[1:25] Good afternoon. We're about to begin now. Our council meeting

[1:29] of Thursday, August the 20th, and we'll start by standing

[1:32] for the playing of the National Anthem.

[2:44] Councillor Potts will now be reading the land acknowledgement. The

[2:48] town of Collingwood acknowledges that we are on the ancestral

[2:51] and traditional lands of many indigenous peoples. And Ish Navak

[2:55] Hadneshani went at Mayti, just a few of those who

[2:59] are Generacy sharing knowledge about the land. As well as

[3:03] the truths of our shared history. The Town also acknowledges

[3:06] that Collingwood is included as part of the Lake Simcoe,

[3:10] Naruto Saga Treaty of 1818. We seek to continue to

[3:14] learn, strengthen relationships in advanced truth and reconciliation through ongoing

[3:18] growth and meaningful engagement. First item, then we're going to

[3:25] deal with this afternoon in assist that the content of

[3:28] the Special Council Committee of the Hole Agenda for August

[3:32] 2026 be adopted as amended. There's an addition of item

[3:35] 11. 2 extending Go Train Service to Collingwood. Pardon me,

[3:42] go transit service to Collingwood. Could I have a mover

[3:45] in a second here, please? Councillor Baines, seconded by Councillor

[3:49] Ring, any other changes or comments, all those in favor.

[3:54] That's unanimous. Declarations of Code of Conduct or Pecuniary Interest,

[4:00] Deputy Mayor Fryer. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Regarding

[4:04] item 7. 2. 2, The Heritage Application for 40 Sempalco

[4:10] Street. I have a Court of Conduct on Pecuniary Disqualifying

[4:14] Interest that due to my sister having ownership in the

[4:20] property. So I will sit back from the table on

[4:24] that one. Thank you. If anyone else finds themselves in

[4:29] a conflict position during the meeting, please declare it at

[4:31] that time. Item 5. 1, the recommendation is that the

[4:35] minutes of the Council Committee of the Whole Meeting held

[4:38] August 10, 2026, excluding Committee of the Whole Recommendations be

[4:43] approved as presented. Could have a mover in a seconder,

[4:45] please. Councillor Perry, seconded by Councillor McCulloch. Comments. Oh yes,

[4:52] go ahead. Just Reese's. Thank you, Marianne. Just with respect

[4:56] to the physician recruitment incentive, one of the things we

[4:58] heard at Amo that, excuse me, I don't think we're

[5:02] there yet. That's 5'3 ", I'm doing 5'1 ". I

[5:09] was just doing the recommendation of 5. 1, jumped down.

[5:12] Sorry, but you're just ahead of the curve. Okay, so

[5:14] on 5. 1, we're going to have a vote. All

[5:16] those in favor, and that's unanimous. Thank you. Is there

[5:19] any business arising from the previous minutes of Council. Seeing

[5:24] none, 5. 3. 3. The recommendation is that the Committee

[5:30] of the whole recommendations from its meeting held August 10,

[5:34] 2026. By hereby approved, Be Hereby approved as presented. There's

[5:39] three items. C2026 - 11 efforts and initiatives supporting those

[5:45] experiencing homelessness. CCS 2026 - 08 - 2027, physician recruitment

[5:53] incentive, and reports, minutes of other committees and boards. Could

[5:58] I have a mover in a seconder, please? Councillor Potts,

[6:01] seconded by Councillor Baines. Did you want to comment? Go

[6:05] ahead. Thank you, Marion Hamlin. So with respect to the

[6:09] physician recruitment incentive, um, that we've voted on. It was

[6:14] announced at the Mo Conference that there was going to

[6:16] be another round of support for recruitment within the family

[6:21] teams in Ontario for doctors. And I'm just wondering about

[6:27] if there has to be an amendment going forward with

[6:31] respect to the MOU that we do with a doctor's.

[6:34] If the, if it's a concern for us in double

[6:38] dipping, if that family team in particular does get funding

[6:41] to recruit from the provincial provincial government or not. I'm

[6:45] not asking that it be considered or put into the

[6:48] mix of the development of the MOU, but I'm assuming

[6:52] that would be a process that would come forward in

[6:54] the future. Uh, I'm going to ask Staff Tancers, because

[6:57] I'm not aware of an MOU. So, uh, Click Thomas,

[7:01] do you have any idea or, yeah, go ahead. Um,

[7:04] through the chair, I think that's a good heads -

[7:07] up comment that we could keep in mind when we're

[7:09] preparing the MOUs. Certainly if it was necessary to act

[7:13] now to get a physician to come to Collingwood, that

[7:16] seemed like a really good fit for our community. We'd

[7:19] pending Council's finalization of this vote, want to be able

[7:21] to act. But if there was an opportunity to streamline

[7:25] the costs, um, have one entity pay, for example, The

[7:30] Province through the Provincial Health team, as opposed to the

[7:33] municipal council, we certainly prefer that option as it is

[7:35] funding that's marked for health care. Um, there may be

[7:39] some situations, and I don't know because I haven't seen

[7:42] what mate come through the family health teams where, um,

[7:45] a doctor may be eligible for both. And it's not

[7:48] easy to deal with that through the MOU, but I

[7:50] would be happy to keep our heads up as we

[7:52] saw that on Fold and to keep it into account

[7:55] if we could avoid that in the MOU. Yeah. Yeah.

[7:59] Thank you. I appreciate that. Yep. Thank you. Okay. With

[8:02] that, any other comments, all those in favor, and that's

[8:05] unanimous. Uh, The Consent Agenda, um, The Recommendation is the

[8:14] Council Receive It, and further that the information and opinions

[8:18] provided in the General Consent Agenda items are those of

[8:21] the authors and are not verified or approved as being

[8:24] correct. Uh, 6. 1 expression of interest joined the Alliance

[8:29] and swim the swimmable cities charter. Um. So can I

[8:35] get a mover in a seconder for this, please Councillor

[8:38] Baines. Uh, Councillor Jeffrey. I'll just speak to this briefly

[8:45] as I've had that just put on the agenda. What

[8:47] it is, um, it's the Great Lakes Cities Initiative. And

[8:53] they have different discussions at the annual meeting about supporting

[8:57] different initiatives. Uh, that often end in opportunities for municipalities

[9:03] like ours to apply for grants, which we have. Um,

[9:07] and this organisation is comprised of the mayors of the

[9:10] cities on the Great Lakes who have joined. There's a

[9:13] few hundred. So this initiative is to, uh, say that

[9:18] we would be interested in joining the alliance they're creating,

[9:23] uh, to acknowledge that swimmable cities, uh, is a great

[9:28] initiative to encourage not only recreation, but environmental protection, protection

[9:33] of our waterfront and all the good things that being

[9:36] on one of the largest freshwater bodies in the world

[9:39] gives to us. Um, so I just brought this forward

[9:43] wanting to, I'm sure the opposition, but I'll just, uh,

[9:45] maybe just ask for a show of hands if everyone

[9:47] thinks this is a good idea. And that's awesome. Okay.

[9:50] Thank you. Maybe we should just do that as amendment.

[9:54] So I'll do an image of emotions to receive it.

[9:56] And that council supports. Okay. Good advice. Okay. So, uh,

[10:00] we will, uh, say on this item, uh, a recommendation

[10:05] that Council received this and that they, uh, approved the

[10:11] signing of the charter. Okay. All those in favor. Oh,

[10:16] I need a mover in a second. Can I use

[10:18] the same one. Same ones? Yeah. Yep. They're happy. Okay.

[10:23] All those in favor. Okay. Thank you unanimous. And the

[10:27] motion as amended all those in favor. And that's also

[10:31] unanimous. Thank you, clerk on us. Uh, so we're moving

[10:35] now at breakneck speed into the committee of the whole,

[10:40] uh, should we change spots here, Deputy Mayor. What's your.

[10:51] Motion to move in tech committee of the world? And

[10:54] then after we do that motion and it gets weak.

[10:56] Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. So then let's do the

[11:00] motion that Council move into the committee of the whole

[11:04] session. And, uh, that's moved by Councillor Doherty and seconded

[11:08] by Councillor Ring, all those in favor unanimous. Thank you.

[11:13] And I'm now going to turn over to our new

[11:16] chair of the Committee of the Hall. Thank you Councillor

[11:18] Baines. 7. 211. DGS

[11:28] 2026 - 07 outdoor rink. Roof project update and decisions

[11:33] re - additional costs. Call upon Director Cubit. Thank you,

[11:39] Chair Baines. Uh, today's report provides an update on the

[11:42] outdoor rink roof project. Uh, it outlines the background contributing

[11:47] to the additional funding request and presents opportunities to complete

[11:51] infrastructure improvements now that would be more costly and disruptive

[11:54] to address in the future. Um, while we've worked to

[11:58] respond to evolving site conditions and project requirements, we also

[12:01] acknowledge there are lessons to be learned. And we're committed

[12:04] to strengthening our project planning, design review and capital delivery

[12:07] processes to help reduce the likelihood of similar challenges on

[12:11] future projects. Despite these challenges, we remain excited about the

[12:16] project in the long - term benefits it will provide,

[12:19] including a longer skating season, uh, expanded recreational programming opportunities

[12:23] and enhanced year - round use of this asset. And

[12:26] with that, I will turn it over to Manager McNulty

[12:29] to walk us through the project update and recommendations. Good

[12:38] afternoon Mayor Deputy Mayor Council and the Public. This will

[12:44] be an update on the outdoor roof rank project. And

[12:48] you can go to the next slide, please.

[13:01] This presentation will cover, uh, a review of the scope

[13:05] of the project. The Current Status of the Project. Items

[13:11] that our project completion requirements that are already in play.

[13:19] Optional operational in site infructure enhancements. And some future opportunities.

[13:27] Next slide, please. So going back to the original

[13:37] intention of the project, um, The primary rationale for installing

[13:43] a roof over calling with central park outdoor rink. Was

[13:47] to extend and maximize the uses of facility throughout the

[13:50] year. Some of the key benefits included ending extending the

[13:55] ice season by protecting the ink from snow rain and

[13:58] milder weather conditions. Allowing skating and hockey to continue longer

[14:02] in the winter. By providing year round functionality for activities

[14:08] such as pickleball basketball roller skating recreational skating, figure skating

[14:13] and community programming. By increasing operating hours and facility utilization,

[14:21] helping the town get more value from an existing recreational

[14:25] asset. And to reduce pressure on the indoor rinks by

[14:31] creating more reliable outdoor venue. Next slide.

[14:41] The project was originally approved in the 2025 capital budget

[14:45] cycle, uh, 1. 93 million dollars. Subsequent to that. The

[14:53] town was successful in getting 980, 600 dollars in funding

[15:00] from the community sport and recreation infrastructure fund. The criteria

[15:09] to obtain that funding in the, uh, transfer payment agreement

[15:14] is that the project is complete by December 31st, 26.

[15:22] Doing construction. Doing, doing the project, um, challenges, um, requiring

[15:32] changes in the design to meet, uh, permitting requirements and

[15:38] to adapt to site conditions. Uh, once construction started. We

[15:45] encountered higher than anticipated groundwater levels. Um, and existing underground

[15:52] utilities that went, uh, previously documented. Some of the opportunities

[16:01] include the addition of water management, the site drainage infrastructure.

[16:06] And some improvements that would be related to ongoing security

[16:12] acoustic improvements. And, uh, operations such as preparation for a

[16:20] public address system and a time clock, for instance. Next

[16:25] slide. These are the, uh, elevations of the, uh.

[16:36] Of the building as it's designed and has, as it's

[16:39] been delivered to site. Um, essentially it's a, uh, rectangle

[16:48] pre - engineered steel building. Uh, slightly larger than the

[16:51] outdoor rink. With a canopy on the east side that

[16:58] is, uh, protected area for gathering. Next slide.

[17:13] Here are some photos from April 15th of this year.

[17:18] And at this point the contractor had mobilised a site

[17:22] and had started to excavate for foundations. This was after

[17:30] a significant rainfall, but it does highlight the areas where

[17:34] water ponds and central parks. The ball diamond shown in

[17:44] the top two pictures. Regularly gets, uh, flooded after a

[17:49] significant rainfall to the point where it has to be

[17:52] taken out of service for two or three days until

[17:55] it dries out. And so it delays the baseball programming.

[18:01] The bottom left photo. You can see where the groundwater

[18:06] is essentially at grade. And, um, there is no frost

[18:13] in the ground at this point. And so it's the

[18:17] water slowly, um, seeps away, um, but it takes several

[18:27] days. And the lore picture on the right. Is next

[18:33] to the, uh, washroom building, which is the primary access

[18:38] to the outdoor rink. And this is right where the

[18:44] canopy over, uh, on the east side of the outdoor

[18:48] rink. Well, um, share it's roof water. And so that

[18:54] issue will just get worse. Uh, going forward. Next slide.

[19:12] So there was a, uh, geotechnical investigation conducted in July

[19:17] of 2024. It did not adequately reflect. The conditions that

[19:24] we found in April and May of 2026. Um. The

[19:34] solution, the solution that was implemented was to change the

[19:41] deep concrete foundations to a combination of steel piles and

[19:48] concrete foundations. So top left picture is an example of

[19:54] helical piles. That are, um, drilled in. It's actually a

[20:03] combination of, of helical piles and driven steel piles that

[20:09] extend down to bedrock. And then those form the base

[20:15] for the concrete foundations. You can also see in these

[20:20] pictures, uh, some of the utilities that needed to be

[20:24] worked around. And the bottom centre, that's a sewer line.

[20:29] The bottom right, that's an electrical service. This is in

[20:36] mid June. And you can still see the impact of

[20:40] groundwater, uh, in the excavations. And so the process was

[20:45] to install the steel piles or a mud slab in

[20:53] a dewatered excavation. And then build the reinforcing mat on

[21:01] top of. So just as further illustration. Uh, on the

[21:07] left was the original concrete foundation design that would have

[21:12] been eight feet deep. Sorry. Next slide. On the left

[21:18] is the original concrete foundation that would have been eight

[21:22] feet deep. On the right, the foundations. And at the

[21:27] concrete foundations are now just down to fast level and

[21:32] the steel piles support the foundations. Next slide.

[21:45] And so on the top left there, you can see

[21:47] a couple of the piles with pile caps on them.

[21:51] Bottom left. Those pile caps become an integral part of

[21:55] the reinforcing steel within the footing and foundation. And then

[22:00] on the right, you can see some finished foundations. This

[22:07] picture was August 10th. And so at this point, all

[22:14] of the foundations are complete. And insulation and backfilling of

[22:21] the foundations is in progress. So you can start to

[22:26] see now the footprint of the roof structure over the

[22:30] existing ring. And where the roof canopy will be next

[22:35] to the washroom building at the lower of the site

[22:39] of the picture. Later we'll talk about

[22:50] the potential for the installation of. Storm sewers directly around

[22:56] the roof structure. And at the top of that picture

[23:00] between the foundations and the lawn bowling club, there is

[23:04] a metre wide carder there. The storm sewer would need

[23:09] to traverse. And the same on the south side next

[23:13] to the bull diamond. It's a very tight area to

[23:17] be able to, uh, work in. And all of these

[23:22] areas are fought with underground utilities, most of which we

[23:29] know where they are now. Next slide, please. This schedule

[23:39] was updated. August 17th by the contractor. Um, we're still

[23:45] showing a completion date. Of December 1st, 2026. But notably

[23:53] there's no. There's no room to insert things into this

[24:00] schedule at this point. Um, we can overlap other activities

[24:06] in it. But. Adding time to the schedule would push

[24:12] its past our limit of completing by the end of

[24:16] the year. Next slide. So

[24:28] part A. In the report is project completion requirements. These

[24:33] are items that, um, evolved during the detailed design process.

[24:43] Uh, that required changes to the building. For permitting to

[24:47] adapt a site conditions. Um. And some of them resulted

[24:55] in a claim from the building supplier. Uh, for additional

[25:01] costs that were not made known back when the changes

[25:05] were made. So some of these changes included in this

[25:14] spend of up to 510, 000 dollars. Because. All of

[25:20] these costs are subject to negotiation with the contractor at

[25:25] this point. And so. Um, we haven't provided a detailed

[25:31] list in the public staff report because we don't really

[25:35] want to show our position. However, uh, in summary, they

[25:42] include the posttender changes to the design. Some underground utility

[25:48] relocation. Adjustment of the perimeter slab on grade to meet

[25:54] the building footprint. And adapt to the existing grade. The

[26:01] addition of ventilated ridge cap, um. Provide some natural ventilation

[26:07] to remove humidity. And we'll have ongoing contract administration costs.

[26:15] Next slide. B is operational in site infrastructure enhancements. And

[26:23] again, that's up to 360, 000 dollars because again, these

[26:28] items are still out of stage of negotiation. Should we

[26:34] have funding to proceed. Um. They include local drainage infrastructure.

[26:45] Um, and on the figure on the left, uh, as

[26:49] I mentioned on the aerial photograph. We propose a storm

[26:56] sewer to be installed now along the west side of

[27:00] the new structure and the so - side of the

[27:03] new structure that would be connected to a future, um.

[27:11] Extension to that and an outlet to the Minnesota drain.

[27:18] Uh, we also propose the addition of eve troughs and

[27:22] downspouts. Acoustic insulation is something that. Um.

[27:34] We know from talking to other. Uh, communities that have,

[27:40] um, essentially the same move structure over their outdoor rinks

[27:47] is that, um, are in event, for instance, there is,

[27:52] uh, significant amount of noise within the building. Also from

[28:01] the noise from inside, even from, uh, playing hockey and

[28:05] Puck's hitting the boards and so forth. We have some

[28:08] complaints now, uh, from the community about that noise as

[28:14] it gets into the evening. But also in the event

[28:20] of expanded uses of the facility, what we're building here

[28:24] is essentially a big speaker. And so if you were

[28:28] to put something like a DJ in there, that noise

[28:34] from the facility could have a real impact on the

[28:37] community. Bird mitigation, um, is also. Um,

[28:47] something that other communities have tried to deal with. Essentially

[28:53] what this is proposed is netting underneath all of the

[28:57] structure to remove the places where birds would want to

[29:03] roost under the roof structure. The addition of some exterior

[29:09] security lighting and preparation for future videos. Security systems. And

[29:18] as I mentioned before, uh, often for a future time

[29:22] clock on Public addresses. Next slide.

[29:34] Um, this is an illustration of what the future drainage

[29:39] system and the outlet to the Minnesota drain would look

[29:44] like. We have proposed that, um, depending what happens with

[29:52] the drainage around the rink. We were proposed to include

[29:56] this for consideration in the 2027 capital budget at a

[30:01] cost of 200, 000 dollars. Next slide.

[30:13] So the roof as designed is, uh. Is.

[30:28] Classified as group A division three non - sprinkler facing

[30:31] two streets when it's over 1500 square metres. The allowable

[30:37] uses for that. Um, are sporting events. So hockey, uh,

[30:43] skating basketball across ball hockey pickleball. Essentially anything where the

[30:49] participants using the ice surface for sporting event. What's not

[30:58] permissible under that classification. Our assembly type uses. So the

[31:06] likes of a yard sale, a trade show, a community

[31:10] barbecue, a graduation ceremony. Uh, a celebration of life. Or

[31:16] any place where you would put tables and chairs on

[31:20] the A surface with the intent of an assembly. In

[31:28] the future. Uh, research is that. The sprinkler and fire

[31:35] alarm system in the curling club, it is feasible to

[31:40] extend that to the outdoor rink. At a cost of

[31:46] up to 260, 000 dollars. That would allow for subject

[31:52] to approval that would allow for, uh, change in the

[31:57] classification of the building. That would allow these other uses

[32:04] to take place. Next slide. So

[32:14] in summary. Um, when addressing council with these considerations at

[32:22] this time so that we can maintain construction progress have

[32:27] budget available to deliver a good project. And ensure that

[32:32] we can collect the CSRIF funding. As I mentioned in

[32:39] the beginning, the project was originally approved by Council for

[32:44] 1. 93 million dollars. These additional funds proposed. Would take

[32:51] the total to 1, 929, 000 dollars. So just under

[32:58] the original approved amount. So when. We transition from the

[33:06] 2025 budget to the 2026 budget, The amount that was

[33:13] carried over, the funding that was carried over from DC

[33:19] reserves was reduced by the amount of the CSRIF funding.

[33:25] So that's why we're back here today.

[33:38] With approved budget. Staff would be able to proceed with

[33:45] the project as due acted. And would continue to assess

[33:54] emerging issues and evaluate the individual project requirements as we

[34:00] go to balance the project completion date. With the long

[34:03] - term facility functionality and financial sustainability.

[34:13] And I'll just reiterate that the. Enhancement opportunities that we've

[34:22] proposed will only proceed. Upon acceptable negotiated pricing for the

[34:30] work with the existing contractor. Um, because we're in that

[34:35] stage where the competitive bidding is over. So now what

[34:39] we do is we define a scope. We get the

[34:42] contract due to price it. We do an engineering evaluation

[34:46] of that pricing. And if it's acceptable, we can move

[34:49] forward. Otherwise it's off the table. And next slide.

[35:00] That's my presentation. Thank you manager McNulty and Director Qubit

[35:04] for that presentation. Prior to reading in the Staff recommendation.

[35:09] I'd like to call upon anyone in the gallery that

[35:11] might wish to make a comment. If you do, you

[35:14] have to provide your name and your address. Is there

[35:17] anyone in the gallery that wishes to comment. Clerk almost

[35:22] anyone on Bonline. Thank you, Chair Baines. Yes, we do

[35:27] have participants online. If you would like to address the

[35:30] committee regarding the Staff report, please press erase your hand

[35:32] feature at the bottom of your screen. And no interest

[35:38] at this time. Thank you. I read in this Staff

[35:40] recommendation. That Staff Report CCS 2026 - 7 outdoor rink

[35:48] roof project update and decisions re - additional costs. They

[35:53] received. And that Council authorized the use of up to

[35:57] 702, 842 dollars from the outdoor recreation services development charge

[36:03] reserve fund to address outdoor rink roof project completion requirements.

[36:10] Site infrastructure improvements drainage works, utility relocations, and other project

[36:14] related enhancements identified during construction. Do I have a mover

[36:19] of this. Director McCulloch, seconded by the mayor, comments from

[36:29] Council or Committee members. Councillor Ring. I'll try to be

[36:39] quick, but I do have quite a few concerns. Um,

[36:44] I'll start with Geset through you, uh, Chair Baines to,

[36:50] um, the manager, um, site - specific conditions emerged is

[36:58] one of the reasons why we're going to have a

[37:00] higher anticipated, um, with, with the groundwater. Why would we

[37:04] not know what the groundwater level is? It wasn't long

[37:08] ago we put that ice service in. We would have

[37:10] to excavate that for the piping for the refrigeration. Were

[37:13] we not run into the water in a lot more

[37:16] excavating than we're doing now? Why would we not realise

[37:18] that there's, there was an issue with groundwater there. Prior

[37:23] to now. Through the chair.

[37:34] Geotechnical report that was conducted in 2024. And to back

[37:41] up, you were correct. I was around when the rink

[37:44] was built. And those excavations weren't, uh, as deep in

[37:53] any regard as any of this. So secondly, there are

[37:58] already subduing subduingage systems in the east side of the

[38:04] rink that we're there for the ball fields, which may

[38:07] have helped the situation. And thirdly, it was a different

[38:11] time of year. What the geotechnical report that was completed

[38:17] in July of 2024 for this project specifically. It identified.

[38:29] Groundwater conditions that would need to be dealt with. But

[38:35] nothing like was encountered in April and May of. 2026.

[38:43] It made a suggestion. That a. Major

[38:53] dewatering effort. Could be carried out. But the final recommendation

[39:01] said that if you know, paraphrase, but if you dig

[39:08] the excavations one by one and you dewater them locally

[39:15] and build them one by one, then you should be

[39:18] able to manage the water with local pumping. That's what

[39:28] the contractor priced was based on that statement. And so,

[39:36] um. Perhaps if we were at that stage of construction

[39:44] in July or August. Maybe the groundwater would have, uh,

[39:48] receded, but in the spring of the year and in

[39:53] order to maintain the project schedule, the decision was made

[39:57] to change the foundations to be able to keep the

[40:00] project on track. Thank you for me. Follow up. Uh,

[40:07] another concern I have is, and I'm sure you just

[40:10] did, but I just wondering, um, prior to designing the

[40:15] structure itself, um, you've, we've got one of the reasons

[40:19] for, uh, the higher than usual expected costs, uh, underground

[40:25] services. But we know the washroom there. We know that

[40:29] the lawn bowlings there. Would we not have taken locates

[40:34] before the design or at least before we started excavating

[40:37] to know where everything was? It seems like in the

[40:40] report, we just kind of started digging and we're surprised

[40:43] that they were there. Am I wrong with that assumption.

[40:50] Through you to manager McAllenie? Sue the chair. Um, uh.

[40:59] There were locate done ahead of start the dick. It

[41:04] turned out they were incomplete. But the park in general

[41:12] is a legacy park. That's had all kinds of different

[41:18] buildings and stuff on it. And, um. For instance,

[41:28] we knew roughly where the sewer from the Washroom building

[41:32] was. Just because of. Assumption more or less. But when

[41:38] it was located, we're 15 feet off from where it

[41:42] was. The water line that feeds the washroom building. It's

[41:48] not trace. It doesn't have a trace wire. The only

[41:52] way we know roughly where it is is because of

[41:56] old hand sketches, the previous parks, employees had made. There's

[42:04] a new electrical service that I believe was installed to

[42:11] the lawn bowling club. I believe it was installed when.

[42:15] Uh, The Oak Doy Ink was built by the look

[42:19] of it and where it is. That wasn't located anywhere

[42:24] on any draw. In half of the excavations. And there's

[42:34] 30 plus of them. And at least half the excavations.

[42:39] We discovered abandoned piping. Some of it life, some of

[42:43] it dead. Some of them we don't know what it

[42:48] was. Um, also at the south end and to the

[42:53] eight, so to the west of the washroom building, that's

[42:56] the hub for the whole park irrigation, Esther. And it's

[42:59] not on drawings anywhere. It's been installed over the years.

[43:05] And. Some of it is locatable. Some of it isn't.

[43:14] Very bad. I have that bug if other people time

[43:19] this one here was kind of concerning too, because to

[43:21] me, it could have been planned in the original. Um,

[43:25] cost of, of the, the, uh, The project before and

[43:30] not trying to pay for it now after the fact.

[43:33] And that is the, uh, the drainage infrastructure and to

[43:38] support future park wide water management improvements. Um, I just

[43:42] wonder why it wasn't considered at the start because that

[43:45] was something that we knew about headed time. Why would

[43:48] we not kind of work that into the cost the

[43:50] original cost when we, when we approve the project, why

[43:55] would we want to do it now that we're halfway

[43:57] done. Sue the chair, we had a design for that

[44:02] back as far as 2010. And it was never installed.

[44:08] And I can't speak to why. Um, it's certainly could

[44:15] have and should have been recognised when we were going

[44:19] to build this building with the bank. So for me,

[44:23] just it was just overlooked or you have, you'd really

[44:26] don't know why we didn't include it in the UNSO

[44:28] caused. Or the, I would say it was overlooked. Thank

[44:33] you. I believe I saw Councillor Doherty next and then

[44:36] Councillor Potts. Go ahead, Councillor Doherty. You're unmute.

[44:46] Oh, there you unmuted. Okay. Uh, thank you, Chair. Uh,

[44:50] Council Ring has, uh, a couple of the questions that

[44:57] I had, uh, with regard to, uh, what we knew

[45:01] and what we didn't know, uh, when we originally tendered,

[45:05] uh, this project, um, and I'm just wondering, it just

[45:12] leads me to say that I think we need. Not,

[45:19] not just for this project, not just for this department,

[45:22] but for all departments, there must be another process, uh,

[45:28] under which we can, uh, analyse and submit request for

[45:34] interest requests for quotations so that we are not coming

[45:40] around to situations like this where unanticipated costs, uh, have

[45:48] arisen that, you know, in a perfect world, uh, we

[45:53] should have known. So is that a question or are

[45:56] you directing that? Well, ultimately, I think it will be

[46:00] a question to the CAO if this is something that

[46:03] we can take a look at, you know, as a

[46:06] system issue. Uh, for the municipality. Um, but, uh, further

[46:15] to that, um. I, now that we are a little

[46:22] closer to, uh, identifying a location for a multi -

[46:28] use recreation facility, I really have a hard time. Justifying

[46:40] any enhancement to this project. In fact, I think it's

[46:44] unfortunate that, uh, this very generous funding that we received

[46:49] from the province, uh, could not have been, uh, put

[46:54] into a reserve and, and perhaps used, uh, ultimate multi

[47:01] - use recreation facility, you know, but here we are,

[47:05] um, we have a commitment, we have a deadline. So,

[47:10] uh, I guess I have no recourse, but to support.

[47:17] The costs that will allow us to complete by the

[47:22] deadline and take advantage of the provincial funding. Uh, but

[47:28] I certainly will not support, uh, any of the recommended

[47:33] enhancements. And then I also have a question. Uh, and

[47:40] through you to manage your McNulty, uh, is it possible

[47:46] for, uh, solar panels. To be installed on this structure

[47:52] so that at least we could recoup some cost, um,

[47:58] through a feeding tariff, uh, that we could actually, uh,

[48:05] power generated from solar panels to, uh, actually power all

[48:12] or part of, uh, The electrical requirements for this, this,

[48:17] uh, this facility. Thank you. Manager McNulty, do you want

[48:20] to handle that. Yes. Thank you through the chair. Um,

[48:27] there is a, um, an allowance in the structural design

[48:32] for solar panels on the root for the structure. There

[48:41] are. Different ways that solar panels could be installed on

[48:47] the roof. Um, one being that the solar panel's lay

[48:53] flat on the roof or at a slight angle to

[48:56] take advantage of the, uh, angle of the sun. The

[49:03] second would be to install a backing system. On the

[49:07] roof that would totally optimize the angle of the solar

[49:13] panels. What's included for in the design is the installation

[49:19] of solar panels on the roof. Not necessarily laying flat.

[49:26] But not on a racking system. But laying on the

[49:31] roof at a slight angle. So that's what's included in

[49:36] the design. We have to consider that anything else that

[49:44] we would add to the structure. Say like us sprinkler

[49:49] system in the future. Could take some of that capacity

[49:53] away. For solar panels. But the proportion that a sprinkler

[50:00] system would take away would be very small compared to

[50:06] the design factor that was included in the structural design

[50:09] for Soway. Um, anything further, Councillor Doherty.

[50:21] This, uh, it's another conversation that, um, I would actually

[50:26] like to take from here, um, not a decision that

[50:31] we can make today, uh, but, um. It would be

[50:38] nice to know if it were possible to install solar

[50:43] panels. What the cost benefit would be, because it sounds

[50:49] to me like that would be also an additional cost.

[50:54] But if, uh, we're capable of powering, say, just this

[50:59] facility, or if it were actually capable of powering some

[51:05] other aspects, uh, or facilities within the park, um, that

[51:10] could help us to make that decision. To assist in

[51:16] adding solar panels. But this would be a request that

[51:23] I, uh, would have to make outside of this particular

[51:27] conversation. And I will. Thank you. So, so the chair,

[51:35] I can respond partly to that is that, um, Sue

[51:40] Greenhouse gas emission reduction study. We have a full analysis

[51:45] of, uh, The solar panels that could be installed on

[51:49] the roof in different scenarios. And the amount of power

[51:54] that could be generated. And from there, you can take

[51:59] it as far as you want. The one project that

[52:03] we have in the budget that's awaiting an application for

[52:07] grant funding has been, and I'm actually this, that, that

[52:14] stream of grant funding, I think has disappeared now, but

[52:18] it's likely to be replaced with another one. Um, but

[52:22] in the budget, there's a proposed 10 million dollar project

[52:28] that would be 80 percent funded by grants. That would

[52:34] look at all of the facilities in central park. Including

[52:43] the arena, the ball diamonds, the curling club, potentially the

[52:48] why as a partner to be able to. Optimize all

[52:53] of those facilities with regards to greenhouse gas emissions. And

[53:01] get as much as a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse

[53:05] gas emissions from the park as a whole. So we

[53:09] do have that analysis. I don't have a, uh, with

[53:13] me. Thank you, manager McNulty. That is the Councillor Doherty

[53:17] said that's probably a discussion for another day. We've really

[53:20] got to focus on what we are discussing here today.

[53:23] CAO, did you wish to make a comment at all

[53:25] in regard to Councillor Doherty's comment about lessons learned, I

[53:29] suppose you'd say about utilities going forward. Thank you. Yes.

[53:33] I would, um, as a Director Qubit mentioned in her

[53:39] opening, um, uh, for this item, I think we have

[53:43] learned a few things that we would do differently moving

[53:46] forward if we were to start this project again from

[53:49] a bidding perspective, the contract management perspective. And, uh, we

[53:54] do have inflate as well. A fleet and facility service

[53:57] review. And I think this is one where we've had,

[54:01] uh, one department, uh, started facilities project. And now it's

[54:05] moved into another department. And I think looking at our

[54:09] fleet and facilities and in this case, facilities expertise moving

[54:13] forward is important as well. So, uh, yes, we will

[54:18] be, um, looking at and addressing a number of systematic

[54:22] things that I think could have at least alerted us

[54:25] earlier to some of the challenges that arose during this

[54:28] project. And hopefully even prior to bidding. Councillor Potts. Thanks,

[54:34] uh, Chair Beans. Um, I have a couple of comments,

[54:38] not necessarily questions, but, uh, I'll start off by saying

[54:41] that I'm, I'm actually with all due respect, extremely disappointed

[54:45] with this. And when we hear the discussions of lessons

[54:49] learned and the lessons learned, unfortunately at the cost of

[54:55] the, to the taxpayer, the two to 700, 000 to

[54:59] me is not acceptable. And I look at, um, when

[55:04] we talked initially, but this project, it was very clear

[55:07] what the key benefits were. And they were discussed initially.

[55:12] And, um, we see here from the presentation that the

[55:16] photos are April 15th with groundwater. And it was discussed

[55:22] and asked publicly here at whether it was through Community

[55:25] or Council, I believe in other business item a few

[55:28] months back. Can't quite remember the date. And there might've

[55:32] been some groundwater concerns, but there was certainly nothing of

[55:35] the nature of 700, 000 dollar overrun So to me

[55:39] when I look at this, I look at this as,

[55:41] uh, we're now getting into the end of August. We're

[55:45] expected to make a decision that the 11th hour on

[55:49] this item. And I just think again, it hits the

[55:51] media. So we get the report when it hits the

[55:54] agenda. It hits the media Monday. The community blows up

[55:59] on the fact of this overrun and we're expected on

[56:01] the pressures of us to make this decision, which I

[56:03] also think is unacceptable. The, uh, utility locates, uh, in

[56:08] my opinion, in my mind, maybe not all locates or

[56:12] all utilities, you know, can be located, but there certainly

[56:16] should be able to be all located. And if there's,

[56:19] as the statement was made in complete locates, the job

[56:22] should never have started if there was incomplete locates by

[56:24] law. So you look at a lot of this, uh,

[56:29] that's being presented. And again, I know staff have probably

[56:32] worked very hard on it. And there's probably become a

[56:35] lot of surprises. But this was publicly spoke about through

[56:39] the contractor in the community four months ago that there

[56:42] was these issues and these problems. And it kind of

[56:45] circulated around the community. And again, here at the 11th

[56:47] hour, it's being presented to us. So with all that

[56:52] being said, and I do like the idea that Councillor

[56:55] Doherty's brought forward about the solar panels. However, I would

[56:59] be very terrified to understand what the cost would be

[57:02] and the overrun of those costs for any additional work

[57:04] that would be done for that. So with all this

[57:07] kind of in my conclusion, I do not support any

[57:10] extra enhancements. I will not support this. And I think

[57:14] that the accountability and we have to be responsible to

[57:19] our taxpayer. And I think at 700, 000 for this

[57:23] overrun is not acceptable. And therefore we should not be

[57:27] spending this additional money. And I'll leave my comments at

[57:30] that. Councillor Jeffrey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So my colleagues

[57:38] have hit on a number of really important, uh, point.

[57:43] And I appreciate Staff acknowledging, um, lessons learned and ways

[57:49] forward. Cause that, that is important. But also I think

[57:52] it needs to be acknowledged publicly some other way because

[57:56] Council is really taking a schlacking out there on social

[57:59] media. The council did this. Council doesn't do that. Council

[58:02] does this. Council didn't know. So that's not on us.

[58:05] And, um, so I think there needs to be some,

[58:09] uh, acknowledgement either through our, um, Communications Protocol somehow. Um,

[58:19] my concerns more with respect to the funding that we

[58:22] have ongoing. And I wonder if there's an obligation on

[58:27] the town when the scope of a project is significantly

[58:30] proposed to change to the tune of 36 percent Is

[58:34] there an onus on us to give further notice to

[58:38] the province and have that funding, um, approval updated. And

[58:44] if so, if there is that responsibility, what delay would

[58:48] that potentially pose? And I'm not sure that's one you

[58:50] can answer now or maybe it's one we've looked at

[58:52] and have an understanding that we have no responsibility under

[58:55] the contract to do that. And I don't know who

[58:58] that is through to, uh, Director Cubit. Yes. Director Cubit.

[59:03] Sure. Uh, thank you through you. Um, I would, my

[59:07] understanding would be that, um, yes, it's always appropriate to

[59:10] update our funders when we have changes to our scope.

[59:13] Um, I would recognise that, um, uh, The increased cost

[59:19] of the project still fits within the parameters of the

[59:24] funding. If you are reducing the Town commitment, then it's

[59:27] a, obviously a problem with matching funds. Um, and, uh,

[59:32] just also want to emphasize that the scope of the

[59:36] project in terms of the objectives that it's delivering to

[59:39] the community as we're in our application for this funding

[59:43] are still entirely maintained within the existing design and classification

[59:49] and the activities can happen within that space. So we

[59:52] don't feel that that is at risk. Thank you. Through

[59:55] you, thank you for that response. Um, and so when

[59:59] I look at the enhancements and what we originally wanted

[1:00:02] to do with this property in terms of having an

[1:00:05] available, uh, winter and summer months to offset our minor

[1:00:10] sports times, not available currently through our existing facilities, um,

[1:00:17] uh, this overrun does not include such things as we,

[1:00:21] uh, change room, he did change rooms. We're still going

[1:00:24] to have kids running from Central Park to the arena.

[1:00:30] The change rooms in central don't. All times accommodate the

[1:00:35] teams working through the indoor ice surface plus the outdoor

[1:00:40] ice surface. Um. So I'm really concerned about where the

[1:00:46] future. Um, changes we need for here are going to

[1:00:51] come from was spending all of this. So with all

[1:00:56] of that said, the one thing I wanted to ask

[1:00:58] too is there would be no, uh, shooting of pucks

[1:01:01] and things after the noise bylaw. Time frames, I assume,

[1:01:06] or maybe is that difficult to enforce. Through you. Got

[1:01:11] to. Um, probably Director Cut or whomever familiar with the

[1:01:16] restrictions at the noise. I know lights go out automatically

[1:01:20] at our parks at 11. P. m. But I don't

[1:01:23] know about Director Cubitt. Thank you. Um, I would have

[1:01:27] to verify, but, um, my understanding our current noise by

[1:01:31] law doesn't actually have specific times, but it's sort of

[1:01:35] 24 hours if the noise was success of then our

[1:01:37] community can expect, um, a response to that. So, uh,

[1:01:41] I mean, we're currently managing that at the park. It's

[1:01:43] something we would continue to monitor and manage the best

[1:01:45] we can. Okay. I might be thinking of construction times.

[1:01:49] Clerk's nodding your head. All right. So I believe the

[1:01:52] CAO has a response. Um, before you got too far

[1:01:58] through you before you got too far from your last

[1:02:01] comment, um, there is a site layout consideration in place

[1:02:05] for, uh, change rooms. And I would prefer that the

[1:02:10] project team talked to that. But I just thought you

[1:02:12] might like to know that as you went by. Great.

[1:02:17] Through the chairs, management multiplies. There is a, um, a,

[1:02:23] um. Conceptual plan for where CAN type change rooms would

[1:02:29] go on the site. Part of it has to do

[1:02:33] part of the delay with CCANs. Is to do with

[1:02:38] order of operations. So build the MOOF structure first, get

[1:02:45] rid of that interference. Install Dwayneage system so that the

[1:02:55] gathering area, the area east and north of the washrooms,

[1:03:00] uh, between the washrooms and the curling club so that

[1:03:04] that drains properly. And the process of that develop the

[1:03:09] place where you can put the CCANs where they can

[1:03:13] stay there for the next 10, 15 years. And, um,

[1:03:20] do it sequentially and not manager so that you're not

[1:03:23] so that we're not tripping over ourselves sort of thing.

[1:03:29] The other thing that I think is important to mention

[1:03:35] is that that area. Between the curling club and the

[1:03:39] washroom building is also the area where the ice resurfacer

[1:03:44] has to come out of the curling club and onto

[1:03:47] the ice. None of that area can be treated with

[1:03:51] sand or salt. So otherwise it would get tracked onto

[1:03:55] the ice surface. So it becomes very important that we

[1:04:01] have good drainage in that area so that we're not

[1:04:04] dealing with ongoing ice problems. Okay. Thank you for that.

[1:04:10] So I think probably where this is leading me too

[1:04:13] is I think we need to fix the drain each.

[1:04:17] Uh, that's what we need to do. But as far

[1:04:18] as enhancements go at this point, I think by fixing

[1:04:23] the drainage, we're serving exactly getting what we wanted the

[1:04:26] roof to do. And we can move on to the

[1:04:28] sekans and other things. So, um, that's where I am

[1:04:32] so far. Thank you. Actually Councillor McCulloch is next. And

[1:04:35] then there and then the deputy mayor. Thank you, Chair.

[1:04:41] Um, through you to a manager McNulty, um, I've landed

[1:04:45] in very much the same place as, uh, as Councillor

[1:04:48] Jeffrey just mentioned, I think remedying the drainage issue is

[1:04:52] important. I just wanted to clarify if there's 150 to

[1:04:55] do the initial or the phase one of that. Does

[1:04:58] that produce the required benefit that we're looking for or

[1:05:02] do we need to also go to phase two to

[1:05:03] actually. Achieve a good drainage result. Sue the chair, the

[1:05:08] first hundred and fifty thousand dollars only gets the infrastructure

[1:05:12] around the rank. It would be non - functional. Until

[1:05:17] the 50, the phase two was completed and provides the

[1:05:21] outlet to the Minnesota drain. Okay. Thanks. I just wanted

[1:05:25] to clarify that. So it is a 350 item, not

[1:05:27] a, um, again, I think that's fine. Um, and then

[1:05:32] just in general, as I came in, this may be

[1:05:35] my remembering recollection of this as it came through the

[1:05:38] process. I understood the facility's use was always in my

[1:05:43] history intended to be a 12 month facility. And so

[1:05:47] I'm, I'm concerned that items like sprinklers, which are required

[1:05:52] to be a 12 month facility. We're not in the

[1:05:55] original scope or specification for the building. And that they're

[1:05:58] coming up at this point in time. So I'm wondering

[1:06:01] where that, um, might have emerged from or have I

[1:06:05] missed, missed things along the way, which is entirely possible.

[1:06:09] I would show you a frustration. Thank you. Is that

[1:06:13] it. Um. Yes. Thank you. Mayor Hamlin. While I'll just

[1:06:23] say I appreciate your candor here today. This is very

[1:06:27] unfortunate situation for staff and for council. And I, I

[1:06:34] know no one's enjoying this discussion. Um, least of all

[1:06:38] me. I am struggling with our community. We all know

[1:06:45] wants to have a multi - use recreation complex. And

[1:06:50] that is going to cause a lot of money. And

[1:06:52] to put any money into an outdoor reef structure and

[1:06:57] its connection to an arena and so on and so

[1:06:59] on. It's just not sitting well with me because I

[1:07:02] don't feel like I have in my mind a picture

[1:07:05] of what our overall recreational uses are going to look

[1:07:09] like in the fullness of time. And even when I

[1:07:13] look at the arena there, the central park arena with

[1:07:17] the sprung structure over it. What I've heard time and

[1:07:20] time again is the limited lifespan on those roofs. And

[1:07:25] I might ask, uh, through you, um, chair in a

[1:07:29] second, uh, if that's true. But if that is true

[1:07:34] and I don't know what the lifespan would be, I

[1:07:36] hear 10 years, 12 years, you know, where will that

[1:07:39] rink fit into our future plan if we are proceeding

[1:07:43] to build what I hope will be a robust multi

[1:07:47] - use recreation complex, uh, with rinks. And what will

[1:07:52] happen to the YMCA building there? To me, that's a

[1:07:56] huge question mark in the fullness of time. What's going

[1:07:59] to happen with that building. And then, and then I

[1:08:02] start thinking, just so you know, where my brain goes,

[1:08:04] what's going to happen to that site? Maybe we'll always

[1:08:07] have a, I'll just say maybe we'll always have a

[1:08:09] curling club and maybe we'll always have an outdoor rink

[1:08:13] for recreational purposes and pickleball and all kinds of other

[1:08:17] things. But maybe we won't need a place for garage

[1:08:20] sales. Maybe the curling club will still be good. Um,

[1:08:24] maybe the drainage will be looking after in some future

[1:08:27] project. So I guess what I'm thinking, uh, right now

[1:08:33] is I know we have contractual obligations to finish this

[1:08:38] project, which is the 500, 000 dollar total amount. And

[1:08:43] I would be, of course, in support. Our town has

[1:08:47] to honour its contractional obligations. But in terms of enhancements

[1:08:51] at this time, I would say no. Um, if there

[1:08:56] is drainage issues there, I'd say let's do what we're

[1:08:59] doing now. We'll wait a few days baseball won't take

[1:09:02] place. You know, it won't be wonderful, but, you know,

[1:09:06] for now, I think we should live with it. If

[1:09:10] it's too noisy for the neighbourhood, we'll deal with it.

[1:09:13] And maybe we'll have to shut down things earlier. Um,

[1:09:16] or if a future budget, we say, Hey, we got

[1:09:18] lots of money. Let's spend, you know, whatever it takes

[1:09:22] for improving the acoustics. We can look at it at

[1:09:25] that time. Um, so that's my sense of this, uh,

[1:09:30] at this point. Let's wait and get a big rec

[1:09:33] plan in place. Thank you. Thank you. Before I go

[1:09:35] to the Deputy Mayor, just clarity here because you had

[1:09:38] mentioned 500, 000, uh, Councillor McCulloch and Councillor Jeffrey were

[1:09:43] talking about, I think 250 or 350 for the drainage

[1:09:47] issues. So I want to be clear about what figures

[1:09:50] we will be eventually talking about. But so could I

[1:09:53] just respond to that? So, uh, what my position is

[1:09:57] unless I'm convinced otherwise is we're on the hook for

[1:10:00] 510, 000 dollars to complete this project. And maybe I'll

[1:10:04] just confirm that through you, uh, please. Yes. Director Qubit,

[1:10:10] I think or Manager McNulty. Is it 510. That's correct.

[1:10:16] That's what essentially the current commitments are to be able

[1:10:20] to finish the project. And I'm sorry. I just had

[1:10:24] one more thing on my mind. In terms of the

[1:10:26] geotechnical report from 2024, um, is Staff considering whether we

[1:10:31] have any remedies against the company that would have done

[1:10:34] that report, which who of course would be insured. I

[1:10:37] would presume. Or could staff look into that. That it

[1:10:42] does, that is a discussion that Staff have had. We

[1:10:45] have not. Um, taken action on that as yet. Um,

[1:10:51] because right at this moment, it's more important to keep

[1:10:54] the project moving. But that is certainly discussion that needs

[1:10:58] to follow up. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy

[1:11:01] Mayor. Uh, thank you, Chair Beans. And might get me

[1:11:06] over. I have my own questions, but that was bringing

[1:11:09] up another one in my mind because the comment was

[1:11:12] that we're dealing with 510. When I read the report,

[1:11:16] my understanding was that the 510 wasn't something that we'd

[1:11:19] settled on. Um, it's what the contractor has settled on.

[1:11:24] And, um, my understanding is, is that we're negotiating that

[1:11:27] hard. And I really hope we are because, um, and

[1:11:31] I guess I get clarification first to you if I

[1:11:35] could share the 510 is what's being requested by the

[1:11:39] contractor. And we're looking at that long and hard, um,

[1:11:43] as to whether or not we're going to agree to

[1:11:45] it. I think Manager McNaughter confirmed that the 510 was

[1:11:50] what the contractors requesting. Is that not true. Uh, The

[1:11:55] Fine Tan includes the claim from the contractor. Another piece

[1:12:04] of that is an adjustment to the area of the

[1:12:09] concrete perimeter slab, which is outside of the claim from

[1:12:14] the contract, but it would be an additional cost. And.

[1:12:25] I remember here.

[1:12:37] And a ventilated ridge cap, which I believe is, uh,

[1:12:42] for quite reasonable cost is worthwhile to be able to

[1:12:46] release humanity from the building. And reduce condensation issues. Within

[1:12:54] the building. And to resolve some, um, remaining

[1:13:04] underground utility relocations. That's a, that's a essentially what it,

[1:13:11] what it is. So it's, it's the bare minimum to

[1:13:16] get to completion. Thank you. And follow up. It's so

[1:13:22] confusing. And we've already talked about the fact that we're

[1:13:27] getting this, uh, the day before we go lame duck.

[1:13:32] When I, when I hear numbers and some of this

[1:13:34] is this and some of this is that. That's why

[1:13:37] I come out and I'm looking at it like a

[1:13:39] 50 percent increase. I know Councillor Jeffrey are probably netting

[1:13:43] it down looking at what's enhancements and what's not. But,

[1:13:46] uh, it's, it's so troubling to be dealing with this

[1:13:49] now. And so I, I want to get a clear

[1:13:52] understanding of when this was known about. And I think

[1:13:56] my question then through you, if I could, I'd ask

[1:13:59] CAO Skinner, like when did we know about this. CIO.

[1:14:08] Through the chair. Uh, I was given a heads up

[1:14:14] some time ago. I think at least six weeks ago

[1:14:17] and was given a detailed, more detailed briefing, um, about.

[1:14:23] Four weeks ago, uh, there were, I had a number

[1:14:26] of questions that were not unlike the questions that are

[1:14:29] being asked by Council today that involved going back to

[1:14:33] the request for proposal to the engineers. The engineers reports.

[1:14:38] Um, The Agreement with those companies. And similarly, what work

[1:14:43] was absolutely essential. Uh, so it has taken this long

[1:14:47] to, uh, to get to Council, but we did feel

[1:14:50] that, um, we needed to make sure we had a

[1:14:52] good understanding of, of these numbers, um, the project prior

[1:14:57] to bringing it forward. Again, follow up if I make

[1:15:02] is, um, that does nothing to help with my frustration

[1:15:05] level. Um, and, and I'm just going to say, and

[1:15:09] I'm not going to go into detail. I think it,

[1:15:11] uh, it's a direct bearing on the existing governance structure

[1:15:14] we have. But you mentioned about the enhancements. And then

[1:15:19] the report, it talks about the fact that we don't

[1:15:21] do them now. They'll be costlier in the future. Do

[1:15:25] we have an idea of what it would cost us

[1:15:27] to do them if we completed the project without doing

[1:15:31] the enhancements, um, what would be the extra cost. And

[1:15:34] not the cost that Councillor McCullough is brought up, the

[1:15:37] ones that would need to be done to complete. I

[1:15:40] mean, if there's work that has to be done and

[1:15:43] it's 210, 000 if that's what it is, what would

[1:15:46] it be in dollars if we did it. When we

[1:15:51] were going to complete it? Um, in a hole.

[1:16:03] Sue the chair, that is not something that we've really,

[1:16:08] uh, thought through, but I would suggest that. The drainage

[1:16:14] around the rink can be done later. It's just going

[1:16:19] to be a lot more difficult and time consuming. Once

[1:16:24] the building structure is there. And so we have a

[1:16:27] window in the next two or three weeks to be

[1:16:32] able to put that in while those obstructions aren't there.

[1:16:38] It can certainly be done later. It'll be a more

[1:16:41] tedious process. Presumably that means it might be a bit

[1:16:45] more expensive. To do the first phase of it. The

[1:16:49] second phase is what it is. The second phase being

[1:16:55] the outlet to the Minnesota dream. So it could all

[1:16:57] be done later as a single project. Part of it

[1:17:05] will be more tedious and more time consuming. Therefore more

[1:17:09] expensive if we do it later. Now marginally more expensive.

[1:17:16] I don't know. Yeah. And, and I too have concerns

[1:17:20] when I, when I'm thinking of these types of things

[1:17:22] about what's the future going to be about that particular

[1:17:26] site as it is. Right. Um, if there was going

[1:17:29] to be work that would take place on the one

[1:17:31] ball diamond, maybe it would be easy to, to do

[1:17:35] the structure underneath it rank at that point in time

[1:17:38] or easier. So I, it comes down to, um, I

[1:17:43] was pleased to hear that we are pursuing the idea

[1:17:46] of whether or not there's liability on the, um, on

[1:17:50] the, where we found fault in the, I guess the

[1:17:57] studies that were done. And the locations of some of

[1:18:00] these things that we didn't know about, if we can

[1:18:03] final liability back on the third party and recover from,

[1:18:06] from there. But in the end, um, hearing that it

[1:18:11] jeopardizes, um, the completion by December, um, 2026, which is

[1:18:17] a requirement for our 980, 000 dollars of funding. I

[1:18:25] don't see a choice without, uh, without a lot of,

[1:18:28] uh, constraination to proceed. I think the last question I'll

[1:18:32] ask is if I recollected, I thought this ice surface

[1:18:37] was actually designed that it was going to be twin

[1:18:40] maybe at, at some point in time. And I, I'm

[1:18:44] thinking if, if that was, am I wrong on that?

[1:18:46] Maybe I, maybe I'm totally out in left field. Like

[1:18:49] I should ask that question first. Was it not supposed

[1:18:52] to be something that could be possibly twinned and, and

[1:18:55] kind of married with the, with the curling club. So

[1:18:58] they could use the one central, uh, ice making Councillor

[1:19:03] Jeffrey can respond to that just specifically, uh, when the

[1:19:07] project, when I originally brought the project in 2003 or

[1:19:10] four, it was, um, it was going to be designed

[1:19:14] so that it could be enclosed, not necessarily twinned with

[1:19:17] anything with the, it was twinning use of the ice,

[1:19:21] um, ice plants, but that it could be, um, bricked.

[1:19:27] Um, or enclosed as an individual, um, I've asked that

[1:19:32] question before since actually this term, maybe last term. And

[1:19:36] I've been advised that when they went in and did

[1:19:39] the investigation, that structure was not existing. So. If I

[1:19:44] may chair, so the twinning that I heard was more

[1:19:47] about the twinning with the curling club as a nice

[1:19:50] plant, um, situation. Sure. The ice plant for sure. Okay.

[1:19:54] So that's where my confusion comes from on that. And,

[1:19:58] um, because I'm still confused on, as you said, it

[1:20:03] was supposed to be. And this came to light when

[1:20:05] we, we had to make the decision about the roof

[1:20:08] that it was supposed to be prepared for a roof

[1:20:12] eventually. So, um, those are all my comments right now,

[1:20:16] guys, chair. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Perry. Well, thank

[1:20:19] you, Chair Baines. Um, compliment you all of all last

[1:20:23] great questions and covered a lot of the stuff I

[1:20:25] wanted to ask. But the, um, Manager McNulty, you said,

[1:20:30] uh, you just answered a question. I did have, um,

[1:20:34] the actual drainage will not be connected to the outlet.

[1:20:41] Down by the trail. I can't remember the name of

[1:20:43] that little creek. So it will not be connected there

[1:20:45] if we do the bare minimum. That's correct. Okay. So

[1:20:49] if we do the drainage around the rink, where's the

[1:20:52] water going to go? There will essentially not be drainage

[1:20:58] around the rank. Okay. But the infrastructure would be there

[1:21:02] to connect to phase two that would take it to

[1:21:05] the Minnesota drain. Okay. So the water's still going to

[1:21:10] sit there. I gather in the short term until that

[1:21:13] out loud is created. Okay. All right. Thank you. Anything

[1:21:18] else. No, actually I have a question first that I'd

[1:21:22] like to present two. To Director Qubit, which is number

[1:21:28] one. I'm confused a little bit about the numbers that

[1:21:31] are floating around because we've discussed the 510 that is

[1:21:35] under discussion, shall we say with the contractor to get

[1:21:38] the drain work done. And then the distinction between 510

[1:21:42] and the 702 that you're asking for here is that

[1:21:46] entire difference, quote, enhancements. Um, that we'd be talking about.

[1:21:54] Thank you to you. So at Manager McNulty, can chime

[1:21:58] in here. But so part A being the project completion

[1:22:01] requirements. This is, I think, leave page nine of the

[1:22:05] Staff Report, 510, 000. Part B, these are the operational

[1:22:09] in site infrastructure enhancements, which includes the drainage. Astinated at

[1:22:15] up to 360, 000. The full amount being requested, the

[1:22:22] Can Comedy boast those, I realised isn't just the addition

[1:22:25] of one and two because, you know, there's been some

[1:22:27] payments made, that sort of thing. So essentially to accomplish

[1:22:31] part A and part B is the 702, 000. If

[1:22:34] Council were to decide to only support, um, part A,

[1:22:40] then you could reduce the 702, 000 dollar quest by

[1:22:44] the amount of Part B 360, 000 for a total

[1:22:46] of 342, 842 dollars, but that's not include your drainage.

[1:22:51] Thank you. And one more question. And that is in

[1:22:54] regard to this very tight date of December 31st and

[1:22:57] the schedule that Manager McNaughty has told us about. Is

[1:23:00] there any potential wiggle room with the province about that

[1:23:03] date, particularly in regard to the challenges we've had to

[1:23:05] face this year. I would like to suggest it's always

[1:23:11] worth a phone call. And I, um, had good experiences

[1:23:15] with the funders in the past accommodating such requests, uh,

[1:23:19] but I wouldn't want to guarantee it. And I'm not

[1:23:21] sure if Manager Penalty has a different take on that.

[1:23:27] I think you can always ask my understanding is that

[1:23:31] the provincial government is usually very tight on their timeframes

[1:23:36] because they want to hit their fiscal year end.

[1:23:47] Oh, secondly blasted. With something Karen said. Well, then I'll

[1:23:57] ask a supplementary if we, um, stopped with, uh, part

[1:24:02] B would that increase the chances of making the December

[1:24:05] 31st deadline. So, so the other thing to consider. Aside

[1:24:15] from the December 31st deadline is the 2026 27. Winter

[1:24:21] season. So if we want to have the rank available

[1:24:25] for this coming winter season, it's the same schedule. Yeah.

[1:24:30] Okay. Thank you. Um, Kallok. Thank you, Jermaines. Um, and

[1:24:37] this is a comment that I doesn't require response. I've,

[1:24:40] I've altered my, my thinking on this. I think if

[1:24:43] we're, you know, not proceeding with sprinklers, this becomes a

[1:24:47] winter time roof. And if it's only a wintertime roof,

[1:24:50] I don't think we need to tackle the drainage issue.

[1:24:53] Today. I would feel better, but not being committed to

[1:24:56] that expense. It works perfectly well now, except in the

[1:25:00] spring. And it's going to fulfill the same purpose, but

[1:25:02] with a roof. So I think that's where I'd land.

[1:25:06] Uh, director. Uh, thank you through you. Um, I just

[1:25:11] want to provide a little bit of clarity on what

[1:25:12] this sprinkler system would do. Uh, and maybe misinformation. The

[1:25:21] sprinkler system doesn't impact the 12 month of a year

[1:25:24] usage. It impacts the type of activity that can happen.

[1:25:27] So all the sporting events can still occur. Anything that

[1:25:31] would typically happen on a slab, whether there be ice

[1:25:35] on it or just concrete slab can still occur, uh,

[1:25:39] 12 months of the year. And the fact we're putting

[1:25:40] a roof on helps with, um, the rain, the sun,

[1:25:45] the issues that really sometimes shrink our ices and in

[1:25:48] particular, um, so all of those things can still be

[1:25:51] accomplished. It's the, when we talked originally about, um, all

[1:25:56] the benefits in this roof could do one of the

[1:25:58] things we noted were, uh, and community activities. So anything

[1:26:03] that's not the sporting and the primary activities, this is

[1:26:06] what's impacted by lack of a sprinkler system. Um, like

[1:26:10] yeah, expanding mother of all yard sales out onto the

[1:26:13] surface, which has combustibles. That's what's prevented by not having

[1:26:17] as precursor. So thank you. Yeah. Sorry. And that, that

[1:26:23] aligns with my thinking. It's not a current use for

[1:26:25] community events. It's a sporting facility and it will carry

[1:26:28] on in that function. Three Councillor Ring and the Battle.

[1:26:36] I think a lot of them with the additional questions

[1:26:39] we just recently had, have been included. Um, we weren't

[1:26:43] planning by the, uh, one of the enhancements that you've

[1:26:48] got included here. Um, was the troughs and downspouts. So

[1:26:53] I don't think we were ever really worried about trains.

[1:26:56] It's because I can't see putting a roof on without

[1:26:59] eave trough and downspouts, but that's just an opinion. So

[1:27:03] like I thought, I took from that that we really

[1:27:06] didn't have a real big concern about, um, drainage with

[1:27:11] the original design anyways. So I don't know whether the

[1:27:15] truth. You toss and downspouts were not included in the

[1:27:18] original design. We're not included in the tender. Um. They

[1:27:24] would be an enhancement that would, um, their comfort thing.

[1:27:30] To keep people from walking through a rain curtain off

[1:27:35] the edge of the roof. But further, if you were

[1:27:38] going to install a drainage system, then you can take

[1:27:42] that downspout water directly into the drainage system. And it's

[1:27:47] not on the ground. It doesn't freeze and so on.

[1:27:54] One real quick. So that is we have to have

[1:27:58] some type of drainage system coming out of that washroom.

[1:28:01] So I mean, that it still could have been considered

[1:28:03] at the time of, uh, putting it out to tender.

[1:28:06] So anyways, that's it. Thank you. And it's come about

[1:28:12] from, uh, Councillor Perry's question and even follow up by

[1:28:16] Councillor McCullough. And I'm going to apologise at mostly to

[1:28:22] Clair Cohen, cause I'm going to direct the question towards

[1:28:25] her. And I know that it's actually a manager Truman

[1:28:29] is handling the bulk of insurance consideration. But if we've

[1:28:34] got a known laying water situation, uh, I think would,

[1:28:39] would cause this liability concerns. And now we're going to

[1:28:43] do some work underneath, but still have that situation as

[1:28:48] a result that will fix some other time. I would

[1:28:51] really have liked to have heard from our insurance company

[1:28:53] that, uh, that we're protected. Um, again, utmost apology, if

[1:28:59] you can't unster, I totally understand. But, um, sure like

[1:29:03] to know from, from the staff, how they feel about

[1:29:07] any liability situation, um, as I say, knowingly leaving a

[1:29:13] situation that, uh, that will be fixed at a later

[1:29:17] date. Thank you. Thank you through the chair to address

[1:29:24] that question. Obviously if there is going to be areas

[1:29:27] that would create liability, the town still has a requirement

[1:29:31] to undertake, you know, uh, our diligence and ensuring that,

[1:29:35] you know, areas are partitioned off or roped off caution.

[1:29:39] Information is put up that we look at alternative methods

[1:29:42] to ensuring safety, but we do have an obligation. I

[1:29:45] think regardless of, of next steps that staff would be,

[1:29:49] um, putting in place, um, at that point, um, that's

[1:29:55] all right have to say right now, because I don't

[1:29:57] know the extent of what this potential liability could look

[1:30:00] like. And I apologise, that update in that way. And

[1:30:06] I think what I would want to make sure we

[1:30:08] knew, and I think the clerk is saying that is,

[1:30:12] um, this will be looked at further by staff. Um,

[1:30:19] it's not too far away from 27's budget, right? Um,

[1:30:25] I'd like to thank if it was a concern of

[1:30:28] staff. And I think that's what I've heard. They'd be

[1:30:30] bringing it forward. And that extra work that we talked

[1:30:34] about isn't going to be something that's held off if

[1:30:37] they feel there's a liability situation there that we need

[1:30:40] to address. So I'm, I'm fine with that comment. I

[1:30:45] still am struggling with supporting, but I just don't see

[1:30:48] any way possible not to support the full 980, 000

[1:30:53] dollars that we're talking. And get it done and done

[1:30:58] in time. So we don't lose to 980 that we've

[1:31:01] got. Clerk almost. I do want to try and bring

[1:31:04] this to a vote. But yes. Thank you. I just

[1:31:06] wanted to note that Councillor Doherty's had her. I know

[1:31:09] it's going to her actually next and then to Councillor

[1:31:12] Jeffrey. Yeah. Councillor Doherty, sir. I'm so sorry, Chair, uh,

[1:31:19] for piping up again. But, uh, when Manager McNulty was

[1:31:23] itemizing, um, what was included in, uh, 510, 000, which

[1:31:30] is identified as project completion. He mentioned extension of the

[1:31:36] cement slab, uh, to the outer perimeter and also a

[1:31:42] roof cap, uh, humidity release, uh, that may not be

[1:31:48] what he called it, but, uh, that item. So I

[1:31:52] just wanted to be clear were those enhancements as well

[1:31:59] or were they also necessary for project completion? Are there

[1:32:05] any items that are included in project completion, uh, that

[1:32:09] could be considered enhancements could be a due later, uh,

[1:32:15] uh, item. Thank you. Senator McNulty. The chair. In particular,

[1:32:24] those two items. The reason to pursue the ventilated roof

[1:32:32] cap at this point is because, um. The, uh, The

[1:32:38] way that that ridge cap is formed between a nonventilated

[1:32:43] cap and a ventilated cop is slightly different. And where

[1:32:48] the roof steel stands now, which is a custom colour

[1:32:54] custom run by the manufacturer. It's still sitting in rules.

[1:32:59] Of, of sheet metal. So it's yet to be formed

[1:33:03] into its final form. And for, uh, I believe the

[1:33:13] quoted cost for that is 12, 800 dollars. So not

[1:33:16] a whole lot of money in the big picture, uh,

[1:33:19] to be able to switch from a sealed ridge cap

[1:33:25] to a ventilated ridge cap and gain that benefit. To

[1:33:29] come back and try and do that later, it would

[1:33:31] be difficult to be able to match the steel. The

[1:33:38] second item. The extension of the, uh. Perimeter concrete

[1:33:47] slab, um, is another issue from the tender stage where

[1:33:57] there was, uh, miss. Um, misconception of what the

[1:34:07] perimeter slab extents would be. And during a clarification in

[1:34:14] an addendum, the matter was actually made worse. And so,

[1:34:20] um, what. The proposed parameter forest lab included in the

[1:34:29] 510, 000 dollars is essentially to take the perimeter slab

[1:34:35] more or less from the rink boards to the edge

[1:34:39] of the roof. Around the circumference of the Rick. As

[1:34:47] opposed to leaving at gravel. Or, um, some other treatment.

[1:34:57] But in order to finish off that, so it's a

[1:34:59] clean area around the exterior of the rink and an

[1:35:04] egress pathway. It needs really needs to be concrete. Follow

[1:35:11] up at all. Uh, yeah, only to ask, uh, do

[1:35:16] you have an estimate just for that, uh, extension. Through

[1:35:23] you, to manage your McNulty. I do.

[1:35:33] Um. It's one of those things that is still in

[1:35:37] the negotiation. But I would say it's, uh, approximately a

[1:35:44] hundred thousand dollars of the hundred and ten, Thank you.

[1:35:53] Anything further. Yeah. Thank you. Um, and is that something

[1:36:03] that could be retrofit. Adding the, the cement at a

[1:36:13] later date on top of the gravel. Perhaps in some

[1:36:19] areas, um, certainly at the primary access points to the

[1:36:28] ice wink. Though it needs to be a hard surface

[1:36:31] layer or stuff will be tracked on the ice. Agreed,

[1:36:37] agreed. But I'm just wondering if there's an opportunity here

[1:36:41] to complete just what is necessary for now. And without,

[1:36:50] uh, compromising the integrity of the project. So the, through

[1:36:56] the chair, um, just this morning, actually we had a

[1:37:00] site meeting where we reviewed the extent of that parameter

[1:37:04] ice lab. And at the south end of the rink,

[1:37:13] we have, reduced the size of it at the south

[1:37:17] end of the rink to bring it in closer to

[1:37:19] the boards so that we still have a concrete perimeter

[1:37:25] slab, but it's not totally out to the footprint of

[1:37:29] the building at the south end with the idea that

[1:37:34] at some point in the future a landscaping feature can

[1:37:37] be put there to, uh, direct people and how they

[1:37:44] access the facility. Thank you. Anything else Councillor Doherty. Uh,

[1:37:51] no, thank you. Thank you. Those are my questions. No,

[1:37:57] actually for the last time I'm going to Councillor Geoffrey,

[1:38:00] but I'm going to hear from Councillor Jeffrey first and

[1:38:02] then I'll come to you. Councillor Jeffrey. Uh, no more

[1:38:05] questions. Just clarification because this has been like nailing jello

[1:38:09] to a tree for me. Um, so if I just

[1:38:13] want to complete it and this might align with Councillor

[1:38:16] McCulloch and not do anything with the drainage right now,

[1:38:18] because it's not going to run out till phase two.

[1:38:21] That's 510, 000 up to 510. Correct. No, I don't.

[1:38:27] Think so. They just will say yes. Um, if I

[1:38:32] could just add something. I think what I heard, uh,

[1:38:36] Director Qubit's sakes. I wrote it down, uh, given what's

[1:38:40] been spent and blah, blah, blah, to do the first

[1:38:43] phase right now. Or to complete the contract is 342,

[1:38:49] 842 dollars. Correct. But you could maybe ask, she's gnawing,

[1:38:58] but she's naughty. Yes, correct. Still confused. Well, the difference

[1:39:06] between 345 and 510. That's if that's a, if that's

[1:39:12] a negotiation. No. Thing being included within. I'm still thinking

[1:39:21] the number is five, 10, but I mean, even at

[1:39:23] that, I'm feeling a little ill. But, um, I just,

[1:39:27] I would really like somebody to please make this succinct.

[1:39:31] So I know what I'm voting on. Cause I'm not

[1:39:33] going to vote for the 702 no matter where we're

[1:39:35] going on this Mayor Hamlin. Can you address this issue?

[1:39:38] Yeah. I think, and I may just ask for Director

[1:39:41] Qubit's assistance in this. But as I understood, um, because,

[1:39:47] uh, certain amounts of funds have already been spent that

[1:39:51] in order to in fact complete the project, the 510

[1:39:56] number is really an all - rounded 345, 000. So

[1:40:01] if we just wanted to do what's necessary to finish

[1:40:05] the project with no enhancements, it's 345, 000. Right. And

[1:40:14] if I could just ask through you if Director Qubit

[1:40:17] could confirm that. If, if I may for complete clarity,

[1:40:24] um, I'd like to direct us to page eight of

[1:40:27] the staff report, which are the financial implications. Thank you.

[1:40:33] And, and Manager McNulty and I completely appreciate how abusing

[1:40:39] this is. I understand that because we spent a lot

[1:40:43] of time trying to make sure we were very clear.

[1:40:46] So to date in 2025, the project incurred cost of

[1:40:51] 277, 184 dollars. These are overall project costs. In 2026

[1:40:58] to date, the project spend 605, 739 dollars The remaining

[1:41:05] construction contract. Is 1, 100, 500 7, 103 dollars. So

[1:41:14] the subtotal for current project cost as is, we did

[1:41:18] nothing else, 2, 040, 06 dollars. Our next section, project

[1:41:25] A, the project completion requirements of 510, 000 dollars. Of

[1:41:33] 360, 000 dollars If you added that to the subtotal

[1:41:37] above, it's 2, 910, 000 27 dollars. So what now

[1:41:44] I was showing you the budget impact below here for

[1:41:46] 2026. 2026 outstanding costs for the enhanced project. So that's

[1:41:52] the total enhanced project budget. Less 277, 000 and change

[1:41:57] spent in 2025. So this is where there's some changes

[1:42:01] is 2. 6 million 300 2842. And if then we

[1:42:09] deduct what is currently in the 2026 budget That's the

[1:42:14] town's commitment today and the grant which is 1. 93

[1:42:19] million dollars. The outstanding amount is 702 dollars So that's

[1:42:27] if we were to do everything that we requesting right

[1:42:29] now. There's an overage. Of 702, 000 So if we're

[1:42:33] saying we don't actually want to do both part A

[1:42:36] and part B we can reduce The amount of part

[1:42:39] B which was 360, 000 dollars And that makes the

[1:42:44] overage only 342, 842 dollars Was that helpful or did

[1:42:49] it make it worse? If I may just delineate again

[1:42:53] The part B enhancements which would be suspended if we

[1:42:58] did proceed Correct If you can delineate what those are

[1:43:01] against your sweet. No. Last Manager McNulty The Part B

[1:43:06] enhanced. Part B enhancements.

[1:43:19] So the part B enhancements that make up the additional

[1:43:23] 360, 000 dollars. Are the local drainage infrastructure around the

[1:43:30] bank The addition of Eve to offs and downspouts. Anything

[1:43:36] to do with acoustic insulation or bird mitigation. Uh... Exterior

[1:43:43] security lighting. Or preparation for video security cameras. Or anything

[1:43:50] to do with time clock and public desk system. And

[1:43:55] those all of those things could be done later. Thank

[1:44:02] you Um. And I'll just say that. Director Cubat is

[1:44:09] right. I think about these numbers in terms of The

[1:44:15] project. But it's a mind shift When you start to

[1:44:18] think about it In terms of the budget And that's

[1:44:22] where The lesser number 342, 000 comes from Because part

[1:44:29] of the 510, 000 is included in the current budget.

[1:44:34] Allocation. It's everyone clear Thank you Mr. Chair So can

[1:44:41] I follow up my question? Will yes And if that's

[1:44:44] The number I guess The clerk won't let me amend

[1:44:49] the number in the motion We'd have to vote down

[1:44:51] The number that's there first and then propose a new

[1:44:53] number Is that correct? Through to the clerk. Correct Okay,

[1:44:57] thank you. That being case, this is the moved and

[1:45:01] sanity. Um. The Saturdays At least to accept the response

[1:45:08] of Katana Yeah, we'll do that then So the first

[1:45:11] portion is that Staffport Staff Report CC S 2026 -

[1:45:17] 07 Outdoor Rink Roof Project Update And decisions re -

[1:45:22] additional costs be received. All in favor. Carrie unanimously. The

[1:45:29] second part, and that Council authorized the use of up

[1:45:33] to 702, 842 dollars from the Outdoor Recreation Services Development

[1:45:39] Charge Reserve Fund to address Outdoor Rink Roof Project Completion

[1:45:43] Requirements Site Infrastructure Improvements Drainage Works, utility relocations, and other

[1:45:49] project - related He enhancements identified during construction. All in

[1:45:52] favor. Sorry Deputy Mayor Just a clarification if I could

[1:45:57] share through to the clerk Um... I do intend on

[1:46:00] proposing an amendment Um... I feel like I can do

[1:46:03] it. If we vote this down still And I just

[1:46:06] want to make sure of that Um, I'm actually looking

[1:46:10] to include another in that. It'll be... Some wording in

[1:46:19] regards to the involvement of CAO Skinner Uh... On the...

[1:46:24] When I'm going to call the negotiations, so to speak,

[1:46:28] of how this is. That something I'd be able to

[1:46:32] do if I don't put it on now. Yeah. So

[1:46:41] you'd like to add that as a no - 2.

[1:46:45] Yes. If I can do that after Disc gets defeated.

[1:46:52] Okay So you want to comment before voting on this.

[1:46:56] Yeah, correct me if I'm wrong Like if we vote

[1:46:58] against... Do we not have to put an amendment in

[1:47:01] first Before we vote on this? Because if we... No,

[1:47:04] okay The clerk is saying Otherwise Okay Councillor Ring, did

[1:47:08] you want to question this before The vote. No, only

[1:47:11] the same fact I was... I mean, I know you

[1:47:13] don't have to, but I thought that Councillor Jeffrey might

[1:47:16] have an amendment But we vote on prior to voting

[1:47:18] on This, we could defeat that. The other way around,

[1:47:24] right? Okay. Lost the movement Secretary would like to withdraw

[1:47:29] They're moving in 2nd of this Motion to prove it

[1:47:31] in full Oh, we can do that. I So did

[1:47:35] I move? Second I can't remember. I think I moved,

[1:47:39] or seconded. I believe we have Councillor McCullough, and we

[1:47:42] have Mayor Hamlin. Happy to withdrawal I'm happy to withdraw

[1:47:50] Whichever is most Consider it done, thank you. Thank you

[1:47:54] for that. I'm learning. So That's The fact we can

[1:48:01] now take an amendment to this Deputy Mayor. County So

[1:48:09] The Amended would be exactly the same wording except with

[1:48:12] The Youth Up to 342 842 or 848, whatever that

[1:48:20] number was. Councillor Perry Seconds of Motion. Many Other discussion.

[1:48:30] Councillor Ring Just just that... That's basically what I could

[1:48:38] support. I wasn't going to support The Way It was.

[1:48:40] Good. That being... Clerk Almas. Thank You Sopher Clarity We

[1:48:46] can't just change The Number, because it does talk about

[1:48:50] addressing site infrastructure drainage Works Utility Relocations and other Enhancements

[1:48:55] So I don't know if Reverb's Assistance Me. Mr. Chair,

[1:49:03] okay, and the Council Authorized The Youth 342, 848 Dollars

[1:49:08] from the Outdoor Recreation Services Development Charge Reserve Fund. Um...

[1:49:14] To complete The Outdoor Rank Roof Project. As... Apart from

[1:49:22] her party, like No Part A says 510. Can I

[1:49:26] still say that? Okay, per party. Good, and... That's acceptable

[1:49:34] as well. Okay, everyone knows What the Motion is. I'll

[1:49:38] call the vote, all in favor. Opposed, if any, Councillor

[1:49:43] Ring. So I Councillor Pots. I apologise. Thank you. Deputy

[1:49:49] Mary wish to say something. Yes, thank you, and I'm

[1:49:54] going to propose a further amendment. In my view, Because

[1:50:00] I've expressed the concern about liability sites and these enhancements.

[1:50:05] I think may need to be done Um, I'd like

[1:50:07] to put some wording into Direct CEO Skinner, because this

[1:50:13] is the only opportunity I can do that is here

[1:50:15] at The Table. And what I'd be looking at is

[1:50:19] I think something that would say... And that CEO Skinner

[1:50:25] Council Direct CEO Skinner, to... I'd like to say take

[1:50:31] the lead. I know CEO Skinner, you'd probably would Prefer

[1:50:37] this was handled by staff directly, but I'm just saying

[1:50:41] I think you need to be lead for us here,

[1:50:44] because it seems to me, like if we're going to

[1:50:46] minimize The impact. Um, that we possibly can do with

[1:50:51] the situation has happened. Our CEO needs to be involved.

[1:50:55] So, um, I'm proposing that the CEO Skinner, or Council

[1:50:59] Direct CEO Skinner to be involved, and report back, even

[1:51:05] though Council will be in lame Duck. We've given direction

[1:51:08] that up to this amount can be spent. Um, and

[1:51:12] I'd like to know if it turns out that There's

[1:51:15] some real concern by staff going forward. I want to

[1:51:19] make sure that coming into 27 budget The new Council

[1:51:23] is aware of The possibility of further need for spending

[1:51:29] in order to alleviate some of the liability that we

[1:51:32] might be sitting at So the simple line would be

[1:51:37] to Council Direct CEO Skinner to Participate as the lead.

[1:51:44] In the discussions on trying to minimize the cost excesses

[1:51:51] And report back to Council. Is that okay.

[1:52:01] The Deputy Mayor proposes this motion. Is there a seconder

[1:52:05] for this? Councillor Ring. Comments.

[1:52:15] Councillor Ring. I remembered why I drew a blank the

[1:52:19] last time I put my request to speak up. Um,

[1:52:23] we still got to, regardless how the amendments go. We

[1:52:26] still got, um, we have one that's been approved So

[1:52:29] we have to vote. The Motion as amended. Uh, before

[1:52:33] I do that. And endorse it or not. With the,

[1:52:42] just what we've approved here now in Councillor Jeffrey. Amendment

[1:52:47] through you to Manager McNaughty. It's less than half of

[1:52:53] the 700 2000 that we originally were asked to. It,

[1:53:00] well, all the amendments, it's Second Amendment. Okay.

[1:53:10] Thank you, the motion that was passed regarding the 200

[1:53:13] 342, 000 was a main motion because the main motion

[1:53:16] was defeated So a new main motion was put on

[1:53:19] the floor So it was passed, and this is a

[1:53:22] new main motion as well So this is not an

[1:53:24] amendment It's an addition to, so it's another main motion

[1:53:28] Uh, uh, that Council Direct CEO Skinner to participate in

[1:53:32] lead Uh, The Completion of the Outdoor Ring Project and

[1:53:36] Report Back to Council regarding any changes in the status

[1:53:38] of the project to minimize cost increases. Okay. So to

[1:53:45] that, I'm asking a question to the main motion then,

[1:53:49] if it's a new main motion. I just want to

[1:53:53] know basically and call me out of order if you

[1:53:56] want. With what we Without the enhancements up to the

[1:54:00] 700 - 2000 Are we going to jeopardize losing the

[1:54:04] funding from the provincial government? Or can we still qualify

[1:54:07] for it? I'll allow that. Through the chair We've Director

[1:54:12] Qubit can confirm, but... We are of the opinion that

[1:54:18] that does not jeopardize The funding. It's all I wanted

[1:54:22] to know Good. Deputy Mayor And that's part of the

[1:54:27] intention of the direction to the CO, because all we're

[1:54:30] doing is getting the money into the budget I feel

[1:54:33] like we should have some direction there, and then can

[1:54:36] hear back Um... When appropriate CO2 sides that... Does anyone

[1:54:42] else want to wish to speak to this motion. Therefore

[1:54:47] I'll call the Motion, all in favor. Opposed. Emotion Carrots.

[1:54:57] Ladies and gentlemen, we are finished with this item. Well,

[1:55:01] now move on to 7. 2. 2. E 2026 -

[1:55:07] 21 Heritage Permit Application for addition at 40 Simco Street.

[1:55:12] I'd like to call Pon Director Valentine, and I think

[1:55:16] she will introduce Senior Planner Tikhl, but go right ahead

[1:55:20] Sorry I am sitting back from the table Oh yeah,

[1:55:23] for my conflict Deputy Mayor will step back from this.

[1:55:27] Please proceed Director. Thank you Chair Baines Before you today

[1:55:32] for consideration is an application for a Heritage Permit to

[1:55:35] Support a Building Edition at 40 Simcoe Street, also known

[1:55:38] as Black Bellows Building. The vast majority of Heritage Permit

[1:55:42] Decisions are delegated to staff with advice from The Town's

[1:55:46] Heritage Committee Where required providing additional guidance However, there are

[1:55:51] some limited circumstances with it Which essentially bump up a

[1:55:55] decision on a Heritage Permit to Council The application before

[1:55:58] you represent one of those situations In this case, the

[1:56:03] Staff Recommendation and The Advice from The Heritage Committee do

[1:56:06] not align, and therefore a decision on the permit is

[1:56:10] Elevated to Council, as noted by the chair with us,

[1:56:14] a senior Planner Till, to provide you with an overview

[1:56:16] of The Application and the Rationale for the Staff and

[1:56:19] Heritage Committee Positions. Thank you, so good afternoon Committee members,

[1:56:25] so this is the Presentation Report P2026 - 21 regarding

[1:56:29] the Heritage Permit Application for In addition at 40 Simcoe

[1:56:32] Street. Next slide, please. So The Town has received The

[1:56:35] Harriage Permed Application for a new addition at 40 SIMcrow

[1:56:39] Street, which is within the Collingwood Downtown Heritage Conservation District

[1:56:42] Designate an Under Part 5 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

[1:56:45] The Subject Property is located at the Southwest Corner of

[1:56:48] Simcoe Street and St. Maurice Street, north of Eddie Bush

[1:56:51] Memorial Arena, and opposite of the Collingwood Library. The property

[1:56:55] has been known as Black - Byllows since about 2020,

[1:56:57] and prior as Day's body shop. The existing building on

[1:57:00] the property consists of the following portions in order of

[1:57:03] construction as denoted on the screen. A two - story

[1:57:06] Redbrick building built in approximately 1890 facing St. Marie Street,

[1:57:11] a single - story rugbrick building at the corner of

[1:57:13] St. Marie Street in Simcoe Street Spilt around 1950, and

[1:57:16] a single - story medal Cloud Edition, connecting both the

[1:57:18] rear of the 1890 and 1950 portions of the building

[1:57:22] built - in approximately 2018. The location of the proposed

[1:57:25] edition is that The West End of the South Yard

[1:57:28] shown in green. Next slide, please. So The Pictures on

[1:57:34] this slide show The existing conditions of the South Yard

[1:57:37] between the existing building and the Eddie Bush Arena, next

[1:57:41] door, as seen from St. Mary Street. The South Yard

[1:57:44] is presently gravel area used for parking and brewery storage

[1:57:48] with Vehicular Access from St. Marie Street. Next slide, please.

[1:57:53] The pictures on this slide show The Existing Street Scape

[1:57:56] Condition in the area to provide some sense of the

[1:57:58] visibility of the South Yard and the proposed edition location

[1:58:01] from the Public Realm. The repose location is most visible

[1:58:05] when standing directly in front of the yard on St.

[1:58:07] Marie Street, as shown in the middle image, with visibility

[1:58:10] increasingly limited moving south and north along the street due

[1:58:13] to the existing taller buildings set close to the street.

[1:58:16] Next slide, please. This slide shows a site plan of

[1:58:20] the subject property with the proposed edition location identified in

[1:58:23] green. The owner submitted a hit the Heritage Permit Application

[1:58:26] on July 15th and is proposing to construct the single

[1:58:30] - story 125. 6 square metre or 1351 square foot

[1:58:35] edition as an extension of the existing single - story

[1:58:38] 2018 edition. Next slide, please. So The proposal would maintain

[1:58:45] the existing Fenestration, which is window design, placement and arrangement,

[1:58:49] as well as materials of the existing 2018 edition with

[1:58:53] the front, so facing St. Marie Street being clad in

[1:58:56] the same metal siding is what's on the existing 2018

[1:58:59] edition. The South side and the rear west elevations are

[1:59:03] proposed to be painted concrete block. The proposed, or the

[1:59:07] purpose of the addition rather is for storage and warehousing

[1:59:09] related to the existing accessory brewery and would consolidate storage

[1:59:13] activities currently in the South Yard, which are currently housed

[1:59:16] within shipping containers and a trailer into permanent building. Next

[1:59:20] slide, please. The Heritage Committee's role is an advisory capacity,

[1:59:26] and their recommendations to Council and Staff are valuable, but

[1:59:29] the decision to issue refuse a permit ultimately resides with

[1:59:32] council, where the conflict between the Herige County and Staff

[1:59:35] recommendation, or staff in the case of consistency between the

[1:59:39] heritage Committee and Staff recommendations. A Heritage Permit Application for

[1:59:43] the addition was considered by the Heritage Committee first at

[1:59:46] their July 22nd meeting, where it was deferred for the

[1:59:49] applicant to address recommended revisions, specifically amending the east, which

[1:59:53] is the front - facing or St. Marie Street facing

[1:59:55] elevation to Redbrick and reconsider by the committee, uh, at

[1:59:59] a future meeting. Um, so to provide the applicant with

[2:00:02] the timely opportunity to return to the committee with any

[2:00:04] adjustments, their application post - deferral. The Committee held a

[2:00:08] meeting on August 6th, uh, where the application was again

[2:00:11] considered. Staff met with the applicant on July 24th in

[2:00:15] between to discuss Fred Brook Masonry and other possible colliding

[2:00:18] options. And between July 22nd and August 6th meeting, The

[2:00:22] Applicant did not revise that front elevation to red brick,

[2:00:26] nor did they propose to make any other alterations to

[2:00:29] the proposal. So the applicants submitted a letter to the

[2:00:32] committee for the August 6th meeting, which is appended to

[2:00:34] this Staff Report. Citing Economic Impracticalities is to why they

[2:00:38] did not revise the East Elevation to Brick as requested

[2:00:40] by the Committee in July. The letter also outlined the

[2:00:43] Applicant's Rationale for support for the Unrevised Proposal. The Committee

[2:00:48] ultimately passed the motion on the screen at the August

[2:00:51] meeting to recommend that Council refused the permit due to

[2:00:54] concerns with the proposed materials. The committee in their deliberations

[2:00:58] noted concern with the proposed materials being inconsistent with the

[2:01:00] district plan, noting the proposed addition is more visible from

[2:01:04] the St. Marie Street than the existing edition. Next slide,

[2:01:08] please. So Staff agree with Heritage Committee that the proposed

[2:01:11] metal siding is not supported by the district plan. However,

[2:01:15] Staff are of the opinion that there are contextual circumstances

[2:01:18] in this instance that warrant support for the proposal. Most

[2:01:22] compelling to staff as the desire to maintain the consistency

[2:01:25] with the 2018 edition as the proposal would still leave

[2:01:28] a portion of the existing addition. And its metal cladding,

[2:01:31] uh, visible rather than introducing another clouding material that does

[2:01:35] not relate to the 2018 edition. The second contextual circumstance

[2:01:41] is the sighting of the proposed addition at the rear

[2:01:43] of the property, set back approximately 22 metres or 72

[2:01:47] feet from St. Marie Street. Well, the addition would be

[2:01:50] visible from the street. It's prominence in the streetscape would

[2:01:53] be minimal due to the significant setback, the lack of

[2:01:55] impact of views of the sell side of the 1890

[2:01:58] portion of the building. And further both the 1890 portion

[2:02:01] of the building and the Eddie Bush Memorial Arena block

[2:02:03] views of the proposed addition location, um, from points to

[2:02:06] the north and south on the street. While the proposed

[2:02:09] edition and isolation would make a limited contribution to the

[2:02:11] heritage character of the district, and Staff's opinion, it would

[2:02:14] enhance the district by providing a permanent storage building and

[2:02:17] facilitating the removal of a trailer and shipping attainers in

[2:02:20] the south yard and represent minimal change the character of

[2:02:22] the district and property, specifically noting that it would not

[2:02:25] alter the 1890 portion of the building. In summary, Staff

[2:02:28] are recommending approval in accordance with the recommendation shown on

[2:02:32] the screen. Like slide, please. So Subject 2 Council's approval.

[2:02:37] Next steps include providing the, uh, owner with a notice

[2:02:39] of receipt, followed by Heritage Permit within 90 days, uh,

[2:02:43] or a notice of refusal of the heritage permit. The

[2:02:45] owner may appeal a refused permit or conditions within 30

[2:02:48] days to the Ontario Land tribunal. And if no appeal

[2:02:51] is submitted to a refused permit, the owner can potentially

[2:02:55] submit a revised proposal if they wish. Uh, there are

[2:02:58] other options as well that Staff can want committee through

[2:03:01] if either of the approval or refusal options are not

[2:03:04] the preferred direction of the committee. And I believe Travis

[2:03:07] Sandberg is in attendance to speak to the application as

[2:03:10] the owner. So that concludes my presentation and I'm happy

[2:03:13] answering questions. Thank you. Thank you, Senior Planner Till. For

[2:03:18] that report. Um, before reading in the motion, I'd like

[2:03:21] to ask if anyone in the gallery wishes to address

[2:03:24] the committee. That being the case, uh, Clerk Almas, is

[2:03:29] there anyone online, which is to provide comment. Thank you,

[2:03:33] Chair Beans. We do have Travis Sanberg that would like

[2:03:35] to address the committee. By all means, go ahead. Mr.

[2:03:39] Sandberg. The floor is yours. Thank you, Chair. Um, just

[2:03:48] for the record, my name is Travis Sandberg. I'm the

[2:03:50] manager of Plan Development and Planning at Dun Capital Corporation,

[2:03:54] uh, who is the registered owner of the subject property.

[2:03:58] Um, just going to highlight a couple of points, uh,

[2:04:01] for the, for the committee's consideration on this application. Um,

[2:04:05] as noted by the Staff presentation, the primary purpose of

[2:04:09] this edition is functional in nature. And is intended to

[2:04:13] consolidate the existing storage and refrigeration containers that are on

[2:04:18] the property with a permanent enclosed structure. As a result,

[2:04:22] um, this, this proposed will not create any new public

[2:04:27] proceeding areas within the building, nor will it intensify the

[2:04:31] continued restaurant and accessory brewery use of the property. Um,

[2:04:35] it will also know an alter the existing building facades

[2:04:38] along, uh, Simcoe Street or St. Marie Street. The building's

[2:04:42] overall relationship to those streets nor the features that contribute

[2:04:45] to the character of the Heritage's district. Um, as mentioned

[2:04:50] by Staff, the addition is confined to the southwest corner

[2:04:53] of the property and is set back approximately 22 metres

[2:04:57] from St. Mary Street. Because of its location size and

[2:05:01] massing, the original brick building and its street facing facades

[2:05:05] will continue to be the most prominent parts of the

[2:05:07] property. And the primary contributor to the established streetscape. In

[2:05:12] our view, the application is consistent with the objectives of

[2:05:14] the heritage district plan as it supports the continued adaptive

[2:05:18] reuse and economic viability of the building. It remains clearly

[2:05:22] secondary to the historic portions of the building and has

[2:05:25] limited visibility from the public realm and approves and maintains

[2:05:29] compatibility with the architectural rhythm of the neighbouring buildings and

[2:05:32] streetscape when compared to the existing site condition. Um, to

[2:05:37] speak to the heritage committee's primary concerns being black metal

[2:05:41] cladding, uh, and the continued use of it. Um, and

[2:05:45] it's visibility from St. Marie Street. It's important to recognise

[2:05:49] that the heritage district plan does not require additions to

[2:05:54] replicate the designer materials of the original building. And also

[2:05:58] recognises that compatibility can be achieved through appropriate consideration a

[2:06:03] form alignment height massive back architectural features colours and materials.

[2:06:10] It also establishes that new work should remain distinguishable from

[2:06:13] the original heritage fabric. In the case of this proposal,

[2:06:17] the proposed black metal cladding is a continuation of the

[2:06:21] treatment that was previously approved and constructed on the existing

[2:06:24] rear edition and creates a cohesive appearance across the contemporary

[2:06:29] portion of the building while maintaining a clear distinction between

[2:06:33] those and the original portions of the building. By contrast,

[2:06:38] the recommended brick treatment and our view would introduce a

[2:06:41] third type of brick and a fourth exterior material. Excuse

[2:06:47] me. And fourth exterior material to the building, which in

[2:06:52] our view, would create Alaska Cohesive appearance than what is

[2:06:56] proposed. And as well as, uh, the cost considerations relative

[2:07:01] to the intended supporting nature of the structure. While it's

[2:07:05] acknowledged that the addition will be visible when looking directly

[2:07:08] west into the property from the General vicinity of the

[2:07:11] driveway, uh, the existing rear edition is also already visible

[2:07:15] from that viewpoint and the proposal would increase the overall

[2:07:19] visible building fees by only about four metres. We're visible.

[2:07:25] The proposed clouding material would otherwise improve compatibility with the

[2:07:29] streetscape established by Jason Bilans. Beyond that specific viewpoint, the

[2:07:36] addition would continue to have very limited visibility from the

[2:07:39] broader public realm. Uh, it would not form part of

[2:07:41] the primary north - south St. Marie Street Street, nor

[2:07:45] would it compete with the prominents of the original building.

[2:07:48] I supported by the submitted scoped heritage impact assessment. Finally,

[2:07:53] it's also important to compare the proposal of what with

[2:07:56] what the existing condition is on site today. The area

[2:08:00] currently contains storage and refrigeration containers and other exposed service

[2:08:04] functions and areas. Consolidating all of these elements into a

[2:08:09] permanent integrated edition will provide substantial visual and functional improvement

[2:08:13] to the property. With that, it's our review that the

[2:08:17] proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies of the

[2:08:21] heritage district plan in that it supports the continued use

[2:08:24] and viability, the building while improving general compatibility with the

[2:08:28] architectural rhythm of the neighbouring buildings ancestry. And therefore with

[2:08:32] the heritage character of the district. Uh, in conclusion, we

[2:08:35] respectfully request that Council approve the heritage permit application as

[2:08:40] submitted. And as recommended with the conditions by staff, thank

[2:08:45] you. Thank you, Mr. Sanberg, for your presentation. They'll now

[2:08:49] read in the recommendation. That's Staff Report P 2026 -

[2:08:54] 21 Heritage Permit Application for Edition at 40 SIMCO Street

[2:08:58] B received. And that Council approve heritage permit application PLHP

[2:09:04] 2026 251 for 40 Simple Street subject to the following

[2:09:10] condition. One, that the paint colour of the south side

[2:09:13] bracket, South bracket side, and the West bracket rear elevations

[2:09:18] B in accordance with the town approved heritage colour palette.

[2:09:22] And further, Staff be directed to issue the permit in

[2:09:26] accordance with Council's decision within 90 days of serving the

[2:09:29] applicant with a notice of receipt. Uh, moved by Councillor

[2:09:33] Pott's seconded by Councillor Ring. Questions, comments. To the committee.

[2:09:44] Um, I will make a comment and that is, I'm

[2:09:47] not prepared to support this staff recommendation. Um, I know

[2:09:53] it's more challenging for the developer to use brick rather

[2:09:57] than what heritage committee recommended. But I think we have

[2:10:04] a Heritage Committee that makes recommendations. And a heritage by

[2:10:10] - law that has standards. And I think we should

[2:10:13] adhere to those standards, uh, going forward. So, um, The

[2:10:19] Youth could change if it's a new owner. And I

[2:10:22] accept, uh, the Heritage Committee's recommendations. That's just my own

[2:10:25] opinion. But who else wants to speak? First Councillor Perry

[2:10:30] and then Councillor McCulloch. Uh, thank you Councillor Brains. I'm

[2:10:34] supporting this for, I mean, I, I appreciate what the

[2:10:37] Heritage Committee does. It's fantastic work. And I just had

[2:10:41] visitors here from out of town and they were commenting

[2:10:44] on the, uh, our lovely downtown. But I'm looking at

[2:10:49] this building from the site. I mean, at some point

[2:10:52] that red cladding was okayed in 2018, I believe it

[2:10:56] was. And to, to what Mr. Sandberg said, it's going

[2:11:05] to look more chopped up with the red brick. If

[2:11:08] it was red brick all the way around. And the

[2:11:10] sooner we get this building up and running, the better.

[2:11:16] Councillor McCulloch. And then Councillor Dup. Thank you, Chair. Uh,

[2:11:21] I'm, I'm in the same place as Councillor Perry. Someone

[2:11:25] wants to invest in the downtown and have a minimal

[2:11:27] impact on the streetscape. Um, I want to support businesses

[2:11:30] to expand and grow where they can without, um, additional

[2:11:34] red tape. And based on the guidance we're getting from

[2:11:37] staff, they feel that's unacceptable solution as well. So I

[2:11:40] will support this. Councillor Doherty. You're

[2:11:50] still muted. There you are. Yeah. I am sorry. Uh,

[2:11:53] you know what my colleagues have, uh, well enough expressed,

[2:11:57] uh, my feelings on the recommendations. So, uh, I will

[2:12:01] support staff's recommendation on this one. Thank you. And I

[2:12:09] agree with, uh, comments of my, uh, colleagues here on

[2:12:13] Council. And I'll also say, you know, with the same

[2:12:16] extension of the Colour Treatment and the cleaning up of

[2:12:20] that really unsightly storage at buying the building, this is

[2:12:24] really a win - win for the community. And, uh,

[2:12:27] I do appreciate the Heritage Committee's thoughts on this, uh,

[2:12:32] and maybe if their view had been, uh, the right,

[2:12:36] you know, if this red brick had been part of

[2:12:37] the 2018 edition, it would be a different situation. But

[2:12:42] I feel this is the best for now. Thank you.

[2:12:49] All those in favor. Opposed. Carried. We'll now move on

[2:12:54] to the next item, which is 7. 2. 3 IN

[2:13:00] 2026 - 10 Eden Oak Brackett McNabb. Indigo Estates subdivision

[2:13:07] assumption. I will ask Director Alcoca to start opening remarks.

[2:13:13] And then I'm assuming he's handing it off to a

[2:13:15] manager Liol. Well, thank you, Chair. I have the pleasure

[2:13:21] of not having any stuff support today. So I will

[2:13:25] start with my speaking notes about the report. Eden Hawk

[2:13:30] McNabb Indigo Estate Subdivision. The report before Council. Specifically about

[2:13:37] the assumption of the Municipal Infrastructure within the Eden Orc,

[2:13:41] Bhaknab Indigo Estate Subdivision. The subdivisions located east of our

[2:13:46] entire street. North of Hamilton Dwayne Trail, west of the

[2:13:52] trail and south of Lockhart Road. The town entered into

[2:13:56] a subdivision agreement with Eden Hawk, McNab Inc. in January

[2:14:00] 2019. And the development includes 261 single - family homes

[2:14:07] and 120 Town House units across two phases. Foremost, I

[2:14:14] want to acknowledge that this subdivision has a history of

[2:14:17] concerns raised by neighbouring residents, particularly during construction period. Those

[2:14:23] concerns include the drainage and grading impacts. Sediment migration and

[2:14:28] erosion, sewer flushing. The remover or alteration of agricultural tile

[2:14:34] drains. Really are drainage issues and concerns related to retaining

[2:14:43] all fencing and interface with the existing neighbourhood. Those concerns

[2:14:48] were taken seriously. And resulted in considerable review and follow

[2:14:53] - up by Townstaff, the developer and its consultant, including

[2:14:58] additional engineering review and independent peer reviewer appropriate. Corrective measures

[2:15:04] were also undertaking during construction where issues were identified. The

[2:15:09] important distinction for Council today is between issues experience during

[2:15:14] construction and development process. And whether the completed municipal infrastructure

[2:15:20] now satisfies the requirement for the assumption. The Municipal Infrastructure

[2:15:26] proports for the assumption includes the roads. Water and sanitary

[2:15:30] infrastructure within the Minister of a Right Away and the

[2:15:33] stormwater management facilities. The subdivision has now been completed. And

[2:15:38] the Municipal Works have been inspected. Staff are satisfied that

[2:15:43] the infrastructure has been constructed in accordance with the approved

[2:15:47] designs. And then according to the Town Standars and the

[2:15:51] requirements of the subdivision agreement. Staff have not identified any

[2:15:56] outstanding municipal infrastructure deficiency. That would prevent assumption. There have

[2:16:01] also been more recent concerns regarding landscaping. Threes and other

[2:16:06] features within some really hard range is months. These strange

[2:16:12] swayers are located on private property. And are protected by

[2:16:16] easements to maintain their dange function. They are distinct from

[2:16:21] the municipal infrastructure that Council is being asked to assume.

[2:16:25] Staff have not identified evidence that the complete administrative drainage

[2:16:31] infrastructure is presently failing to perform as designed. We're an

[2:16:38] obstruction or alteration within the range isn't at main to

[2:16:41] Finterfeel with the drainage in the future. The town remains

[2:16:45] the Taudritz mechanisms. To require that the easement and strange

[2:16:50] function be maintained. Some of our trees were replaced during

[2:16:55] the summer of 2026, earlier this summer. And the tunnel

[2:17:00] continued to hold that property securities through the applicable landscaping

[2:17:03] or on T period. Upon Council approving the assumption, the

[2:17:08] time will formally take ownership and ongoing maintenance responsibility for

[2:17:13] the municipal roads. In ground infrastructure and stormwater management facilities,

[2:17:19] the remaining allegeable securities can then be released in accordance

[2:17:22] with the subdivision agreement and coordinated through development engineering. The

[2:17:28] town has also taken lessons from the experience of this

[2:17:32] development. Issues identified through the construction, inspection and follow -

[2:17:37] up process have helped inform updates to our engineering and

[2:17:41] development standards and practices. With the objective of improving the

[2:17:46] range, grading construction oversight, construction of our site and the

[2:17:51] interface between new development and existing neighbourhoods on future projects.

[2:17:56] Accordingly, while we acknowledge the history of the subdivision and

[2:18:01] the concern raised by neighbouring residents, the recommendation before Council

[2:18:05] is based on condition, compliance and readiness of the completed

[2:18:10] municipal works for assumption. On that basis, Staff is recommending

[2:18:14] that Council approved the assumption of the municipal infrastructure and

[2:18:19] then acted required assumption by law. Thank you. Thank you,

[2:18:25] Director Alcoka for that detailed response in support of this

[2:18:29] recommendation. Uh, there being no one from the public in

[2:18:33] the gallery to call upon. I will ask the clerk,

[2:18:38] there either way. Okay. I will read in this recommendation

[2:18:41] and then accept comments from Staff and questions. Recommendation that

[2:18:45] Staff Report IN 2026 - 10, Eden Oake, bracket McNabb,

[2:18:50] indigo estate's subdivision assumption be received. And that Council approved

[2:18:55] the assumption of all infrastructure works within the Eden Oak

[2:18:58] bracket, McNabb, indigo states subdivision that were intended for municipal

[2:19:02] ownership as identified in this report. And that Council NX

[2:19:07] and pass, a bylaw to assume the roads and infrastructure

[2:19:11] within the Eden Oak bracket McNabb indigo estate's subdivision. Moved

[2:19:17] by. Who will move this motion. The Mayor will, who

[2:19:24] will second this. Councillor McCunlor, sorry, McCulloch. That being the

[2:19:32] case, questions to staff. Councillor Potts. Thanks Chairman. I guess

[2:19:39] the area that I'm concerned about the most here would

[2:19:42] be the properties that are the, at the back of

[2:19:45] Brock Crescent and the, uh, drainage easement. How is it

[2:19:49] acceptable when I see photos of wooden deck structures and

[2:19:53] trees planted and all kinds of things that would really

[2:19:57] interfere in this house is acceptable to be passed. And

[2:20:01] to be allowed, especially, I guess, within the drain achievement

[2:20:04] or like, so where does Act Community fact? Because I

[2:20:07] know even a few years back, there was, uh, there

[2:20:11] was things that were put into place from homeowners in

[2:20:15] the new subdivision that were actually removed and corrected because

[2:20:18] they were in the easement area or the drainage area.

[2:20:21] And then now this has been allowed. So how, how

[2:20:23] does that get past or be accepted. Torture the chair,

[2:20:30] as I indicated earlier in my speaking, notes that this

[2:20:38] backyard is meant for the swale are on the private

[2:20:41] property. They're not being assumed by the town. Uh, the

[2:20:45] assumption is for the roads, the infrastructure that's within the

[2:20:47] road and the store motor management facilities. The owner has

[2:20:51] a responsibility to maintain that easement and the easmouth is

[2:20:54] on their title. If they interfere with the drainage function,

[2:20:58] we have the ability to go and have them corrected.

[2:21:02] That is not the responsibility to develop. The developer has

[2:21:05] completed the design. As it was approved. The homeowner is

[2:21:10] ignoring the easement regulation and adding infrastructure. And we will

[2:21:14] deal with those separately. The part. Three chair. So if

[2:21:19] I'm a homeowner on Brock Crescent and you have a

[2:21:23] new development behind you and they don't abide by the

[2:21:26] drainage. And something, God forbid there would be a problem,

[2:21:33] which I can see there will be. Then like at

[2:21:38] what point is there not like, I mean, this just

[2:21:40] seems to be kind of a it's done. And then

[2:21:42] we know that there would be almost impossible to get

[2:21:45] anything corrected moving forward on it. So like to me

[2:21:49] and, you know, going back to years, maybe two and

[2:21:51] a half years ago, the town was involved with the

[2:21:54] drainage infrastructure for the stormwater drainage at that point. What

[2:21:58] would be any different now than it's the homeowner's responsibility?

[2:22:01] I mean, uh, I drainage, uh, if it's stormwater infrastructure

[2:22:05] to me, it shouldn't be interfered and there should be

[2:22:09] at some point the town should be stepping in. It

[2:22:13] shouldn't be put to the new owner. This is going

[2:22:15] to cause nothing but problems. I can see it. There's

[2:22:17] been drainage issues in this area for years. There was

[2:22:21] infrastructure that was put in to brought Crescent from that

[2:22:23] area before the subdivision was there. And I think it's,

[2:22:27] uh, I just think this is going to be nothing

[2:22:30] but a nightmare. So just simply for the on the

[2:22:33] on the point of this, uh, with this drainage, the

[2:22:37] way this is, even whether it's related or not, I

[2:22:40] couldn't, I can't support the assumption. Rotts, uh, Councillor Doherty.

[2:22:53] Uh, thank you, Chair. Um, I also have, uh, some

[2:22:58] concern about, uh, accepting, um, this staff recommendation in its

[2:23:04] entirety. And, uh, I just, I want to get just

[2:23:09] confirmation, uh, what, um, Director Alcoca described as, uh, Eastman

[2:23:18] drainage easements. So is that, uh, to confirm through you

[2:23:25] chair to Director Alcoca. So the easement is on title

[2:23:31] to the homeowners. Property. Is that correct? Well, the chair,

[2:23:38] yes, to my understanding. Thank you. So it seems to

[2:23:48] me that, uh, you know, we're. Without acknowledging that this

[2:23:57] eastment is here for a reason. Uh, it seems to

[2:24:02] me that down the road, we may very well be

[2:24:06] asking for trouble, uh, I, uh, also was, uh, sent

[2:24:12] some photographs, uh, from a resident on Brock Street showing

[2:24:17] that, uh, in the very place where the easement, um,

[2:24:24] is that plantings have been put in place. Now these

[2:24:31] plantings may not be interfering at all with the function,

[2:24:36] uh, of the drainage. There today. But down the road

[2:24:41] as those trees mature. Uh, they may very well have

[2:24:47] a very significant impact. And the town has already assumed

[2:24:54] it. Going to be that the homeowners on Brock Street

[2:25:03] will be left holding the bag. If there is a

[2:25:07] flooding issue. Actile Coco. Threw the chair

[2:25:17] to Councillor D. Again, the focus on the infrastructure that

[2:25:24] was built for the development, which has been completed. We

[2:25:28] are not assuming the backyards. The soyers in the backyards

[2:25:32] are there and there is men. The owners are ultimately

[2:25:36] responsible to maintain that opening. If there is obstructions and

[2:25:41] you mentioned, please. And in fact, we had Staff inspect

[2:25:46] those backyards with some of the platin trees. And as

[2:25:50] far as the engines are concerned, they are not an

[2:25:52] obstacle to drainage anytime soon. Uh, again, we're not assuming

[2:25:58] the backyards. We're assuming the infrastructure within the road, uh,

[2:26:02] the easement is there for its purpose. And the range

[2:26:06] would be monitored by staff. If any obstructions that would

[2:26:11] cause it, then it would be addressed through the easement

[2:26:14] rights at the town has. Follow up. Yes. Uh, so

[2:26:24] I've seen this, uh, issue emerge, uh, before, even in

[2:26:30] my own, uh, neighbourhood where over the years, uh, residents

[2:26:37] have interfered, uh, with a drainage adjusement, uh, having the

[2:26:41] impact of, um, causing, uh, pooling of water on surrounding

[2:26:48] properties. So it seems to me that it might be,

[2:26:57] uh. Well advised. For the town to issue a letter

[2:27:05] to those residents on whose property, the easement is today

[2:27:14] just to remind them that this is an easement in

[2:27:20] favor of the town. And these are the reasons why.

[2:27:24] And should down the road. There be some, uh, significant

[2:27:30] interference that, that, uh, impedes the functionality. That it will

[2:27:36] be that homeowner's responsibility to rectify. And I'm

[2:27:46] wondering, I guess I would put that question through you,

[2:27:53] uh, the, the clerk as our guide of all things

[2:27:57] legal, uh, if that is something that the town could

[2:28:01] do. And not only for the assumption of, of this

[2:28:06] new development or the infrastructure, but going forward, where whenever

[2:28:12] the town is putting easements that, uh, are then left

[2:28:19] to individual property owners. And we walk away. Kirk almost.

[2:28:28] And then back to the director. Thank you. Um, I'd

[2:28:34] hesitate to comment on this one. Um, as this is

[2:28:36] staying at the Committee, The Whole Loveland will be coming

[2:28:38] back on September the 14th for approval. I think we

[2:28:42] can put, uh, confirmation in the amendments of what could

[2:28:45] and couldn't be included in that. Thank you. Director Alcoco,

[2:28:50] do you have anything further? Just add to this. So

[2:28:53] that I was contemplating something with two similar to the

[2:28:57] Councillor Dorty is proposing. As a reminder, it's not unusual.

[2:29:04] We have done it before where we've sent letters to

[2:29:07] property owners reminding them of their obligation, either under the

[2:29:10] drainage act or certain bylaws. So this is something that

[2:29:14] is part of the communication. So it is possible. But

[2:29:17] we need to do it in the right envelope. Thank

[2:29:21] you. Um, Councillor Dort, he anything further to ask at

[2:29:26] this point. Thank you. Uh, and I would be very

[2:29:30] supportive of that. Um, and I'm glad that, uh, Director

[2:29:35] Alcoka has flagged that as an opportunity. And I'm wondering

[2:29:39] if, uh, I could actually introduce, uh, an amendment, uh,

[2:29:45] to the motion, uh, whereby, uh, staff would commit to

[2:29:51] that correspondence with, uh, those property owners, uh, that have

[2:29:58] that drainage agent on their properties today. Uh, I'm not

[2:30:03] sure you can, but the, I think the clerk was

[2:30:05] signalling that perhaps when it comes back on September the

[2:30:08] 14th, that might be the appropriate time. Or am I

[2:30:13] reading. Do you're raised eyebrows there? Thank you through the

[2:30:18] chair. If the Councillor would like to do an amendment

[2:30:21] now, the amendment can go through and then should we

[2:30:24] not be able to satisfy that when it comes back

[2:30:27] to Council, then we'll include that in the report. Thank

[2:30:29] you. Does that satisfy you Councillor George. Uh, yes, please.

[2:30:35] Yes. So that I would introduce that amendment, uh, and

[2:30:39] it would be an end that, uh, Council Direct staffs,

[2:30:45] uh, correspond, uh, with property owners, uh, on which an

[2:30:50] evening, an easement, uh, register. Yeah. The clerk will be

[2:30:57] way better at this than me anyway. Uh, on which

[2:31:01] an easement has been registered to remind them that it

[2:31:04] is their, uh, that it is their responsibility to keep

[2:31:09] it opening and functional. Councillor Doherty moves this amendment. Who

[2:31:15] seconds it actually go to the mayor because I think

[2:31:19] she wanted to speak about this as well. Paul seconded

[2:31:24] as well. Um. I have a few comments, uh, the

[2:31:29] problem is a nuanced one. So the first part of

[2:31:32] it is, uh, should we. Pass a bylaw to assume

[2:31:38] the infrastructure here. And my view is that we should.

[2:31:45] I share all the concerns that have been raised about

[2:31:47] the rear drainage. But in fact, the, the developer who,

[2:31:52] you know, the developer has sold the land to the

[2:31:55] owner of, let's just have any home there, right? So

[2:31:58] the land, um, and the easement's been given to the

[2:32:02] town. The developer can't now go back into that property

[2:32:07] and do anything on the land that's in this way.

[2:32:09] He wouldn't have any right. So if we don't pass

[2:32:15] the assumption by law, um, nothing will happen there. We

[2:32:20] won't get the services. We're supposed to and the developer

[2:32:24] can't go in and fix it. I have been on

[2:32:29] this issue now for a number of years at Council.

[2:32:34] Because this isn't the first subdivision where this has been

[2:32:37] a problem. And I've had numerous discussions with staff about

[2:32:40] it. It's a very. I would, I think the advantage

[2:32:45] to the developer is he can have all he or

[2:32:49] she can have all the drainage, uh, from the back

[2:32:52] part of the house. Go to the back of the

[2:32:54] house. No pipes are required. And don't you know each

[2:32:58] homeowner looks after the drainage from his neighbour. And if

[2:33:01] he doesn't care to and decides to build structures and

[2:33:04] so on, we have maya may ham and bad things

[2:33:07] happening. So I am not in favor one bit of

[2:33:12] these rear drainage swales. They're nothing but a nuisance. And

[2:33:17] I know as recently as a couple of years ago,

[2:33:20] they were still being put in in a new subdivision

[2:33:22] in town. Um, I know this, I know that the

[2:33:26] development engineering standards are being updated. This is the kind

[2:33:30] of thing that would be addressed in there. I believe

[2:33:33] those will be coming to Council at some point and

[2:33:36] we'll have a chance to see what's in there. Um.

[2:33:41] So I would say I am very much an agreement

[2:33:44] with a letter going to these homeowners, uh, I think

[2:33:48] the problem is bigger and that we need to be

[2:33:53] communicating to every property that has these drainage swales of

[2:33:58] their responsibilities. The problem also is, as I understand it,

[2:34:02] that the town didn't even used to take easements. So

[2:34:07] right now I think if there's an issue, if we

[2:34:09] have an easement, we can go in and clean it

[2:34:11] up if we had to, if there's mayhem and chaos

[2:34:14] happening. But in the older ones, there weren't even easements

[2:34:17] taken. And I was a big proponent of Eastmans being

[2:34:20] taken. And anyway, now we have easements. So this is

[2:34:25] an evolving situation in our community. Um, and I'm hoping

[2:34:28] it will be one that disappears. And so just to

[2:34:32] recap, I think we don't have any choice, but to

[2:34:35] assume the subdivision council's will vote as they wish to,

[2:34:39] uh, but we need to address the, um, issue here.

[2:34:43] And I would even, uh, when we're finished with the

[2:34:46] amendment, uh, proposed, uh, by Councillor Doherty is to add

[2:34:50] a further one, uh, asking staff to report back on

[2:34:53] how we can communicate with every homeowner, how we best

[2:34:57] communicate with every homeowner that has adrenous well in our

[2:35:00] community about their responsibilities. Thank you. No, no, no. I

[2:35:08] just said we were supposed to be commenting on the

[2:35:09] amendment of the letters. So good point. Thank you for

[2:35:12] pointing that out to me. Uh, are you making a

[2:35:15] comment on the amendment. No, not till the next one.

[2:35:18] No, I'm speaking to Councillor Pots. Thanks Chairmans. This is

[2:35:22] just in regard. It could be a part where the

[2:35:24] letters to the homeowners, but in those backyards, is there

[2:35:28] underground piping or catch basins in that vicinity of stretch

[2:35:34] along the back of Brock Crescent. There's called cash basis.

[2:35:40] Director Alcocum. So the chair. I'm, I may have to

[2:35:43] go confirm, but I don't think so. Through you chair.

[2:35:49] I would like to have that updated information because it's

[2:35:52] my understanding that there is. And there is pipe underground.

[2:35:56] So my first question in my last question would be

[2:35:58] who maintained, how do we maintain it if it's there?

[2:36:02] And it would be basically within the easements, the trees

[2:36:05] planted, the wood structures. And it comes to, we all

[2:36:09] know tree roots down the road. We all know we

[2:36:12] need access. So I don't know how the important part

[2:36:15] would be is there infrastructure in the ground there. Whether

[2:36:19] we send letters to homeowners or not, we all know

[2:36:21] how that's going to go. Probably wouldn't be any consequences

[2:36:24] or whatever that would follow up with it. So that

[2:36:26] would almost be a way to time in my opinion.

[2:36:29] We need to understand if there's access to it to

[2:36:32] maintain it. Yeah. Well different, I will confirm to make

[2:36:39] sure that we're giving you proper information. And speaking as

[2:36:44] a resident who lived in a home with a catch

[2:36:47] basin in the backyard for years. Uh, the east month

[2:36:50] is on title, the town or the city has the

[2:36:53] right to inform me, come actually sometimes without informing me,

[2:36:57] uh, if there's an emergency, because that's what the easmuth

[2:37:00] is for and have access to the catch basin, uh,

[2:37:04] and, and clean it if they have to. Just one

[2:37:08] last comment for you, Chair. All great. If you have

[2:37:10] a catch basin or an area that you can access,

[2:37:14] but from what I see on the proof of photos

[2:37:16] that's been provided to me five years from now, you

[2:37:19] won't be accessing these catch basins or pipe. Trees plantings

[2:37:23] wood structures. It's not going to happen. So that's a,

[2:37:26] so that's what I'm saying is if there is infrastructure

[2:37:29] that's in the ground drainage swales may be of a

[2:37:32] different thing with basically surface grading and surface drainage. If

[2:37:38] there's infrastructure that's buried underground that needs to be maintained

[2:37:41] and access, you have to have the access to be

[2:37:44] able to be there. And I don't see it. Track

[2:37:49] draw Cocoa and then I'll go to the deputy mayor.

[2:37:52] Just one last comment. The easement by its virtue gives

[2:37:56] us access. We have to go and give you from

[2:37:59] my experience and other positions I held. That is right

[2:38:04] for us as a town to access and perform the

[2:38:08] task that we deem necessarily to get the range going.

[2:38:11] And, uh, I had to tell homeowners to remove sheds

[2:38:15] that they had for 50 years because legally it's not

[2:38:19] allowed. And the easement gives you that right. So the

[2:38:22] town has the full light to go and access and

[2:38:26] ensure that the infrastructure is as intended to be and

[2:38:29] any violation be removed at the one who's expense. And

[2:38:33] in our letter or eventual letter, we can explain that.

[2:38:36] And like I said, the easement is our access. We

[2:38:39] have access to the property when we want to. Thank

[2:38:43] you. Um, finish depuis Mayor. Uh, thank you Chair Beans.

[2:38:48] Um, I, I, I'm, I'm not going to support it.

[2:38:51] It's committee of the whole. Maybe when we see the

[2:38:54] additional information on the 14th, I'll be able to put

[2:38:57] it forward. But are you talking to the amendment? So,

[2:39:03] so I'll, I'll speak to the letter first then. Okay.

[2:39:08] You're correct. Council Jeffrey, I got off track there. And,

[2:39:12] uh, The fact that, uh, I'll support the sending of

[2:39:17] a letter and then go from there and I'll speak

[2:39:20] to the full motion then after that. Great. Councillor Ring

[2:39:24] and then we'll bring this to a conclusion. Thank you

[2:39:26] very much cheer brains. Um, I agree with Councillor Potts

[2:39:32] with the concerns whether it's ever going to amount to

[2:39:35] anything. But I think in our, in our best interest

[2:39:38] for due diligence, uh, accepting this amendment to the motion

[2:39:43] is, is not a bad thing to do. We've done

[2:39:46] our due diligence. We've sent them the letter at least

[2:39:48] we're notifying them that we know that there could be

[2:39:51] an issue there. And as, uh, as, as Director Alcohol

[2:39:55] said, uh, we still have the right to go in.

[2:39:57] And if we have to, to do the maintenance, although

[2:40:00] I can, I agree with ponts or Councillor Potts that

[2:40:04] it's going to be difficult. But I mean, I've got

[2:40:06] that same easement in my property and it'd be difficult

[2:40:09] to get in there too. So, I mean, and that's

[2:40:11] without me planting anything on it. Um, so I think

[2:40:15] just for the, for the sake of the letter, uh,

[2:40:18] we've given notice to the property owners letting them know.

[2:40:21] Cause a lot of them probably don't even know their

[2:40:23] responsibility. Um, I mean, but it isn't, it is in

[2:40:27] their deed. But anyways, I'm going to support the amendment.

[2:40:32] Councillor Perry. And then I do want to bring this

[2:40:34] to him. Okay. I'll make it very quick. Um, I

[2:40:38] have had a home that has an easement on it.

[2:40:40] And when I did purchase that home, my good lawyer

[2:40:45] informed me that I've got no recourse of the town

[2:40:48] wants to come. So I'm assuming everyone who bought a

[2:40:51] house along that area has had the same advice, I

[2:40:55] would hope. Thank you. Councillor McCulloch very quick. It just

[2:41:00] brought something to mind. Um, when you do a survey

[2:41:02] or when you buy a property, you should have something

[2:41:04] that shows you where the easement is. Most people have

[2:41:07] probably lost that if we could attach that to the

[2:41:10] letter to show them where it is on the extent

[2:41:12] of it. I think that would be helpful. The picture

[2:41:14] is always worth. A thousand words. Thank you. And I'll

[2:41:18] just make this comment. I'm quite aware of this issue.

[2:41:21] I've walked with homeowners there. I've seen the trees that

[2:41:23] are growing up very close to where the easement is.

[2:41:26] And I just know this is a recipe for disaster

[2:41:29] 10 or 15 years from now when those tree roots

[2:41:32] as they know, no doubt will, uh, create a problem.

[2:41:36] And the homeowner gets emotionally attached to the tree. And

[2:41:40] at any rate enough of this, we will vote now

[2:41:42] on the amendment all in favor of the amendment. Opposed.

[2:41:48] Unnoted, that has passed. We'll now move on to the

[2:41:51] motion itself. Tepe, Mary, which to speak to this. Yes,

[2:41:55] please. And, and on track for the main motion and

[2:41:58] what I want to say is, uh, as I said,

[2:42:00] I'm not going to support the main motion as amended.

[2:42:04] Um, I, I heard about, uh, there's been discussions. So

[2:42:10] I'm anticipating on the 14th that more information is coming

[2:42:14] to us. And as I said, maybe I'll change my

[2:42:17] position at that point in time, but I'd like to

[2:42:20] have included in that a better understanding of, I've heard

[2:42:24] that there's been numerous discussions with staff, but, um, here

[2:42:28] we are with a recommendation that appears to be opposing

[2:42:34] to the view that's been discussed. So I wanted to

[2:42:37] know, um, what Staff position is clearly about this situation

[2:42:44] in regards to, um, easements in these situations. And I'm

[2:42:49] hoping that information will be there when it comes in

[2:42:52] September. Thank you. Um, Councillor Geoffrey. Uh, so thank you

[2:43:01] Mr. Chair. And I too was toying with just outright

[2:43:07] saying no for now, but, uh, with the amendment and

[2:43:11] my question as well is I have one of these

[2:43:13] easements in my backyard and the first person plugged it

[2:43:16] and then the next person didn't like the water pooling.

[2:43:18] So they plugged theirs. So it was coming up to

[2:43:21] my house in the backyard. So I did call the

[2:43:23] town and they didn't have my easement and I did

[2:43:25] have my survey and I could send it in and

[2:43:28] show them. And, um, so they did come and unplug

[2:43:32] the problem at the end. But my question is, do

[2:43:38] we have a scheduled, uh, inspection of the easements? I

[2:43:42] think that would be a whole lot easier than just

[2:43:44] waiting for something to come up. Um, can we institute

[2:43:49] where we're doing an inspection of these easements? So we're

[2:43:52] being proactive rather than reactive. And that would be through

[2:43:55] to the director. And maybe we already have one and

[2:43:57] I just don't know it. That sounds like an item

[2:43:59] for the 2027 budget. Director Alcoco. Threw the chair. I

[2:44:04] don't believe we have such a program. This to me

[2:44:07] would be a part of a larger stormwater management plan

[2:44:12] or program for inspection and maintenance. And definitely would have

[2:44:17] to come with the resources. So this is something that

[2:44:20] needs to be, uh, planned well. Okay. I appreciate that

[2:44:27] going forward. So, um, for now, I think also based

[2:44:32] on the mayor's comments, I'm going to support it. I

[2:44:35] think the problem isn't going to come with the assumption

[2:44:38] that's coming with how we actually, um, manage the easements.

[2:44:43] So that's where I'm going. Thank you. Lowe's in favor.

[2:44:52] Opposed. There's two opposed. Carried. Thank you. This concludes the

[2:44:59] committee of the whole, I believe over to Mayor Hamlin.

[2:45:04] Sorry. A motion to rise. Do I hear a motion

[2:45:07] to rise from committee of the whole move by Mayor

[2:45:10] Hamlin second by Councillor Perry? All those in favour. Carried.

[2:45:15] Thank you. Back to you. Uh, thank you. Um, it

[2:45:18] is time for a break, but I think what I'll

[2:45:20] do is, uh, we'll deal with the motion to move

[2:45:24] in camera. Uh, and then as our system switching over,

[2:45:27] we'll take about 10 minute break. Okay. So the motion

[2:45:31] is this. Whereas the clerk hereby concurs the reasons for

[2:45:35] the in - camera session have been duly reviewed and

[2:45:38] considered. And the matters are authorized under the exception provisions

[2:45:42] to conduct a closed session in accordance with municipal act

[2:45:46] prior to proceeding into closed session. Therefore, be a resolve

[2:45:50] that this council proceeds in camera in order to address

[2:45:53] a matter pertaining two. A proposed or penning acquisition or

[2:45:58] disposition of land by the municipality or local board, a

[2:46:02] physician planned procedure, criteria, and ora instruction to be applied

[2:46:06] to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on

[2:46:10] by or on behalf of the municipality or local board.

[2:46:13] Items for discussion, uh, the first one and only one

[2:46:17] is property acquisition update. Mover in a second, please. Council

[2:46:24] Ring, seconded by Deputy Mayor Fryer, all those in favour.

[2:46:28] That's unanimous. Thank you. And, uh, we'll take our break

[2:46:31] now. Thank you. Uh, 10 minutes.

[4:41:54] So I'm looking for a mover, for a motion to

[4:41:58] rise from in camera and returned open session. Councillor Perry,

[4:42:02] seconded by Councillor Ring. All those in favour. That's unanimous,

[4:42:07] thank you. So we have three items to approve, one

[4:42:16] of which will be the Bylaw relating to our In

[4:42:20] - Camera discussions, which will be the third item that

[4:42:23] we'll deal with. So the first one is 9. 1,

[4:42:26] the outdoor ring project update. And so the recommendation is

[4:42:32] that we approve the recommendations earlier adopted by the Committee

[4:42:40] of the Hall during this meeting. Okay, moving a seconder.

[4:42:47] Councillor McCulloch, second by Councillor Baines. Any further discussion, all

[4:42:54] those in favor. And those opposed, one opposed, thank you.

[4:43:00] Two, oh, sorry, thank you, to opposed. The next one

[4:43:04] is under 10. 1, and it's this that the following

[4:43:08] by - law be here by enacted this 20th day

[4:43:10] of August, 2026. By - Law 2026 - 061, CAO

[4:43:17] Bylaw Amendments. This is from our last meeting. Mover in

[4:43:20] a second, please. Oh, sorry. Yeah, both, both mys. Well,

[4:43:25] I'm gonna do this one separately because we're gonna push

[4:43:27] this up. Yeah, so just I'm gonna deal with 10.

[4:43:30] 1 first, CO Bylaw, mover in a seconder. Councillor McCulloch,

[4:43:35] seconded by. Councillor Doherty. Any further comments, all those in

[4:43:42] favor. Do we approve this unanimously last time? Or what

[4:43:49] was this? Yeah, sorry, could you just fell aside? Thank

[4:43:51] you. The last recommendation from the Community of the Whole

[4:43:54] on August the 10th was changing the requirements pertaining to

[4:43:59] performance review and goal setting objectives to May. Okay, thank

[4:44:05] you for that. All those in favor. And posed. Three

[4:44:11] opposed, thank you. And then the last one is By

[4:44:16] - Law 2026 - 062 Property Acquisition Bile Off for

[4:44:21] 44 here on Ontario Street. And Clerkhommes, if you could

[4:44:24] put up the Byla Forest, please.

[4:44:40] So all read this for the Public then. Where's Municipal

[4:44:48] Act authorizes municipalities to enter into agreements? And whereas the

[4:44:52] Council for this town's pursuing the Strategic Purchase of Land

[4:44:56] to move forward strategic priorities. I can just suggest that

[4:45:01] might be a typo there. Strategic Priorities of the Town.

[4:45:06] Now therefore Council of the Corporation of the Town of

[4:45:09] Collingwood and Access Follows, one, that the Corporation of the

[4:45:13] Town of Collingwood acquire property municipally addresses 44 year Ontario

[4:45:17] Street for the purpose of moving strategic priorities forward. Two,

[4:45:22] that the requisite notice of the acquisition of 44 here

[4:45:25] Ontario Street who provided, once the due diligence work, including

[4:45:29] the In - Camera Structions, instructions provided by Council on

[4:45:33] August 20th, 26th, having completed to the satisfaction of the

[4:45:38] solicitor and chief administration of officer to proceed with conclusion

[4:45:44] of the proposed property acquisition. Three, that with regard to

[4:45:48] section 275 of the Municipal Act, the Chief Administrative Officer,

[4:45:53] Clerk, and or Treasurer are hereby authorized to perform all

[4:45:57] acts. And to take such steps to execute such documents

[4:46:01] under the Seal of the Corporation as may be necessary

[4:46:04] to affect such acquisition. Four, that the funds for this

[4:46:09] strategic property acquisition be drawn from the land acquisition reserve

[4:46:13] fund. And lastly, that this by - laws shall come

[4:46:16] into full force in effect on the date of final

[4:46:19] passage hereof at which time all by - laws as

[4:46:22] a resolutions that are inconsistent with the provisions of this

[4:46:25] by - law. And the same are hereby repealed or

[4:46:28] ascended insofar as necessary to give effect the permissions of

[4:46:31] the Bylaw enacted today. And I'll just say the words

[4:46:36] in here as of tomorrow, this Council will be in

[4:46:41] lame duck situation. And so we have given the authorization

[4:46:45] for Staff to proceed with the purchase of this property

[4:46:48] subject to their final review. Uh, so can I have

[4:46:51] a mover in a seconder for this by - law?

[4:46:53] Please Councillor Perry, seconded by Councillor Jeffrey. Any further comment,

[4:46:59] uh, that would be the Deputy America. Go ahead. Thank

[4:47:01] you, Mayor Hamlin. Um, I just want to say that

[4:47:04] I fully am supportive, and I recognise that the vast

[4:47:09] majority of the Public are too, um, of acquiring. But

[4:47:13] based on the In - Camera detail, um, I can't

[4:47:16] at this time. Um, not going to go into any

[4:47:20] detail on that, but I can state publicly, um, that

[4:47:23] I can't, from my perspective, um, support obligating next council

[4:47:28] without seeing and knowing more clearly, um, our long -

[4:47:32] term strategic financial plan and the findings. And then how

[4:47:36] the final investment of this would impact. So I'm not

[4:47:40] going to be supportive of it. Thank you. Okay. Thank

[4:47:43] you very much. Would anyone else like to comment at

[4:47:45] this time. All those in favor. And opposed, and that's

[4:47:51] when a post. Thank you very much. And thanks Council.

[4:47:53] That was a very productive discussion. And great to move

[4:47:59] ahead. Excuse me. So we are down to. Almost the

[4:48:05] end and it's my motion. And so I will read

[4:48:08] it. And I'll pass the chair to the Deputy Mayor.

[4:48:11] Thank you Mayor Hamlin. And I'll, uh, turn to you

[4:48:14] to read in your motion and then have you speak

[4:48:17] on, I think? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Whereas the

[4:48:22] Town of Collingwood is expected to grow to 42, 000

[4:48:25] residents by 2051. And whereas South Georgian Bay is a

[4:48:30] major four season tourist destination, attracting millions of visitors annually,

[4:48:36] generating significant seasonal travel demand and increased congestion on local

[4:48:40] and provincial roads. And whereas the town of Collingwood's 2024

[4:48:45] to 2028 Community Base Strategic Plan identifies exploring options for

[4:48:50] better transportation connections between Collingwood and the rest of Ontario

[4:48:55] is a key action. And whereas the protaria has expanded

[4:49:00] passenger rail connection to communities outside the Greater Toronto in

[4:49:04] Hamilton area, including year - round Go Rail Service to

[4:49:07] Niagara Falls and Go Rail Service to Stratford while advancing

[4:49:11] the return of the Ontario Northland passenger rail service to

[4:49:15] Northeastern Ontario. And whereas the former Barry Collingwood Railway Corridor

[4:49:20] provides an existing linear transportation corridor between Collingwood and the

[4:49:25] Barrier Area, presenting an opportunity to restore passenger rail connectivity

[4:49:30] without the significant cost, property acquisition and community impacts associated

[4:49:36] with establishing a new greenfield rail corridor, while at the

[4:49:39] same time maintaining the existing Act of Trail Network. Now

[4:49:43] therefore be it resolve that one, the town of Collingwood

[4:49:46] Council requests a Metrolinx and the Ministry of Transportation Undertake

[4:49:51] a feasibility study on extending Go transit service to the

[4:49:55] town of Collingwood. Two, that the feasibility study consider a

[4:50:00] possible go rail service to bury along the former Barry

[4:50:04] Collingwood Railway Corridor. Three, that the study require preservation of

[4:50:08] the continuous act of transportation and trail access along the

[4:50:13] existing Berry Collingwood Rail Trail. Four that the Chief Administrative

[4:50:17] Officer be directed to coordinate with the County Asemco to

[4:50:22] assess how future passenger rail or bus service between Barry

[4:50:26] and Collingwood could support regional transportation planning, housing growth, economic

[4:50:32] development and tourism. Five, that the mayor be requested to

[4:50:36] write to the Minister of Transportation of Ontario Communicating Council's

[4:50:40] position. And six, a copy of this resolution before to

[4:50:43] the Premier of Ontario, Ministry of Transportation, MPP Saunderson, President

[4:50:49] and Chief Executive Officer of Metrolinx and the Warden of

[4:50:53] Simcoe County. Okay. So do we have a seconder for

[4:50:59] the motion. Councillor Baines? Um, Mayor Hamlin. Yeah.

[4:51:10] Thank you. What has been on my mind, particularly about

[4:51:16] this is the fact that, um, foreseeason community and we

[4:51:22] have so many, uh, people coming to our community, all

[4:51:27] year round, whether to use our winter trails for cross

[4:51:30] country skiing to go downhill skiing in the community beside

[4:51:34] us or enjoy the freshwater beach to the east of

[4:51:38] us. Uh, we have, um, and I checked the numbers

[4:51:44] yesterday with Staff. We have some four million visitors every

[4:51:47] year to Collingwood. And in South Georgian Bay, the numbers

[4:51:51] are upwards of 7 million visitors a year. I believe

[4:51:59] that it is important that we have some go transit

[4:52:05] here from Barry. Um, we have the advantage of, um,

[4:52:10] being an attractive community, but getting people here by transit

[4:52:14] is impossible. Um, and if we could somehow get it

[4:52:19] direct link, um, to our community, uh, that would be

[4:52:24] certainly an advantage. We all saw on the proposal for

[4:52:29] the MZO site, uh, for health and wellness centre, a

[4:52:33] little dot showing a potential go transit station in the

[4:52:36] future. I don't know whether that, you know, will be

[4:52:39] our future or not, but I started thinking about it

[4:52:42] in terms of imagining go transit arriving there. And the

[4:52:46] village providing a shuttle service to get skiers over to

[4:52:49] the village or to the, you know, we could go

[4:52:53] back to simpler times in some ways because I think

[4:52:55] that's how a lot of people used to come up

[4:52:57] here back in the day. And the other thing is

[4:53:03] I have talked to some businesses here. So I'm sure

[4:53:06] some of you have, um, about how important it would

[4:53:10] be to have employees be able to come and go

[4:53:14] from this community, uh, by transit. Not everyone can afford

[4:53:17] a car. Also one of our businesses here, uh, who,

[4:53:22] um, you have all toured and can remember, but I

[4:53:26] don't want to pinpoint them. Uh, uses a lot of

[4:53:29] grad students coming in engineering students from Waterloo. And he's

[4:53:32] practically begged for transit to bring his students in. So

[4:53:38] and also I think for our residents who go to

[4:53:42] Barry and from South Georgia Bay who would go into

[4:53:45] Barry to use the hospital, George and College get on

[4:53:49] the go train to go down to the GTA. Just

[4:53:53] extending that connectivity, uh, would be great. So, um, the

[4:54:00] motion before us today is to ask Metrolinks and the

[4:54:04] province to please do a feasibility study, which we'd of

[4:54:08] course have input into, um, for our CAO to talk

[4:54:12] to the County. Uh, I have spoken to the senior

[4:54:16] county staff who have thought about this long and hard

[4:54:19] before I contacted them, uh, because they would very much

[4:54:23] like to see, uh, go transit coming into this community.

[4:54:27] Um, so those are my comments, uh, Deputy Mayor. Thank

[4:54:32] you, Mayor Hamlin. And I'm going to turn the chair

[4:54:35] to Councillor Jeffrey. And I'd like to on the table.

[4:54:40] Okay. So, uh, further discussion and I'll go to the

[4:54:43] debt premier. Okay. So I'm going to put a motion

[4:54:47] to defer. Um, on the table, um, I'll speak last

[4:54:52] to it. Okay. And is there a second or two?

[4:54:55] There's no speaking to deferral. So if the second or

[4:54:58] the seconder, we can vote on it. If there isn't,

[4:55:02] then we will move on. No seconder. Okay. So I'll

[4:55:07] take back the chair then. Thank you. Um, Clerk Holmes,

[4:55:11] would you like us to pass the hour extension. If

[4:55:16] we think of a full, I know. Um, okay. So,

[4:55:23] uh, Edena mover in a second here for the, um,

[4:55:26] our extension and Councillor Potts and Councillor Jeffrey and all

[4:55:30] in favor. And that's unanimous. And, uh, I'll open it

[4:55:36] now to the floor and I turn two Councillor Jeffrey.

[4:55:42] Thank you very much. Um, so I think it this

[4:55:46] has been on the minds of a lot, including the

[4:55:49] county for going forward, but I wonder about the, um,

[4:55:55] time consumption because whenever we do this, Staff always says

[4:55:58] there are going to have to set aside. And this

[4:56:01] seems like a pretty big, uh, and first of all,

[4:56:06] I think that we wouldn't go right to Metrolinx, but

[4:56:10] we would go to our staff of a report on

[4:56:13] the strategic feasibility of us taking this on right now.

[4:56:17] Um, so that's a kind of where I'm heading. And

[4:56:23] the other thing to consider in my mind is, um,

[4:56:27] that you need the transportation infrastructure once you bring all

[4:56:31] these extra people on that, uh, Metrolinx transportation. So it's

[4:56:38] all well and good to bring in a lot of

[4:56:39] people from other, uh, the GTA and other locations that

[4:56:43] don't have vehicles, but do we have the, uh, transportation

[4:56:47] infrastructure here to handle them together. So I think that's

[4:56:52] why, um, I would probably, my brothers would be to

[4:56:57] refer it to staff. They could determine a timeline in

[4:57:01] their, uh, work plans as to when they could take

[4:57:05] on, um, an assessment of us proceeding two Metrolinks. Or

[4:57:12] there's other regional partners. You're going to bring this metric

[4:57:15] at links through other communities. And I think there's some

[4:57:18] consultation that might want to be done ahead of that

[4:57:21] as well. So, um, where I'm at. So are you

[4:57:25] putting referral onto the floor. I would put, yeah, or

[4:57:30] add the words, yeah, referral to staff for a report

[4:57:34] as to their timelines, The Feasibility and what would come

[4:57:38] off the work plan if we were to take this

[4:57:40] on. It's true to Clerkhommes. Can the referral be put

[4:57:49] on the floor for voting. Or are you looking at

[4:57:53] an amendment? Finding a sound. Sorry. Sorry. You could discuss

[4:57:56] before finding a seconder. Well, before putting it even on

[4:58:01] the floor, that's how you'd like to do it. It's

[4:58:04] up to you. Right. Yeah. That's okay. So that, that's

[4:58:06] where you're at. Okay. Um, any other ones, uh, wishing

[4:58:10] to speak. Uh, Councillor Baines. Actually, um, Councillor Doherty was

[4:58:16] ahead of me, but why don't you go ahead and,

[4:58:19] and I'll apologise to Councillor Guardie. I do not agree

[4:58:21] with my friend Councillor Jeffrey in this regard, the focus

[4:58:25] of this seems to be on Metrolinks and other bodies.

[4:58:28] I don't think the present time. We have to involve

[4:58:31] our staff in comments under this because quite frankly, if

[4:58:35] Metro Links comes back and says it's a non -

[4:58:37] starter, it's an on - starter. So, um, I don't

[4:58:41] agree that we necessarily have to involve our staff at

[4:58:44] this point. I think this is. A noble initiative on

[4:58:50] behalf of, uh, Mayor Hamlin in this regard. And it's

[4:58:53] one that I fully support. Having numerous times driven to

[4:58:56] Allendale station to pick up my daughter, 45 minutes there

[4:59:00] and 45 minutes back. And I know many others in

[4:59:02] the same boat. So I support this motion. Thank you.

[4:59:05] Councillor Doherty. Uh, thank you. Um, and I

[4:59:15] would echo actually, uh, Councillor Baines'remarks, uh, just There. First

[4:59:22] of all, um, this request, uh, prevails first upon Metrolinx,

[4:59:28] uh, so if that becomes, um, to, uh, quote, Hey,

[4:59:34] my non - starter, then that is the end of

[4:59:36] it for us. Um, but, uh, there is to me

[4:59:43] no end of upside, uh, for this, uh, I know

[4:59:47] that, uh, Metrolinks are looking for expansions, uh, where they

[4:59:52] know that they're going to have good traffic. That would

[4:59:55] be all part of it. And I will also say,

[4:59:59] um, as one who has had reason to commute back

[5:00:03] and forth, um, Burlington and Toronto quite frequently, lately, uh,

[5:00:10] and, uh, using, uh, Metrolink services. It's a long haul

[5:00:17] between Collingwood and Barry and points beyond, uh, so this

[5:00:21] would be a much needed service, certainly speaking for my

[5:00:26] own perspective, but I know that it would be echoed

[5:00:29] by many others. And, um, you know, ultimately just to

[5:00:32] summarize, uh, there is no harm in my mind to

[5:00:37] asking at this time. Thank you. Councillor McCullough and then

[5:00:42] Councillor Perry. Thank you, Chair. Um, I also do, um,

[5:00:48] spend a lot of time up and down Highway 26

[5:00:50] between here and Barry. And if you drive that road

[5:00:52] in the morning or the afternoon, it is nonstop traffic

[5:00:56] in both directions. So there are streams of people who

[5:00:59] are commuting from here using their car and their gas

[5:01:04] and impacting the environment. The volume is heavy. So there

[5:01:07] are thousands of people who make that trip every day

[5:01:10] in two directions. And layering on top of that. We

[5:01:14] have our weekend and tourist visits that may absorb some

[5:01:18] of that as well. So I think it's a environmentally.

[5:01:22] Plausible thing to investigate. And I think the volumes are

[5:01:24] there. It would be a change in behaviour, but, uh,

[5:01:27] I agree. It was certainly worth starting the conversation. Uh,

[5:01:31] Councillor Perry. Thank you, Chair. I agree with everything at

[5:01:37] what Councillor Jeffrey brought up. I, I worry about the

[5:01:42] infrastructure at the end of the line how people are

[5:01:44] going to get off train and get to wherever they

[5:01:48] want to go. Um, that's a whole other ball game.

[5:01:54] I agree with Councillor McCulloch. There's traffic as a nightmare.

[5:01:59] But I know when GO does any expansions, they always

[5:02:01] run a bus first. And I know we have the

[5:02:05] rail line and that's great. And I know we're not

[5:02:07] going to lose the trail, which is extremely important. Um,

[5:02:10] but I think jumping to rail. I mean, I can't

[5:02:16] speak for metrolinks, but, um, jumping to rail right off

[5:02:21] the hop is, uh, that's a big ask. I think

[5:02:25] going the bus route wouldn't be first to see if

[5:02:27] there's buy in that would get folks off the road.

[5:02:31] Few cars off the road. And then, and then, and

[5:02:34] then go from there. That's just my opinion. Thank you.

[5:02:41] Anyone else wishing. To speak. Okay. I just, uh, I'll

[5:02:46] start off with a comment before I ask my questions.

[5:02:49] Um, nothing but supportive. For former operation and return of

[5:02:56] rail service to Collingwood. My recommendation on this on selling

[5:03:04] the Public Utilities, uh, business water heater business. Um, and

[5:03:08] using the proceeds to buy the rail right away in

[5:03:11] the first place was, was accepted by Council. Um, I

[5:03:14] chaired the rail retainment committee that started the, uh, Barry

[5:03:19] Collingwood Railway. I made the recommendation that, uh, we celebrate

[5:03:25] a way to SIMPCO because of their long - term

[5:03:27] plan to keep in the plan, um, bringing rail services

[5:03:33] to Collingwood. But that being said, I did want to

[5:03:36] ask through to CEO Skinner. What discussions have been had

[5:03:44] with, um, with the other parties in regards to this

[5:03:49] rail service, because, um, it's not something that I'm aware

[5:03:53] of. It was in our directions. And I just want

[5:03:56] to know, um, have there been any actual discussions going

[5:04:01] on in this. Um, do you, uh, Deputy Mayor

[5:04:11] Fryer. We have had several conversations with various parties, uh,

[5:04:18] not falling from this notice of motion, but along the

[5:04:20] same lines over the past probably four or five years.

[5:04:26] Um, when the Minister Gill Zoning Order was approved for

[5:04:31] the popular health and wellness village, we did approach Metrolinks

[5:04:35] and Go Transit about whether or not they were intending

[5:04:39] to bring service to that area, you know, potentially with

[5:04:43] a hub of the new hospital being there as well.

[5:04:46] At that time. And I don't think anything's changed. They

[5:04:49] told us that that was not in their current long

[5:04:51] - term strategic plan, uh, as far as expansions go,

[5:04:57] um, and we were starting to try and socialize them

[5:05:00] to understand that, you know, we're here and there is

[5:05:03] potentially a reason to be looking at the, you know,

[5:05:07] mounting desire to come to and from Collingwood. Uh, we've

[5:05:11] had, uh, in passing conversations, a county actually participated in

[5:05:15] that discussion as well. And we've had in passing conversations

[5:05:18] with the county around their County level transportation study and

[5:05:24] what that means, um, and the desire to keep the,

[5:05:28] uh, currently unused and removed rail line corridor, uh, open

[5:05:33] for future transportation. And as well, uh, we recently hosted,

[5:05:40] um, uh, Director Alcoka had hosted a workshop for all

[5:05:46] of the municipalities covered by the mayors and CAO's forum,

[5:05:50] uh, South Georgian Bay to talk about how we leverage

[5:05:53] our, um, our collective desires with respect to transit and

[5:05:59] what our transit vision might be if we brought that

[5:06:01] back to, uh, The mayors and CAOs for them and

[5:06:05] our home councils for discussion. And there was an overall

[5:06:09] desire, uh, from that group to look at a few

[5:06:12] far - reaching things, but it would include connections to

[5:06:15] areas outside of our, uh, our own, um, municipality and

[5:06:20] outside of Simcoe County. I do know that Director Alcoca,

[5:06:25] who I'm, I believe is on the line, uh, also

[5:06:30] should Dr. Ocu online.

[5:06:40] Yeah, I just got tapes. Uh, Director Alcoco, um, also,

[5:06:45] uh, had been involved in doing some, some work looking

[5:06:48] at this notice of motion. So he may have further

[5:06:50] to add, uh, but those are the items that I've

[5:06:53] been involved in to date with respect to transportation beyond

[5:06:56] Cipco County. Okay. So then from those discussions at the,

[5:07:03] at the forum with the mayor and the CAO and,

[5:07:05] and others, is this coming from that? Like, are they

[5:07:08] aware of the fact that we're making the request singularly.

[5:07:18] Actually, as soon CL. To you, this notice of

[5:07:27] motion, uh, specifically has come up since the last meeting

[5:07:31] of the mayor's in CAO's, uh, forum. There has been

[5:07:35] discussion at least two meetings about the potential for transit

[5:07:39] to Toronto and or, um, uh, Waterloo Kitchener area. Um,

[5:07:46] no, motions or actions had come out of that other

[5:07:51] than a desire to have a consolidated, uh, vision, um,

[5:07:56] that would span multiple councils around, uh, what are transit

[5:08:01] future might look like. Okay. So we're doing this singularly.

[5:08:05] So has there been any discussion with city of Barry.

[5:08:10] To you. Um. I, uh, I have not myself had

[5:08:19] any discussions with the city of Barry, the transit director,

[5:08:24] um, Alcoca may have had those discussions. I have been

[5:08:27] not been involved in any. And as Director Alcoco.

[5:08:38] You know, this director alcohol volta indicator put discussions with

[5:08:43] Barry.

[5:08:55] I guess I can, I can continue a little bit

[5:08:57] because Barry runs a short line railway still between Barry

[5:09:02] and Utopia. And, um, how will their business be impacted

[5:09:09] if rail service? Well, in fact, they're going to have

[5:09:12] to be a party because they're the ones own between

[5:09:15] Barry and Utopia. Uh, Simco County owns from the rail

[5:09:22] yard in utopia to, uh, Collingwood. So I'd like to

[5:09:26] know if those discussions have happened with the city of

[5:09:29] Barry, um, they're going to be a paramount partner in

[5:09:32] anything that, uh, is discussed or I'm concerned that if

[5:09:36] we take the forefront on this, are we, are we

[5:09:41] suggesting that we're willing to look at whatever the cost

[5:09:43] is going to be. So I, I'd like to, to

[5:09:47] hear from El and Director Alcoff discussions have happened with,

[5:09:51] uh, with Barry. No, I don't want live cutting. Yes,

[5:09:59] we can go right ahead, sir. Yes. Thank you. Sorry.

[5:10:03] You know some technical difficulties there. Uh, we had, I

[5:10:06] had not had any discussion of the city of Barry

[5:10:09] yet. We did have, uh, multi county town gathering a

[5:10:17] few weeks ago. Uh, about transit. And we had a

[5:10:22] good discussion. I actually would be, by next week would

[5:10:25] be issuing their notes for everybody to show what generally

[5:10:30] was discussed. And the go transit connection was discussed as

[5:10:35] part of an overall plan. But this is still in

[5:10:38] the early stages. Does that answer your question. Well, yes,

[5:10:45] that there's been no discussion with Barry. So that's, that's

[5:10:47] what I want to know. Um, the last item I

[5:10:51] have is before I turn it over to, uh, Councillor

[5:10:57] Jeffrey to see if you still want to do referral.

[5:11:00] Um, I too have had numerous conversations with Simcoe County

[5:11:04] staff over this three and a bit years. Um, because

[5:11:09] of my interest. And I, I need to have more

[5:11:14] time. I'm asked for deferral because we received this yesterday.

[5:11:20] Um, I know we heard notice emotion at the last

[5:11:22] meeting, but we didn't get the wording. Um, I think

[5:11:25] that there's good food for thought with what Mayor Hamlin

[5:11:29] has talked about, but I'd want more time. I'd want

[5:11:31] to be able to talk to Simple County staff. And

[5:11:36] therefore I'm going to turn it to Councillor Jeffrey and

[5:11:40] let her decide what she wants to do in regards

[5:11:42] to referral. No, we all had a chance to speak.

[5:11:49] So I'll go to. I thought I should have a

[5:11:50] right to just respond to a few things that have

[5:11:53] been said. Thank you. Uh, also Councillor Doherty's header. Also

[5:11:59] Councillor Jeffrey had, uh, had referral. Oh, um, Councillor Doherty

[5:12:03] has, um, spoken already. So I'm turning to you about

[5:12:07] your referral. Okay. I, I agree that there's a lot

[5:12:11] of good potential with this, but I have some angst

[5:12:15] about the speed with which we're proceeding without really not

[5:12:18] having a lot of answers. And Council really has not

[5:12:21] been kept up to speed about this at all. I,

[5:12:24] I thought we usually received reports back from the CAO's

[5:12:27] group, but I don't think we've received those from that

[5:12:29] forum for a while. Um, not to my recollection anyway.

[5:12:33] So, um, it's not, um, the referral is simply for

[5:12:39] more information because I think this has kind of come

[5:12:42] out of, uh, left field in a way, um, and

[5:12:45] not that it's not got the environmental benefits that Councillor

[5:12:49] McCulloch talks about, but I'm just want to know that

[5:12:53] it can fit into Staffs work plan. And cause it

[5:12:57] will not be, once they say yes, this is going

[5:13:00] to be a lot of work. So I, um, I

[5:13:04] just want to refer it back to Staff to have

[5:13:06] an idea from them as to how it, how it

[5:13:08] fits in terms of, uh, everything. So you may fight

[5:13:14] me not to see if you have a seconder for,

[5:13:16] yeah, I don't know if I have a secondary or

[5:13:17] not. Is anyone willing to second referral Councillor Potts has.

[5:13:22] So on the matter of referral. Okay. I don't see,

[5:13:29] go ahead Mayor Hamlin. Oh, um, I purpose of this

[5:13:36] motion is to get started. And we have to start

[5:13:39] with Metrolinx and the province because they have to make

[5:13:42] a political decision. Um, and I don't see a lot

[5:13:45] of need for our staff input at this time. Um,

[5:13:50] the recent extensions of Go service have been, um, Niagara

[5:13:57] Falls who gets, I'll come back to that in a

[5:13:59] minute in Stratford. And we know that we get the

[5:14:03] third highest number of tourists in the province after Toronto

[5:14:09] and Niagara Falls. And we all know Statford and the

[5:14:12] seasonal population of, uh, tourists they get for their theatre.

[5:14:17] So I just think that I don't think anyone's really

[5:14:20] thought about the South Georgian Bay Area. And it's time

[5:14:25] for the province to think about the fact here, the

[5:14:29] third highest number of tourists coming here. And the better

[5:14:32] way, a more environmentally friendly way for them to get

[5:14:35] here. So I think the feasibility study has to be

[5:14:39] done by the province. It's their line. It's their money.

[5:14:43] And, uh, I really don't see the advantage of referring

[5:14:47] this back to our staff. Um, uh, unless they can

[5:14:52] respond next or our next meeting, but I, uh, I

[5:14:57] don't see this as a big, big thought for them

[5:14:59] right now. Thank you. Okay. Any other Councillor Doherty, go

[5:15:03] ahead. Thank you. Um, I just want to put

[5:15:13] a fine point on, uh, what, uh, I think it

[5:15:17] was Councillor McCullough, but I'm not sure said about, uh,

[5:15:23] when we, when we talk about metrolinks, uh, we could

[5:15:26] be talking about rail, gold transit, but we can also

[5:15:30] be talking about gold buses. Uh, and, um, it, in

[5:15:35] my mind, uh, we are asking Metrolinks to, uh, consider

[5:15:40] feasibility. We're not asking for a train necessarily. I think

[5:15:45] we all know that that is a substantially more expensive

[5:15:50] model, uh, but to introduce bus service, at least as

[5:15:55] a start, uh, on a regular basis to our municipality

[5:16:00] for all the good reasons that have already been stated,

[5:16:03] um, it's an innocuous request at this point in time,

[5:16:10] uh, with, I think realistic expectations if we all understand

[5:16:13] what they are. Thank you. Councillor McCullough. Just a follow

[5:16:20] up question. Um, through you chair to the CAO. Are

[5:16:24] there any red flags here to you in terms of

[5:16:26] staffing resources that we should be aware of. Go ahead.

[5:16:32] If I could refer that one to Director Alcoka, please.

[5:16:36] He's familiar with the request. Hey, Director Alcoka, go ahead.

[5:16:41] Thank you. Through the chair. I read the motion and,

[5:16:45] uh, and generally there is not a lot of workforce

[5:16:51] staff. It's similar quest to Metrolinks. And at this stage,

[5:16:56] it's just the IC such an action as getting us

[5:17:01] on the planning machine. Uh, of Metrolinks to be considered

[5:17:07] as an area that requires a connection. And that connection

[5:17:10] can be as simply as a BUS connection. So when

[5:17:14] they do their planning, which is done, uh, periodic, I

[5:17:19] think it's on an annual basis at least, that this

[5:17:22] consideration to see if they can do a feasibility study

[5:17:25] to connect us with the GOBOS network. Hey, anyone further.

[5:17:35] Okay. Um, I, I support the referral, um, the, it's

[5:17:40] not going to stop the action of possibly going forward.

[5:17:45] But to not get some Staff input in written form,

[5:17:49] um, making a decision about this. And as I said,

[5:17:53] uh, sparing heading at singularly, um, when, when, as I

[5:17:58] also mentioned, Barry owns the, uh, I look at number

[5:18:02] two in the, therefore, um, and it says, uh, feasibility

[5:18:08] consider a possible goal rail service. And then it says

[5:18:13] in regards to county Simcoe, um, future passenger rail or

[5:18:17] bus service. So I think that, uh, what needs to

[5:18:21] happen here is we need to hear from staff, um,

[5:18:24] and, and, and written form, uh, what their thoughts are

[5:18:28] about just going forward. And most specifically how taking it

[5:18:32] forward singularly, um, is not as, as, uh, as good

[5:18:36] as taking it on the whole with all the partners

[5:18:40] that would be involved along the line. So, um, we've

[5:18:44] all had a chance to speak. Um, I'm going to

[5:18:46] call a vote then on the referral. I would just

[5:18:54] like to seek clarity on the deferral to make sure

[5:18:57] I've captured all the items that you wanted to include

[5:18:59] in the report back so that Council refer the proposed

[5:19:03] motion to, uh, to staff or report back to council

[5:19:06] on the request, including the time and cost associated with

[5:19:09] staff or other resources necessary to action, the direction, including

[5:19:13] if any necessary adjustments would be required. I think that

[5:19:20] wording includes the consultation process with Barry. And it would

[5:19:26] include, I mean, number four, very specifically direct time of

[5:19:30] the CAO to coordinate with the County of Simcoe. So

[5:19:34] there's got to be time lying to be reported there.

[5:19:37] And what she's going to have to give up in

[5:19:38] her work plan to be dealing with that, because I

[5:19:41] know she has a pretty full agenda. So, but I

[5:19:43] think the wording does cover all the things that we

[5:19:44] would require. Would you be able to put it up

[5:19:47] on the screen for us, please? Do I have to

[5:19:49] give a timeline, Clair Gomis through the, and do you

[5:19:53] need a timeline. I don't think they're required timelining. If

[5:20:00] you want to provide a timeline? It's not required. It's

[5:20:03] up to you. I guess I was looking to the

[5:20:07] CAO as to what kind of timeline that was. So

[5:20:09] we'll turn the CEO and let us know on that.

[5:20:11] Then. Through the

[5:20:21] chair, acting chair. I don't know how long it would

[5:20:30] take to come up with the time cost and consultation

[5:20:33] for the consultation process. I do myself think that number

[5:20:37] four, uh, is probably the one that would take the

[5:20:41] most time. It's also not essential for the rest of

[5:20:47] the notice of motion with respect to the political ask

[5:20:50] that Metrolinx, for example, look at Collingwood, um, as a

[5:20:55] potential feasibility study, um, so number four would in fact

[5:20:59] be the, uh, the one where I have no trouble

[5:21:05] communicating with the County of Simcoe to advocate for future

[5:21:10] passenger rail or bus service, uh, between, uh, Barry and

[5:21:15] Collingwood. I quantifying how it could support regional transportation planning,

[5:21:21] housing growth, economic development and tourism would take longer. Advocate

[5:21:25] gating for it to do so is not as, as

[5:21:28] onerous. I do believe in reading this, the intention is

[5:21:35] to get the attention of Metrolinx and MTO at the

[5:21:39] political level. And that in itself is not a heavy,

[5:21:45] heavy staff piece. It's, it's the quantification. Okay. Um, Councillor

[5:21:52] Jeffrey, go ahead. You know, hearing the CAO, and I

[5:21:54] think we all would like to put the pressure on

[5:21:57] just the province in Metrolinx. If all we were doing

[5:22:00] was number one and you removed two to. Four. Or

[5:22:09] two to five and just say, we want them to

[5:22:12] take a look and get back to us as to

[5:22:14] what the potential is. Then we start investing time after

[5:22:16] that. I could remove my referral as long as number

[5:22:20] two to five are removed. And we sent, we did

[5:22:23] number one and number six. I'm going to turn to

[5:22:28] Clerkholmist and see how that can be done without defeating

[5:22:33] them motion in the first place. We have to move

[5:22:38] on second or want to, um, withdraw the referral at

[5:22:41] the moment, making amendments to delete items two to five.

[5:22:45] And we can look at the, um, the amendment and

[5:22:48] then pass the motion if the theme image is approved.

[5:22:51] So Councillor Jeffrey and Councillor Potts, if you'll remove, then

[5:22:55] I believe Councillor Jeffrey, you want to put an amendment

[5:22:57] on the floor then? Yeah. So I would, uh, move,

[5:23:01] uh, we amend the motion to remove operative clauses number

[5:23:04] two to five, uh, leave one and six remaining. Councillor

[5:23:10] Potts degrees. So the same mover and secondary discussion on

[5:23:15] that amendment. Not seeing any. I'm going to call vote

[5:23:21] to that amendment. All those in favor. One, two, three,

[5:23:26] four, five, six, seven. And opposed. It was everybody.

[5:23:38] Did everybody? Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see the cards

[5:23:41] come up. Um, okay. So, um, we have the emotion

[5:23:47] as amended, uh, then I'm going to, and we have

[5:23:50] the mover and secretary for that. So we're all right

[5:23:52] that way. Correct. Um, I'm prepared to call it for

[5:23:55] votent unless somebody wanted to say something. All those in

[5:23:58] favor. And that's unanimous. And I turned back to you,

[5:24:04] um, Mayor Hamlin. Thank you. Okay. Uh, we're down to

[5:24:10] confirmatory bylaw. And, uh, it has, it is this that

[5:24:15] Bylan number 2026 - 063 being a by - law

[5:24:20] to confirm the proceedings of the Special Meaning of Council

[5:24:23] held August 2026 being acted in past his 20th day

[5:24:27] of August, 2026. Mover in a second, please Councillor Baines,

[5:24:32] seconded by Councillor Perry. All those in favor. That's unanimous.

[5:24:39] And we have Councillor Potts winning to have a motion

[5:24:44] to adjourn. All those in favor. Unanimous. Thank you very

[5:24:47] much, everyone.

Special Committee of the Whole

Agenda

Transcript