is funded through the municipal accommodation tax.
[5:00:13] The percentage that relates to the town of Collingwood. So
[5:00:16] this would be an ongoing annual expense, but. Again. Fund
[5:00:20] it through the municipal accommodation tax and not taxes. And
[5:00:24] I'll ask director Valentine. If she doesn't mind, to elaborate
[5:00:27] on the position. So if it's funded through the municipal
[5:00:31] accommodation tax, if we remove that person, would it change
[5:00:35] the tax increase? No, it would not change the tax
[5:00:40] increase. It would decrease the amount of municipal accommodation tax
[5:00:44] that has been allocated. And there is 250,000 that's being
[5:00:48] allocated so far. That's just reducing. The tax base, so
[5:00:51] that would lower that amount. So less reliance on the
[5:00:56] MAT to lower tax. Okay, go ahead and can you
[5:01:00] explain with this person's job is. Thank you. Thank you.
[5:01:03] Chair. And through you both the downtown master plan and
[5:01:06] the tourism master plan. Each suggested that the town would
[5:01:11] require additional resources over and above those available in economic
[5:01:15] development to drive forward those plans. So one resource each.
[5:01:20] We felt that that was an unreasonable request of council.
[5:01:22] And also felt that the two plans have synergies in
[5:01:26] terms of their focus on sustainable tourism. And the vitality
[5:01:30] of our downtown corps, which is also, well, both our
[5:01:33] strategic priorities of this community. So our suggestion was a
[5:01:37] single position. To essentially spearhead. The advancement of both of
[5:01:42] those plans, one that has a life cycle of about
[5:01:45] three years and the other one of 20 plus years
[5:01:48] being the downtown master plan. So that would be the
[5:01:50] focus. Of that individual funded through the mat. Thank you.
[5:01:55] Follow up Maryland for me, of course. To treasure Graham.
[5:02:01] No additional cost from the taxpayer. It's coming under the
[5:02:07] mat. There's no additional cost when it comes to even.
[5:02:10] With wages, benefits, tax, anything along that line, there'd be
[5:02:13] nothing. This would be solely. Everything's funded solely from the
[5:02:17] mat. Go ahead for this position. Yes, you're correct. It
[5:02:22] would be funded solely through the mat. The way that
[5:02:24] council has approved the amendment to date. Thank you. I
[5:02:29] still don't support the additional staff resources, so I'll maintain
[5:02:32] that. Okay. Thank you. And the other position? If I'm
[5:02:38] remembering correctly. That was taking a part time to a
[5:02:42] full time. Could someone speak to what that person does?
[5:02:45] And why we need a full time. Executive director. Peg,
[5:02:49] go ahead. Thank you, worship. Through you to council. So
[5:02:51] the HR support position currently is an eight month contract.
[5:02:54] So the proposal for council's consideration was converting that to
[5:02:57] a full time continuous. Human resources operations in talent management
[5:03:03] has a lot of accountability. In, I'll say our people
[5:03:08] and the investment in the people across the organization adjusting
[5:03:11] this resource is to recognize. The challenges, we'll say, of
[5:03:16] running a modern workforce, and a lot of that responsibility
[5:03:19] falls. Within the HR team. With an eight month contract,
[5:03:22] although we've been blessed to. Get decent applications, and we've
[5:03:27] had some really great people work for the town in
[5:03:29] the past the loss of continuity. With an eight month
[5:03:33] contract is challenging. You train someone as soon as they're
[5:03:35] up to speed, they leave and you're recruiting again. You
[5:03:39] hire someone else. So we thought that the. Cost benefit
[5:03:42] of the additional four months. And benefits. Was an investment
[5:03:48] well made. The role would help with the ERP transition.
[5:03:52] So moving from great plains to a new product. HR
[5:03:56] processes, policy updates, recruitment, training and development. Whole gamut of
[5:04:02] HR practices. And again, we have an eight month contract
[5:04:05] right now. It's just challenging with continuous turnover in those
[5:04:09] positions. And I see Theo Skinner may want to contribute
[5:04:11] to that, okay? Thank you. Through the chair. I just
[5:04:16] wanted to, I was doing my 54 comment that that
[5:04:20] particular item was, I believe, 54,000 in the, in the.
[5:04:27] Difference. And since I am speaking, I would also just
[5:04:31] want to say that. If we don't do the economic
[5:04:36] development coordinator for the downtown work. And. The downtown master
[5:04:43] plan and the tourism work. There's quite a bit of
[5:04:47] work there that I think we'd have to think. Through
[5:04:49] what can move forward. We don't currently have someone to
[5:04:54] deliver those pieces, and Collingwood is pretty special in our
[5:04:58] downtown. We've done over the years, a lot of things
[5:05:03] with the bia's help. And support and in many cases,
[5:05:06] funds. A lot of changes that make this, keep this
[5:05:11] place really special. And I think that piece of investment.
[5:05:15] Is not essential. It's council's discretion, but it is, I
[5:05:19] think, an important one to continuing. This track record of
[5:05:24] unusual success. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Baines. Thank you, Mayor
[5:05:29] Hamlin. Through you to Ed Peg, just on this? 54,000.
[5:05:34] I'm assuming that if we did not or rescinded. This
[5:05:37] 54,000 to take it from eight months to twelve months
[5:05:40] that you still have the budget for the eight months
[5:05:43] continuing. It's just the top up from. Eight to twelve
[5:05:47] that the 54 would remove. Go ahead. Thank you. Through
[5:05:51] the merit of councilor Baines. That is correct. So we
[5:05:53] would still have the eight month contract. Another possibility for
[5:05:59] council's consideration would be a twelve month contract that would
[5:06:03] eliminate benefit costs. But allow for position continuity. Thank you.
[5:06:09] So could you just clarify that? What would the cost
[5:06:12] of that be, do you know? That's a third, I
[5:06:17] guess. Is the third benefit. Sorry. Go ahead. Sorry, I
[5:06:23] just spoke at a turn. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. We
[5:06:27] do have about 30% is what we budget for full
[5:06:30] time. And then about 14% because we still have to
[5:06:33] pay CPP and EI and those kind of benefits. It's
[5:06:36] just not the health. And Omars is actually optional for
[5:06:40] part. Time as well. So what would the savings be
[5:06:44] if we did a twelve month contract as opposed to.
[5:06:49] Twelve. Month full time person. It would be about $8,000
[5:06:56] in savings of that 54,000. Okay, thank you. Councilor Potts.
[5:07:05] Councilor? You already spoke, councilor ring. Yes. Thank you, Mayor
[5:07:11] Hamlet. We're talking about two different jobs here. Are we
[5:07:15] going to vote on them separately? We are okay. Because
[5:07:20] I could probably go one either way, but I want
[5:07:24] to make sure because. If it's a package deal, it
[5:07:28] might not go the way I would normally. Okay. Did
[5:07:32] you want to say anything else? Yeah, I was just
[5:07:34] going to say. We got off the first one. The.
[5:07:40] Development. One economic development. I supported the first time. For
[5:07:47] the reasons I'm going to support it again this time.
[5:07:51] We got two master plans that both recommended that we
[5:07:54] had somebody administrate the programs. For each one of them.
[5:07:57] And instead of getting two people, we're going to do
[5:07:59] it. With two, which I think is reasonable. And because.
[5:08:04] It's not. Adding any extra money to the taxpayer. I
[5:08:08] could support it as long as it's being paid through
[5:08:10] Matt. So that's why I voted for the first time,
[5:08:12] and I will support it again this time. Okay? Thank
[5:08:15] you. Mayor thank you, Mayor Hamlin. And on that particular
[5:08:20] position, I'm looking at it differently than it's been explained
[5:08:25] because. The four that group together for the 390,000, which
[5:08:32] was the 2025. Mat that we had to work with.
[5:08:39] We've approved the coordinator out of that. 2027 would still
[5:08:46] have to be decided on, and I'm looking at that
[5:08:50] as quite possibly coming back onto the municipal tax base.
[5:08:55] So. How it will continue to be paid. I'm looking
[5:08:59] at it differently than others, I guess. The other concern
[5:09:04] I have is. We are putting $215,000 in for implementation
[5:09:13] of the plan. So I'd like to think that there
[5:09:16] may be some room there to figure out. As CEO
[5:09:21] Skinner just referred to how to implement some of those
[5:09:24] quick moving things in that first year. And then make
[5:09:29] the decision about the coordinator in 2027. So I'm supportive
[5:09:35] of. Both things that are being put forward. And just
[5:09:39] wanted to explain that I'm looking at the development coordinator
[5:09:42] differently. Yes, it's. In Matt. I understand that, but it
[5:09:45] still means we're spending money. It's just a different alternate.
[5:09:47] It's an alternate revenue source. And it's going to be
[5:09:52] an ongoing expense. And right now, I don't see it
[5:09:56] being covered by 2027, Matt, because we haven't made any
[5:09:59] decisions about that. So those are my comments. Okay. Thank
[5:10:04] you. Councilor Jeffrey thank you, Mayor Hamlin. So just as
[5:10:11] clarification, I know in previous budgets. I've asked about making
[5:10:15] positions contract and HR told me that even if you
[5:10:19] make them contract for twelve months. After two years they
[5:10:22] become full time benefited jobs. So I would just like
[5:10:27] to have some clarity on that as to where the
[5:10:30] benefit would be. To go to twelve months when after
[5:10:32] two years it reverts into. A full time job in
[5:10:35] any event. Executive director Pink.
[5:10:46] Thank you. Chair through to councilor Jeffrey so the position
[5:10:48] does not automatically revert into a continuous full time position
[5:10:53] under ESA. At some point, the municipality would have the
[5:10:55] requirement to provide benefits but we wouldn't offer in a
[5:10:59] contract that would trigger that requirement if we did not.
[5:11:02] Have council approval to do so. Yeah. So I'm just
[5:11:06] wondering why I would have been advised that maybe things
[5:11:08] have changed. Since I asked that question. Go ahead. Is
[5:11:12] that gifter? Sorry. My apologies. Maybe I wasn't clear if
[5:11:15] we have. Long term contracts. We do provide benefits, but
[5:11:19] the intention with the HR support moving to a twelve
[5:11:23] month is that we wouldn't retain the same employee in
[5:11:25] that position long enough that it would. Trigger benefits unless
[5:11:33] we had council approval to do so. Thank you. Okay,
[5:11:38] well, I'm going to bring this to a vote in
[5:11:40] a minute. I'll just address. I want to just offer
[5:11:43] my thoughts about. The person hired. If a person is
[5:11:49] hired. To implement the downtown master plan and the tourism
[5:11:54] master plan through the map funds. This will be a
[5:11:57] decision, of course. Of the Tourism Collingwood board as to
[5:12:03] how. They're going to be using their funding. And they
[5:12:07] could always choose not to have a staff person, but
[5:12:10] then nothing would happen. So I feel fairly certain that
[5:12:14] that position, as staff has indicated so far, would continue
[5:12:18] on as a mat funding funded position. And. If it
[5:12:24] was going to come. On to the general tax base.
[5:12:28] That'll be a decision for council at a future budget.
[5:12:30] Meeting. I don't think we can worry about what's going
[5:12:33] to happen and whether council approve or not approve? A
[5:12:37] position in two years from now, so I just wanted
[5:12:41] to offer my view on that, okay? So we're going
[5:12:44] to sever these. So for the firstly vote on eliminating
[5:12:49] the economic development coordinator. Position. All those in favor? Okay.
[5:12:59] One, two in favor and those opposed? So that fails.
[5:13:05] And the second position. Your memo, your emotion. Was to
[5:13:13] eliminate that position. Okay. And there's been a suggestion from
[5:13:20] our executive director that it become a contract position. So
[5:13:25] I should, I guess, ask if anyone wanted to put
[5:13:28] that amendment on the table. Is that the correct order,
[5:13:32] or do we vote his motion first? Okay. All right.
[5:13:36] Okay, good. All right. So to eliminate. The $54,000. For
[5:13:46] the HR person to go from part time to full
[5:13:49] time. All those in favor? 12345 and those opposed? 1234
[5:13:57] that passes. Okay. All right. Anything else? Deputy mayor. Thank
[5:14:04] you, Mayor Hamlin. And through you to treasure Graham. We've
[5:14:09] made adjustment. For the fact that we approved. Earlier in
[5:14:15] the council meeting, the planning department. First year of phase
[5:14:21] in. For the new fees. We also approved the building
[5:14:26] department. Changes. So I wondered if maybe the 125 takes
[5:14:32] that into account. So I guess that would be my
[5:14:35] question. I would have thought there'd be some impact that
[5:14:39] wasn't already in the budget. Because you weren't doing that.
[5:14:42] Because it hadn't been passed. So is the 125. Include
[5:14:45] boast planning and building department. Yes, go ahead. No, it's
[5:14:50] planning only. The building. A fee increase will help increase
[5:14:55] our building stabilization reserve fund. As we were at the
[5:14:59] end of 2024. We were in a shortfall of our
[5:15:02] targeted balance, which is to fund two years of almost
[5:15:05] $1 million. So each year when I do, my annual
[5:15:10] statement of reserve funds, and I apologize. Because I think
[5:15:12] this question was asked when I was ejected to get
[5:15:14] some water earlier. That target balance is based. On the
[5:15:19] prior year actuals. So this year, when I report on
[5:15:23] my annual statement, it will be a combination of 2025
[5:15:26] actuals of what it actually costs the building department plus
[5:15:29] the 2026 budget, and that will determine what our minimum
[5:15:33] target is to get to the two years right now
[5:15:35] because of the way our building permit revenue. Has seen
[5:15:40] a decline in activity. We are in a shortfall in
[5:15:45] that building civilization reserve fund. So any increase of the
[5:15:48] fees. That were appropriately approved will be going to help
[5:15:52] replenish. That reserve fund. Just as a follow up, if
[5:15:56] I may, Mayor Hamlin, then can you tell me. What
[5:16:02] the quantum is. A year with those increased fees. I
[5:16:09] do not have that information at hand. Look to director
[5:16:16] Valentine as the author of that report to see if
[5:16:19] she could quantify it. If not, I'm happy to work
[5:16:21] with Director Valentine and get back to you in January.
[5:16:25] Chair. I apologize. I don't have that number. It's a
[5:16:29] rate support budget, so. It doesn't impact the operational levy,
[5:16:33] so I wasn't expecting that question tonight. I guess that's
[5:16:41] where I'm struggling. I'm thinking of maybe. Trying to have
[5:16:46] it impact the operating levy because. I understand. We talked
[5:16:51] about needing to have two years there. And hopefully we
[5:16:55] can accumulate that. But that's going to be close to
[5:16:58] two and a half million dollars. That's just going to
[5:17:01] sit there for the what ifs, if no revenue comes
[5:17:05] in. And we already have 1.4 million at the end
[5:17:09] of 2024. So. I was thinking that that might be
[5:17:15] another. Source to help with those changes. So we don't
[5:17:21] have that information, though. So I'm not going to put
[5:17:23] anything on the floor. Unfortunately. The recommendations.
[5:17:34] I'm going to ask for them to be severed because.
[5:17:37] I'm not going to support the special capital levy and
[5:17:39] capital levy increases. I'm the one who brought forward the
[5:17:44] extra increases in the last two budgets for Amp. But
[5:17:47] as I said, that was based on being able to
[5:17:49] get the operating impacts down. And we aren't able to
[5:17:55] do that. I got confidence that I know. Large millions
[5:18:02] of dollars. I already explained that in a couple of
[5:18:04] other meetings. I guess. Estimated about $4 million is going
[5:18:09] into lifecycle reserve for 2025. That wasn't expected. So. I'm
[5:18:16] definitely a proponent for. Getting asset management. In the best
[5:18:21] shape possible. But. When we vote on those two recommendations,
[5:18:26] I'm not going to support the capital change, just because
[5:18:29] the overall impact is too high. Thank you. What is
[5:18:35] the overall impact of those two levees? Treasure Graham. Of
[5:18:40] the two. Capital levy specifically? Or do you mean where
[5:18:43] we're at now, that council? Has reduced this. Actually, both.
[5:18:46] I had both on my mind. So thank you for
[5:18:48] clarifying with the 54,000 reduction, which includes the increase to
[5:18:53] the two levees. We're at. A tax Collingwood rate of
[5:19:01] 2.43. And a blended rate of 2.39. The special capital
[5:19:07] levy and the general capital levy have a year over
[5:19:11] year change of $77,000 for the special capital in 153,000.
[5:19:20] For the general capital levy, which. Is just shy of
[5:19:25] half a percent impact. That's close enough. Need it. Okay.
[5:19:36] That's good. Councilor McCullough. Sorry, just a quick clarification question
[5:19:41] for Director Graham. Was the accelerator. Fund reduction factored in
[5:19:47] that as well. Thank you. Any other comments? Councilor Baines.
[5:19:59] I understand and respect that deputy mayor's point about reducing.
[5:20:03] The capital levy. But. In the same response, I suppose
[5:20:12] I would say I cannot an all good conscience vote
[5:20:15] to do. That. At the same time, I realize your
[5:20:18] position, and I hope you realize mine. Because. I just
[5:20:22] want to put as much money as we can afford.
[5:20:24] And I understand your response, but. Just want to let
[5:20:26] you know. Thank you. Yeah, sure. You do, councilor Baines,
[5:20:32] especially after this weekend we've just been through. We have?
[5:20:34] To be ready. And if we need to line every
[5:20:38] water pipe or replace them or whatever needs to be
[5:20:41] done. And I know we're not talking anymore. About. Hiring
[5:20:47] a person to look after our capital assets. But as
[5:20:50] much as we can put into. Maintaining our capital and
[5:20:55] improving it. This is a very modest. Amount. And it
[5:21:00] amounts to, I think it was a 4% increase, which
[5:21:03] is good because. In our last meeting, we drove the
[5:21:07] increase down to zero. So next year, if we were
[5:21:10] to put anything into these categories. You have to start
[5:21:13] at 4% and then add on top. Start at 9%.
[5:21:18] That's what the amount was originally. Right? So this at
[5:21:20] least we're starting it for. Anyway, I have concerns also,
[5:21:26] but. All right. Are there any other comments for tonight?
[5:21:33] Okay. So. I'm going to divide the emotion on the
[5:21:39] table into three. So the first one is. That we
[5:21:43] receive. This third budget draft. Are you moving that? Yes.
[5:21:49] Okay, good. And seconded, Councilor Dougherty. The main motion we've
[5:21:55] got other than seconder? Oh, for all of it. But
[5:21:57] I was going to vote on it separately. Okay, so
[5:22:02] to receive it, all those in favor? Unanimous. Okay. The
[5:22:06] next part was to approve the allocation. Of the opp.
[5:22:12] Okay. Approve the allocation of the $336 related to the
[5:22:17] 23 op reconciliation. To the 2025 fiscal year to be
[5:22:23] funded from our operating surplus. All those in favor? That's
[5:22:28] unanimous. Okay. And the council approved modest and proportionate increases
[5:22:34] to the general capital levy and special capital. Levy, resulting
[5:22:37] in additional funding of $133,203 and 66,077 $7 in order
[5:22:46] to support asset renewal priorities identified in the town's asset.
[5:22:51] Management. Management plan. And we'll stop there. All those in
[5:22:55] favor? I thought you just did. I thought I heard
[5:23:04] it. Okay, so what we have here for this art
[5:23:08] then? And so stopping. About before we get to maintaining
[5:23:11] the blended tax rate increase? Go ahead. Thank you. And
[5:23:15] I just. Want to be clear. I'm a proponent for
[5:23:20] taking care of our assets. I didn't say anything about
[5:23:23] that. What happened this weekend is the water, and that
[5:23:27] is user based, it's rate based. It's not municipal tax.
[5:23:32] $200,000 when you're putting 4 million. in the year already
[5:23:39] Is substantial. And then on top of that, we've got
[5:23:42] the unrealized gains that are in the upwards of $7
[5:23:45] million amount. That. I just can't have those kinds of
[5:23:49] investment returns coming. To us and then not turning around
[5:23:55] and trying to help out the taxpayer at the end
[5:23:57] of the day. So I'm not going to support this.
[5:24:03] Okay. Thank you, treasure. Graham. I just wanted to provide
[5:24:07] some clarification. It's not $4 million that's being allocated to
[5:24:11] the lifecycle reserve, so. As I spoke in the prior
[5:24:14] council meeting, the additional investment income is allocated proportionately across
[5:24:20] our discretion. Our obligatory and discretionary reserve funds. The biggest
[5:24:25] portion of that will actually be going to development charge
[5:24:28] reserve funds, which. Does not support asset renewal. I believe
[5:24:32] I calculated a closer amount. It's about 1 million of
[5:24:38] that would be. Going to lifecycle, but not the 4
[5:24:43] million, just to be clear. Thank you for clarifying that
[5:24:48] depth. From there, I'll clarify too. I understand that has
[5:24:52] to do with the investment income, but we put 1.7
[5:24:55] million of general Reserve adjustment over into lifecycle reserve. And
[5:25:01] then I was taking into account the extra. Surplus that
[5:25:06] came in for 2024, and the surplus that was forecast,
[5:25:10] which is a little smaller. Now. So when I accumulated
[5:25:13] all those together, I got closer to $4 million. So
[5:25:15] that's. Where I was coming from when I was using
[5:25:18] my figures. Okay. Anyone else want to speak on this
[5:25:24] part? So, all those in favor? 12345. Those opposed.
[5:25:34] Four that carries. And the blended tax rate increase at
[5:25:38] this point. Jennifer. Treasurer Graham, could you tell us, is
[5:25:43] it still 2.39%? Yes, it is. 2.395. So closer to
[5:25:48] 2.4 if we're rounding up. And the resident. The town
[5:25:52] of Collingwood portion only is 2.43. Okay, so we don't.
[5:25:56] Have to vote on that. That's just what we voted
[5:25:58] on tonight. Okay, so that was good hard work we've
[5:26:02] done over these meetings. And I appreciate that.
[5:26:13] Have something to say. Councilor ring. You're not thinking, okay.
[5:26:19] This is my first budget. Under the strong mayor legislation.
[5:26:25] And while. The. Legislation certainly gives the mayor a lot
[5:26:29] of authority. My priority was to make sure that this
[5:26:33] budget would be grounded in our collaborative process. That Collingwood
[5:26:38] knows, which, of course, includes council staff and our public.
[5:26:43] And I was also clear. When I spoke to the
[5:26:47] treasurer in the summer that our residents need stability. Families
[5:26:52] are stretch businesses. Are really feeling it, and so that's
[5:26:56] why. I asked staff to keep any increase to 2.75%.
[5:27:03] While I am so pleased that tonight council has done
[5:27:05] better than that. And 2.39% is a very good number
[5:27:11] for our community. We know this is a difficult year.
[5:27:17] Our growth is very limited. It's the lowest in many
[5:27:20] years, which means we don't. Have additional assessment. We don't
[5:27:24] have additional property taxes. And we're not unique. It's the
[5:27:29] same story across the province. Everyone's dealing with this. So
[5:27:34] I am grateful to staff. They are well aware of
[5:27:37] this. And when they started the budget. Process. I know
[5:27:40] they went through it line by line to reduce, defer
[5:27:44] or eliminate where possible. While still keeping our long term
[5:27:48] priorities and our core services. So thank you to the
[5:27:51] treasurer and her team for. All the discipline and care
[5:27:55] that's gone on. The median. Increase for the median assessed
[5:28:02] home. Increase. I don't even know what it is, do
[5:28:04] you? Know what it'll be now. Treasure. Yeah. Yes, I
[5:28:09] do. It is $62. $61.90 will be the median increase
[5:28:17] on an annual basis. Thank you. So part of this
[5:28:20] increase reflexar continued. Commitment to affordable housing. And although we
[5:28:26] had a few challenges. As councilor ring has pointed out,
[5:28:32] this year we've directed $400,000 of property tax revenue into
[5:28:36] that account. And we've allocated all of the funds from
[5:28:39] the cuthbert. Estate for the same purpose. We know our
[5:28:44] leadership in the affordable housing sector has been recognized by
[5:28:47] the association of municipalities of Ontario, and I'm really looking
[5:28:51] forward to hearing about this report later in our meeting.
[5:28:55] Where we're going to hear about some new. Incentives to
[5:28:58] make an even greater impact. In looking through the budget.
[5:29:03] I am so pleased that we are continuing to make
[5:29:06] important investments in our community. Such as completing the Wilson
[5:29:12] Sheffield Park Fin 26, the dry dog Junction park, and
[5:29:16] the outdoor roof rink. We'll be moving ahead with what
[5:29:20] we're doing to get ourself. Into a good position for
[5:29:24] the recreation center and the art center. Continuing construction on
[5:29:28] our new water treatment plant major road resurfacing program to
[5:29:33] improve over 30 sections of road. Two new fire trucks.
[5:29:37] This is always a good one and so much more.
[5:29:41] Finally. We've been reflecting on the past weekend. And we
[5:29:46] saw the best of Collingwood, didn't we? Neighbors checking in
[5:29:49] on neighbors, businesses, adapting. Residents showing patients and care. And
[5:29:55] this shared sense of responsibilities, what this budget is built
[5:29:57] on. I truly believe that this budget takes care of
[5:30:01] today. Plans responsibly for tomorrow and protects what we've built
[5:30:05] together. We've got a lot of things packed into this
[5:30:08] budget tonight. I really want to thank staff. And all
[5:30:11] of council for the hard work that's got us to
[5:30:13] this point tonight. Okay, so with that. I think we're
[5:30:19] changing seats. Councilor Perry. So we have a motion here,
[5:30:24] that council herein move. Sorry. Okay. Motion to extend. Any
[5:30:31] takers? Deputy mayor seconded by councilor Perry. All those in
[5:30:34] favor. Unanimous. Okay. Now, we're having a motion council move
[5:30:41] into committee the whole session. Move her in a seconder
[5:30:45] for that. Councilor Bain, seconded by councilor Potts. All those
[5:30:49] in favor? Unanimous. And so we'll just take a five
[5:30:53] minute break while councilor Perry becomes chair. Perry and we
[5:30:56] change. These.
[5:37:43] Okay. There we go. Okay. Welcome to. Collingwood Committee of
[5:37:52] the whole meeting for December 15, 2025. And we'll go
[5:37:57] right to staff reports. 15.2.1, p 2025. 30 municipal capital
[5:38:05] facility bylaw and affordable housing incentive pilot program, and I'll
[5:38:10] turn it over to director Valentine. Thank you, chair Perry.
[5:38:14] We have a comprehensive presentation for you today on the
[5:38:17] topic of incentivizing. Affordable housing, so I'll keep my introductory
[5:38:22] remarks relatively brief. The preparation of an incentive program to
[5:38:27] flow benefits to for profit and nonprofit developers or housing
[5:38:31] organizations to support the construction of affordable housing is one
[5:38:35] of the key recommendations of the council endorsed affordable housing
[5:38:39] master plan, and it's been on part of staff's 2025
[5:38:44] work program. Under. The affordable housing support subservice. While there
[5:38:48] are a few different ways to structure incentive programs. The
[5:38:52] master plan. Recommends a municipal capital facilities bylaw, which I
[5:38:57] will trip on over and over again, or MCFB as
[5:39:01] the most effective tool for Collingwood. And our context, and
[5:39:06] it is a stackable form of incentives. With those offered
[5:39:10] from other orders of government. So, after many months of
[5:39:14] research, jurisdictional scanning, background work, legal review and documentation preparation.
[5:39:19] We have a proposal package for council or committee's consideration.
[5:39:24] Which pairs the MCFB with a strategic policy to guide
[5:39:28] implementation of the program. Given the level of funding and
[5:39:32] resources available, we are suggesting that we start with the
[5:39:35] launch of a pilot program as an initial step, but
[5:39:38] we've also set up the parent bylaw. To facilitate program
[5:39:41] expansion in the future. Before handing the floor to coordinator
[5:39:45] Sousa. We wanted to recognize our colleagues in finance who
[5:39:49] have been integral partners in this initiative and will continue
[5:39:52] to support us through program implementation should it be approved.
[5:39:56] And to the affordable housing Task force, who got a
[5:39:58] sneak peek of the draft proposed framework and they provided
[5:40:03] valuable. Insights that have been incorporated into the materials that
[5:40:06] are before you today. We also wanted to share our
[5:40:09] excitement over bringing this incentive framework forward as another key
[5:40:13] milestone in Collingwood's recognized and continued leadership in the affordable
[5:40:18] housing space among small urban municipalities. So chair with those
[5:40:23] remarks. You're a concurrence. So I'd pass the floor to
[5:40:25] coordinator de. Sousa. Thank you. And good evening, chair Perry,
[5:40:30] Mayor Hamlin, and members of council. I'm back to discuss
[5:40:34] the proposed municipal capital facility by law and incentive pilot
[5:40:38] programs that will allow the town to offer financial support
[5:40:43] to enable the creation. of affordable housing so we'll go
[5:40:47] to the next slide please Through the affordable housing master
[5:40:49] plan process. It became quite clear that nonprofits and for
[5:40:54] profit sectors will struggle to build affordable housing without significant
[5:40:59] financial support from all orders of government. The town does
[5:41:03] not currently have a legal framework in place to incentivize
[5:41:07] affordable housing. In a fair and transparent manner. A municipal
[5:41:11] capital facility bylaw is a framework to guide fair and
[5:41:15] transparent provision of affordable or of support to nonprofit and
[5:41:19] for profit housing providers. The Mc. MCFB is also a
[5:41:23] key recommendation from the affordable housing master plan to ensure
[5:41:27] the town can support developers and housing providers that are
[5:41:31] hoping to create affordable housing. Next slide, please. So what
[5:41:35] is an MCFB? An MCFB is a tool legislated under
[5:41:39] the Municipal act that allows municipalities to offer financial incentives
[5:41:44] to for profit and nonprofit housing providers for affordable units.
[5:41:49] The act enables a range of incentives that a municipality
[5:41:52] can provide, including giving or lending money. Giving leasing or
[5:41:57] selling property, guaranteeing borrowing, reducing wholly or partially development charges
[5:42:03] and property taxes. Now, before we get any further, I
[5:42:06] did want to make a distinction between the MCFB and
[5:42:09] the incentive program. So the MCFB is what needs to
[5:42:13] be in place before municipality can start offering financial assistance.
[5:42:19] And it's really a framework that will guide how the
[5:42:22] town is to provide that financial assistance to housing providers.
[5:42:26] The associated incentive. Pilot program will inform how municipal support
[5:42:32] will be made available. To eligible. Projects, including project guidelines,
[5:42:39] eligibility criteria, type of incentives available, application and review process,
[5:42:45] details regarding agreements and reporting, among other things. Next slide,
[5:42:49] please. Now, another common tool that you may be more
[5:42:54] familiar with is a community improvement plan or a Cip.
[5:42:58] This is a similar tool and is actually more popular
[5:43:01] among lower tier municipalities, which is why you might be
[5:43:04] more familiar with it. CIPs and MCFBs generally have the
[5:43:08] same intent and they can do the same things. However,
[5:43:10] they have a few key differences, including that CIPs are
[5:43:14] enabled under the planning act. They require public meetings and.
[5:43:18] They also carry appeal rates, so they're generally less flexible
[5:43:22] than mcfbs, which is the reason that our master plan
[5:43:25] consultants recommended us move forward with an MCFB for this
[5:43:28] added flexibility. Next slide, please. Now, in order to design
[5:43:33] a program that was in line with the town's current
[5:43:36] level of funding and resources staff reviewed other municipalities incentive
[5:43:41] programs across the province, and in 2020, NBLC which was
[5:43:46] our consultants. For our master plan, they prepared a report
[5:43:50] for the region of peel which. Included. A jurisdictional scan.
[5:43:55] Of many municipalities across Ontario that have implemented incentive programs,
[5:44:00] and the report really evaluated their overall strengths. And weaknesses.
[5:44:04] And this report was really the starting point for the
[5:44:07] research that followed. Staff focused our research on three different
[5:44:11] programs across Ontario. The region of Peel's affordable rental Incentives
[5:44:16] Program, or parap City of Peterborough's dual CIP and MCFB
[5:44:21] program and closer to home is the city of Berry's
[5:44:24] CIP program. Next slide, please. We learned a lot from
[5:44:29] our research into these three programs and some of the
[5:44:33] key learnings are provided on this slide, and I'll just
[5:44:36] go over them briefly. We learned that per unit funding
[5:44:41] requirements for projects will vary significantly across different projects. There's
[5:44:45] no magic number that is consistent with all projects. You
[5:44:49] will see in the next slides that the per unit
[5:44:52] funding amount really depends on a variety of factors and,
[5:44:55] of course, on project performance. We. Learned that incentivizing the
[5:45:00] creation of rental housing is much easier to administer than
[5:45:03] ownership. Tenure, and that's the recommended route. We learned that
[5:45:08] it's important to provide flexible incentives rather than fixed incentives.
[5:45:14] An example of a fixed incentive is like the grants
[5:45:17] we have available through our rapid ARU program where we
[5:45:20] provide $10,000 to every eligible applicant who gets approved. When
[5:45:25] we're dealing with higher order incentive amounts, let's say. We
[5:45:29] choose. A fixed incentive of $100,000, you run the risk
[5:45:34] of either over incentivizing. Or underincentivizing a project. So the
[5:45:38] recommendation is to provide flexible incentives where the applicant requests
[5:45:44] a specific amount of money and provides rationale for that
[5:45:47] amount being requested, including financial documentation. And then staff make
[5:45:52] a decision or the evaluation committee makes a decision. Another
[5:45:56] key step is to cap incentive amounts, especially when you're
[5:46:00] offering flexible incentives. You can offer the flexible incentive up
[5:46:04] to a certain maximum in order to not drain the
[5:46:06] reserve fund. It's critical to enable stacking across funding programs.
[5:46:12] So it's likely that any project that receives funding from
[5:46:16] the town will require more funding over and above what
[5:46:20] the town can provide. So it's important to leave your
[5:46:24] program open enough to ensure that someone can easily. Access
[5:46:29] other levels of funding. It's critical or recommended to have
[5:46:34] an annual call for applications. It leads to consistency and
[5:46:37] transparency by reviewing applications at the same time and not
[5:46:41] on an ad hoc basis. And the last point here
[5:46:45] is that most incentive programs that we looked at have
[5:46:49] five plus million dollars available to offer through incentives. Most
[5:46:54] of these programs have received funding from the Federal Housing
[5:46:58] Accelerator Fund or the provincial build faster fund. And really,
[5:47:02] the amount of funding you have available in your program
[5:47:05] will dictate how that program is designed, the types of
[5:47:09] incentives you can offer. And the affordability threshold as well.
[5:47:14] Next slide, please. So I'll just give you an idea
[5:47:17] of the level of funding that. Other programs had. The
[5:47:20] next two slides include a quick overview of the results
[5:47:24] from the region of Peel and the city of Berry's
[5:47:26] programs. So this first slide is the region of Peel.
[5:47:29] As you can see here, the per unit funding amounts
[5:47:33] ranged from. $44,000 per unit on the low end. And
[5:47:38] over $500,000 per unit on the high end. So it
[5:47:41] was actually through my discussions with Peel region that I
[5:47:44] learned that it's really important to cap your incentive amount.
[5:47:46] Or else you can see these really high order per
[5:47:49] unit incentives. And the lower incentive amount you see here
[5:47:54] was delivered by a nonprofit housing provider. So the type
[5:47:57] of applicant. Obtaining the funds can also determine the funding
[5:48:01] required, and the last row here shows that from 2021
[5:48:06] to 2023, Peel's program incented a total of 175 affordable
[5:48:11] units. Utilizing $23 million in funding with an average per
[5:48:16] unit incentive amount of 130,000. Next slide, please. The City
[5:48:22] of Berry had $10 million available for their CIP program.
[5:48:28] A portion of this was from their own reserve fund,
[5:48:31] and many of the additional funds came from both the
[5:48:34] province and the federal government to supplement their program. The
[5:48:38] city released a CIP, not an MCFB, but the findings
[5:48:43] are still applicable here because it was a per door
[5:48:47] grant program, so it's still per unit funding. Again, you
[5:48:50] can see here that the incentives required range from 200,000.
[5:48:55] 30,000 and as low as 3000 per unit. Those units
[5:48:59] were actually delivered by the county. Of Simcoe. Next slide,
[5:49:02] please. So those two slides were really meant to give
[5:49:06] you an idea of other programs and the level of
[5:49:09] funding required to incent affordability for the town's proposed pilot
[5:49:15] program. We anticipate having about $1.5 million available in the
[5:49:19] Affordable Housing Reserve fund in 2026. To offer through. The
[5:49:24] incentive program. Given the available funding and the resource levels,
[5:49:28] we propose to start with a pilot program that can
[5:49:31] be expanded in future years if more funding becomes available.
[5:49:36] The program name that we have come up with is
[5:49:38] chip or Collingwood housing incentives pilot program and at a
[5:49:42] high level. It includes capital grants for administrative efficiency. Two
[5:49:48] funding streams to realize more units with limited funds, flexible
[5:49:52] incentives capped at a certain maximum and we will only
[5:49:56] incent affordable rental units. We're not going to be looking
[5:49:59] at ownership. At this time. Next slide, please. The next
[5:50:04] several slides will take you through the proposed chip program.
[5:50:07] So at a high level, we're starting with two funding
[5:50:10] streams. The first proposed stream is an affordable additional residential
[5:50:14] unit stream. Or ARU stream. Under this stream, we are
[5:50:18] proposing to offer flexible capital grants of up to $70,000
[5:50:22] for. Affordable ar use offered for rent. This stream would
[5:50:26] fund a minimum of one Aru per lot. And a
[5:50:29] maximum of three air use per lot to align with
[5:50:32] our zoning bylaw, the stream is geared towards smaller scale
[5:50:37] developers and housing providers that are mainly focusing on infill
[5:50:41] and intensification projects and ever. Since we did go up
[5:50:45] to that four unit. Permitted on residential lots. As of
[5:50:49] right, we're seeing a lot more of those developments happen.
[5:50:51] So. If we can target those developments and see if
[5:50:55] they can make them affordable, we think we could. Get
[5:50:57] realized some units there. The second stream is the affordable
[5:51:01] multi unit rental stream. And this stream is geared towards
[5:51:05] larger scale developments, including buildings that meet the definition of
[5:51:08] apartment under the zoning bylaw so these are buildings with
[5:51:11] five or more. Residential units in them under this stream.
[5:51:16] We propose that we would provide flexible capital grants of
[5:51:18] up to $200,000 for affordable rental units. A minimum of
[5:51:23] one unit within an apartment building must be affordable to
[5:51:26] qualify for the funding and a maximum of five units
[5:51:29] per project will be eligible in an effort to distribute
[5:51:33] funding more evenly across projects. The program. Also has additional
[5:51:38] flexibility to consider other built forms that might not meet
[5:51:42] the definition of an apartment. If there are sufficient funds
[5:51:46] available in our program. Next slide, please. Now, in terms
[5:51:50] of program eligibility, We are proposing that applicants can either
[5:51:54] be for profit or nonprofit housing providers. We propose, though,
[5:51:58] that the evaluation matrix. Will be adjusted to award more
[5:52:03] points to a nonprofit housing provider. For stream one, eligible
[5:52:08] units must meet the definition of Aru per the town's
[5:52:11] zoning bylaw and of course they must be offered at
[5:52:13] affordable rents and for stream two eligible units. Include apartment
[5:52:18] dwelling units that meet the definition of apartment in the
[5:52:21] zoning bylaw, and units can be located. Within mixed use
[5:52:25] buildings or buildings with a mix of a market and
[5:52:29] affordable rents. But only the affordable. Units are eligible for
[5:52:34] the funding. As I mentioned before, the town may consider
[5:52:37] other built forms that don't meet the definition. Of apartment
[5:52:40] dwelling, subject to program uptake and available funding. Next slide.
[5:52:47] Now for affordability. So eligible units must meet the definition
[5:52:52] of affordable and for the purposes of this program, we
[5:52:55] propose to align the definition of affordable with the affordable
[5:52:59] rental rates as determined by the provincial bulletin for the
[5:53:03] exemption of development charges for affordable units the next. Slide
[5:53:08] will provide a glimpse. Glimpse into what this exactly looks.
[5:53:13] Like and what those numbers are set at currently. Affordable
[5:53:16] units must be maintained as affordable for a minimum of
[5:53:19] 25 years, and to ensure the units are made available
[5:53:24] to moderate income households, which is our overall target and
[5:53:27] mandate for affordable housing. The town will cap the annual
[5:53:30] tenant household income to $80,000 per year, which aligns with
[5:53:35] the. Household income of the fourth to 6th income deciles.
[5:53:38] Next slide, please. So. This chart here shows two different
[5:53:44] options for setting the affordability threshold. The bolded numbers in
[5:53:48] the bottom row shows the affordable rents that the program
[5:53:51] will require. These align again with the province's affordable rates
[5:53:56] for Collingwood for the purposes of DC exemptions. And we
[5:54:00] wanted to align our program here so that applicants could
[5:54:03] take advantage of the funding. From the town's program, so
[5:54:06] the capital grants we have available. And they could take
[5:54:10] advantage of the DC exemptions that the province is already
[5:54:13] providing. So. This really allows for that stack ability that
[5:54:16] we were hoping for. The top column shows the CMHC
[5:54:21] average market rental data for Collingwood. It's a lot more
[5:54:25] common for other programs to be more aligned with CMHC
[5:54:28] AMR data. However, we wanted to go with the province's
[5:54:31] numbers again to ensure stackability. But as you can see,
[5:54:36] the affordable rates between the two different options are quite
[5:54:39] similar. The program also includes some additional flexibility to revert
[5:54:47] to the CMHC AMR metric if the province ceases the
[5:54:52] production of the bulletin or changes the definition of affordability
[5:54:56] that no longer aligns with our priorities. Now, it's challenging
[5:55:00] to directly compare these. Numbers with our numbers in the
[5:55:03] affordable housing master plan, as those numbers are not categorized
[5:55:07] across unit type. They are categorized across income decile. However.
[5:55:13] We've compared the numbers. And they do align well. The
[5:55:18] range. The affordable range for our master plan is about
[5:55:21] 1100 to 1700, so it's all within. It's captured within
[5:55:25] those provincial numbers as well. Next slide, please. Now, in
[5:55:29] addition to affordability, there are several other requirements that projects
[5:55:35] must meet under our proposed program. First of all, they
[5:55:38] must be located in Collingwood. They must be new construction
[5:55:42] resulting in net new affordable units. They must be on
[5:55:45] lands owned by the applicant or affiliated with the applicant.
[5:55:49] They can include mixed use or mixed income buildings. And
[5:55:54] projects that are shovel ready or near shovel ready will
[5:55:56] be scored higher on our evaluation matrix. To ensure we
[5:56:00] can unlock units quicker. Next slide, please. Now, once funding
[5:56:06] agreements are in place, council would direct staff to enter
[5:56:10] into municipal housing project agreements. Which include the following items.
[5:56:15] So the number of housing units to be provided, the
[5:56:18] level of affordability the term of the agreement household eligibility
[5:56:22] for the units, financial assistance being provided by the town
[5:56:25] to the provider, conditions for any future sale of the
[5:56:29] property, annual reporting requirements, consequences, and enforcement. If the agreement.
[5:56:34] Is breached. And then, of course, the agreement would be
[5:56:36] registered on title. Next slide, please. The pilot program is
[5:56:41] proposed to be administered through an annual call for applications
[5:56:45] with an opportunity to extend that window or create additional
[5:56:49] intake windows. Depending on program uptake, applications will be reviewed
[5:56:54] against an evaluation matrix by a predetermined evaluation committee. Once
[5:57:00] applications are recommended for funding, a staff report would go
[5:57:04] to council with that recommendation and council will ultimately decide
[5:57:08] on the funding and then. If the funding is approved,
[5:57:12] they would enact a site specific bylaw for that project
[5:57:15] and direct staff to enter into a municipal housing project
[5:57:18] facility. Agreement with the applicant. Agreements would include all the
[5:57:23] terms and conditions tied to the funding, several of which
[5:57:26] I've already mentioned, and then the agreement would be registered
[5:57:28] on title. Next slide, please. So that should give you
[5:57:32] an overview of the program. We've designed and that we're
[5:57:35] proposing today. But we did want to acknowledge some of
[5:57:38] the limitations we are up against. The average per unit
[5:57:43] incentive amount in most programs across the province is about
[5:57:47] $200,000. Per unit. With a reserve fund of $1.5 million.
[5:57:52] Using the $200,000 average we're looking at maybe seven units.
[5:57:57] However, we do have that additional ARU stream, which will
[5:58:01] incent more units at a lower incentive amount. So you
[5:58:05] could see more through that program as well. The program
[5:58:10] has also been designed to only use a maximum of
[5:58:13] 90% of the reserve fund. So that's about 1.3 million
[5:58:17] for 2026 as. To not deplete the reserve fund in
[5:58:21] its entirety. Now, once that maximum is reached, and without
[5:58:26] funding from other orders of government, the town would effectively
[5:58:29] be starting from scratch after year one of the pilot
[5:58:32] program. So in terms of long term consistency, and sustainability
[5:58:36] of the program. That's something to consider. Next slide, please.
[5:58:42] Now following council direction from December 8 at the municipal
[5:58:47] capital facility, by law has been revised to include the
[5:58:50] potential for the sale or lease of municipality owned lands
[5:58:54] prior to launching the incentive program. Staff would report back
[5:58:59] to council on expanding that pilot program to include the
[5:59:03] sale or lease of municipal lands. Specifically the lands at
[5:59:06] the corner of high and Poplar. And this would be?
[5:59:11] An additional incentive stream available through that program. And the
[5:59:15] parameters for the disposition of these lands would align with
[5:59:19] the existing criteria developed under the framework with minor adjustments
[5:59:23] as appropriate, and through further discussion this evening. Next slide,
[5:59:27] please. Given the limitations I've outlined, staff have prepared a
[5:59:33] few options to counsel. The first is the recommended option,
[5:59:37] which is to approve the MCFB and incentive pilot program
[5:59:41] and direct staff to launch the pilot program in 2026
[5:59:45] but also report back on the town. Land divestment options.
[5:59:51] The second option is to approve the MCFB and incentive
[5:59:54] pilot program in principal, but direct staff to hold on
[5:59:58] launching the program until more funds are available. And the
[6:00:02] third is to direct staff to explore alternative uses for
[6:00:05] the reserve fund, including investigating opportunities with the county of
[6:00:09] Simcoe. These options are aimed at balancing the recommendations from
[6:00:14] the master plan. And the overall intent of the reserve
[6:00:17] fund, which is to incent the creation of units. But
[6:00:21] also with the current realities of the level of funding
[6:00:24] and the required funding to achieve affordability next slide, please.
[6:00:29] So, pending council directions, staff would begin action on any
[6:00:33] of the recommendations selected. And should council proceed with option
[6:00:38] one? We would look into developing a program for education
[6:00:42] and promotion, which may include. Public information sessions, press releases,
[6:00:48] social media posts, targeted engagement with the development community to
[6:00:52] ensure we're seeing the level of uptake in our program
[6:00:55] that we're hoping for. So that concludes my presentation. And
[6:01:01] I'd be happy to take any questions. Thank you, coordinator
[6:01:05] D. Souza. I'll look to the gallery. Nobody there. Nobody
[6:01:10] online. Okay. All right. I will read in the recommendation.
[6:01:17] Just bear with me here. It's kind of long. That
[6:01:20] staff report, p. 2025. 30 municipal capital. Facility bylaw and
[6:01:26] affordable housing incentive pilot program dated December 15, 2025, be
[6:01:32] received and that council approve and enact the municipal capital
[6:01:38] facility bylaw. In accordance with section one 10 of the
[6:01:43] Municipal Act. 2001, as amended, and that council approved Collingwood
[6:01:50] Housing Incentive pilot program policy and direct staff to work
[6:01:55] toward launching the pilot program. As soon as practical, including
[6:01:59] preparation of any remaining supporting materials as required. And that
[6:02:04] prior to launching the pilot program, staff be directed to
[6:02:07] report back to council on options. And parameters for the
[6:02:11] sale or lease of town owned lands through the MCFB
[6:02:16] incentive framework and provide recommendations on policy amendments necessary to
[6:02:22] expand the pilot program to. Consider the disposition of the
[6:02:26] municipal lands at the corner of Poplar side Road and
[6:02:28] High Street. For affordable, affordable housing. And that council authorizes
[6:02:34] the director of growth in development and or the treasurer
[6:02:38] to approve and execute funding agreements along with such further
[6:02:42] ancillary documents necessary to implement the pilot program on financial
[6:02:47] terms satisfactory to the town treasure. Treasurer and on legal
[6:02:52] terms satisfactory to the town solicitor. Can I have a
[6:02:55] mover? Councilor Dougherty, seconded by deputy mayor Friar, and I'll
[6:03:03] put it on the floor for questions or comments. I'll
[6:03:08] get you. Vice chair, bains thank you. No, I was
[6:03:14] just thinking that would have been great if it doesn't
[6:03:17] matter. I know. Anyway. If I may, through you two,
[6:03:24] coordinator de Sousa. Absolutely. I'm assuming from all this that
[6:03:29] we take it as a given that before the feds
[6:03:32] or the province would gift us with half a million
[6:03:35] bucks or a million bucks or something. Like that, we
[6:03:37] would need either a CIP or an MCFB in place.
[6:03:42] Certainly the. Mfcb. Before the money could come. Is that
[6:03:48] correct? Through the chair. Yeah. I guess you don't need
[6:03:55] an MCFB in place to get federal funding for housing.
[6:03:59] Necessarily. I think it helps. So I think the way
[6:04:04] that, for example, the Housing Accelerator fund program was designed
[6:04:09] was based on. Your action plan for achieving affordable units.
[6:04:13] And part of our action plan was this, to show
[6:04:16] that we are ready to provide that financial support. To
[6:04:21] applicants. And, hey, it would be great if we had
[6:04:23] some funds to help us do that. So it certainly
[6:04:25] helps, but it wasn't necessarily necessary for those applications. Great.
[6:04:29] Thank you. And a follow up, if I may. Does
[6:04:33] either a ch I p p. Or. I suppose a
[6:04:42] cip. Require either its own board of directors or staff
[6:04:46] going forward. Will we need that, particularly if we receive
[6:04:50] a million bucks or so in gutter dispensers. Will we
[6:04:53] require that sort? Of support and staff resources. Through the
[6:04:58] chair? Not at this time. Especially the pilot program. It's
[6:05:02] really staff led, so. We'll have an evaluation committee. To
[6:05:09] evaluate the applications. But the program at this stage has
[6:05:12] been designed under the assumption that myself and director Valentine
[6:05:16] are the only staff resources. If we received a bunch
[6:05:21] of money and wanted to expand that pilot program to
[6:05:24] look something differently. I think we'd have to explore that
[6:05:27] at that time. Deputy mayor Friar thank you, chair Perry.
[6:05:32] And I got a comment, and then I do have
[6:05:35] a question. But firstly, I would say I fully agree
[6:05:38] with your coordinator, Desos. Statement that all orders of government
[6:05:43] need to be involved. Regarding the high street property. It
[6:05:47] only makes sense to study the possibilities that can work
[6:05:50] in conjunction. With the MCF bylaw, so supportive of its
[6:05:55] inclusion is outlined. Also fully supportive of an affordable housing
[6:06:00] incentive pilot program because. We have had generous support put
[6:06:05] forward by the Welton family. The sunvale homes. The Cuthbert
[6:06:12] State and the Johnson family and those have been monetary
[6:06:15] basis. And staff's proposing to utilize the funds through the
[6:06:20] incentive pilot. The outcome of that pilot will provide council
[6:06:24] and staff with a strong indication of how to move.
[6:06:26] Forward on a more permanent basis. Regarding the $400,000 annual
[6:06:32] tax levy, most of which moves into the reserve, I
[6:06:35] would submit that this is how council is chosen to
[6:06:38] show that our local work is a partnership with the
[6:06:42] contributors, both the monetary ones that we mentioned and those
[6:06:46] developers that choose to do something like roughed in accessory
[6:06:49] uni. Units or apportioning some of their development. Towards affordable
[6:06:55] units. In the scheme of things. Although our affordable housing
[6:06:59] successes may appear to be minimal, To some. They aren't
[6:07:05] to the families that are going to be housed. And
[6:07:08] in the more favorable situation than they would have been
[6:07:11] if we weren't putting these things forward. And perhaps it
[6:07:14] wouldn't have any housing at all. So the question I
[6:07:18] did have, because the high street property is being discussed
[6:07:21] in other ways today. I think it's important that. We
[6:07:26] note, nothing can happen with that property until the road
[6:07:29] is completed in the development beside it. We don't have
[6:07:33] a crystal ball, but we know it'll take some time
[6:07:36] before. That can happen. But you have the opportunity to
[6:07:44] explore the options with what you're putting forward with the
[6:07:47] MCF. I just wanted to clarify. That. If I could,
[6:07:53] through you just explain about the fact that it's going
[6:07:57] to take accessibility. Before that property can be developed. Through
[6:08:03] the chair to the deputy mayor. You're exactly right. The
[6:08:07] property. Is hopefully going to be more development ready soon
[6:08:12] with the adjacent summit view phase three subdivision receiving approvals
[6:08:17] in July. Which gets it one step closer. To construction
[6:08:22] eventually. We don't know when that will be, given current
[6:08:26] market conditions. So as the lands are right now. They're
[6:08:32] not necessarily ready to be built out yet. But the
[6:08:36] idea is that through the municipal capital facility, by law,
[6:08:39] we could add an incentive stream. To dispose of those
[6:08:45] lands, to set an organization up for the future development
[6:08:49] of that site, but. We would acknowledge that that site
[6:08:53] isn't shovel ready. Who knows how long I don't have
[6:08:56] a crystal ball. Councilor Jeffrey thank you very much, Mr.
[6:09:03] Chair. Soldier to coordinator to Susa. I think the stars
[6:09:07] have aligned for us in affordable housing. I think we
[6:09:09] have the right staff, the right council. The right affordable
[6:09:12] housing committee, and we're really doing some outstanding things here.
[6:09:16] So I really. love this report My only question is
[6:09:22] it always comes up with these incentivized programs with limited
[6:09:26] years. If, say, in the case of the region of
[6:09:29] Peel, we did 172 units and they all come. Up.
[6:09:34] Into fair market. At the end of 25 years, what
[6:09:37] is the strategy? Or is there one through this that
[6:09:41] helps? US bridge so that we don't have that. Drop
[6:09:45] in units. Yeah, through the chair to Councilor Jeffrey. That's
[6:09:49] a really good question. And. I don't think I know
[6:09:52] what the strategy is, but. It is something. I've, through
[6:09:58] my research, have seen is that almost every incentive program.
[6:10:03] Has that 25 year term. CMHC also has that same
[6:10:07] 25 year term, so it's a really interesting conundrum because.
[6:10:12] Incentivizing units. We've done a lot on a federal level
[6:10:18] across the last few years. So those 25 year terms
[6:10:21] could all be coming up around the same time. And
[6:10:26] then municipalities and other orders of government are faced with
[6:10:30] what happens after that. So I'm not sure if Director
[6:10:32] Valentine has any other thoughts. But yeah. Dr. Valentine, thank
[6:10:37] you, chair, and fully agree with coordinator Jacob's comments. And
[6:10:42] if we had tens of millions of dollars to play
[6:10:44] with. We would continue this program year after year. And
[6:10:48] then, therefore, would stagger those 25 year renewals. I think
[6:10:54] part of. The important consideration is that nonprofits tend to
[6:10:59] be the most likely type of organization that would go
[6:11:02] beyond those 25 years, or potentially even in perpetuity. And
[6:11:06] as coordinator D'Souza mentioned, it would be our recommendation that.
[6:11:12] In the evaluation matrix for this funding, that nonprofits would
[6:11:15] score higher than for profit. So we're doing the best
[6:11:18] with the tools we have to try to maximize or
[6:11:21] partner. With developers that may be looking to longer term
[6:11:25] affordability, and we can always keep our fingers and toes
[6:11:28] crossed. That will come up positive with the feds or
[6:11:31] the province at some point. In the near future and
[6:11:33] be able to offer this program for multiple years. No,
[6:11:37] just thank you very much for that. I think the
[6:11:40] work is great, and I just hope we always have
[6:11:42] our thinking caps on in terms of maybe spreading out
[6:11:45] our investments in ways that maybe they don't all come
[6:11:49] up at once. Thank you. Any other bear, Hamlin. Yeah,
[6:11:56] I'll just also add my thanks. What a bleer. Wonderfully
[6:12:00] delivered program with lots of thought gone into it. So,
[6:12:04] really, thank you to everybody who's been involved in this.
[6:12:06] It's good work. And really, the only thing I wanted
[6:12:10] to add was. Hopefully we're going to have so many
[6:12:15] applicants. And. It would be helpful to have the whole
[6:12:21] list that you think are worthwhile. Available, even though you're
[6:12:25] going to pick a few. Because with that list, it's
[6:12:29] such a good piece of paper, if I can call
[6:12:32] it. That to go to where we think funding could
[6:12:35] be available. And I'm happy to help. But say, look,
[6:12:40] we could be building another 100 units if we had.
[6:12:45] Right, so I think that's really good. I was a
[6:12:47] bit worried we'd be. Oversubscribed when you were talking about
[6:12:49] this, and I thought, no, that's a. Good thing. Very
[6:12:53] good thing. Okay. So anyway, thank you. Councilor Dougherty. Thank
[6:12:58] you. And terrific report. I'm so excited about this initiative,
[6:13:05] and in the scheme of things, we've brought this forward
[6:13:10] pretty quickly. Since our affordable housing task force was created.
[6:13:15] So what was that, three years ago, four years ago?
[6:13:18] So not bad. I did have a couple of questions,
[6:13:25] and one of them is. So if we establish. What
[6:13:31] the affordable rate is. In order to qualify for the
[6:13:36] incentive. Do we put stipulations in place as to the
[6:13:41] annual? The maximum annual. Rent increase. Through the chair to
[6:13:48] Councilor Dougherty. Great question, and yes. So we can. Include
[6:13:54] stipulations around rent increases. In the agreements. I don't think
[6:14:00] we would expect. Housing providers to freeze the rents for
[6:14:04] 25 years. So. We would base. The sort of incremental
[6:14:10] rent increase year over year. With whatever the provinces are
[6:14:15] at for I think buildings constructed pre 2018. I think
[6:14:19] that has been a recent change, but yes. We could
[6:14:24] include those stipulations in the agreement to ensure that those
[6:14:28] rents can go up, at least nominally. Follow. Just two
[6:14:33] more questions. The second one. Is. Can we or could
[6:14:40] we? Accept. Private contributions to the fund. And issue tax
[6:14:49] receipts. Because of the nature of. Our bylaw. That might
[6:14:57] be a question for Treasurer Parker. Graham. Sorry. I did
[6:15:04] it again. So many Jennifers. There's a lot of us.
[6:15:08] That's quite okay. Thank you. Thank you. Chair through you
[6:15:11] to canceller Doherty. Yes, we can issue charitable tax receipts
[6:15:15] for funds. Used for that purpose that we received. Thank
[6:15:18] you. That's huge. If we can do that. And then
[6:15:23] my final question is. Because I know that this was
[6:15:29] a situation that was a real conundrum in the city.
[6:15:32] Of Berry. But. What control do we have in place?
[6:15:37] So if we say you must have household income, maximum
[6:15:42] of $80,000 per year. But suddenly, all of a sudden.
[6:15:50] Not all of a sudden, but in some time shortly
[6:15:53] thereafter. That same tenant gets a big pay increase or
[6:15:58] changes jobs, and all of a sudden they're. Making $100,000
[6:16:01] a year. What do we do then? Through the chair.
[6:16:06] Another great question. And. The way the wording is in
[6:16:11] the bylaw right now is that. Housing providers must verify
[6:16:17] tenant income at initial occupancy and then anytime the unit
[6:16:21] is turned over, so anytime. A new tenant has access
[6:16:25] to unit, but also in the annual reporting requirements. Housing
[6:16:30] provider is reporting that. Their units are still meeting all
[6:16:35] of the terms and conditions of the agreement, which includes
[6:16:39] household. Income levels, so. We're not necessarily. I don't think
[6:16:44] we necessarily are allowed to request that tenant. Income is
[6:16:48] verified every single year. But. We certainly are requesting it
[6:16:53] at unit turnover and at initial occupancy, and then through
[6:16:58] annual reporting, the applicant or housing provider is agreeing that
[6:17:01] they are meeting the terms of the agreement. Still. Great.
[6:17:06] Okay. Thank you. Good work. Premier Halen. Yeah, I'll just
[6:17:10] weigh in to say I don't think that. Would be
[6:17:12] grounds for terminating a tenancy that the tenant is earning
[6:17:15] too much. But I just want to throw that in
[6:17:19] there. But also, I think at the county we've. Had
[6:17:22] this discussion, and I think the head of the county's
[6:17:26] housing authority says that once people are earning more income
[6:17:30] than what would be the reason they got in the
[6:17:33] housing they usually like to upgrade their housing, so they
[6:17:36] haven't found that to be a problem. Over time if
[6:17:39] people's income go up. Any other questions? Comments? I'd like
[6:17:47] to echo everybody. This fantastic report. Thank you very much.
[6:17:52] I'd venture to say you're probably going to be an
[6:17:55] envy of a lot. Of municipalities, so be prepared to
[6:17:58] be emailed and your brains picked. Anyhow. I will put
[6:18:03] the recommendation on the floor. For a vote. All those
[6:18:06] in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank you, coordinator to Susan.
[6:18:14] Director Valentine. Okay. On to item 15.2.2. T 2025 21
[6:18:23] development charges bylaw amendment for seasonal structures Treasurer Graham. Thank
[6:18:30] you, Chair Perry. You're welcome. This report responds to direction
[6:18:34] staff received from council at the November 17 meeting, where
[6:18:38] staff were asked to review the financial, legal and policy
[6:18:41] implications of amending the TAN's development charges bylaw to establish
[6:18:46] an exemption for qualifying, temporary or seasonal structures. This request
[6:18:51] was brought forward in response to the Georgian Bay Rackets
[6:18:53] Initiative, a volunteer based group proposing a seasonal, air supported
[6:18:57] dome over existing permitted outdoor tennis courts under the Tan's
[6:19:03] current development charges bylaw. There is no exemption for temporary
[6:19:07] or seasonal structures. Any structure that requires a. Building permit,
[6:19:11] including temporary structures, is subject to development charges based on
[6:19:14] type, use and gross floor area. For nonresidential development such
[6:19:19] as this. The current rate is $326.17 per square meter.
[6:19:25] From a land use and servicing perspective, the site in
[6:19:28] question is already permitted and historically used for outdoor tennis.
[6:19:32] The dome would be erected over existing courts. No new
[6:19:36] municipal water wastewater connections are proposed and washroom needs would
[6:19:40] be met through portable facilities. Functionally, this proposal enables yearand
[6:19:45] use of an existing recreational facility rather than creating a
[6:19:49] more intensive or permanently service use. Staff reviewed development charges
[6:19:55] bylaws across Simpco. County and include at the town of
[6:19:57] Blue Mountains as they are direct neighbor and other municipalities.
[6:20:03] And his findings are detailed in the appendix. While several
[6:20:06] municipalities provide exemptions for temporary structures. They are generally based
[6:20:12] on a continuous duration, such as structures remaining in place
[6:20:15] no longer than six to twelve months. None of the
[6:20:18] comparator bylaws explicitly addressed recurring seasonal air supported domes that
[6:20:23] are erected. And removed annually and put back the following
[6:20:27] year. This creates a degree of amphuite and without clear
[6:20:33] wording, interpretation could ultimately be determined. By the Ontario Land
[6:20:37] Tribunal staff have us legal cancel to review OLt hearings
[6:20:41] for similar cases. And are waiting to hear back. One
[6:20:45] notable exception is the city of Burlington, which explicitly defines
[6:20:50] an exempt seasonal ar supported structures in its DC bylaw.
[6:20:54] This provides a clear and defensible model. Shall cancel. Wish
[6:20:57] to proceed. From a financial perspective, exempting a seasonal dome
[6:21:01] would result in foregone DC revenue that otherwise would have
[6:21:04] been collect. Collected. Out. Permit issuance. However, as mentioned, the
[6:21:09] dome does not create new servicing capacity demands. It covers
[6:21:12] an existing permitted recreational use and in aligns with the
[6:21:16] Tan's community based strategic plan objective to promote healthy and
[6:21:19] active living. Should council direct staff to proceed? The legislative
[6:21:25] steps to amend the DC bylaw would include preparing a
[6:21:28] draft amended bylaw limited to adding a new discretionary exemption.
[6:21:33] Completing the legal review mentioned before for clarity and compliance.
[6:21:37] Confirming whether a public meeting is required and is anticipated
[6:21:40] that it would not be with the changes that have
[6:21:42] been made to the DC act, bringing the bylaw to
[6:21:46] council for passage and approval. Providing notice of passage and
[6:21:50] completing the legislative appeal period. As the impact of the
[6:21:55] change to the bylaw is actually, in essence, reducing dcs
[6:22:00] a full background study is not required through legislation. Staff
[6:22:05] would propose to retain Hempson Consulting, who prepared the current
[6:22:08] bylaw and background study. To assist with drafting the amendment
[6:22:11] and supporting analysis. The estimated cost is a ceiling of
[6:22:15] $5,000 which would be fully funded from the development charge
[6:22:18] administration category with no impact on the tax levy council
[6:22:24] has. Two options. The first is to direct staff to
[6:22:27] proceed with a narrowly scoped DC bylaw. Amendment to exempt
[6:22:31] qualifying temporary or seasonal structures, including. Air supported Dome or
[6:22:36] to maintain the current DC bylaw with no exemption. Staff
[6:22:40] are in the staff report are recommending option one. If
[6:22:44] council supports this direction, staff will return with the draft
[6:22:47] bylaw in January and supporting materials in accordance with legislative
[6:22:51] timelines. Thank you. Thanks, Treasurer Graham. So I'll look to
[6:22:55] the gallery. No. Online clerk no. Okay. I will read
[6:23:01] in the recommendation that staff report t 2025 21 development
[6:23:06] charges bylaw amendment for seasonal structures be received and that
[6:23:11] council directs staff to proceed with preparing an amending bylaw
[6:23:15] to establish a DC exemption for qualifying temporary or seasonal
[6:23:20] structures. Including seasonal air supported domes. Can I have a
[6:23:24] mover? Councilor McCulloch seconded. Mayor hamlin. And any questions or
[6:23:31] comments. Vice chair, Baines. Thank you. Chair through you to
[6:23:39] the treasure. This is not to say that anybody coming
[6:23:43] forward with an application like this in the future, they
[6:23:46] would still pay development charges. On essentially the cement pad
[6:23:51] for the tennis courts themselves. What they wouldn't pay is
[6:23:54] going forward a development charge on the temporary structure of
[6:23:58] the bubble, correct? I should ask Director Valentine. Director Valentine.
[6:24:06] Apologies. Chair, could you please repeat the question? An applicant
[6:24:09] coming forward in the future to build one. Would not
[6:24:13] pay a development chart or would pay a development charge
[6:24:16] on the cement pad upon which the bubble would sit,
[6:24:19] but they would not pay a development charge on the
[6:24:21] bubble itself. That's a trick question. No, it's not. They
[6:24:27] have to pay something for the development of the property
[6:24:30] to put the tennis court or whatever. It is in
[6:24:33] cement. Treasure. Graham. I'd like to return with my answer
[6:24:39] to that. If that development of the tennis court required
[6:24:46] a billing permit, then absolutely the DCs would be applicable.
[6:24:51] I just would like to confirm with the CBO or
[6:24:53] chief building officer if a billing permit would be issued
[6:24:57] for that. I can't say that I know the answer
[6:24:59] to that. With certainty. Okay. But I would be happy
[6:25:02] to find out for you. Thank you. Trick question? No,
[6:25:05] I just don't know. No, but as soon as you
[6:25:07] asked it, I. Thought. Oh, that's going to be a
[6:25:09] tough one. Well, I will wait to hear the response,
[6:25:11] Councilor ring. Thank you, chair. Through you two to the
[6:25:18] treasurer. And then. You've answered, I guess, for the best
[6:25:23] of your knowledge on that right now, would you? Not
[6:25:25] think that the initial cost, I guess there'd be DC
[6:25:29] charge, but I guess that would only depend on whether
[6:25:32] there was a building permit granted. I'm saying the original
[6:25:36] cost to install it the first time would be a
[6:25:40] DC char. Charge. And what they're looking for is exemption
[6:25:43] from every other year after that, because I think without
[6:25:45] the bylaw amendment. Every time. The way our bylaw reads
[6:25:50] now, every time they want to put that back up.
[6:25:52] They're going to be charged. DC charged treasure Graham. Well,
[6:25:57] I do know the answer to this? Because I did
[6:25:59] speak with the CBO. So the way our bylaw reads
[6:26:02] now is when there's a demolition permit issued on a
[6:26:05] property within five years. The DC is exempt. For no
[6:26:09] more than what the demolition credit would be. Meaning? We
[6:26:12] can't go into credit. And owe developers money. So the
[6:26:15] way this would work, if we were to charge development
[6:26:18] charges, the first time they erected the seasonal dome when
[6:26:21] they took it down. The CBO would issue a demolition
[6:26:25] permit and then. When they were to erect it again
[6:26:28] the following year, the demolition credit that they would have
[6:26:31] received. Would cancel any further DC charges. So in essence,
[6:26:35] they would just be paying the one time at the
[6:26:37] first time the dome was erected. Follow up. Just a
[6:26:42] comment because I thought when the presentation was made to
[6:26:45] us by the original, presenter. That was his beef, was
[6:26:49] that it was going to cost him $250,000 in dcs.
[6:26:52] Because every year he's going to have to pay the
[6:26:53] dcs and that's. What he was getting. I thought that's
[6:26:56] what he was getting the exemption for, but. I could
[6:26:59] have been wrong. Deputy mayor. Megan. Okay, mayor hamlin.
[6:27:09] Yeah, just to clarify. Staff will correct me if I'm
[6:27:13] wrong. I'm sure. But I think. What's? Before us. Is
[6:27:17] an exemption from development charges for one of. These bubbles.
[6:27:22] I'll call them so that the applicant would never pay.
[6:27:27] Development charges. If they were bringing one of these structures
[6:27:31] forward. As it would be defined by bylaw, which I
[6:27:35] take. It's why it's going to cost us some money
[6:27:37] to make sure we get a good definition. So it
[6:27:40] isn't too broadly interpreted. Thank you, deputy mayor. And that's
[6:27:45] what I was recollecting. I thought that that's the way
[6:27:48] it was going to work out. I really appreciate the
[6:27:52] report from Treasure Graham. And I'm supportive of the recommendation.
[6:27:59] I do have guarded concerns. And we have a question.
[6:28:03] You've put forward. This is community, the whole so we
[6:28:05] can get the answer for when we're dealing it with
[6:28:07] it in council. Because I'm concerned about. Untended precedent. But
[6:28:16] the report says. Staff is going to work closely with
[6:28:19] legal to try to put the clear wording in place.
[6:28:22] And I think. That's certainly the basis that I'm putting
[6:28:26] my support forward on. And then when we see things
[6:28:29] come back. We'll be able to discern that a little
[6:28:32] bit better. Right. Thank you, Councilor McCullough. Thank you, chair.
[6:28:40] Yeah. I think it's become clear what it is that's
[6:28:42] being approved. And I think from my perspective, it was
[6:28:47] important to understand that this is not triggering expenses for
[6:28:50] the town. It's using existing services on an existing use
[6:28:55] on a property that's zoned appropriately for this use, and
[6:28:58] it's contributing a community rec facility which effectively takes that
[6:29:02] potential future need off the town's book. Books. There's no
[6:29:05] ongoing costs, and it satisfies a demonstrated need within the
[6:29:10] town. So I think it's a win win. Thank you.
[6:29:15] Any other comments, questions? So I'll put the recommendation to
[6:29:19] the vote. All those in favor? And that's unanimous. Okay,
[6:29:25] onto item 15. Oh, I need a motion to extend
[6:29:31] for another hour. Can I have a mover, councilor? McCullough.
[6:29:38] Seconded. Councilor Dougherty. All those in favor? And that's unanimous.
[6:29:43] Okay, item 15.2.3. T 2025 22 amendment to the council
[6:29:50] Community grant policy and Treasurer Graham, it's yours. Again. Thank
[6:29:55] you, chair Perry. This report brings forward a revised council
[6:29:59] community grant and in kind support. Policy for council's consideration.
[6:30:04] The purpose of the policy is to provide a clear
[6:30:06] and structured. Framework that allows council to consider funding request
[6:30:10] consistently, fairly, and transparently, while continuing to support the many
[6:30:14] community organizations and volunteers who enhance life in colleenwed. The
[6:30:19] town recognizes and greatly values the contributions of volunteers, community
[6:30:23] organizations, and local agencies that deliver programs and services. Benef.
[6:30:27] Benefiting our residents. Providing grants or inkind support reflects council's
[6:30:32] commitment to partnering with these groups while also recognizing that
[6:30:35] the town has financial constraints that limit its ability to
[6:30:38] deliver all of these services directly. Each year as part
[6:30:42] of the annual budget process, cancel allocates a defined amount
[6:30:46] of funding for this purpose. Staff were asked to develop
[6:30:50] and refine a policy that helps cancel allocate those funds.
[6:30:53] In a way that is fair, predictable and aligned with
[6:30:55] cancel's priorities. Historically before this policy funding request came to
[6:31:00] cancel at different times throughout the year and through various
[6:31:02] channels, including deputations. Over the past few years, the Tan
[6:31:07] and council have moved towards a more streamlined and structured
[6:31:10] process, and this revised policy builds on that progress. The
[6:31:16] updates reflect and they're included in the appendix and highlighted
[6:31:19] what the changes that staff are proposing for council to
[6:31:22] consider. It reflects feedback from prior years input that from
[6:31:27] a 2025 council survey and best practices used by other
[6:31:30] municipalities. The recommendations updates focus on clarity, equity, and accountability
[6:31:36] in particular. First. A maximum award limit is being introduced
[6:31:41] for cancel to consider no more than 10,000 in funding
[6:31:44] and or 10,000 in inkind support per applicant. This helps
[6:31:48] ensures. Equitable distribution of limited resources and sets clear expectations
[6:31:53] for applicants from the beginning. Second, the policy introduces a
[6:31:58] restriction on additional funding requests for the same program within
[6:32:02] the same fiscal year. Once the funding is awarded, recipients
[6:32:06] may not return through deputations and request more funding. For
[6:32:09] the same initiative. This would help promote fairness of predictability.
[6:32:14] Third, the organizational existence requirement has been removed. To broaden
[6:32:19] eligibility and allows newer or less formal community groups to
[6:32:22] apply while still maintaining accountability through the application and review
[6:32:26] process. And finally, the policy a stronger language to clarify
[6:32:31] that the funding may not be used for general operating
[6:32:34] costs such as salaries. And other operating cost. Requests must
[6:32:39] be tied to specific projects, initiatives, or programs that deliver
[6:32:42] a clear community benefit. I'm happy to answer any questions
[6:32:47] that you may have and. If there's other additional amendments
[6:32:51] that you would like to see, I'm happy to. Take
[6:32:53] that into the feedback and return with a revised policy.
[6:32:58] Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Look to the gallery. No
[6:33:03] online. Thank you, clerk. So I will read in the
[6:33:08] recommendation that staff report 20 25 22 amendment to the
[6:33:13] council community grant policy be received and that council hereby
[6:33:17] adopts the amendments to the council community grant. Policy. As
[6:33:21] detailed in appendix a. Can I have a mover? Councilor
[6:33:25] Doherty seconded. Councilor jeffrey. And councilor Potts. Thanks, chair Perry.
[6:33:33] Just very brief. I fully support. This. I think the
[6:33:37] one thing that I'm quite satisfied with is the maximum
[6:33:40] award limit. I know it gets a little bit challenging,
[6:33:44] and this really puts some kind of guardrails on limits,
[6:33:47] and I think. It offers more of. I guess a
[6:33:51] fair process across the board. As far as for anybody
[6:33:55] that's applying for the funding. It may provide more opportunity
[6:33:59] for more organizations to get funding than taking up the
[6:34:03] pot of what's there. So I'm in full support of
[6:34:05] this and I'm quite happy. With. These changes. So those
[6:34:11] are just my comments. Councilor ring. Thank you very much,
[6:34:15] chair Perry through. You two. Treasurer Graham. The II him
[6:34:22] in favor of all the amendments. But I have a
[6:34:25] question. With just the one that. Was taken out. What
[6:34:31] was the rationale? For taking off the minimum of one
[6:34:34] year an organization has to be before. That makes them
[6:34:38] eligible. There's your Graham. Thank you. Chair, Perry. Through you
[6:34:42] to camp. Fliring the rationale. Was to open it up
[6:34:45] for more organizations to apply. Again, it was a suggestion.
[6:34:52] If we want to reinstate it, that's okay too, but.
[6:34:55] The rationale was. Trying to not limit it to being
[6:34:59] in existence for more than one year. Yeah. Thank you
[6:35:03] very much, and I appreciate that. It's not that big
[6:35:09] a deal. I just wondered what the rationale was. I
[6:35:12] would have thought that maybe an organization should have been
[6:35:14] around at least a year before we start giving grants.
[6:35:17] But if that's the will of everybody else, and I
[6:35:21] will support it. The other question, Mayor Hamlin. Thank you.
[6:35:29] I'm in support of this. I just have a question.
[6:35:31] One of the issues we seem to have run into
[6:35:34] last year is. The particular group would have applied for
[6:35:38] a certain amount. And we were trying to divide it
[6:35:43] up fairly, and so they didn't get enough funds. To
[6:35:47] deliver the program they were seeking money for. And I'm
[6:35:50] wondering if this year. In the application process. There can
[6:35:53] be more information on that provided to council. Thank you.
[6:36:00] Director graham. Thank you, Chair Perry. I agree. That was
[6:36:04] a challenge last year and part of the reason why.
[6:36:09] Staff and through council feedback that we received through the
[6:36:11] survey. To recommend a maximum limit of 10,000 is to
[6:36:15] clearly state at the very beginning that that is the
[6:36:18] most that they can do. I don't believe the intent
[6:36:20] is to fully fund any initiative, it's to contribute. Toward
[6:36:25] a special project that a community group is doing. And,
[6:36:28] in fact, the application that we have right now is
[6:36:31] meant to show other funding sources. I don't think it
[6:36:35] does say already in the policy that it's not meant.
[6:36:37] To be fully funded from the town of Collingwood and
[6:36:40] having that guardrail of the maximum amount. I think would
[6:36:43] temper expectations. From applicants to know that that would be
[6:36:49] the most that they could potentially receive. Okay. Thank you.
[6:36:53] Councilor ring. No, just another quick question on the maximum.
[6:37:01] The maximum can be 20,000, can it not? Be 20,000
[6:37:06] total. Treasurer Graham. You're actually correct with the
[6:37:16] way that it's written with the and or I believe
[6:37:19] it should be or, and the and should be removed.
[6:37:22] That's an excellent catch. Thank you very much. That was
[6:37:24] the attend. I was going to make an amendment because
[6:37:26] the way I read it, they could have up to
[6:37:28] 20,000. No, that's an excellent catch. Thank you okay? I
[6:37:32] do read some of the reports. Councilor Potts. Thanks again,
[6:37:38] chair Perry. And just talking about. The maximum limit through
[6:37:44] you to the treasurer. Is there any way that. They
[6:37:49] could put on almost. A minimum. Maximum, so. Basically because
[6:37:55] I think sometimes. With the best intentions of council to
[6:37:59] provide money to be able to help them out. Not
[6:38:03] going to use the word insult, but if somebody asked
[6:38:05] for $5,000 and they get 300. I think it's a
[6:38:09] waste of time and resources and finances. So I think
[6:38:12] I look at. Is there kind of an expectation of
[6:38:16] what they're, here's the maximum. But is there an expectation
[6:38:19] of what? At least, the very least a minimum. I
[6:38:22] don't know if it makes any sense, but just to
[6:38:24] kind of, because if I'm looking at it, I'm going
[6:38:26] well, I'm trying to spread the wealth to ensure that
[6:38:29] all these organizations are looked after. I would want to
[6:38:33] hope that I wouldn't be kind of. I want them
[6:38:35] to feel like they're worth something as well, instead of
[6:38:38] getting a minuscule amount. Treasurer Graham. Thank you, Chair Perry.
[6:38:42] I think that's an excellent idea. We absolutely could update
[6:38:45] the application form. To. Include that in it. We would
[6:38:52] put the maximum you are applying for, noting that you
[6:38:55] may not receive at all what? Is the minimum. That
[6:38:58] you would accept, I suppose. Really? To be able to
[6:39:02] use this funding. So, yes, we can update the application
[6:39:05] to include that. Councilor jeffrey. So. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[6:39:12] So, further to councilor Ring's question, I was having a
[6:39:15] problem with Yandor because. I thought maybe we were trying
[6:39:18] to find a way. I'm assuming people can still do
[6:39:21] a combination like 5000 in kind and 5000 cash, and
[6:39:25] that really wasn't clarified in there. So I'd like to
[6:39:28] think it was up to a maximum of ten. Thousand.
[6:39:32] Distributed however they want, between if they want. Treasure Graham.
[6:39:38] Thank you, chair Perry. Absolutely. So we'll just make sure
[6:39:40] that that wording. Is more explicit that it's 10,000 is
[6:39:44] a maximum. A combination of inkind. Or financial support. So.
[6:39:50] Just one sec. Just so I'm clear that. We're not
[6:39:54] making an amendment for any of this. It's going to
[6:39:57] be or 10,000, like it's one one or the. Other,
[6:40:01] right? Well, no. I know. It could be five. Thousand
[6:40:08] grant and 5000 in kind, but it's going to be
[6:40:11] a total of 10,000 total of 10,000. Okay. All right.
[6:40:15] Vice chair, bains. Thank you. Chair. Just to follow up
[6:40:20] to councilor Potts question. It's sort of like in the
[6:40:25] application that staff might be asking the applicants something to.
[6:40:29] The tune that if, in the event you are unsuccessful
[6:40:31] at getting the choose a number. $5,000 you're requesting. I
[6:40:37] know what the answer would be. Are you confident? You
[6:40:42] can deliver. Oh, gee, I'm thinking out loud here. The
[6:40:46] program that you are promising to deliver for the lesser
[6:40:49] amount of money. I have to think this through. Sorry.
[6:40:55] Yeah, for another time. So there's a minute and a
[6:41:00] half I'm not getting back.
[6:41:13] Councilor Potts kind of took the words right out of
[6:41:15] my mouth when I saw the maximum. And I didn't
[6:41:17] read it as clearly as councilor ring, but when I
[6:41:20] saw a maximum there. I was quite pleased to see
[6:41:23] that. And looking at it in the bottom end. It'd
[6:41:30] be nice. It's nice to have a minimum, too, because
[6:41:33] I know when I was filling out the form last
[6:41:35] year, there was one that I can't remember the figure,
[6:41:38] but it was almost. Like councilor Pott said, it was
[6:41:41] almost an insult. And I find every year we're getting
[6:41:44] better and better at this. I know. The first year
[6:41:47] we didn't have anything. And it was a bit of
[6:41:50] a nightmare. We're getting it better and better. I know
[6:41:55] I can probably speak for most people at this table
[6:41:58] that it's a stressful time of year doing these grants
[6:42:02] because you're trying to make everybody happy. And the more
[6:42:05] guidance we get from up above, the better. Anyhow, those
[6:42:09] are my comments. So I'll put the recommendation on the
[6:42:13] floor. All those in favor? And that's unanimous. Okay, thank
[6:42:19] you. Thank you, Treasurer Graham. And that's with the correction
[6:42:23] of the and or. Yeah, I just wanted to make
[6:42:27] sure we weren't going to do an amendment on that.
[6:42:30] We'll correct it in the. Right. Okay. Thank you. Be
[6:42:34] corrected in the amended section when it comes to council.
[6:42:37] Perfect. Okay. Thank you. Deputations unregistered. Okay. No deputations, reports,
[6:42:46] minutes of other committees are boards. The recommendation is that
[6:42:51] the following minutes of other committees and boards be received
[6:42:55] and the recommendations contain therein be approved. Calling with public
[6:43:01] Library Board October 23, 2025. The trail is an active
[6:43:06] transportation advisory committee. November 13, 2025. And the Collingwood Public
[6:43:12] Library Board November 27. 2025. Can I have a mover?
[6:43:19] Councilor McCulloch seconded. Deputy Mayor Friar. All those in favor?
[6:43:24] And that's unanimous. Thank you. Old or deferred business. Councilor
[6:43:31] Potts. Okay, all right. Other business. Older, deferred. Oh, no,
[6:43:36] I just did that. Sorry. Other business. Councilor Potts, this
[6:43:42] will be very brief, and it'll be something that I
[6:43:44] would. Like to bring forward in the new year. I
[6:43:47] just thought maybe if I dropped it now and. It
[6:43:49] would give staff some time, but I would like to
[6:43:51] look at the potential of bringing back the shipyard whistle
[6:43:55] to the town of Collingwood so that we could have.
[6:44:00] Something to. Bring us back quite a few years ago,
[6:44:04] and I know that I've seen a documentary. On tv
[6:44:07] last night after the one about Collingwood, that there are
[6:44:10] still some municipalities that do that. And whether it was
[6:44:13] set up somehow, but I would like to just put
[6:44:16] it there to see. If there was any appetite to
[6:44:19] bring that back. West. Councilor McCullough. This isn't. A terribly
[6:44:29] serious comment, but I did say to someone over the
[6:44:31] weekend it would be nice if we had an air
[6:44:33] raid siren so that we could notify the entire town
[6:44:36] all at once. Of something like a water leak. So
[6:44:40] maybe the whistle would do that job. Councilor ring. I
[6:44:44] think it's a great idea and. I certainly support it.
[6:44:47] I'm just wondering, do you know where it is? Or
[6:44:50] just get one. Not sure we're supposed to be chatting
[6:44:55] about it. Or can we? Why? Okay. No, that's fine.
[6:45:00] Go ahead. Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.
[6:45:02] I think my point was, I don't think you'd be
[6:45:05] looking for the exact. One. And if it was, my
[6:45:07] vision would be something. Whether through the museum. It wouldn't
[6:45:12] have to be three times a day or two times
[6:45:15] a day, because the tremont is not there to go
[6:45:17] to anymore, but back in the day. But I think
[6:45:20] it would be something that would be really bring back
[6:45:24] the history of the shipyard, especially with the naming. Of
[6:45:26] the park. With the shipyard. The dry dock junction and
[6:45:31] just the whole history piece, I think, would be something
[6:45:35] that would be. Extremely valuable. And historical to Collingwood. So
[6:45:39] I wanted to kind of. Drop actually, after the documentary
[6:45:42] last night and seen that there are many policies to
[6:45:44] do that. I want to bring something forward in the
[6:45:48] new year, but allow staff some time. And. To maybe
[6:45:52] potentially come up with how we can move forward on
[6:45:54] that. Yeah, very interesting. Councilor ring. Sorry, I didn't mean
[6:45:59] to cut you off that's. Okay. Just one quick comment.
[6:46:03] The first time they heard that whistle going, I'll tell
[6:46:05] you, all the old guys would be on their bicycles.
[6:46:07] But their lunch. Palestinian. Back to the shipyard. Deputy mayor.
[6:46:15] I thought about a couple of things in regards to
[6:46:19] budget, and I just want to mention them. Here. And
[6:46:22] ask. I wanted to ask through you, if I could,
[6:46:25] to treasure Graham. We have the special capital levy charge,
[6:46:30] and we have the capital charge now. And we have
[6:46:32] the capital charge. Split out. Originally, the special capital levy
[6:46:37] was introduced because we didn't have that split out. Is
[6:46:41] there any reason in your mind why those two. Couldn't
[6:46:45] be brought together. Into one. Spot instead of having two
[6:46:49] spots. And just asking that. And if there is, then
[6:46:53] I'll bring that forward at budget time. To combine those
[6:46:57] two. But there may be reasons why you would like
[6:47:01] to have those two splits. So I won't ask that
[6:47:03] if I could. Thank you, chair Perry. It was actually
[6:47:06] a council direction in the 2025 budget to split it.
[6:47:10] Out to show the history of the special capital. Levy
[6:47:13] was meant to close the funding gap and the general
[6:47:16] capital levy was meant to highlight the amount that we
[6:47:18] were at the town was contributing. Annually to our regular
[6:47:22] capital program. I'm in favor of having one capital levy.
[6:47:27] I think it's clear that we have a lot of
[6:47:29] work to do to close. Our capital. Deficit that we're
[6:47:37] in, and it probably would make a lot of sense
[6:47:39] to residents if it was just called capital Levy and
[6:47:42] didn't have the word special in front of it. Unfortunately,
[6:47:46] we're going to be able to close our gap. Soon
[6:47:50] without. Significant help from the other levels of government, so
[6:47:56] I would be in favor of having just one. Capital
[6:47:58] levy. Thank you. Thanks. And I was just thinking back
[6:48:01] to when we originally created the special. Capital levy. It
[6:48:04] was because we wanted to show that we were starting
[6:48:07] to put effort into increases. But it was because the
[6:48:12] rest. Of the capital levy was combined in the municipal
[6:48:15] levy, so now we've got that out. As treasurer, Graham
[6:48:18] said, we decided to split those out. For this year.
[6:48:23] I'm going to bring that forward. And the last thing
[6:48:25] I'll just mention is I was hoping that we could
[6:48:28] get an outline. On the dollar impact for the water
[6:48:32] and wastewater changes. When we are talking about budget and
[6:48:36] finalization. Okay. Thank you. Councilor Dougherty. Sorry, sale.
[6:48:46] Thank you. I just thought the deputy mayor was talking
[6:48:49] about budget finalization. And I think that, well, there would
[6:48:53] be the mayor's budget. Put forward. And then I guess
[6:48:59] we'll have to have some discussion about if that would
[6:49:01] come up. As another agenda item. Would. Okay. Council can
[6:49:06] make an amendment to it can make an amendment at
[6:49:09] that time. So there would be that amendment process. Available
[6:49:14] for these questions, or we could follow up thereafter. Treasurer
[6:49:20] Graham. Just to add just a little bit more information
[6:49:25] to the CAO's comments. The mayor's budget when it's stable
[6:49:29] doesn't have to be tabled. At a council meeting. I
[6:49:31] think the intention is to. And I could be misspeaking
[6:49:34] is. To have it tabled this week. Once that's tabled,
[6:49:38] there still is 30 days. To make any amendment. So
[6:49:41] if there are further conversations, there still will be. Opportunity
[6:49:45] for cancel to have an opportunity. Okay. Thank you. Councilor
[6:49:51] Dougherty, you had an Amo update. Do you want to
[6:49:55] give us or not? Well, I did. But I want
[6:49:59] to give you. The super short version because I feel
[6:50:02] like. We've mentioned Amo a number of times this evening,
[6:50:06] and some of the work that is ongoing right now.
[6:50:10] But I will say. At our last board of directors
[6:50:14] meeting for 2025. The focus. Was obviously on. Producer responsibility.
[6:50:25] For recycling and all of the issues that have emerged.
[6:50:29] And so that was very high on the discussion and
[6:50:34] priority list. To deal with. Healthy democracy. Project. Is also
[6:50:43] front and center right now. As we head into municipal
[6:50:48] elections in Ontario. We tabled a budget. Our new CEO
[6:50:55] presented strat plan for 2026. And there was also some
[6:51:03] discussion about omers and changes that are underfoot there as
[6:51:08] a result of governance review. And this also is a
[6:51:14] priority. For amo because, of course, Omar's as a pension
[6:51:20] fund also offers great incentives. To join the municipal sector.
[6:51:28] Joel. If you want any details, ask me. Lair. Wonderful.
[6:51:33] Thank you. Councilor Baines. Did you remember what you wanted
[6:51:37] to say yet? No. I've forgotten already. Okay. Any notice
[6:51:45] of motions? No. All right, so item 15.8.1. Rise from
[6:51:53] committee of the whole. The recommendation is that council hearing.
[6:51:57] Rise from committee of the whole. And return to the
[6:51:59] regular council meeting. Can I have a mover? Councilor Pott?
[6:52:03] Seconded. Councilor, ring all those in favor? And that's unanimous.
[6:52:07] Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Thank you. Palas bylaw is the
[6:52:14] following that bylaw number 2025. 88 being a bylaw to
[6:52:20] confirm the proceedings. Of the meet. Oh, my goodness. That's
[6:52:26] a regular meeting of council held December 15, 2025. Be
[6:52:35] enacted in past this 19th day of December, 2025. Move
[6:52:41] on a second. She says, barely gasping. Councilor Paynes and
[6:52:44] councilor pots, all those in favor? Deputy mayor, you can
[6:52:48] do the adjournment. Okay, all those in favor?
[6:52:58] Okay, we got it. Thanks, guys. Have a merry Christmas.