Good afternoon. We're about to begin now. Our council meeting
of Thursday, August the 20th, and we'll start by standing
for the playing of the National Anthem.
Councillor Potts will now be reading the land acknowledgement. The
town of Collingwood acknowledges that we are on the ancestral
and traditional lands of many indigenous peoples. And Ish Navak
Hadneshani went at Mayti, just a few of those who
are Generacy sharing knowledge about the land. As well as
the truths of our shared history. The Town also acknowledges
that Collingwood is included as part of the Lake Simcoe,
Naruto Saga Treaty of 1818. We seek to continue to
learn, strengthen relationships in advanced truth and reconciliation through ongoing
growth and meaningful engagement. First item, then we're going to
deal with this afternoon in assist that the content of
the Special Council Committee of the Hole Agenda for August
2026 be adopted as amended. There's an addition of item
11. 2 extending Go Train Service to Collingwood. Pardon me,
go transit service to Collingwood. Could I have a mover
in a second here, please? Councillor Baines, seconded by Councillor
Ring, any other changes or comments, all those in favor.
That's unanimous. Declarations of Code of Conduct or Pecuniary Interest,
Deputy Mayor Fryer. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Regarding
item 7. 2. 2, The Heritage Application for 40 Sempalco
Street. I have a Court of Conduct on Pecuniary Disqualifying
Interest that due to my sister having ownership in the
property. So I will sit back from the table on
that one. Thank you. If anyone else finds themselves in
a conflict position during the meeting, please declare it at
that time. Item 5. 1, the recommendation is that the
minutes of the Council Committee of the Whole Meeting held
August 10, 2026, excluding Committee of the Whole Recommendations be
approved as presented. Could have a mover in a seconder,
please. Councillor Perry, seconded by Councillor McCulloch. Comments. Oh yes,
go ahead. Just Reese's. Thank you, Marianne. Just with respect
to the physician recruitment incentive, one of the things we
heard at Amo that, excuse me, I don't think we're
there yet. That's 5'3 ", I'm doing 5'1 ". I
was just doing the recommendation of 5. 1, jumped down.
Sorry, but you're just ahead of the curve. Okay, so
on 5. 1, we're going to have a vote. All
those in favor, and that's unanimous. Thank you. Is there
any business arising from the previous minutes of Council. Seeing
none, 5. 3. 3. The recommendation is that the Committee
of the whole recommendations from its meeting held August 10,
2026. By hereby approved, Be Hereby approved as presented. There's
three items. C2026 - 11 efforts and initiatives supporting those
experiencing homelessness. CCS 2026 - 08 - 2027, physician recruitment
incentive, and reports, minutes of other committees and boards. Could
I have a mover in a seconder, please? Councillor Potts,
seconded by Councillor Baines. Did you want to comment? Go
ahead. Thank you, Marion Hamlin. So with respect to the
physician recruitment incentive, um, that we've voted on. It was
announced at the Mo Conference that there was going to
be another round of support for recruitment within the family
teams in Ontario for doctors. And I'm just wondering about
if there has to be an amendment going forward with
respect to the MOU that we do with a doctor's.
If the, if it's a concern for us in double
dipping, if that family team in particular does get funding
to recruit from the provincial provincial government or not. I'm
not asking that it be considered or put into the
mix of the development of the MOU, but I'm assuming
that would be a process that would come forward in
the future. Uh, I'm going to ask Staff Tancers, because
I'm not aware of an MOU. So, uh, Click Thomas,
do you have any idea or, yeah, go ahead. Um,
through the chair, I think that's a good heads -
up comment that we could keep in mind when we're
preparing the MOUs. Certainly if it was necessary to act
now to get a physician to come to Collingwood, that
seemed like a really good fit for our community. We'd
pending Council's finalization of this vote, want to be able
to act. But if there was an opportunity to streamline
the costs, um, have one entity pay, for example, The
Province through the Provincial Health team, as opposed to the
municipal council, we certainly prefer that option as it is
funding that's marked for health care. Um, there may be
some situations, and I don't know because I haven't seen
what mate come through the family health teams where, um,
a doctor may be eligible for both. And it's not
easy to deal with that through the MOU, but I
would be happy to keep our heads up as we
saw that on Fold and to keep it into account
if we could avoid that in the MOU. Yeah. Yeah.
Thank you. I appreciate that. Yep. Thank you. Okay. With
that, any other comments, all those in favor, and that's
unanimous. Uh, The Consent Agenda, um, The Recommendation is the
Council Receive It, and further that the information and opinions
provided in the General Consent Agenda items are those of
the authors and are not verified or approved as being
correct. Uh, 6. 1 expression of interest joined the Alliance
and swim the swimmable cities charter. Um. So can I
get a mover in a seconder for this, please Councillor
Baines. Uh, Councillor Jeffrey. I'll just speak to this briefly
as I've had that just put on the agenda. What
it is, um, it's the Great Lakes Cities Initiative. And
they have different discussions at the annual meeting about supporting
different initiatives. Uh, that often end in opportunities for municipalities
like ours to apply for grants, which we have. Um,
and this organisation is comprised of the mayors of the
cities on the Great Lakes who have joined. There's a
few hundred. So this initiative is to, uh, say that
we would be interested in joining the alliance they're creating,
uh, to acknowledge that swimmable cities, uh, is a great
initiative to encourage not only recreation, but environmental protection, protection
of our waterfront and all the good things that being
on one of the largest freshwater bodies in the world
gives to us. Um, so I just brought this forward
wanting to, I'm sure the opposition, but I'll just, uh,
maybe just ask for a show of hands if everyone
thinks this is a good idea. And that's awesome. Okay.
Thank you. Maybe we should just do that as amendment.
So I'll do an image of emotions to receive it.
And that council supports. Okay. Good advice. Okay. So, uh,
we will, uh, say on this item, uh, a recommendation
that Council received this and that they, uh, approved the
signing of the charter. Okay. All those in favor. Oh,
I need a mover in a second. Can I use
the same one. Same ones? Yeah. Yep. They're happy. Okay.
All those in favor. Okay. Thank you unanimous. And the
motion as amended all those in favor. And that's also
unanimous. Thank you, clerk on us. Uh, so we're moving
now at breakneck speed into the committee of the whole,
uh, should we change spots here, Deputy Mayor. What's your.
Motion to move in tech committee of the world? And
then after we do that motion and it gets weak.
Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. So then let's do the
motion that Council move into the committee of the whole
session. And, uh, that's moved by Councillor Doherty and seconded
by Councillor Ring, all those in favor unanimous. Thank you.
And I'm now going to turn over to our new
chair of the Committee of the Hall. Thank you Councillor
Baines. 7. 211. DGS
2026 - 07 outdoor rink. Roof project update and decisions
re - additional costs. Call upon Director Cubit. Thank you,
Chair Baines. Uh, today's report provides an update on the
outdoor rink roof project. Uh, it outlines the background contributing
to the additional funding request and presents opportunities to complete
infrastructure improvements now that would be more costly and disruptive
to address in the future. Um, while we've worked to
respond to evolving site conditions and project requirements, we also
acknowledge there are lessons to be learned. And we're committed
to strengthening our project planning, design review and capital delivery
processes to help reduce the likelihood of similar challenges on
future projects. Despite these challenges, we remain excited about the
project in the long - term benefits it will provide,
including a longer skating season, uh, expanded recreational programming opportunities
and enhanced year - round use of this asset. And
with that, I will turn it over to Manager McNulty
to walk us through the project update and recommendations. Good
afternoon Mayor Deputy Mayor Council and the Public. This will
be an update on the outdoor roof rank project. And
you can go to the next slide, please.
This presentation will cover, uh, a review of the scope
of the project. The Current Status of the Project. Items
that our project completion requirements that are already in play.
Optional operational in site infructure enhancements. And some future opportunities.
Next slide, please. So going back to the original
intention of the project, um, The primary rationale for installing
a roof over calling with central park outdoor rink. Was
to extend and maximize the uses of facility throughout the
year. Some of the key benefits included ending extending the
ice season by protecting the ink from snow rain and
milder weather conditions. Allowing skating and hockey to continue longer
in the winter. By providing year round functionality for activities
such as pickleball basketball roller skating recreational skating, figure skating
and community programming. By increasing operating hours and facility utilization,
helping the town get more value from an existing recreational
asset. And to reduce pressure on the indoor rinks by
creating more reliable outdoor venue. Next slide.
The project was originally approved in the 2025 capital budget
cycle, uh, 1. 93 million dollars. Subsequent to that. The
town was successful in getting 980, 600 dollars in funding
from the community sport and recreation infrastructure fund. The criteria
to obtain that funding in the, uh, transfer payment agreement
is that the project is complete by December 31st, 26.
Doing construction. Doing, doing the project, um, challenges, um, requiring
changes in the design to meet, uh, permitting requirements and
to adapt to site conditions. Uh, once construction started. We
encountered higher than anticipated groundwater levels. Um, and existing underground
utilities that went, uh, previously documented. Some of the opportunities
include the addition of water management, the site drainage infrastructure.
And some improvements that would be related to ongoing security
acoustic improvements. And, uh, operations such as preparation for a
public address system and a time clock, for instance. Next
slide. These are the, uh, elevations of the, uh.
Of the building as it's designed and has, as it's
been delivered to site. Um, essentially it's a, uh, rectangle
pre - engineered steel building. Uh, slightly larger than the
outdoor rink. With a canopy on the east side that
is, uh, protected area for gathering. Next slide.
Here are some photos from April 15th of this year.
And at this point the contractor had mobilised a site
and had started to excavate for foundations. This was after
a significant rainfall, but it does highlight the areas where
water ponds and central parks. The ball diamond shown in
the top two pictures. Regularly gets, uh, flooded after a
significant rainfall to the point where it has to be
taken out of service for two or three days until
it dries out. And so it delays the baseball programming.
The bottom left photo. You can see where the groundwater
is essentially at grade. And, um, there is no frost
in the ground at this point. And so it's the
water slowly, um, seeps away, um, but it takes several
days. And the lore picture on the right. Is next
to the, uh, washroom building, which is the primary access
to the outdoor rink. And this is right where the
canopy over, uh, on the east side of the outdoor
rink. Well, um, share it's roof water. And so that
issue will just get worse. Uh, going forward. Next slide.
So there was a, uh, geotechnical investigation conducted in July
of 2024. It did not adequately reflect. The conditions that
we found in April and May of 2026. Um. The
solution, the solution that was implemented was to change the
deep concrete foundations to a combination of steel piles and
concrete foundations. So top left picture is an example of
helical piles. That are, um, drilled in. It's actually a
combination of, of helical piles and driven steel piles that
extend down to bedrock. And then those form the base
for the concrete foundations. You can also see in these
pictures, uh, some of the utilities that needed to be
worked around. And the bottom centre, that's a sewer line.
The bottom right, that's an electrical service. This is in
mid June. And you can still see the impact of
groundwater, uh, in the excavations. And so the process was
to install the steel piles or a mud slab in
a dewatered excavation. And then build the reinforcing mat on
top of. So just as further illustration. Uh, on the
left was the original concrete foundation design that would have
been eight feet deep. Sorry. Next slide. On the left
is the original concrete foundation that would have been eight
feet deep. On the right, the foundations. And at the
concrete foundations are now just down to fast level and
the steel piles support the foundations. Next slide.
And so on the top left there, you can see
a couple of the piles with pile caps on them.
Bottom left. Those pile caps become an integral part of
the reinforcing steel within the footing and foundation. And then
on the right, you can see some finished foundations. This
picture was August 10th. And so at this point, all
of the foundations are complete. And insulation and backfilling of
the foundations is in progress. So you can start to
see now the footprint of the roof structure over the
existing ring. And where the roof canopy will be next
to the washroom building at the lower of the site
of the picture. Later we'll talk about
the potential for the installation of. Storm sewers directly around
the roof structure. And at the top of that picture
between the foundations and the lawn bowling club, there is
a metre wide carder there. The storm sewer would need
to traverse. And the same on the south side next
to the bull diamond. It's a very tight area to
be able to, uh, work in. And all of these
areas are fought with underground utilities, most of which we
know where they are now. Next slide, please. This schedule
was updated. August 17th by the contractor. Um, we're still
showing a completion date. Of December 1st, 2026. But notably
there's no. There's no room to insert things into this
schedule at this point. Um, we can overlap other activities
in it. But. Adding time to the schedule would push
its past our limit of completing by the end of
the year. Next slide. So
part A. In the report is project completion requirements. These
are items that, um, evolved during the detailed design process.
Uh, that required changes to the building. For permitting to
adapt a site conditions. Um. And some of them resulted
in a claim from the building supplier. Uh, for additional
costs that were not made known back when the changes
were made. So some of these changes included in this
spend of up to 510, 000 dollars. Because. All of
these costs are subject to negotiation with the contractor at
this point. And so. Um, we haven't provided a detailed
list in the public staff report because we don't really
want to show our position. However, uh, in summary, they
include the posttender changes to the design. Some underground utility
relocation. Adjustment of the perimeter slab on grade to meet
the building footprint. And adapt to the existing grade. The
addition of ventilated ridge cap, um. Provide some natural ventilation
to remove humidity. And we'll have ongoing contract administration costs.
Next slide. B is operational in site infrastructure enhancements. And
again, that's up to 360, 000 dollars because again, these
items are still out of stage of negotiation. Should we
have funding to proceed. Um. They include local drainage infrastructure.
Um, and on the figure on the left, uh, as
I mentioned on the aerial photograph. We propose a storm
sewer to be installed now along the west side of
the new structure and the so - side of the
new structure that would be connected to a future, um.
Extension to that and an outlet to the Minnesota drain.
Uh, we also propose the addition of eve troughs and
downspouts. Acoustic insulation is something that. Um.
We know from talking to other. Uh, communities that have,
um, essentially the same move structure over their outdoor rinks
is that, um, are in event, for instance, there is,
uh, significant amount of noise within the building. Also from
the noise from inside, even from, uh, playing hockey and
Puck's hitting the boards and so forth. We have some
complaints now, uh, from the community about that noise as
it gets into the evening. But also in the event
of expanded uses of the facility, what we're building here
is essentially a big speaker. And so if you were
to put something like a DJ in there, that noise
from the facility could have a real impact on the
community. Bird mitigation, um, is also. Um,
something that other communities have tried to deal with. Essentially
what this is proposed is netting underneath all of the
structure to remove the places where birds would want to
roost under the roof structure. The addition of some exterior
security lighting and preparation for future videos. Security systems. And
as I mentioned before, uh, often for a future time
clock on Public addresses. Next slide.
Um, this is an illustration of what the future drainage
system and the outlet to the Minnesota drain would look
like. We have proposed that, um, depending what happens with
the drainage around the rink. We were proposed to include
this for consideration in the 2027 capital budget at a
cost of 200, 000 dollars. Next slide.
So the roof as designed is, uh. Is.
Classified as group A division three non - sprinkler facing
two streets when it's over 1500 square metres. The allowable
uses for that. Um, are sporting events. So hockey, uh,
skating basketball across ball hockey pickleball. Essentially anything where the
participants using the ice surface for sporting event. What's not
permissible under that classification. Our assembly type uses. So the
likes of a yard sale, a trade show, a community
barbecue, a graduation ceremony. Uh, a celebration of life. Or
any place where you would put tables and chairs on
the A surface with the intent of an assembly. In
the future. Uh, research is that. The sprinkler and fire
alarm system in the curling club, it is feasible to
extend that to the outdoor rink. At a cost of
up to 260, 000 dollars. That would allow for subject
to approval that would allow for, uh, change in the
classification of the building. That would allow these other uses
to take place. Next slide. So
in summary. Um, when addressing council with these considerations at
this time so that we can maintain construction progress have
budget available to deliver a good project. And ensure that
we can collect the CSRIF funding. As I mentioned in
the beginning, the project was originally approved by Council for
1. 93 million dollars. These additional funds proposed. Would take
the total to 1, 929, 000 dollars. So just under
the original approved amount. So when. We transition from the
2025 budget to the 2026 budget, The amount that was
carried over, the funding that was carried over from DC
reserves was reduced by the amount of the CSRIF funding.
So that's why we're back here today.
With approved budget. Staff would be able to proceed with
the project as due acted. And would continue to assess
emerging issues and evaluate the individual project requirements as we
go to balance the project completion date. With the long
- term facility functionality and financial sustainability.
And I'll just reiterate that the. Enhancement opportunities that we've
proposed will only proceed. Upon acceptable negotiated pricing for the
work with the existing contractor. Um, because we're in that
stage where the competitive bidding is over. So now what
we do is we define a scope. We get the
contract due to price it. We do an engineering evaluation
of that pricing. And if it's acceptable, we can move
forward. Otherwise it's off the table. And next slide.
That's my presentation. Thank you manager McNulty and Director Qubit
for that presentation. Prior to reading in the Staff recommendation.
I'd like to call upon anyone in the gallery that
might wish to make a comment. If you do, you
have to provide your name and your address. Is there
anyone in the gallery that wishes to comment. Clerk almost
anyone on Bonline. Thank you, Chair Baines. Yes, we do
have participants online. If you would like to address the
committee regarding the Staff report, please press erase your hand
feature at the bottom of your screen. And no interest
at this time. Thank you. I read in this Staff
recommendation. That Staff Report CCS 2026 - 7 outdoor rink
roof project update and decisions re - additional costs. They
received. And that Council authorized the use of up to
702, 842 dollars from the outdoor recreation services development charge
reserve fund to address outdoor rink roof project completion requirements.
Site infrastructure improvements drainage works, utility relocations, and other project
related enhancements identified during construction. Do I have a mover
of this. Director McCulloch, seconded by the mayor, comments from
Council or Committee members. Councillor Ring. I'll try to be
quick, but I do have quite a few concerns. Um,
I'll start with Geset through you, uh, Chair Baines to,
um, the manager, um, site - specific conditions emerged is
one of the reasons why we're going to have a
higher anticipated, um, with, with the groundwater. Why would we
not know what the groundwater level is? It wasn't long
ago we put that ice service in. We would have
to excavate that for the piping for the refrigeration. Were
we not run into the water in a lot more
excavating than we're doing now? Why would we not realise
that there's, there was an issue with groundwater there. Prior
to now. Through the chair.
Geotechnical report that was conducted in 2024. And to back
up, you were correct. I was around when the rink
was built. And those excavations weren't, uh, as deep in
any regard as any of this. So secondly, there are
already subduing subduingage systems in the east side of the
rink that we're there for the ball fields, which may
have helped the situation. And thirdly, it was a different
time of year. What the geotechnical report that was completed
in July of 2024 for this project specifically. It identified.
Groundwater conditions that would need to be dealt with. But
nothing like was encountered in April and May of. 2026.
It made a suggestion. That a. Major
dewatering effort. Could be carried out. But the final recommendation
said that if you know, paraphrase, but if you dig
the excavations one by one and you dewater them locally
and build them one by one, then you should be
able to manage the water with local pumping. That's what
the contractor priced was based on that statement. And so,
um. Perhaps if we were at that stage of construction
in July or August. Maybe the groundwater would have, uh,
receded, but in the spring of the year and in
order to maintain the project schedule, the decision was made
to change the foundations to be able to keep the
project on track. Thank you for me. Follow up. Uh,
another concern I have is, and I'm sure you just
did, but I just wondering, um, prior to designing the
structure itself, um, you've, we've got one of the reasons
for, uh, the higher than usual expected costs, uh, underground
services. But we know the washroom there. We know that
the lawn bowlings there. Would we not have taken locates
before the design or at least before we started excavating
to know where everything was? It seems like in the
report, we just kind of started digging and we're surprised
that they were there. Am I wrong with that assumption.
Through you to manager McAllenie? Sue the chair. Um, uh.
There were locate done ahead of start the dick. It
turned out they were incomplete. But the park in general
is a legacy park. That's had all kinds of different
buildings and stuff on it. And, um. For instance,
we knew roughly where the sewer from the Washroom building
was. Just because of. Assumption more or less. But when
it was located, we're 15 feet off from where it
was. The water line that feeds the washroom building. It's
not trace. It doesn't have a trace wire. The only
way we know roughly where it is is because of
old hand sketches, the previous parks, employees had made. There's
a new electrical service that I believe was installed to
the lawn bowling club. I believe it was installed when.
Uh, The Oak Doy Ink was built by the look
of it and where it is. That wasn't located anywhere
on any draw. In half of the excavations. And there's
30 plus of them. And at least half the excavations.
We discovered abandoned piping. Some of it life, some of
it dead. Some of them we don't know what it
was. Um, also at the south end and to the
eight, so to the west of the washroom building, that's
the hub for the whole park irrigation, Esther. And it's
not on drawings anywhere. It's been installed over the years.
And. Some of it is locatable. Some of it isn't.
Very bad. I have that bug if other people time
this one here was kind of concerning too, because to
me, it could have been planned in the original. Um,
cost of, of the, the, uh, The project before and
not trying to pay for it now after the fact.
And that is the, uh, the drainage infrastructure and to
support future park wide water management improvements. Um, I just
wonder why it wasn't considered at the start because that
was something that we knew about headed time. Why would
we not kind of work that into the cost the
original cost when we, when we approve the project, why
would we want to do it now that we're halfway
done. Sue the chair, we had a design for that
back as far as 2010. And it was never installed.
And I can't speak to why. Um, it's certainly could
have and should have been recognised when we were going
to build this building with the bank. So for me,
just it was just overlooked or you have, you'd really
don't know why we didn't include it in the UNSO
caused. Or the, I would say it was overlooked. Thank
you. I believe I saw Councillor Doherty next and then
Councillor Potts. Go ahead, Councillor Doherty. You're unmute.
Oh, there you unmuted. Okay. Uh, thank you, Chair. Uh,
Council Ring has, uh, a couple of the questions that
I had, uh, with regard to, uh, what we knew
and what we didn't know, uh, when we originally tendered,
uh, this project, um, and I'm just wondering, it just
leads me to say that I think we need. Not,
not just for this project, not just for this department,
but for all departments, there must be another process, uh,
under which we can, uh, analyse and submit request for
interest requests for quotations so that we are not coming
around to situations like this where unanticipated costs, uh, have
arisen that, you know, in a perfect world, uh, we
should have known. So is that a question or are
you directing that? Well, ultimately, I think it will be
a question to the CAO if this is something that
we can take a look at, you know, as a
system issue. Uh, for the municipality. Um, but, uh, further
to that, um. I, now that we are a little
closer to, uh, identifying a location for a multi -
use recreation facility, I really have a hard time. Justifying
any enhancement to this project. In fact, I think it's
unfortunate that, uh, this very generous funding that we received
from the province, uh, could not have been, uh, put
into a reserve and, and perhaps used, uh, ultimate multi
- use recreation facility, you know, but here we are,
um, we have a commitment, we have a deadline. So,
uh, I guess I have no recourse, but to support.
The costs that will allow us to complete by the
deadline and take advantage of the provincial funding. Uh, but
I certainly will not support, uh, any of the recommended
enhancements. And then I also have a question. Uh, and
through you to manage your McNulty, uh, is it possible
for, uh, solar panels. To be installed on this structure
so that at least we could recoup some cost, um,
through a feeding tariff, uh, that we could actually, uh,
power generated from solar panels to, uh, actually power all
or part of, uh, The electrical requirements for this, this,
uh, this facility. Thank you. Manager McNulty, do you want
to handle that. Yes. Thank you through the chair. Um,
there is a, um, an allowance in the structural design
for solar panels on the root for the structure. There
are. Different ways that solar panels could be installed on
the roof. Um, one being that the solar panel's lay
flat on the roof or at a slight angle to
take advantage of the, uh, angle of the sun. The
second would be to install a backing system. On the
roof that would totally optimize the angle of the solar
panels. What's included for in the design is the installation
of solar panels on the roof. Not necessarily laying flat.
But not on a racking system. But laying on the
roof at a slight angle. So that's what's included in
the design. We have to consider that anything else that
we would add to the structure. Say like us sprinkler
system in the future. Could take some of that capacity
away. For solar panels. But the proportion that a sprinkler
system would take away would be very small compared to
the design factor that was included in the structural design
for Soway. Um, anything further, Councillor Doherty.
This, uh, it's another conversation that, um, I would actually
like to take from here, um, not a decision that
we can make today, uh, but, um. It would be
nice to know if it were possible to install solar
panels. What the cost benefit would be, because it sounds
to me like that would be also an additional cost.
But if, uh, we're capable of powering, say, just this
facility, or if it were actually capable of powering some
other aspects, uh, or facilities within the park, um, that
could help us to make that decision. To assist in
adding solar panels. But this would be a request that
I, uh, would have to make outside of this particular
conversation. And I will. Thank you. So, so the chair,
I can respond partly to that is that, um, Sue
Greenhouse gas emission reduction study. We have a full analysis
of, uh, The solar panels that could be installed on
the roof in different scenarios. And the amount of power
that could be generated. And from there, you can take
it as far as you want. The one project that
we have in the budget that's awaiting an application for
grant funding has been, and I'm actually this, that, that
stream of grant funding, I think has disappeared now, but
it's likely to be replaced with another one. Um, but
in the budget, there's a proposed 10 million dollar project
that would be 80 percent funded by grants. That would
look at all of the facilities in central park. Including
the arena, the ball diamonds, the curling club, potentially the
why as a partner to be able to. Optimize all
of those facilities with regards to greenhouse gas emissions. And
get as much as a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions from the park as a whole. So we
do have that analysis. I don't have a, uh, with
me. Thank you, manager McNulty. That is the Councillor Doherty
said that's probably a discussion for another day. We've really
got to focus on what we are discussing here today.
CAO, did you wish to make a comment at all
in regard to Councillor Doherty's comment about lessons learned, I
suppose you'd say about utilities going forward. Thank you. Yes.
I would, um, as a Director Qubit mentioned in her
opening, um, uh, for this item, I think we have
learned a few things that we would do differently moving
forward if we were to start this project again from
a bidding perspective, the contract management perspective. And, uh, we
do have inflate as well. A fleet and facility service
review. And I think this is one where we've had,
uh, one department, uh, started facilities project. And now it's
moved into another department. And I think looking at our
fleet and facilities and in this case, facilities expertise moving
forward is important as well. So, uh, yes, we will
be, um, looking at and addressing a number of systematic
things that I think could have at least alerted us
earlier to some of the challenges that arose during this
project. And hopefully even prior to bidding. Councillor Potts. Thanks,
uh, Chair Beans. Um, I have a couple of comments,
not necessarily questions, but, uh, I'll start off by saying
that I'm, I'm actually with all due respect, extremely disappointed
with this. And when we hear the discussions of lessons
learned and the lessons learned, unfortunately at the cost of
the, to the taxpayer, the two to 700, 000 to
me is not acceptable. And I look at, um, when
we talked initially, but this project, it was very clear
what the key benefits were. And they were discussed initially.
And, um, we see here from the presentation that the
photos are April 15th with groundwater. And it was discussed
and asked publicly here at whether it was through Community
or Council, I believe in other business item a few
months back. Can't quite remember the date. And there might've
been some groundwater concerns, but there was certainly nothing of
the nature of 700, 000 dollar overrun So to me
when I look at this, I look at this as,
uh, we're now getting into the end of August. We're
expected to make a decision that the 11th hour on
this item. And I just think again, it hits the
media. So we get the report when it hits the
agenda. It hits the media Monday. The community blows up
on the fact of this overrun and we're expected on
the pressures of us to make this decision, which I
also think is unacceptable. The, uh, utility locates, uh, in
my opinion, in my mind, maybe not all locates or
all utilities, you know, can be located, but there certainly
should be able to be all located. And if there's,
as the statement was made in complete locates, the job
should never have started if there was incomplete locates by
law. So you look at a lot of this, uh,
that's being presented. And again, I know staff have probably
worked very hard on it. And there's probably become a
lot of surprises. But this was publicly spoke about through
the contractor in the community four months ago that there
was these issues and these problems. And it kind of
circulated around the community. And again, here at the 11th
hour, it's being presented to us. So with all that
being said, and I do like the idea that Councillor
Doherty's brought forward about the solar panels. However, I would
be very terrified to understand what the cost would be
and the overrun of those costs for any additional work
that would be done for that. So with all this
kind of in my conclusion, I do not support any
extra enhancements. I will not support this. And I think
that the accountability and we have to be responsible to
our taxpayer. And I think at 700, 000 for this
overrun is not acceptable. And therefore we should not be
spending this additional money. And I'll leave my comments at
that. Councillor Jeffrey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So my colleagues
have hit on a number of really important, uh, point.
And I appreciate Staff acknowledging, um, lessons learned and ways
forward. Cause that, that is important. But also I think
it needs to be acknowledged publicly some other way because
Council is really taking a schlacking out there on social
media. The council did this. Council doesn't do that. Council
does this. Council didn't know. So that's not on us.
And, um, so I think there needs to be some,
uh, acknowledgement either through our, um, Communications Protocol somehow. Um,
my concerns more with respect to the funding that we
have ongoing. And I wonder if there's an obligation on
the town when the scope of a project is significantly
proposed to change to the tune of 36 percent Is
there an onus on us to give further notice to
the province and have that funding, um, approval updated. And
if so, if there is that responsibility, what delay would
that potentially pose? And I'm not sure that's one you
can answer now or maybe it's one we've looked at
and have an understanding that we have no responsibility under
the contract to do that. And I don't know who
that is through to, uh, Director Cubit. Yes. Director Cubit.
Sure. Uh, thank you through you. Um, I would, my
understanding would be that, um, yes, it's always appropriate to
update our funders when we have changes to our scope.
Um, I would recognise that, um, uh, The increased cost
of the project still fits within the parameters of the
funding. If you are reducing the Town commitment, then it's
a, obviously a problem with matching funds. Um, and, uh,
just also want to emphasize that the scope of the
project in terms of the objectives that it's delivering to
the community as we're in our application for this funding
are still entirely maintained within the existing design and classification
and the activities can happen within that space. So we
don't feel that that is at risk. Thank you. Through
you, thank you for that response. Um, and so when
I look at the enhancements and what we originally wanted
to do with this property in terms of having an
available, uh, winter and summer months to offset our minor
sports times, not available currently through our existing facilities, um,
uh, this overrun does not include such things as we,
uh, change room, he did change rooms. We're still going
to have kids running from Central Park to the arena.
The change rooms in central don't. All times accommodate the
teams working through the indoor ice surface plus the outdoor
ice surface. Um. So I'm really concerned about where the
future. Um, changes we need for here are going to
come from was spending all of this. So with all
of that said, the one thing I wanted to ask
too is there would be no, uh, shooting of pucks
and things after the noise bylaw. Time frames, I assume,
or maybe is that difficult to enforce. Through you. Got
to. Um, probably Director Cut or whomever familiar with the
restrictions at the noise. I know lights go out automatically
at our parks at 11. P. m. But I don't
know about Director Cubitt. Thank you. Um, I would have
to verify, but, um, my understanding our current noise by
law doesn't actually have specific times, but it's sort of
24 hours if the noise was success of then our
community can expect, um, a response to that. So, uh,
I mean, we're currently managing that at the park. It's
something we would continue to monitor and manage the best
we can. Okay. I might be thinking of construction times.
Clerk's nodding your head. All right. So I believe the
CAO has a response. Um, before you got too far
through you before you got too far from your last
comment, um, there is a site layout consideration in place
for, uh, change rooms. And I would prefer that the
project team talked to that. But I just thought you
might like to know that as you went by. Great.
Through the chairs, management multiplies. There is a, um, a,
um. Conceptual plan for where CAN type change rooms would
go on the site. Part of it has to do
part of the delay with CCANs. Is to do with
order of operations. So build the MOOF structure first, get
rid of that interference. Install Dwayneage system so that the
gathering area, the area east and north of the washrooms,
uh, between the washrooms and the curling club so that
that drains properly. And the process of that develop the
place where you can put the CCANs where they can
stay there for the next 10, 15 years. And, um,
do it sequentially and not manager so that you're not
so that we're not tripping over ourselves sort of thing.
The other thing that I think is important to mention
is that that area. Between the curling club and the
washroom building is also the area where the ice resurfacer
has to come out of the curling club and onto
the ice. None of that area can be treated with
sand or salt. So otherwise it would get tracked onto
the ice surface. So it becomes very important that we
have good drainage in that area so that we're not
dealing with ongoing ice problems. Okay. Thank you for that.
So I think probably where this is leading me too
is I think we need to fix the drain each.
Uh, that's what we need to do. But as far
as enhancements go at this point, I think by fixing
the drainage, we're serving exactly getting what we wanted the
roof to do. And we can move on to the
sekans and other things. So, um, that's where I am
so far. Thank you. Actually Councillor McCulloch is next. And
then there and then the deputy mayor. Thank you, Chair.
Um, through you to a manager McNulty, um, I've landed
in very much the same place as, uh, as Councillor
Jeffrey just mentioned, I think remedying the drainage issue is
important. I just wanted to clarify if there's 150 to
do the initial or the phase one of that. Does
that produce the required benefit that we're looking for or
do we need to also go to phase two to
actually. Achieve a good drainage result. Sue the chair, the
first hundred and fifty thousand dollars only gets the infrastructure
around the rank. It would be non - functional. Until
the 50, the phase two was completed and provides the
outlet to the Minnesota drain. Okay. Thanks. I just wanted
to clarify that. So it is a 350 item, not
a, um, again, I think that's fine. Um, and then
just in general, as I came in, this may be
my remembering recollection of this as it came through the
process. I understood the facility's use was always in my
history intended to be a 12 month facility. And so
I'm, I'm concerned that items like sprinklers, which are required
to be a 12 month facility. We're not in the
original scope or specification for the building. And that they're
coming up at this point in time. So I'm wondering
where that, um, might have emerged from or have I
missed, missed things along the way, which is entirely possible.
I would show you a frustration. Thank you. Is that
it. Um. Yes. Thank you. Mayor Hamlin. While I'll just
say I appreciate your candor here today. This is very
unfortunate situation for staff and for council. And I, I
know no one's enjoying this discussion. Um, least of all
me. I am struggling with our community. We all know
wants to have a multi - use recreation complex. And
that is going to cause a lot of money. And
to put any money into an outdoor reef structure and
its connection to an arena and so on and so
on. It's just not sitting well with me because I
don't feel like I have in my mind a picture
of what our overall recreational uses are going to look
like in the fullness of time. And even when I
look at the arena there, the central park arena with
the sprung structure over it. What I've heard time and
time again is the limited lifespan on those roofs. And
I might ask, uh, through you, um, chair in a
second, uh, if that's true. But if that is true
and I don't know what the lifespan would be, I
hear 10 years, 12 years, you know, where will that
rink fit into our future plan if we are proceeding
to build what I hope will be a robust multi
- use recreation complex, uh, with rinks. And what will
happen to the YMCA building there? To me, that's a
huge question mark in the fullness of time. What's going
to happen with that building. And then, and then I
start thinking, just so you know, where my brain goes,
what's going to happen to that site? Maybe we'll always
have a, I'll just say maybe we'll always have a
curling club and maybe we'll always have an outdoor rink
for recreational purposes and pickleball and all kinds of other
things. But maybe we won't need a place for garage
sales. Maybe the curling club will still be good. Um,
maybe the drainage will be looking after in some future
project. So I guess what I'm thinking, uh, right now
is I know we have contractual obligations to finish this
project, which is the 500, 000 dollar total amount. And
I would be, of course, in support. Our town has
to honour its contractional obligations. But in terms of enhancements
at this time, I would say no. Um, if there
is drainage issues there, I'd say let's do what we're
doing now. We'll wait a few days baseball won't take
place. You know, it won't be wonderful, but, you know,
for now, I think we should live with it. If
it's too noisy for the neighbourhood, we'll deal with it.
And maybe we'll have to shut down things earlier. Um,
or if a future budget, we say, Hey, we got
lots of money. Let's spend, you know, whatever it takes
for improving the acoustics. We can look at it at
that time. Um, so that's my sense of this, uh,
at this point. Let's wait and get a big rec
plan in place. Thank you. Thank you. Before I go
to the Deputy Mayor, just clarity here because you had
mentioned 500, 000, uh, Councillor McCulloch and Councillor Jeffrey were
talking about, I think 250 or 350 for the drainage
issues. So I want to be clear about what figures
we will be eventually talking about. But so could I
just respond to that? So, uh, what my position is
unless I'm convinced otherwise is we're on the hook for
510, 000 dollars to complete this project. And maybe I'll
just confirm that through you, uh, please. Yes. Director Qubit,
I think or Manager McNulty. Is it 510. That's correct.
That's what essentially the current commitments are to be able
to finish the project. And I'm sorry. I just had
one more thing on my mind. In terms of the
geotechnical report from 2024, um, is Staff considering whether we
have any remedies against the company that would have done
that report, which who of course would be insured. I
would presume. Or could staff look into that. That it
does, that is a discussion that Staff have had. We
have not. Um, taken action on that as yet. Um,
because right at this moment, it's more important to keep
the project moving. But that is certainly discussion that needs
to follow up. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy
Mayor. Uh, thank you, Chair Beans. And might get me
over. I have my own questions, but that was bringing
up another one in my mind because the comment was
that we're dealing with 510. When I read the report,
my understanding was that the 510 wasn't something that we'd
settled on. Um, it's what the contractor has settled on.
And, um, my understanding is, is that we're negotiating that
hard. And I really hope we are because, um, and
I guess I get clarification first to you if I
could share the 510 is what's being requested by the
contractor. And we're looking at that long and hard, um,
as to whether or not we're going to agree to
it. I think Manager McNaughter confirmed that the 510 was
what the contractors requesting. Is that not true. Uh, The
Fine Tan includes the claim from the contractor. Another piece
of that is an adjustment to the area of the
concrete perimeter slab, which is outside of the claim from
the contract, but it would be an additional cost. And.
I remember here.
And a ventilated ridge cap, which I believe is, uh,
for quite reasonable cost is worthwhile to be able to
release humanity from the building. And reduce condensation issues. Within
the building. And to resolve some, um, remaining
underground utility relocations. That's a, that's a essentially what it,
what it is. So it's, it's the bare minimum to
get to completion. Thank you. And follow up. It's so
confusing. And we've already talked about the fact that we're
getting this, uh, the day before we go lame duck.
When I, when I hear numbers and some of this
is this and some of this is that. That's why
I come out and I'm looking at it like a
50 percent increase. I know Councillor Jeffrey are probably netting
it down looking at what's enhancements and what's not. But,
uh, it's, it's so troubling to be dealing with this
now. And so I, I want to get a clear
understanding of when this was known about. And I think
my question then through you, if I could, I'd ask
CAO Skinner, like when did we know about this. CIO.
Through the chair. Uh, I was given a heads up
some time ago. I think at least six weeks ago
and was given a detailed, more detailed briefing, um, about.
Four weeks ago, uh, there were, I had a number
of questions that were not unlike the questions that are
being asked by Council today that involved going back to
the request for proposal to the engineers. The engineers reports.
Um, The Agreement with those companies. And similarly, what work
was absolutely essential. Uh, so it has taken this long
to, uh, to get to Council, but we did feel
that, um, we needed to make sure we had a
good understanding of, of these numbers, um, the project prior
to bringing it forward. Again, follow up if I make
is, um, that does nothing to help with my frustration
level. Um, and, and I'm just going to say, and
I'm not going to go into detail. I think it,
uh, it's a direct bearing on the existing governance structure
we have. But you mentioned about the enhancements. And then
the report, it talks about the fact that we don't
do them now. They'll be costlier in the future. Do
we have an idea of what it would cost us
to do them if we completed the project without doing
the enhancements, um, what would be the extra cost. And
not the cost that Councillor McCullough is brought up, the
ones that would need to be done to complete. I
mean, if there's work that has to be done and
it's 210, 000 if that's what it is, what would
it be in dollars if we did it. When we
were going to complete it? Um, in a hole.
Sue the chair, that is not something that we've really,
uh, thought through, but I would suggest that. The drainage
around the rink can be done later. It's just going
to be a lot more difficult and time consuming. Once
the building structure is there. And so we have a
window in the next two or three weeks to be
able to put that in while those obstructions aren't there.
It can certainly be done later. It'll be a more
tedious process. Presumably that means it might be a bit
more expensive. To do the first phase of it. The
second phase is what it is. The second phase being
the outlet to the Minnesota dream. So it could all
be done later as a single project. Part of it
will be more tedious and more time consuming. Therefore more
expensive if we do it later. Now marginally more expensive.
I don't know. Yeah. And, and I too have concerns
when I, when I'm thinking of these types of things
about what's the future going to be about that particular
site as it is. Right. Um, if there was going
to be work that would take place on the one
ball diamond, maybe it would be easy to, to do
the structure underneath it rank at that point in time
or easier. So I, it comes down to, um, I
was pleased to hear that we are pursuing the idea
of whether or not there's liability on the, um, on
the, where we found fault in the, I guess the
studies that were done. And the locations of some of
these things that we didn't know about, if we can
final liability back on the third party and recover from,
from there. But in the end, um, hearing that it
jeopardizes, um, the completion by December, um, 2026, which is
a requirement for our 980, 000 dollars of funding. I
don't see a choice without, uh, without a lot of,
uh, constraination to proceed. I think the last question I'll
ask is if I recollected, I thought this ice surface
was actually designed that it was going to be twin
maybe at, at some point in time. And I, I'm
thinking if, if that was, am I wrong on that?
Maybe I, maybe I'm totally out in left field. Like
I should ask that question first. Was it not supposed
to be something that could be possibly twinned and, and
kind of married with the, with the curling club. So
they could use the one central, uh, ice making Councillor
Jeffrey can respond to that just specifically, uh, when the
project, when I originally brought the project in 2003 or
four, it was, um, it was going to be designed
so that it could be enclosed, not necessarily twinned with
anything with the, it was twinning use of the ice,
um, ice plants, but that it could be, um, bricked.
Um, or enclosed as an individual, um, I've asked that
question before since actually this term, maybe last term. And
I've been advised that when they went in and did
the investigation, that structure was not existing. So. If I
may chair, so the twinning that I heard was more
about the twinning with the curling club as a nice
plant, um, situation. Sure. The ice plant for sure. Okay.
So that's where my confusion comes from on that. And,
um, because I'm still confused on, as you said, it
was supposed to be. And this came to light when
we, we had to make the decision about the roof
that it was supposed to be prepared for a roof
eventually. So, um, those are all my comments right now,
guys, chair. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Perry. Well, thank
you, Chair Baines. Um, compliment you all of all last
great questions and covered a lot of the stuff I
wanted to ask. But the, um, Manager McNulty, you said,
uh, you just answered a question. I did have, um,
the actual drainage will not be connected to the outlet.
Down by the trail. I can't remember the name of
that little creek. So it will not be connected there
if we do the bare minimum. That's correct. Okay. So
if we do the drainage around the rink, where's the
water going to go? There will essentially not be drainage
around the rank. Okay. But the infrastructure would be there
to connect to phase two that would take it to
the Minnesota drain. Okay. So the water's still going to
sit there. I gather in the short term until that
out loud is created. Okay. All right. Thank you. Anything
else. No, actually I have a question first that I'd
like to present two. To Director Qubit, which is number
one. I'm confused a little bit about the numbers that
are floating around because we've discussed the 510 that is
under discussion, shall we say with the contractor to get
the drain work done. And then the distinction between 510
and the 702 that you're asking for here is that
entire difference, quote, enhancements. Um, that we'd be talking about.
Thank you to you. So at Manager McNulty, can chime
in here. But so part A being the project completion
requirements. This is, I think, leave page nine of the
Staff Report, 510, 000. Part B, these are the operational
in site infrastructure enhancements, which includes the drainage. Astinated at
up to 360, 000. The full amount being requested, the
Can Comedy boast those, I realised isn't just the addition
of one and two because, you know, there's been some
payments made, that sort of thing. So essentially to accomplish
part A and part B is the 702, 000. If
Council were to decide to only support, um, part A,
then you could reduce the 702, 000 dollar quest by
the amount of Part B 360, 000 for a total
of 342, 842 dollars, but that's not include your drainage.
Thank you. And one more question. And that is in
regard to this very tight date of December 31st and
the schedule that Manager McNaughty has told us about. Is
there any potential wiggle room with the province about that
date, particularly in regard to the challenges we've had to
face this year. I would like to suggest it's always
worth a phone call. And I, um, had good experiences
with the funders in the past accommodating such requests, uh,
but I wouldn't want to guarantee it. And I'm not
sure if Manager Penalty has a different take on that.
I think you can always ask my understanding is that
the provincial government is usually very tight on their timeframes
because they want to hit their fiscal year end.
Oh, secondly blasted. With something Karen said. Well, then I'll
ask a supplementary if we, um, stopped with, uh, part
B would that increase the chances of making the December
31st deadline. So, so the other thing to consider. Aside
from the December 31st deadline is the 2026 27. Winter
season. So if we want to have the rank available
for this coming winter season, it's the same schedule. Yeah.
Okay. Thank you. Um, Kallok. Thank you, Jermaines. Um, and
this is a comment that I doesn't require response. I've,
I've altered my, my thinking on this. I think if
we're, you know, not proceeding with sprinklers, this becomes a
winter time roof. And if it's only a wintertime roof,
I don't think we need to tackle the drainage issue.
Today. I would feel better, but not being committed to
that expense. It works perfectly well now, except in the
spring. And it's going to fulfill the same purpose, but
with a roof. So I think that's where I'd land.
Uh, director. Uh, thank you through you. Um, I just
want to provide a little bit of clarity on what
this sprinkler system would do. Uh, and maybe misinformation. The
sprinkler system doesn't impact the 12 month of a year
usage. It impacts the type of activity that can happen.
So all the sporting events can still occur. Anything that
would typically happen on a slab, whether there be ice
on it or just concrete slab can still occur, uh,
12 months of the year. And the fact we're putting
a roof on helps with, um, the rain, the sun,
the issues that really sometimes shrink our ices and in
particular, um, so all of those things can still be
accomplished. It's the, when we talked originally about, um, all
the benefits in this roof could do one of the
things we noted were, uh, and community activities. So anything
that's not the sporting and the primary activities, this is
what's impacted by lack of a sprinkler system. Um, like
yeah, expanding mother of all yard sales out onto the
surface, which has combustibles. That's what's prevented by not having
as precursor. So thank you. Yeah. Sorry. And that, that
aligns with my thinking. It's not a current use for
community events. It's a sporting facility and it will carry
on in that function. Three Councillor Ring and the Battle.
I think a lot of them with the additional questions
we just recently had, have been included. Um, we weren't
planning by the, uh, one of the enhancements that you've
got included here. Um, was the troughs and downspouts. So
I don't think we were ever really worried about trains.
It's because I can't see putting a roof on without
eave trough and downspouts, but that's just an opinion. So
like I thought, I took from that that we really
didn't have a real big concern about, um, drainage with
the original design anyways. So I don't know whether the
truth. You toss and downspouts were not included in the
original design. We're not included in the tender. Um. They
would be an enhancement that would, um, their comfort thing.
To keep people from walking through a rain curtain off
the edge of the roof. But further, if you were
going to install a drainage system, then you can take
that downspout water directly into the drainage system. And it's
not on the ground. It doesn't freeze and so on.
One real quick. So that is we have to have
some type of drainage system coming out of that washroom.
So I mean, that it still could have been considered
at the time of, uh, putting it out to tender.
So anyways, that's it. Thank you. And it's come about
from, uh, Councillor Perry's question and even follow up by
Councillor McCullough. And I'm going to apologise at mostly to
Clair Cohen, cause I'm going to direct the question towards
her. And I know that it's actually a manager Truman
is handling the bulk of insurance consideration. But if we've
got a known laying water situation, uh, I think would,
would cause this liability concerns. And now we're going to
do some work underneath, but still have that situation as
a result that will fix some other time. I would
really have liked to have heard from our insurance company
that, uh, that we're protected. Um, again, utmost apology, if
you can't unster, I totally understand. But, um, sure like
to know from, from the staff, how they feel about
any liability situation, um, as I say, knowingly leaving a
situation that, uh, that will be fixed at a later
date. Thank you. Thank you through the chair to address
that question. Obviously if there is going to be areas
that would create liability, the town still has a requirement
to undertake, you know, uh, our diligence and ensuring that,
you know, areas are partitioned off or roped off caution.
Information is put up that we look at alternative methods
to ensuring safety, but we do have an obligation. I
think regardless of, of next steps that staff would be,
um, putting in place, um, at that point, um, that's
all right have to say right now, because I don't
know the extent of what this potential liability could look
like. And I apologise, that update in that way. And
I think what I would want to make sure we
knew, and I think the clerk is saying that is,
um, this will be looked at further by staff. Um,
it's not too far away from 27's budget, right? Um,
I'd like to thank if it was a concern of
staff. And I think that's what I've heard. They'd be
bringing it forward. And that extra work that we talked
about isn't going to be something that's held off if
they feel there's a liability situation there that we need
to address. So I'm, I'm fine with that comment. I
still am struggling with supporting, but I just don't see
any way possible not to support the full 980, 000
dollars that we're talking. And get it done and done
in time. So we don't lose to 980 that we've
got. Clerk almost. I do want to try and bring
this to a vote. But yes. Thank you. I just
wanted to note that Councillor Doherty's had her. I know
it's going to her actually next and then to Councillor
Jeffrey. Yeah. Councillor Doherty, sir. I'm so sorry, Chair, uh,
for piping up again. But, uh, when Manager McNulty was
itemizing, um, what was included in, uh, 510, 000, which
is identified as project completion. He mentioned extension of the
cement slab, uh, to the outer perimeter and also a
roof cap, uh, humidity release, uh, that may not be
what he called it, but, uh, that item. So I
just wanted to be clear were those enhancements as well
or were they also necessary for project completion? Are there
any items that are included in project completion, uh, that
could be considered enhancements could be a due later, uh,
uh, item. Thank you. Senator McNulty. The chair. In particular,
those two items. The reason to pursue the ventilated roof
cap at this point is because, um. The, uh, The
way that that ridge cap is formed between a nonventilated
cap and a ventilated cop is slightly different. And where
the roof steel stands now, which is a custom colour
custom run by the manufacturer. It's still sitting in rules.
Of, of sheet metal. So it's yet to be formed
into its final form. And for, uh, I believe the
quoted cost for that is 12, 800 dollars. So not
a whole lot of money in the big picture, uh,
to be able to switch from a sealed ridge cap
to a ventilated ridge cap and gain that benefit. To
come back and try and do that later, it would
be difficult to be able to match the steel. The
second item. The extension of the, uh. Perimeter concrete
slab, um, is another issue from the tender stage where
there was, uh, miss. Um, misconception of what the
perimeter slab extents would be. And during a clarification in
an addendum, the matter was actually made worse. And so,
um, what. The proposed parameter forest lab included in the
510, 000 dollars is essentially to take the perimeter slab
more or less from the rink boards to the edge
of the roof. Around the circumference of the Rick. As
opposed to leaving at gravel. Or, um, some other treatment.
But in order to finish off that, so it's a
clean area around the exterior of the rink and an
egress pathway. It needs really needs to be concrete. Follow
up at all. Uh, yeah, only to ask, uh, do
you have an estimate just for that, uh, extension. Through
you, to manage your McNulty. I do.
Um. It's one of those things that is still in
the negotiation. But I would say it's, uh, approximately a
hundred thousand dollars of the hundred and ten, Thank you.
Anything further. Yeah. Thank you. Um, and is that something
that could be retrofit. Adding the, the cement at a
later date on top of the gravel. Perhaps in some
areas, um, certainly at the primary access points to the
ice wink. Though it needs to be a hard surface
layer or stuff will be tracked on the ice. Agreed,
agreed. But I'm just wondering if there's an opportunity here
to complete just what is necessary for now. And without,
uh, compromising the integrity of the project. So the, through
the chair, um, just this morning, actually we had a
site meeting where we reviewed the extent of that parameter
ice lab. And at the south end of the rink,
we have, reduced the size of it at the south
end of the rink to bring it in closer to
the boards so that we still have a concrete perimeter
slab, but it's not totally out to the footprint of
the building at the south end with the idea that
at some point in the future a landscaping feature can
be put there to, uh, direct people and how they
access the facility. Thank you. Anything else Councillor Doherty. Uh,
no, thank you. Thank you. Those are my questions. No,
actually for the last time I'm going to Councillor Geoffrey,
but I'm going to hear from Councillor Jeffrey first and
then I'll come to you. Councillor Jeffrey. Uh, no more
questions. Just clarification because this has been like nailing jello
to a tree for me. Um, so if I just
want to complete it and this might align with Councillor
McCulloch and not do anything with the drainage right now,
because it's not going to run out till phase two.
That's 510, 000 up to 510. Correct. No, I don't.
Think so. They just will say yes. Um, if I
could just add something. I think what I heard, uh,
Director Qubit's sakes. I wrote it down, uh, given what's
been spent and blah, blah, blah, to do the first
phase right now. Or to complete the contract is 342,
842 dollars. Correct. But you could maybe ask, she's gnawing,
but she's naughty. Yes, correct. Still confused. Well, the difference
between 345 and 510. That's if that's a, if that's
a negotiation. No. Thing being included within. I'm still thinking
the number is five, 10, but I mean, even at
that, I'm feeling a little ill. But, um, I just,
I would really like somebody to please make this succinct.
So I know what I'm voting on. Cause I'm not
going to vote for the 702 no matter where we're
going on this Mayor Hamlin. Can you address this issue?
Yeah. I think, and I may just ask for Director
Qubit's assistance in this. But as I understood, um, because,
uh, certain amounts of funds have already been spent that
in order to in fact complete the project, the 510
number is really an all - rounded 345, 000. So
if we just wanted to do what's necessary to finish
the project with no enhancements, it's 345, 000. Right. And
if I could just ask through you if Director Qubit
could confirm that. If, if I may for complete clarity,
um, I'd like to direct us to page eight of
the staff report, which are the financial implications. Thank you.
And, and Manager McNulty and I completely appreciate how abusing
this is. I understand that because we spent a lot
of time trying to make sure we were very clear.
So to date in 2025, the project incurred cost of
277, 184 dollars. These are overall project costs. In 2026
to date, the project spend 605, 739 dollars The remaining
construction contract. Is 1, 100, 500 7, 103 dollars. So
the subtotal for current project cost as is, we did
nothing else, 2, 040, 06 dollars. Our next section, project
A, the project completion requirements of 510, 000 dollars. Of
360, 000 dollars If you added that to the subtotal
above, it's 2, 910, 000 27 dollars. So what now
I was showing you the budget impact below here for
2026. 2026 outstanding costs for the enhanced project. So that's
the total enhanced project budget. Less 277, 000 and change
spent in 2025. So this is where there's some changes
is 2. 6 million 300 2842. And if then we
deduct what is currently in the 2026 budget That's the
town's commitment today and the grant which is 1. 93
million dollars. The outstanding amount is 702 dollars So that's
if we were to do everything that we requesting right
now. There's an overage. Of 702, 000 So if we're
saying we don't actually want to do both part A
and part B we can reduce The amount of part
B which was 360, 000 dollars And that makes the
overage only 342, 842 dollars Was that helpful or did
it make it worse? If I may just delineate again
The part B enhancements which would be suspended if we
did proceed Correct If you can delineate what those are
against your sweet. No. Last Manager McNulty The Part B
enhanced. Part B enhancements.
So the part B enhancements that make up the additional
360, 000 dollars. Are the local drainage infrastructure around the
bank The addition of Eve to offs and downspouts. Anything
to do with acoustic insulation or bird mitigation. Uh... Exterior
security lighting. Or preparation for video security cameras. Or anything
to do with time clock and public desk system. And
those all of those things could be done later. Thank
you Um. And I'll just say that. Director Cubat is
right. I think about these numbers in terms of The
project. But it's a mind shift When you start to
think about it In terms of the budget And that's
where The lesser number 342, 000 comes from Because part
of the 510, 000 is included in the current budget.
Allocation. It's everyone clear Thank you Mr. Chair So can
I follow up my question? Will yes And if that's
The number I guess The clerk won't let me amend
the number in the motion We'd have to vote down
The number that's there first and then propose a new
number Is that correct? Through to the clerk. Correct Okay,
thank you. That being case, this is the moved and
sanity. Um. The Saturdays At least to accept the response
of Katana Yeah, we'll do that then So the first
portion is that Staffport Staff Report CC S 2026 -
07 Outdoor Rink Roof Project Update And decisions re -
additional costs be received. All in favor. Carrie unanimously. The
second part, and that Council authorized the use of up
to 702, 842 dollars from the Outdoor Recreation Services Development
Charge Reserve Fund to address Outdoor Rink Roof Project Completion
Requirements Site Infrastructure Improvements Drainage Works, utility relocations, and other
project - related He enhancements identified during construction. All in
favor. Sorry Deputy Mayor Just a clarification if I could
share through to the clerk Um... I do intend on
proposing an amendment Um... I feel like I can do
it. If we vote this down still And I just
want to make sure of that Um, I'm actually looking
to include another in that. It'll be... Some wording in
regards to the involvement of CAO Skinner Uh... On the...
When I'm going to call the negotiations, so to speak,
of how this is. That something I'd be able to
do if I don't put it on now. Yeah. So
you'd like to add that as a no - 2.
Yes. If I can do that after Disc gets defeated.
Okay So you want to comment before voting on this.
Yeah, correct me if I'm wrong Like if we vote
against... Do we not have to put an amendment in
first Before we vote on this? Because if we... No,
okay The clerk is saying Otherwise Okay Councillor Ring, did
you want to question this before The vote. No, only
the same fact I was... I mean, I know you
don't have to, but I thought that Councillor Jeffrey might
have an amendment But we vote on prior to voting
on This, we could defeat that. The other way around,
right? Okay. Lost the movement Secretary would like to withdraw
They're moving in 2nd of this Motion to prove it
in full Oh, we can do that. I So did
I move? Second I can't remember. I think I moved,
or seconded. I believe we have Councillor McCullough, and we
have Mayor Hamlin. Happy to withdrawal I'm happy to withdraw
Whichever is most Consider it done, thank you. Thank you
for that. I'm learning. So That's The fact we can
now take an amendment to this Deputy Mayor. County So
The Amended would be exactly the same wording except with
The Youth Up to 342 842 or 848, whatever that
number was. Councillor Perry Seconds of Motion. Many Other discussion.
Councillor Ring Just just that... That's basically what I could
support. I wasn't going to support The Way It was.
Good. That being... Clerk Almas. Thank You Sopher Clarity We
can't just change The Number, because it does talk about
addressing site infrastructure drainage Works Utility Relocations and other Enhancements
So I don't know if Reverb's Assistance Me. Mr. Chair,
okay, and the Council Authorized The Youth 342, 848 Dollars
from the Outdoor Recreation Services Development Charge Reserve Fund. Um...
To complete The Outdoor Rank Roof Project. As... Apart from
her party, like No Part A says 510. Can I
still say that? Okay, per party. Good, and... That's acceptable
as well. Okay, everyone knows What the Motion is. I'll
call the vote, all in favor. Opposed, if any, Councillor
Ring. So I Councillor Pots. I apologise. Thank you. Deputy
Mary wish to say something. Yes, thank you, and I'm
going to propose a further amendment. In my view, Because
I've expressed the concern about liability sites and these enhancements.
I think may need to be done Um, I'd like
to put some wording into Direct CEO Skinner, because this
is the only opportunity I can do that is here
at The Table. And what I'd be looking at is
I think something that would say... And that CEO Skinner
Council Direct CEO Skinner, to... I'd like to say take
the lead. I know CEO Skinner, you'd probably would Prefer
this was handled by staff directly, but I'm just saying
I think you need to be lead for us here,
because it seems to me, like if we're going to
minimize The impact. Um, that we possibly can do with
the situation has happened. Our CEO needs to be involved.
So, um, I'm proposing that the CEO Skinner, or Council
Direct CEO Skinner to be involved, and report back, even
though Council will be in lame Duck. We've given direction
that up to this amount can be spent. Um, and
I'd like to know if it turns out that There's
some real concern by staff going forward. I want to
make sure that coming into 27 budget The new Council
is aware of The possibility of further need for spending
in order to alleviate some of the liability that we
might be sitting at So the simple line would be
to Council Direct CEO Skinner to Participate as the lead.
In the discussions on trying to minimize the cost excesses
And report back to Council. Is that okay.
The Deputy Mayor proposes this motion. Is there a seconder
for this? Councillor Ring. Comments.
Councillor Ring. I remembered why I drew a blank the
last time I put my request to speak up. Um,
we still got to, regardless how the amendments go. We
still got, um, we have one that's been approved So
we have to vote. The Motion as amended. Uh, before
I do that. And endorse it or not. With the,
just what we've approved here now in Councillor Jeffrey. Amendment
through you to Manager McNaughty. It's less than half of
the 700 2000 that we originally were asked to. It,
well, all the amendments, it's Second Amendment. Okay.
Thank you, the motion that was passed regarding the 200
342, 000 was a main motion because the main motion
was defeated So a new main motion was put on
the floor So it was passed, and this is a
new main motion as well So this is not an
amendment It's an addition to, so it's another main motion
Uh, uh, that Council Direct CEO Skinner to participate in
lead Uh, The Completion of the Outdoor Ring Project and
Report Back to Council regarding any changes in the status
of the project to minimize cost increases. Okay. So to
that, I'm asking a question to the main motion then,
if it's a new main motion. I just want to
know basically and call me out of order if you
want. With what we Without the enhancements up to the
700 - 2000 Are we going to jeopardize losing the
funding from the provincial government? Or can we still qualify
for it? I'll allow that. Through the chair We've Director
Qubit can confirm, but... We are of the opinion that
that does not jeopardize The funding. It's all I wanted
to know Good. Deputy Mayor And that's part of the
intention of the direction to the CO, because all we're
doing is getting the money into the budget I feel
like we should have some direction there, and then can
hear back Um... When appropriate CO2 sides that... Does anyone
else want to wish to speak to this motion. Therefore
I'll call the Motion, all in favor. Opposed. Emotion Carrots.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are finished with this item. Well,
now move on to 7. 2. 2. E 2026 -
21 Heritage Permit Application for addition at 40 Simco Street.
I'd like to call Pon Director Valentine, and I think
she will introduce Senior Planner Tikhl, but go right ahead
Sorry I am sitting back from the table Oh yeah,
for my conflict Deputy Mayor will step back from this.
Please proceed Director. Thank you Chair Baines Before you today
for consideration is an application for a Heritage Permit to
Support a Building Edition at 40 Simcoe Street, also known
as Black Bellows Building. The vast majority of Heritage Permit
Decisions are delegated to staff with advice from The Town's
Heritage Committee Where required providing additional guidance However, there are
some limited circumstances with it Which essentially bump up a
decision on a Heritage Permit to Council The application before
you represent one of those situations In this case, the
Staff Recommendation and The Advice from The Heritage Committee do
not align, and therefore a decision on the permit is
Elevated to Council, as noted by the chair with us,
a senior Planner Till, to provide you with an overview
of The Application and the Rationale for the Staff and
Heritage Committee Positions. Thank you, so good afternoon Committee members,
so this is the Presentation Report P2026 - 21 regarding
the Heritage Permit Application for In addition at 40 Simcoe
Street. Next slide, please. So The Town has received The
Harriage Permed Application for a new addition at 40 SIMcrow
Street, which is within the Collingwood Downtown Heritage Conservation District
Designate an Under Part 5 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
The Subject Property is located at the Southwest Corner of
Simcoe Street and St. Maurice Street, north of Eddie Bush
Memorial Arena, and opposite of the Collingwood Library. The property
has been known as Black - Byllows since about 2020,
and prior as Day's body shop. The existing building on
the property consists of the following portions in order of
construction as denoted on the screen. A two - story
Redbrick building built in approximately 1890 facing St. Marie Street,
a single - story rugbrick building at the corner of
St. Marie Street in Simcoe Street Spilt around 1950, and
a single - story medal Cloud Edition, connecting both the
rear of the 1890 and 1950 portions of the building
built - in approximately 2018. The location of the proposed
edition is that The West End of the South Yard
shown in green. Next slide, please. So The Pictures on
this slide show The existing conditions of the South Yard
between the existing building and the Eddie Bush Arena, next
door, as seen from St. Mary Street. The South Yard
is presently gravel area used for parking and brewery storage
with Vehicular Access from St. Marie Street. Next slide, please.
The pictures on this slide show The Existing Street Scape
Condition in the area to provide some sense of the
visibility of the South Yard and the proposed edition location
from the Public Realm. The repose location is most visible
when standing directly in front of the yard on St.
Marie Street, as shown in the middle image, with visibility
increasingly limited moving south and north along the street due
to the existing taller buildings set close to the street.
Next slide, please. This slide shows a site plan of
the subject property with the proposed edition location identified in
green. The owner submitted a hit the Heritage Permit Application
on July 15th and is proposing to construct the single
- story 125. 6 square metre or 1351 square foot
edition as an extension of the existing single - story
2018 edition. Next slide, please. So The proposal would maintain
the existing Fenestration, which is window design, placement and arrangement,
as well as materials of the existing 2018 edition with
the front, so facing St. Marie Street being clad in
the same metal siding is what's on the existing 2018
edition. The South side and the rear west elevations are
proposed to be painted concrete block. The proposed, or the
purpose of the addition rather is for storage and warehousing
related to the existing accessory brewery and would consolidate storage
activities currently in the South Yard, which are currently housed
within shipping containers and a trailer into permanent building. Next
slide, please. The Heritage Committee's role is an advisory capacity,
and their recommendations to Council and Staff are valuable, but
the decision to issue refuse a permit ultimately resides with
council, where the conflict between the Herige County and Staff
recommendation, or staff in the case of consistency between the
heritage Committee and Staff recommendations. A Heritage Permit Application for
the addition was considered by the Heritage Committee first at
their July 22nd meeting, where it was deferred for the
applicant to address recommended revisions, specifically amending the east, which
is the front - facing or St. Marie Street facing
elevation to Redbrick and reconsider by the committee, uh, at
a future meeting. Um, so to provide the applicant with
the timely opportunity to return to the committee with any
adjustments, their application post - deferral. The Committee held a
meeting on August 6th, uh, where the application was again
considered. Staff met with the applicant on July 24th in
between to discuss Fred Brook Masonry and other possible colliding
options. And between July 22nd and August 6th meeting, The
Applicant did not revise that front elevation to red brick,
nor did they propose to make any other alterations to
the proposal. So the applicants submitted a letter to the
committee for the August 6th meeting, which is appended to
this Staff Report. Citing Economic Impracticalities is to why they
did not revise the East Elevation to Brick as requested
by the Committee in July. The letter also outlined the
Applicant's Rationale for support for the Unrevised Proposal. The Committee
ultimately passed the motion on the screen at the August
meeting to recommend that Council refused the permit due to
concerns with the proposed materials. The committee in their deliberations
noted concern with the proposed materials being inconsistent with the
district plan, noting the proposed addition is more visible from
the St. Marie Street than the existing edition. Next slide,
please. So Staff agree with Heritage Committee that the proposed
metal siding is not supported by the district plan. However,
Staff are of the opinion that there are contextual circumstances
in this instance that warrant support for the proposal. Most
compelling to staff as the desire to maintain the consistency
with the 2018 edition as the proposal would still leave
a portion of the existing addition. And its metal cladding,
uh, visible rather than introducing another clouding material that does
not relate to the 2018 edition. The second contextual circumstance
is the sighting of the proposed addition at the rear
of the property, set back approximately 22 metres or 72
feet from St. Marie Street. Well, the addition would be
visible from the street. It's prominence in the streetscape would
be minimal due to the significant setback, the lack of
impact of views of the sell side of the 1890
portion of the building. And further both the 1890 portion
of the building and the Eddie Bush Memorial Arena block
views of the proposed addition location, um, from points to
the north and south on the street. While the proposed
edition and isolation would make a limited contribution to the
heritage character of the district, and Staff's opinion, it would
enhance the district by providing a permanent storage building and
facilitating the removal of a trailer and shipping attainers in
the south yard and represent minimal change the character of
the district and property, specifically noting that it would not
alter the 1890 portion of the building. In summary, Staff
are recommending approval in accordance with the recommendation shown on
the screen. Like slide, please. So Subject 2 Council's approval.
Next steps include providing the, uh, owner with a notice
of receipt, followed by Heritage Permit within 90 days, uh,
or a notice of refusal of the heritage permit. The
owner may appeal a refused permit or conditions within 30
days to the Ontario Land tribunal. And if no appeal
is submitted to a refused permit, the owner can potentially
submit a revised proposal if they wish. Uh, there are
other options as well that Staff can want committee through
if either of the approval or refusal options are not
the preferred direction of the committee. And I believe Travis
Sandberg is in attendance to speak to the application as
the owner. So that concludes my presentation and I'm happy
answering questions. Thank you. Thank you, Senior Planner Till. For
that report. Um, before reading in the motion, I'd like
to ask if anyone in the gallery wishes to address
the committee. That being the case, uh, Clerk Almas, is
there anyone online, which is to provide comment. Thank you,
Chair Beans. We do have Travis Sanberg that would like
to address the committee. By all means, go ahead. Mr.
Sandberg. The floor is yours. Thank you, Chair. Um, just
for the record, my name is Travis Sandberg. I'm the
manager of Plan Development and Planning at Dun Capital Corporation,
uh, who is the registered owner of the subject property.
Um, just going to highlight a couple of points, uh,
for the, for the committee's consideration on this application. Um,
as noted by the Staff presentation, the primary purpose of
this edition is functional in nature. And is intended to
consolidate the existing storage and refrigeration containers that are on
the property with a permanent enclosed structure. As a result,
um, this, this proposed will not create any new public
proceeding areas within the building, nor will it intensify the
continued restaurant and accessory brewery use of the property. Um,
it will also know an alter the existing building facades
along, uh, Simcoe Street or St. Marie Street. The building's
overall relationship to those streets nor the features that contribute
to the character of the Heritage's district. Um, as mentioned
by Staff, the addition is confined to the southwest corner
of the property and is set back approximately 22 metres
from St. Mary Street. Because of its location size and
massing, the original brick building and its street facing facades
will continue to be the most prominent parts of the
property. And the primary contributor to the established streetscape. In
our view, the application is consistent with the objectives of
the heritage district plan as it supports the continued adaptive
reuse and economic viability of the building. It remains clearly
secondary to the historic portions of the building and has
limited visibility from the public realm and approves and maintains
compatibility with the architectural rhythm of the neighbouring buildings and
streetscape when compared to the existing site condition. Um, to
speak to the heritage committee's primary concerns being black metal
cladding, uh, and the continued use of it. Um, and
it's visibility from St. Marie Street. It's important to recognise
that the heritage district plan does not require additions to
replicate the designer materials of the original building. And also
recognises that compatibility can be achieved through appropriate consideration a
form alignment height massive back architectural features colours and materials.
It also establishes that new work should remain distinguishable from
the original heritage fabric. In the case of this proposal,
the proposed black metal cladding is a continuation of the
treatment that was previously approved and constructed on the existing
rear edition and creates a cohesive appearance across the contemporary
portion of the building while maintaining a clear distinction between
those and the original portions of the building. By contrast,
the recommended brick treatment and our view would introduce a
third type of brick and a fourth exterior material. Excuse
me. And fourth exterior material to the building, which in
our view, would create Alaska Cohesive appearance than what is
proposed. And as well as, uh, the cost considerations relative
to the intended supporting nature of the structure. While it's
acknowledged that the addition will be visible when looking directly
west into the property from the General vicinity of the
driveway, uh, the existing rear edition is also already visible
from that viewpoint and the proposal would increase the overall
visible building fees by only about four metres. We're visible.
The proposed clouding material would otherwise improve compatibility with the
streetscape established by Jason Bilans. Beyond that specific viewpoint, the
addition would continue to have very limited visibility from the
broader public realm. Uh, it would not form part of
the primary north - south St. Marie Street Street, nor
would it compete with the prominents of the original building.
I supported by the submitted scoped heritage impact assessment. Finally,
it's also important to compare the proposal of what with
what the existing condition is on site today. The area
currently contains storage and refrigeration containers and other exposed service
functions and areas. Consolidating all of these elements into a
permanent integrated edition will provide substantial visual and functional improvement
to the property. With that, it's our review that the
proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies of the
heritage district plan in that it supports the continued use
and viability, the building while improving general compatibility with the
architectural rhythm of the neighbouring buildings ancestry. And therefore with
the heritage character of the district. Uh, in conclusion, we
respectfully request that Council approve the heritage permit application as
submitted. And as recommended with the conditions by staff, thank
you. Thank you, Mr. Sanberg, for your presentation. They'll now
read in the recommendation. That's Staff Report P 2026 -
21 Heritage Permit Application for Edition at 40 SIMCO Street
B received. And that Council approve heritage permit application PLHP
2026 251 for 40 Simple Street subject to the following
condition. One, that the paint colour of the south side
bracket, South bracket side, and the West bracket rear elevations
B in accordance with the town approved heritage colour palette.
And further, Staff be directed to issue the permit in
accordance with Council's decision within 90 days of serving the
applicant with a notice of receipt. Uh, moved by Councillor
Pott's seconded by Councillor Ring. Questions, comments. To the committee.
Um, I will make a comment and that is, I'm
not prepared to support this staff recommendation. Um, I know
it's more challenging for the developer to use brick rather
than what heritage committee recommended. But I think we have
a Heritage Committee that makes recommendations. And a heritage by
- law that has standards. And I think we should
adhere to those standards, uh, going forward. So, um, The
Youth could change if it's a new owner. And I
accept, uh, the Heritage Committee's recommendations. That's just my own
opinion. But who else wants to speak? First Councillor Perry
and then Councillor McCulloch. Uh, thank you Councillor Brains. I'm
supporting this for, I mean, I, I appreciate what the
Heritage Committee does. It's fantastic work. And I just had
visitors here from out of town and they were commenting
on the, uh, our lovely downtown. But I'm looking at
this building from the site. I mean, at some point
that red cladding was okayed in 2018, I believe it
was. And to, to what Mr. Sandberg said, it's going
to look more chopped up with the red brick. If
it was red brick all the way around. And the
sooner we get this building up and running, the better.
Councillor McCulloch. And then Councillor Dup. Thank you, Chair. Uh,
I'm, I'm in the same place as Councillor Perry. Someone
wants to invest in the downtown and have a minimal
impact on the streetscape. Um, I want to support businesses
to expand and grow where they can without, um, additional
red tape. And based on the guidance we're getting from
staff, they feel that's unacceptable solution as well. So I
will support this. Councillor Doherty. You're
still muted. There you are. Yeah. I am sorry. Uh,
you know what my colleagues have, uh, well enough expressed,
uh, my feelings on the recommendations. So, uh, I will
support staff's recommendation on this one. Thank you. And I
agree with, uh, comments of my, uh, colleagues here on
Council. And I'll also say, you know, with the same
extension of the Colour Treatment and the cleaning up of
that really unsightly storage at buying the building, this is
really a win - win for the community. And, uh,
I do appreciate the Heritage Committee's thoughts on this, uh,
and maybe if their view had been, uh, the right,
you know, if this red brick had been part of
the 2018 edition, it would be a different situation. But
I feel this is the best for now. Thank you.
All those in favor. Opposed. Carried. We'll now move on
to the next item, which is 7. 2. 3 IN
2026 - 10 Eden Oak Brackett McNabb. Indigo Estates subdivision
assumption. I will ask Director Alcoca to start opening remarks.
And then I'm assuming he's handing it off to a
manager Liol. Well, thank you, Chair. I have the pleasure
of not having any stuff support today. So I will
start with my speaking notes about the report. Eden Hawk
McNabb Indigo Estate Subdivision. The report before Council. Specifically about
the assumption of the Municipal Infrastructure within the Eden Orc,
Bhaknab Indigo Estate Subdivision. The subdivisions located east of our
entire street. North of Hamilton Dwayne Trail, west of the
trail and south of Lockhart Road. The town entered into
a subdivision agreement with Eden Hawk, McNab Inc. in January
2019. And the development includes 261 single - family homes
and 120 Town House units across two phases. Foremost, I
want to acknowledge that this subdivision has a history of
concerns raised by neighbouring residents, particularly during construction period. Those
concerns include the drainage and grading impacts. Sediment migration and
erosion, sewer flushing. The remover or alteration of agricultural tile
drains. Really are drainage issues and concerns related to retaining
all fencing and interface with the existing neighbourhood. Those concerns
were taken seriously. And resulted in considerable review and follow
- up by Townstaff, the developer and its consultant, including
additional engineering review and independent peer reviewer appropriate. Corrective measures
were also undertaking during construction where issues were identified. The
important distinction for Council today is between issues experience during
construction and development process. And whether the completed municipal infrastructure
now satisfies the requirement for the assumption. The Municipal Infrastructure
proports for the assumption includes the roads. Water and sanitary
infrastructure within the Minister of a Right Away and the
stormwater management facilities. The subdivision has now been completed. And
the Municipal Works have been inspected. Staff are satisfied that
the infrastructure has been constructed in accordance with the approved
designs. And then according to the Town Standars and the
requirements of the subdivision agreement. Staff have not identified any
outstanding municipal infrastructure deficiency. That would prevent assumption. There have
also been more recent concerns regarding landscaping. Threes and other
features within some really hard range is months. These strange
swayers are located on private property. And are protected by
easements to maintain their dange function. They are distinct from
the municipal infrastructure that Council is being asked to assume.
Staff have not identified evidence that the complete administrative drainage
infrastructure is presently failing to perform as designed. We're an
obstruction or alteration within the range isn't at main to
Finterfeel with the drainage in the future. The town remains
the Taudritz mechanisms. To require that the easement and strange
function be maintained. Some of our trees were replaced during
the summer of 2026, earlier this summer. And the tunnel
continued to hold that property securities through the applicable landscaping
or on T period. Upon Council approving the assumption, the
time will formally take ownership and ongoing maintenance responsibility for
the municipal roads. In ground infrastructure and stormwater management facilities,
the remaining allegeable securities can then be released in accordance
with the subdivision agreement and coordinated through development engineering. The
town has also taken lessons from the experience of this
development. Issues identified through the construction, inspection and follow -
up process have helped inform updates to our engineering and
development standards and practices. With the objective of improving the
range, grading construction oversight, construction of our site and the
interface between new development and existing neighbourhoods on future projects.
Accordingly, while we acknowledge the history of the subdivision and
the concern raised by neighbouring residents, the recommendation before Council
is based on condition, compliance and readiness of the completed
municipal works for assumption. On that basis, Staff is recommending
that Council approved the assumption of the municipal infrastructure and
then acted required assumption by law. Thank you. Thank you,
Director Alcoka for that detailed response in support of this
recommendation. Uh, there being no one from the public in
the gallery to call upon. I will ask the clerk,
there either way. Okay. I will read in this recommendation
and then accept comments from Staff and questions. Recommendation that
Staff Report IN 2026 - 10, Eden Oake, bracket McNabb,
indigo estate's subdivision assumption be received. And that Council approved
the assumption of all infrastructure works within the Eden Oak
bracket, McNabb, indigo states subdivision that were intended for municipal
ownership as identified in this report. And that Council NX
and pass, a bylaw to assume the roads and infrastructure
within the Eden Oak bracket McNabb indigo estate's subdivision. Moved
by. Who will move this motion. The Mayor will, who
will second this. Councillor McCunlor, sorry, McCulloch. That being the
case, questions to staff. Councillor Potts. Thanks Chairman. I guess
the area that I'm concerned about the most here would
be the properties that are the, at the back of
Brock Crescent and the, uh, drainage easement. How is it
acceptable when I see photos of wooden deck structures and
trees planted and all kinds of things that would really
interfere in this house is acceptable to be passed. And
to be allowed, especially, I guess, within the drain achievement
or like, so where does Act Community fact? Because I
know even a few years back, there was, uh, there
was things that were put into place from homeowners in
the new subdivision that were actually removed and corrected because
they were in the easement area or the drainage area.
And then now this has been allowed. So how, how
does that get past or be accepted. Torture the chair,
as I indicated earlier in my speaking, notes that this
backyard is meant for the swale are on the private
property. They're not being assumed by the town. Uh, the
assumption is for the roads, the infrastructure that's within the
road and the store motor management facilities. The owner has
a responsibility to maintain that easement and the easmouth is
on their title. If they interfere with the drainage function,
we have the ability to go and have them corrected.
That is not the responsibility to develop. The developer has
completed the design. As it was approved. The homeowner is
ignoring the easement regulation and adding infrastructure. And we will
deal with those separately. The part. Three chair. So if
I'm a homeowner on Brock Crescent and you have a
new development behind you and they don't abide by the
drainage. And something, God forbid there would be a problem,
which I can see there will be. Then like at
what point is there not like, I mean, this just
seems to be kind of a it's done. And then
we know that there would be almost impossible to get
anything corrected moving forward on it. So like to me
and, you know, going back to years, maybe two and
a half years ago, the town was involved with the
drainage infrastructure for the stormwater drainage at that point. What
would be any different now than it's the homeowner's responsibility?
I mean, uh, I drainage, uh, if it's stormwater infrastructure
to me, it shouldn't be interfered and there should be
at some point the town should be stepping in. It
shouldn't be put to the new owner. This is going
to cause nothing but problems. I can see it. There's
been drainage issues in this area for years. There was
infrastructure that was put in to brought Crescent from that
area before the subdivision was there. And I think it's,
uh, I just think this is going to be nothing
but a nightmare. So just simply for the on the
on the point of this, uh, with this drainage, the
way this is, even whether it's related or not, I
couldn't, I can't support the assumption. Rotts, uh, Councillor Doherty.
Uh, thank you, Chair. Um, I also have, uh, some
concern about, uh, accepting, um, this staff recommendation in its
entirety. And, uh, I just, I want to get just
confirmation, uh, what, um, Director Alcoca described as, uh, Eastman
drainage easements. So is that, uh, to confirm through you
chair to Director Alcoca. So the easement is on title
to the homeowners. Property. Is that correct? Well, the chair,
yes, to my understanding. Thank you. So it seems to
me that, uh, you know, we're. Without acknowledging that this
eastment is here for a reason. Uh, it seems to
me that down the road, we may very well be
asking for trouble, uh, I, uh, also was, uh, sent
some photographs, uh, from a resident on Brock Street showing
that, uh, in the very place where the easement, um,
is that plantings have been put in place. Now these
plantings may not be interfering at all with the function,
uh, of the drainage. There today. But down the road
as those trees mature. Uh, they may very well have
a very significant impact. And the town has already assumed
it. Going to be that the homeowners on Brock Street
will be left holding the bag. If there is a
flooding issue. Actile Coco. Threw the chair
to Councillor D. Again, the focus on the infrastructure that
was built for the development, which has been completed. We
are not assuming the backyards. The soyers in the backyards
are there and there is men. The owners are ultimately
responsible to maintain that opening. If there is obstructions and
you mentioned, please. And in fact, we had Staff inspect
those backyards with some of the platin trees. And as
far as the engines are concerned, they are not an
obstacle to drainage anytime soon. Uh, again, we're not assuming
the backyards. We're assuming the infrastructure within the road, uh,
the easement is there for its purpose. And the range
would be monitored by staff. If any obstructions that would
cause it, then it would be addressed through the easement
rights at the town has. Follow up. Yes. Uh, so
I've seen this, uh, issue emerge, uh, before, even in
my own, uh, neighbourhood where over the years, uh, residents
have interfered, uh, with a drainage adjusement, uh, having the
impact of, um, causing, uh, pooling of water on surrounding
properties. So it seems to me that it might be,
uh. Well advised. For the town to issue a letter
to those residents on whose property, the easement is today
just to remind them that this is an easement in
favor of the town. And these are the reasons why.
And should down the road. There be some, uh, significant
interference that, that, uh, impedes the functionality. That it will
be that homeowner's responsibility to rectify. And I'm
wondering, I guess I would put that question through you,
uh, the, the clerk as our guide of all things
legal, uh, if that is something that the town could
do. And not only for the assumption of, of this
new development or the infrastructure, but going forward, where whenever
the town is putting easements that, uh, are then left
to individual property owners. And we walk away. Kirk almost.
And then back to the director. Thank you. Um, I'd
hesitate to comment on this one. Um, as this is
staying at the Committee, The Whole Loveland will be coming
back on September the 14th for approval. I think we
can put, uh, confirmation in the amendments of what could
and couldn't be included in that. Thank you. Director Alcoco,
do you have anything further? Just add to this. So
that I was contemplating something with two similar to the
Councillor Dorty is proposing. As a reminder, it's not unusual.
We have done it before where we've sent letters to
property owners reminding them of their obligation, either under the
drainage act or certain bylaws. So this is something that
is part of the communication. So it is possible. But
we need to do it in the right envelope. Thank
you. Um, Councillor Dort, he anything further to ask at
this point. Thank you. Uh, and I would be very
supportive of that. Um, and I'm glad that, uh, Director
Alcoka has flagged that as an opportunity. And I'm wondering
if, uh, I could actually introduce, uh, an amendment, uh,
to the motion, uh, whereby, uh, staff would commit to
that correspondence with, uh, those property owners, uh, that have
that drainage agent on their properties today. Uh, I'm not
sure you can, but the, I think the clerk was
signalling that perhaps when it comes back on September the
14th, that might be the appropriate time. Or am I
reading. Do you're raised eyebrows there? Thank you through the
chair. If the Councillor would like to do an amendment
now, the amendment can go through and then should we
not be able to satisfy that when it comes back
to Council, then we'll include that in the report. Thank
you. Does that satisfy you Councillor George. Uh, yes, please.
Yes. So that I would introduce that amendment, uh, and
it would be an end that, uh, Council Direct staffs,
uh, correspond, uh, with property owners, uh, on which an
evening, an easement, uh, register. Yeah. The clerk will be
way better at this than me anyway. Uh, on which
an easement has been registered to remind them that it
is their, uh, that it is their responsibility to keep
it opening and functional. Councillor Doherty moves this amendment. Who
seconds it actually go to the mayor because I think
she wanted to speak about this as well. Paul seconded
as well. Um. I have a few comments, uh, the
problem is a nuanced one. So the first part of
it is, uh, should we. Pass a bylaw to assume
the infrastructure here. And my view is that we should.
I share all the concerns that have been raised about
the rear drainage. But in fact, the, the developer who,
you know, the developer has sold the land to the
owner of, let's just have any home there, right? So
the land, um, and the easement's been given to the
town. The developer can't now go back into that property
and do anything on the land that's in this way.
He wouldn't have any right. So if we don't pass
the assumption by law, um, nothing will happen there. We
won't get the services. We're supposed to and the developer
can't go in and fix it. I have been on
this issue now for a number of years at Council.
Because this isn't the first subdivision where this has been
a problem. And I've had numerous discussions with staff about
it. It's a very. I would, I think the advantage
to the developer is he can have all he or
she can have all the drainage, uh, from the back
part of the house. Go to the back of the
house. No pipes are required. And don't you know each
homeowner looks after the drainage from his neighbour. And if
he doesn't care to and decides to build structures and
so on, we have maya may ham and bad things
happening. So I am not in favor one bit of
these rear drainage swales. They're nothing but a nuisance. And
I know as recently as a couple of years ago,
they were still being put in in a new subdivision
in town. Um, I know this, I know that the
development engineering standards are being updated. This is the kind
of thing that would be addressed in there. I believe
those will be coming to Council at some point and
we'll have a chance to see what's in there. Um.
So I would say I am very much an agreement
with a letter going to these homeowners, uh, I think
the problem is bigger and that we need to be
communicating to every property that has these drainage swales of
their responsibilities. The problem also is, as I understand it,
that the town didn't even used to take easements. So
right now I think if there's an issue, if we
have an easement, we can go in and clean it
up if we had to, if there's mayhem and chaos
happening. But in the older ones, there weren't even easements
taken. And I was a big proponent of Eastmans being
taken. And anyway, now we have easements. So this is
an evolving situation in our community. Um, and I'm hoping
it will be one that disappears. And so just to
recap, I think we don't have any choice, but to
assume the subdivision council's will vote as they wish to,
uh, but we need to address the, um, issue here.
And I would even, uh, when we're finished with the
amendment, uh, proposed, uh, by Councillor Doherty is to add
a further one, uh, asking staff to report back on
how we can communicate with every homeowner, how we best
communicate with every homeowner that has adrenous well in our
community about their responsibilities. Thank you. No, no, no. I
just said we were supposed to be commenting on the
amendment of the letters. So good point. Thank you for
pointing that out to me. Uh, are you making a
comment on the amendment. No, not till the next one.
No, I'm speaking to Councillor Pots. Thanks Chairmans. This is
just in regard. It could be a part where the
letters to the homeowners, but in those backyards, is there
underground piping or catch basins in that vicinity of stretch
along the back of Brock Crescent. There's called cash basis.
Director Alcocum. So the chair. I'm, I may have to
go confirm, but I don't think so. Through you chair.
I would like to have that updated information because it's
my understanding that there is. And there is pipe underground.
So my first question in my last question would be
who maintained, how do we maintain it if it's there?
And it would be basically within the easements, the trees
planted, the wood structures. And it comes to, we all
know tree roots down the road. We all know we
need access. So I don't know how the important part
would be is there infrastructure in the ground there. Whether
we send letters to homeowners or not, we all know
how that's going to go. Probably wouldn't be any consequences
or whatever that would follow up with it. So that
would almost be a way to time in my opinion.
We need to understand if there's access to it to
maintain it. Yeah. Well different, I will confirm to make
sure that we're giving you proper information. And speaking as
a resident who lived in a home with a catch
basin in the backyard for years. Uh, the east month
is on title, the town or the city has the
right to inform me, come actually sometimes without informing me,
uh, if there's an emergency, because that's what the easmuth
is for and have access to the catch basin, uh,
and, and clean it if they have to. Just one
last comment for you, Chair. All great. If you have
a catch basin or an area that you can access,
but from what I see on the proof of photos
that's been provided to me five years from now, you
won't be accessing these catch basins or pipe. Trees plantings
wood structures. It's not going to happen. So that's a,
so that's what I'm saying is if there is infrastructure
that's in the ground drainage swales may be of a
different thing with basically surface grading and surface drainage. If
there's infrastructure that's buried underground that needs to be maintained
and access, you have to have the access to be
able to be there. And I don't see it. Track
draw Cocoa and then I'll go to the deputy mayor.
Just one last comment. The easement by its virtue gives
us access. We have to go and give you from
my experience and other positions I held. That is right
for us as a town to access and perform the
task that we deem necessarily to get the range going.
And, uh, I had to tell homeowners to remove sheds
that they had for 50 years because legally it's not
allowed. And the easement gives you that right. So the
town has the full light to go and access and
ensure that the infrastructure is as intended to be and
any violation be removed at the one who's expense. And
in our letter or eventual letter, we can explain that.
And like I said, the easement is our access. We
have access to the property when we want to. Thank
you. Um, finish depuis Mayor. Uh, thank you Chair Beans.
Um, I, I, I'm, I'm not going to support it.
It's committee of the whole. Maybe when we see the
additional information on the 14th, I'll be able to put
it forward. But are you talking to the amendment? So,
so I'll, I'll speak to the letter first then. Okay.
You're correct. Council Jeffrey, I got off track there. And,
uh, The fact that, uh, I'll support the sending of
a letter and then go from there and I'll speak
to the full motion then after that. Great. Councillor Ring
and then we'll bring this to a conclusion. Thank you
very much cheer brains. Um, I agree with Councillor Potts
with the concerns whether it's ever going to amount to
anything. But I think in our, in our best interest
for due diligence, uh, accepting this amendment to the motion
is, is not a bad thing to do. We've done
our due diligence. We've sent them the letter at least
we're notifying them that we know that there could be
an issue there. And as, uh, as, as Director Alcohol
said, uh, we still have the right to go in.
And if we have to, to do the maintenance, although
I can, I agree with ponts or Councillor Potts that
it's going to be difficult. But I mean, I've got
that same easement in my property and it'd be difficult
to get in there too. So, I mean, and that's
without me planting anything on it. Um, so I think
just for the, for the sake of the letter, uh,
we've given notice to the property owners letting them know.
Cause a lot of them probably don't even know their
responsibility. Um, I mean, but it isn't, it is in
their deed. But anyways, I'm going to support the amendment.
Councillor Perry. And then I do want to bring this
to him. Okay. I'll make it very quick. Um, I
have had a home that has an easement on it.
And when I did purchase that home, my good lawyer
informed me that I've got no recourse of the town
wants to come. So I'm assuming everyone who bought a
house along that area has had the same advice, I
would hope. Thank you. Councillor McCulloch very quick. It just
brought something to mind. Um, when you do a survey
or when you buy a property, you should have something
that shows you where the easement is. Most people have
probably lost that if we could attach that to the
letter to show them where it is on the extent
of it. I think that would be helpful. The picture
is always worth. A thousand words. Thank you. And I'll
just make this comment. I'm quite aware of this issue.
I've walked with homeowners there. I've seen the trees that
are growing up very close to where the easement is.
And I just know this is a recipe for disaster
10 or 15 years from now when those tree roots
as they know, no doubt will, uh, create a problem.
And the homeowner gets emotionally attached to the tree. And
at any rate enough of this, we will vote now
on the amendment all in favor of the amendment. Opposed.
Unnoted, that has passed. We'll now move on to the
motion itself. Tepe, Mary, which to speak to this. Yes,
please. And, and on track for the main motion and
what I want to say is, uh, as I said,
I'm not going to support the main motion as amended.
Um, I, I heard about, uh, there's been discussions. So
I'm anticipating on the 14th that more information is coming
to us. And as I said, maybe I'll change my
position at that point in time, but I'd like to
have included in that a better understanding of, I've heard
that there's been numerous discussions with staff, but, um, here
we are with a recommendation that appears to be opposing
to the view that's been discussed. So I wanted to
know, um, what Staff position is clearly about this situation
in regards to, um, easements in these situations. And I'm
hoping that information will be there when it comes in
September. Thank you. Um, Councillor Geoffrey. Uh, so thank you
Mr. Chair. And I too was toying with just outright
saying no for now, but, uh, with the amendment and
my question as well is I have one of these
easements in my backyard and the first person plugged it
and then the next person didn't like the water pooling.
So they plugged theirs. So it was coming up to
my house in the backyard. So I did call the
town and they didn't have my easement and I did
have my survey and I could send it in and
show them. And, um, so they did come and unplug
the problem at the end. But my question is, do
we have a scheduled, uh, inspection of the easements? I
think that would be a whole lot easier than just
waiting for something to come up. Um, can we institute
where we're doing an inspection of these easements? So we're
being proactive rather than reactive. And that would be through
to the director. And maybe we already have one and
I just don't know it. That sounds like an item
for the 2027 budget. Director Alcoco. Threw the chair. I
don't believe we have such a program. This to me
would be a part of a larger stormwater management plan
or program for inspection and maintenance. And definitely would have
to come with the resources. So this is something that
needs to be, uh, planned well. Okay. I appreciate that
going forward. So, um, for now, I think also based
on the mayor's comments, I'm going to support it. I
think the problem isn't going to come with the assumption
that's coming with how we actually, um, manage the easements.
So that's where I'm going. Thank you. Lowe's in favor.
Opposed. There's two opposed. Carried. Thank you. This concludes the
committee of the whole, I believe over to Mayor Hamlin.
Sorry. A motion to rise. Do I hear a motion
to rise from committee of the whole move by Mayor
Hamlin second by Councillor Perry? All those in favour. Carried.
Thank you. Back to you. Uh, thank you. Um, it
is time for a break, but I think what I'll
do is, uh, we'll deal with the motion to move
in camera. Uh, and then as our system switching over,
we'll take about 10 minute break. Okay. So the motion
is this. Whereas the clerk hereby concurs the reasons for
the in - camera session have been duly reviewed and
considered. And the matters are authorized under the exception provisions
to conduct a closed session in accordance with municipal act
prior to proceeding into closed session. Therefore, be a resolve
that this council proceeds in camera in order to address
a matter pertaining two. A proposed or penning acquisition or
disposition of land by the municipality or local board, a
physician planned procedure, criteria, and ora instruction to be applied
to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on
by or on behalf of the municipality or local board.
Items for discussion, uh, the first one and only one
is property acquisition update. Mover in a second, please. Council
Ring, seconded by Deputy Mayor Fryer, all those in favour.
That's unanimous. Thank you. And, uh, we'll take our break
now. Thank you. Uh, 10 minutes.
So I'm looking for a mover, for a motion to
rise from in camera and returned open session. Councillor Perry,
seconded by Councillor Ring. All those in favour. That's unanimous,
thank you. So we have three items to approve, one
of which will be the Bylaw relating to our In
- Camera discussions, which will be the third item that
we'll deal with. So the first one is 9. 1,
the outdoor ring project update. And so the recommendation is
that we approve the recommendations earlier adopted by the Committee
of the Hall during this meeting. Okay, moving a seconder.
Councillor McCulloch, second by Councillor Baines. Any further discussion, all
those in favor. And those opposed, one opposed, thank you.
Two, oh, sorry, thank you, to opposed. The next one
is under 10. 1, and it's this that the following
by - law be here by enacted this 20th day
of August, 2026. By - Law 2026 - 061, CAO
Bylaw Amendments. This is from our last meeting. Mover in
a second, please. Oh, sorry. Yeah, both, both mys. Well,
I'm gonna do this one separately because we're gonna push
this up. Yeah, so just I'm gonna deal with 10.
1 first, CO Bylaw, mover in a seconder. Councillor McCulloch,
seconded by. Councillor Doherty. Any further comments, all those in
favor. Do we approve this unanimously last time? Or what
was this? Yeah, sorry, could you just fell aside? Thank
you. The last recommendation from the Community of the Whole
on August the 10th was changing the requirements pertaining to
performance review and goal setting objectives to May. Okay, thank
you for that. All those in favor. And posed. Three
opposed, thank you. And then the last one is By
- Law 2026 - 062 Property Acquisition Bile Off for
44 here on Ontario Street. And Clerkhommes, if you could
put up the Byla Forest, please.
So all read this for the Public then. Where's Municipal
Act authorizes municipalities to enter into agreements? And whereas the
Council for this town's pursuing the Strategic Purchase of Land
to move forward strategic priorities. I can just suggest that
might be a typo there. Strategic Priorities of the Town.
Now therefore Council of the Corporation of the Town of
Collingwood and Access Follows, one, that the Corporation of the
Town of Collingwood acquire property municipally addresses 44 year Ontario
Street for the purpose of moving strategic priorities forward. Two,
that the requisite notice of the acquisition of 44 here
Ontario Street who provided, once the due diligence work, including
the In - Camera Structions, instructions provided by Council on
August 20th, 26th, having completed to the satisfaction of the
solicitor and chief administration of officer to proceed with conclusion
of the proposed property acquisition. Three, that with regard to
section 275 of the Municipal Act, the Chief Administrative Officer,
Clerk, and or Treasurer are hereby authorized to perform all
acts. And to take such steps to execute such documents
under the Seal of the Corporation as may be necessary
to affect such acquisition. Four, that the funds for this
strategic property acquisition be drawn from the land acquisition reserve
fund. And lastly, that this by - laws shall come
into full force in effect on the date of final
passage hereof at which time all by - laws as
a resolutions that are inconsistent with the provisions of this
by - law. And the same are hereby repealed or
ascended insofar as necessary to give effect the permissions of
the Bylaw enacted today. And I'll just say the words
in here as of tomorrow, this Council will be in
lame duck situation. And so we have given the authorization
for Staff to proceed with the purchase of this property
subject to their final review. Uh, so can I have
a mover in a seconder for this by - law?
Please Councillor Perry, seconded by Councillor Jeffrey. Any further comment,
uh, that would be the Deputy America. Go ahead. Thank
you, Mayor Hamlin. Um, I just want to say that
I fully am supportive, and I recognise that the vast
majority of the Public are too, um, of acquiring. But
based on the In - Camera detail, um, I can't
at this time. Um, not going to go into any
detail on that, but I can state publicly, um, that
I can't, from my perspective, um, support obligating next council
without seeing and knowing more clearly, um, our long -
term strategic financial plan and the findings. And then how
the final investment of this would impact. So I'm not
going to be supportive of it. Thank you. Okay. Thank
you very much. Would anyone else like to comment at
this time. All those in favor. And opposed, and that's
when a post. Thank you very much. And thanks Council.
That was a very productive discussion. And great to move
ahead. Excuse me. So we are down to. Almost the
end and it's my motion. And so I will read
it. And I'll pass the chair to the Deputy Mayor.
Thank you Mayor Hamlin. And I'll, uh, turn to you
to read in your motion and then have you speak
on, I think? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Whereas the
Town of Collingwood is expected to grow to 42, 000
residents by 2051. And whereas South Georgian Bay is a
major four season tourist destination, attracting millions of visitors annually,
generating significant seasonal travel demand and increased congestion on local
and provincial roads. And whereas the town of Collingwood's 2024
to 2028 Community Base Strategic Plan identifies exploring options for
better transportation connections between Collingwood and the rest of Ontario
is a key action. And whereas the protaria has expanded
passenger rail connection to communities outside the Greater Toronto in
Hamilton area, including year - round Go Rail Service to
Niagara Falls and Go Rail Service to Stratford while advancing
the return of the Ontario Northland passenger rail service to
Northeastern Ontario. And whereas the former Barry Collingwood Railway Corridor
provides an existing linear transportation corridor between Collingwood and the
Barrier Area, presenting an opportunity to restore passenger rail connectivity
without the significant cost, property acquisition and community impacts associated
with establishing a new greenfield rail corridor, while at the
same time maintaining the existing Act of Trail Network. Now
therefore be it resolve that one, the town of Collingwood
Council requests a Metrolinx and the Ministry of Transportation Undertake
a feasibility study on extending Go transit service to the
town of Collingwood. Two, that the feasibility study consider a
possible go rail service to bury along the former Barry
Collingwood Railway Corridor. Three, that the study require preservation of
the continuous act of transportation and trail access along the
existing Berry Collingwood Rail Trail. Four that the Chief Administrative
Officer be directed to coordinate with the County Asemco to
assess how future passenger rail or bus service between Barry
and Collingwood could support regional transportation planning, housing growth, economic
development and tourism. Five, that the mayor be requested to
write to the Minister of Transportation of Ontario Communicating Council's
position. And six, a copy of this resolution before to
the Premier of Ontario, Ministry of Transportation, MPP Saunderson, President
and Chief Executive Officer of Metrolinx and the Warden of
Simcoe County. Okay. So do we have a seconder for
the motion. Councillor Baines? Um, Mayor Hamlin. Yeah.
Thank you. What has been on my mind, particularly about
this is the fact that, um, foreseeason community and we
have so many, uh, people coming to our community, all
year round, whether to use our winter trails for cross
country skiing to go downhill skiing in the community beside
us or enjoy the freshwater beach to the east of
us. Uh, we have, um, and I checked the numbers
yesterday with Staff. We have some four million visitors every
year to Collingwood. And in South Georgian Bay, the numbers
are upwards of 7 million visitors a year. I believe
that it is important that we have some go transit
here from Barry. Um, we have the advantage of, um,
being an attractive community, but getting people here by transit
is impossible. Um, and if we could somehow get it
direct link, um, to our community, uh, that would be
certainly an advantage. We all saw on the proposal for
the MZO site, uh, for health and wellness centre, a
little dot showing a potential go transit station in the
future. I don't know whether that, you know, will be
our future or not, but I started thinking about it
in terms of imagining go transit arriving there. And the
village providing a shuttle service to get skiers over to
the village or to the, you know, we could go
back to simpler times in some ways because I think
that's how a lot of people used to come up
here back in the day. And the other thing is
I have talked to some businesses here. So I'm sure
some of you have, um, about how important it would
be to have employees be able to come and go
from this community, uh, by transit. Not everyone can afford
a car. Also one of our businesses here, uh, who,
um, you have all toured and can remember, but I
don't want to pinpoint them. Uh, uses a lot of
grad students coming in engineering students from Waterloo. And he's
practically begged for transit to bring his students in. So
and also I think for our residents who go to
Barry and from South Georgia Bay who would go into
Barry to use the hospital, George and College get on
the go train to go down to the GTA. Just
extending that connectivity, uh, would be great. So, um, the
motion before us today is to ask Metrolinks and the
province to please do a feasibility study, which we'd of
course have input into, um, for our CAO to talk
to the County. Uh, I have spoken to the senior
county staff who have thought about this long and hard
before I contacted them, uh, because they would very much
like to see, uh, go transit coming into this community.
Um, so those are my comments, uh, Deputy Mayor. Thank
you, Mayor Hamlin. And I'm going to turn the chair
to Councillor Jeffrey. And I'd like to on the table.
Okay. So, uh, further discussion and I'll go to the
debt premier. Okay. So I'm going to put a motion
to defer. Um, on the table, um, I'll speak last
to it. Okay. And is there a second or two?
There's no speaking to deferral. So if the second or
the seconder, we can vote on it. If there isn't,
then we will move on. No seconder. Okay. So I'll
take back the chair then. Thank you. Um, Clerk Holmes,
would you like us to pass the hour extension. If
we think of a full, I know. Um, okay. So,
uh, Edena mover in a second here for the, um,
our extension and Councillor Potts and Councillor Jeffrey and all
in favor. And that's unanimous. And, uh, I'll open it
now to the floor and I turn two Councillor Jeffrey.
Thank you very much. Um, so I think it this
has been on the minds of a lot, including the
county for going forward, but I wonder about the, um,
time consumption because whenever we do this, Staff always says
there are going to have to set aside. And this
seems like a pretty big, uh, and first of all,
I think that we wouldn't go right to Metrolinx, but
we would go to our staff of a report on
the strategic feasibility of us taking this on right now.
Um, so that's a kind of where I'm heading. And
the other thing to consider in my mind is, um,
that you need the transportation infrastructure once you bring all
these extra people on that, uh, Metrolinx transportation. So it's
all well and good to bring in a lot of
people from other, uh, the GTA and other locations that
don't have vehicles, but do we have the, uh, transportation
infrastructure here to handle them together. So I think that's
why, um, I would probably, my brothers would be to
refer it to staff. They could determine a timeline in
their, uh, work plans as to when they could take
on, um, an assessment of us proceeding two Metrolinks. Or
there's other regional partners. You're going to bring this metric
at links through other communities. And I think there's some
consultation that might want to be done ahead of that
as well. So, um, where I'm at. So are you
putting referral onto the floor. I would put, yeah, or
add the words, yeah, referral to staff for a report
as to their timelines, The Feasibility and what would come
off the work plan if we were to take this
on. It's true to Clerkhommes. Can the referral be put
on the floor for voting. Or are you looking at
an amendment? Finding a sound. Sorry. Sorry. You could discuss
before finding a seconder. Well, before putting it even on
the floor, that's how you'd like to do it. It's
up to you. Right. Yeah. That's okay. So that, that's
where you're at. Okay. Um, any other ones, uh, wishing
to speak. Uh, Councillor Baines. Actually, um, Councillor Doherty was
ahead of me, but why don't you go ahead and,
and I'll apologise to Councillor Guardie. I do not agree
with my friend Councillor Jeffrey in this regard, the focus
of this seems to be on Metrolinks and other bodies.
I don't think the present time. We have to involve
our staff in comments under this because quite frankly, if
Metro Links comes back and says it's a non -
starter, it's an on - starter. So, um, I don't
agree that we necessarily have to involve our staff at
this point. I think this is. A noble initiative on
behalf of, uh, Mayor Hamlin in this regard. And it's
one that I fully support. Having numerous times driven to
Allendale station to pick up my daughter, 45 minutes there
and 45 minutes back. And I know many others in
the same boat. So I support this motion. Thank you.
Councillor Doherty. Uh, thank you. Um, and I
would echo actually, uh, Councillor Baines'remarks, uh, just There. First
of all, um, this request, uh, prevails first upon Metrolinx,
uh, so if that becomes, um, to, uh, quote, Hey,
my non - starter, then that is the end of
it for us. Um, but, uh, there is to me
no end of upside, uh, for this, uh, I know
that, uh, Metrolinks are looking for expansions, uh, where they
know that they're going to have good traffic. That would
be all part of it. And I will also say,
um, as one who has had reason to commute back
and forth, um, Burlington and Toronto quite frequently, lately, uh,
and, uh, using, uh, Metrolink services. It's a long haul
between Collingwood and Barry and points beyond, uh, so this
would be a much needed service, certainly speaking for my
own perspective, but I know that it would be echoed
by many others. And, um, you know, ultimately just to
summarize, uh, there is no harm in my mind to
asking at this time. Thank you. Councillor McCullough and then
Councillor Perry. Thank you, Chair. Um, I also do, um,
spend a lot of time up and down Highway 26
between here and Barry. And if you drive that road
in the morning or the afternoon, it is nonstop traffic
in both directions. So there are streams of people who
are commuting from here using their car and their gas
and impacting the environment. The volume is heavy. So there
are thousands of people who make that trip every day
in two directions. And layering on top of that. We
have our weekend and tourist visits that may absorb some
of that as well. So I think it's a environmentally.
Plausible thing to investigate. And I think the volumes are
there. It would be a change in behaviour, but, uh,
I agree. It was certainly worth starting the conversation. Uh,
Councillor Perry. Thank you, Chair. I agree with everything at
what Councillor Jeffrey brought up. I, I worry about the
infrastructure at the end of the line how people are
going to get off train and get to wherever they
want to go. Um, that's a whole other ball game.
I agree with Councillor McCulloch. There's traffic as a nightmare.
But I know when GO does any expansions, they always
run a bus first. And I know we have the
rail line and that's great. And I know we're not
going to lose the trail, which is extremely important. Um,
but I think jumping to rail. I mean, I can't
speak for metrolinks, but, um, jumping to rail right off
the hop is, uh, that's a big ask. I think
going the bus route wouldn't be first to see if
there's buy in that would get folks off the road.
Few cars off the road. And then, and then, and
then go from there. That's just my opinion. Thank you.
Anyone else wishing. To speak. Okay. I just, uh, I'll
start off with a comment before I ask my questions.
Um, nothing but supportive. For former operation and return of
rail service to Collingwood. My recommendation on this on selling
the Public Utilities, uh, business water heater business. Um, and
using the proceeds to buy the rail right away in
the first place was, was accepted by Council. Um, I
chaired the rail retainment committee that started the, uh, Barry
Collingwood Railway. I made the recommendation that, uh, we celebrate
a way to SIMPCO because of their long - term
plan to keep in the plan, um, bringing rail services
to Collingwood. But that being said, I did want to
ask through to CEO Skinner. What discussions have been had
with, um, with the other parties in regards to this
rail service, because, um, it's not something that I'm aware
of. It was in our directions. And I just want
to know, um, have there been any actual discussions going
on in this. Um, do you, uh, Deputy Mayor
Fryer. We have had several conversations with various parties, uh,
not falling from this notice of motion, but along the
same lines over the past probably four or five years.
Um, when the Minister Gill Zoning Order was approved for
the popular health and wellness village, we did approach Metrolinks
and Go Transit about whether or not they were intending
to bring service to that area, you know, potentially with
a hub of the new hospital being there as well.
At that time. And I don't think anything's changed. They
told us that that was not in their current long
- term strategic plan, uh, as far as expansions go,
um, and we were starting to try and socialize them
to understand that, you know, we're here and there is
potentially a reason to be looking at the, you know,
mounting desire to come to and from Collingwood. Uh, we've
had, uh, in passing conversations, a county actually participated in
that discussion as well. And we've had in passing conversations
with the county around their County level transportation study and
what that means, um, and the desire to keep the,
uh, currently unused and removed rail line corridor, uh, open
for future transportation. And as well, uh, we recently hosted,
um, uh, Director Alcoka had hosted a workshop for all
of the municipalities covered by the mayors and CAO's forum,
uh, South Georgian Bay to talk about how we leverage
our, um, our collective desires with respect to transit and
what our transit vision might be if we brought that
back to, uh, The mayors and CAOs for them and
our home councils for discussion. And there was an overall
desire, uh, from that group to look at a few
far - reaching things, but it would include connections to
areas outside of our, uh, our own, um, municipality and
outside of Simcoe County. I do know that Director Alcoca,
who I'm, I believe is on the line, uh, also
should Dr. Ocu online.
Yeah, I just got tapes. Uh, Director Alcoco, um, also,
uh, had been involved in doing some, some work looking
at this notice of motion. So he may have further
to add, uh, but those are the items that I've
been involved in to date with respect to transportation beyond
Cipco County. Okay. So then from those discussions at the,
at the forum with the mayor and the CAO and,
and others, is this coming from that? Like, are they
aware of the fact that we're making the request singularly.
Actually, as soon CL. To you, this notice of
motion, uh, specifically has come up since the last meeting
of the mayor's in CAO's, uh, forum. There has been
discussion at least two meetings about the potential for transit
to Toronto and or, um, uh, Waterloo Kitchener area. Um,
no, motions or actions had come out of that other
than a desire to have a consolidated, uh, vision, um,
that would span multiple councils around, uh, what are transit
future might look like. Okay. So we're doing this singularly.
So has there been any discussion with city of Barry.
To you. Um. I, uh, I have not myself had
any discussions with the city of Barry, the transit director,
um, Alcoca may have had those discussions. I have been
not been involved in any. And as Director Alcoco.
You know, this director alcohol volta indicator put discussions with
Barry.
I guess I can, I can continue a little bit
because Barry runs a short line railway still between Barry
and Utopia. And, um, how will their business be impacted
if rail service? Well, in fact, they're going to have
to be a party because they're the ones own between
Barry and Utopia. Uh, Simco County owns from the rail
yard in utopia to, uh, Collingwood. So I'd like to
know if those discussions have happened with the city of
Barry, um, they're going to be a paramount partner in
anything that, uh, is discussed or I'm concerned that if
we take the forefront on this, are we, are we
suggesting that we're willing to look at whatever the cost
is going to be. So I, I'd like to, to
hear from El and Director Alcoff discussions have happened with,
uh, with Barry. No, I don't want live cutting. Yes,
we can go right ahead, sir. Yes. Thank you. Sorry.
You know some technical difficulties there. Uh, we had, I
had not had any discussion of the city of Barry
yet. We did have, uh, multi county town gathering a
few weeks ago. Uh, about transit. And we had a
good discussion. I actually would be, by next week would
be issuing their notes for everybody to show what generally
was discussed. And the go transit connection was discussed as
part of an overall plan. But this is still in
the early stages. Does that answer your question. Well, yes,
that there's been no discussion with Barry. So that's, that's
what I want to know. Um, the last item I
have is before I turn it over to, uh, Councillor
Jeffrey to see if you still want to do referral.
Um, I too have had numerous conversations with Simcoe County
staff over this three and a bit years. Um, because
of my interest. And I, I need to have more
time. I'm asked for deferral because we received this yesterday.
Um, I know we heard notice emotion at the last
meeting, but we didn't get the wording. Um, I think
that there's good food for thought with what Mayor Hamlin
has talked about, but I'd want more time. I'd want
to be able to talk to Simple County staff. And
therefore I'm going to turn it to Councillor Jeffrey and
let her decide what she wants to do in regards
to referral. No, we all had a chance to speak.
So I'll go to. I thought I should have a
right to just respond to a few things that have
been said. Thank you. Uh, also Councillor Doherty's header. Also
Councillor Jeffrey had, uh, had referral. Oh, um, Councillor Doherty
has, um, spoken already. So I'm turning to you about
your referral. Okay. I, I agree that there's a lot
of good potential with this, but I have some angst
about the speed with which we're proceeding without really not
having a lot of answers. And Council really has not
been kept up to speed about this at all. I,
I thought we usually received reports back from the CAO's
group, but I don't think we've received those from that
forum for a while. Um, not to my recollection anyway.
So, um, it's not, um, the referral is simply for
more information because I think this has kind of come
out of, uh, left field in a way, um, and
not that it's not got the environmental benefits that Councillor
McCulloch talks about, but I'm just want to know that
it can fit into Staffs work plan. And cause it
will not be, once they say yes, this is going
to be a lot of work. So I, um, I
just want to refer it back to Staff to have
an idea from them as to how it, how it
fits in terms of, uh, everything. So you may fight
me not to see if you have a seconder for,
yeah, I don't know if I have a secondary or
not. Is anyone willing to second referral Councillor Potts has.
So on the matter of referral. Okay. I don't see,
go ahead Mayor Hamlin. Oh, um, I purpose of this
motion is to get started. And we have to start
with Metrolinx and the province because they have to make
a political decision. Um, and I don't see a lot
of need for our staff input at this time. Um,
the recent extensions of Go service have been, um, Niagara
Falls who gets, I'll come back to that in a
minute in Stratford. And we know that we get the
third highest number of tourists in the province after Toronto
and Niagara Falls. And we all know Statford and the
seasonal population of, uh, tourists they get for their theatre.
So I just think that I don't think anyone's really
thought about the South Georgian Bay Area. And it's time
for the province to think about the fact here, the
third highest number of tourists coming here. And the better
way, a more environmentally friendly way for them to get
here. So I think the feasibility study has to be
done by the province. It's their line. It's their money.
And, uh, I really don't see the advantage of referring
this back to our staff. Um, uh, unless they can
respond next or our next meeting, but I, uh, I
don't see this as a big, big thought for them
right now. Thank you. Okay. Any other Councillor Doherty, go
ahead. Thank you. Um, I just want to put
a fine point on, uh, what, uh, I think it
was Councillor McCullough, but I'm not sure said about, uh,
when we, when we talk about metrolinks, uh, we could
be talking about rail, gold transit, but we can also
be talking about gold buses. Uh, and, um, it, in
my mind, uh, we are asking Metrolinks to, uh, consider
feasibility. We're not asking for a train necessarily. I think
we all know that that is a substantially more expensive
model, uh, but to introduce bus service, at least as
a start, uh, on a regular basis to our municipality
for all the good reasons that have already been stated,
um, it's an innocuous request at this point in time,
uh, with, I think realistic expectations if we all understand
what they are. Thank you. Councillor McCullough. Just a follow
up question. Um, through you chair to the CAO. Are
there any red flags here to you in terms of
staffing resources that we should be aware of. Go ahead.
If I could refer that one to Director Alcoka, please.
He's familiar with the request. Hey, Director Alcoka, go ahead.
Thank you. Through the chair. I read the motion and,
uh, and generally there is not a lot of workforce
staff. It's similar quest to Metrolinks. And at this stage,
it's just the IC such an action as getting us
on the planning machine. Uh, of Metrolinks to be considered
as an area that requires a connection. And that connection
can be as simply as a BUS connection. So when
they do their planning, which is done, uh, periodic, I
think it's on an annual basis at least, that this
consideration to see if they can do a feasibility study
to connect us with the GOBOS network. Hey, anyone further.
Okay. Um, I, I support the referral, um, the, it's
not going to stop the action of possibly going forward.
But to not get some Staff input in written form,
um, making a decision about this. And as I said,
uh, sparing heading at singularly, um, when, when, as I
also mentioned, Barry owns the, uh, I look at number
two in the, therefore, um, and it says, uh, feasibility
consider a possible goal rail service. And then it says
in regards to county Simcoe, um, future passenger rail or
bus service. So I think that, uh, what needs to
happen here is we need to hear from staff, um,
and, and, and written form, uh, what their thoughts are
about just going forward. And most specifically how taking it
forward singularly, um, is not as, as, uh, as good
as taking it on the whole with all the partners
that would be involved along the line. So, um, we've
all had a chance to speak. Um, I'm going to
call a vote then on the referral. I would just
like to seek clarity on the deferral to make sure
I've captured all the items that you wanted to include
in the report back so that Council refer the proposed
motion to, uh, to staff or report back to council
on the request, including the time and cost associated with
staff or other resources necessary to action, the direction, including
if any necessary adjustments would be required. I think that
wording includes the consultation process with Barry. And it would
include, I mean, number four, very specifically direct time of
the CAO to coordinate with the County of Simcoe. So
there's got to be time lying to be reported there.
And what she's going to have to give up in
her work plan to be dealing with that, because I
know she has a pretty full agenda. So, but I
think the wording does cover all the things that we
would require. Would you be able to put it up
on the screen for us, please? Do I have to
give a timeline, Clair Gomis through the, and do you
need a timeline. I don't think they're required timelining. If
you want to provide a timeline? It's not required. It's
up to you. I guess I was looking to the
CAO as to what kind of timeline that was. So
we'll turn the CEO and let us know on that.
Then. Through the
chair, acting chair. I don't know how long it would
take to come up with the time cost and consultation
for the consultation process. I do myself think that number
four, uh, is probably the one that would take the
most time. It's also not essential for the rest of
the notice of motion with respect to the political ask
that Metrolinx, for example, look at Collingwood, um, as a
potential feasibility study, um, so number four would in fact
be the, uh, the one where I have no trouble
communicating with the County of Simcoe to advocate for future
passenger rail or bus service, uh, between, uh, Barry and
Collingwood. I quantifying how it could support regional transportation planning,
housing growth, economic development and tourism would take longer. Advocate
gating for it to do so is not as, as
onerous. I do believe in reading this, the intention is
to get the attention of Metrolinx and MTO at the
political level. And that in itself is not a heavy,
heavy staff piece. It's, it's the quantification. Okay. Um, Councillor
Jeffrey, go ahead. You know, hearing the CAO, and I
think we all would like to put the pressure on
just the province in Metrolinx. If all we were doing
was number one and you removed two to. Four. Or
two to five and just say, we want them to
take a look and get back to us as to
what the potential is. Then we start investing time after
that. I could remove my referral as long as number
two to five are removed. And we sent, we did
number one and number six. I'm going to turn to
Clerkholmist and see how that can be done without defeating
them motion in the first place. We have to move
on second or want to, um, withdraw the referral at
the moment, making amendments to delete items two to five.
And we can look at the, um, the amendment and
then pass the motion if the theme image is approved.
So Councillor Jeffrey and Councillor Potts, if you'll remove, then
I believe Councillor Jeffrey, you want to put an amendment
on the floor then? Yeah. So I would, uh, move,
uh, we amend the motion to remove operative clauses number
two to five, uh, leave one and six remaining. Councillor
Potts degrees. So the same mover and secondary discussion on
that amendment. Not seeing any. I'm going to call vote
to that amendment. All those in favor. One, two, three,
four, five, six, seven. And opposed. It was everybody.
Did everybody? Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see the cards
come up. Um, okay. So, um, we have the emotion
as amended, uh, then I'm going to, and we have
the mover and secretary for that. So we're all right
that way. Correct. Um, I'm prepared to call it for
votent unless somebody wanted to say something. All those in
favor. And that's unanimous. And I turned back to you,
um, Mayor Hamlin. Thank you. Okay. Uh, we're down to
confirmatory bylaw. And, uh, it has, it is this that
Bylan number 2026 - 063 being a by - law
to confirm the proceedings of the Special Meaning of Council
held August 2026 being acted in past his 20th day
of August, 2026. Mover in a second, please Councillor Baines,
seconded by Councillor Perry. All those in favor. That's unanimous.
And we have Councillor Potts winning to have a motion
to adjourn. All those in favor. Unanimous. Thank you very
much, everyone.