Oh, good evening, everyone. Segal Ani Boujou, NDO Watchaya Cue Cue. As the mayor of the City of Kingston, I offer these words in the spirit of his gathering. Let us bring our good minds and hearts together as one, to celebrate honour and celebrate these traditional lands as a gathering place of the original peoples and their ancestors who are entrusted to care from other earth since time immemorial. It is with D humility that we acknowledge and offer our gratitude for their contributions to this community having respect for all as we share the space now and walk side by side into the future. So we were meeting in Committee the whole closed meeting. We did discuss several items, one regarding The Ontario Nurses Association and Kingston Professional Firefighters Association Collective Bargaining. As well as the limestone district school board and also Chief Administrative Officer Performance Review. So I will ask for a motion to rise with that reporting, please. Moved by Councillor Tanani, seconded by Councillor Toso that Council rise from the Committee of the Whole Closed Meeting Without Reporting. Although, in favor. Opposed, and that's carried. Okay, we've already approved the addendum this evening. So we will move on. Are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest, cancer Stephen. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Aye, Wendy Steven of the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kingston declare my pecuniary interest in the matter of closed meeting agenda item number six, because I am an employee of the limestone district school board. Okay, thank you. All right, seeing no other disclosures, we have no presentations this evening. We have no delegations. Petitions. We do have a petition bearing approximately 165 signatures requesting the installation of a traffic light at the intersection of Taylor Kidd Boulevard and Waterloo Drive was submitted to The Clerks Department on April 28, 2026. Are there any other petitions Councillo Glenn. Thank you. I have a petition to present. Now up to 1005 people have signed a petition to protect the Stone Gables waterfront as requested, calling on the City of Kingston Council to Director to protect the lower waterfront from any future development. Okay, thank you very much. If there are no other petitions to present, we'll move on. We have no deferred motions. We do have a motion of condolence. Moved by Councillor Tschnani, seconded by Mayor Paterson, that the sincere condolences of Kingston City Council be extended to the family and friends of Jim Neal, who passed away on Sunday, April 26, 2026. Jim spent many years as secondary school educator teaching English and drama and was a dedicated public servant serving 16 years as a member of Kingston City Council and several terms as a limestone district school board trustee. Jim was an avid baseball fan, loved Blue's music, and was a patron of the arts. Our thoughts were with Jim's family and friends during this difficult time. We'll call vote all those in favor. Opposed, and that's carried. Okay. With that, we'll move to reports. First up, we have report 41 from the CAO. Move by Councillor Glenn, seconded by Councillor McLaren. That report 41 from the CAO consent be received and adopted. Okay. So report 41, there are three clauses. Would anyone like any of the clauses separated. Not will vote on them as a whole. Okay, clause one, heart centre annual service level agreement renewal. Clause 2, 2026 final tax levy and tax rates. Clause 3 Heritage Grant Bylaw Update. We'll call the vote. Okay, and that carries. Okay, onto report number 42 from the CAO. Excuse me, move by Councillor Stephen Second Ed by Councillor Hussan that report 42 from the Chief Administrative Officer recommend be received and adopted cause by clause. Okay, so clause one, we have a briefing on the financial overview and fiscal outlook. From Desiree Kennedy, chief financial officer in City Treasurer, as well as Lana Foles, Director of Financial Services. Who are brief council on clause two of the report regarding the financial overview in fiscal outlook. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, everybody. Thanks for this opportunity. I just want to do a bit of a briefing on report 26, 121 and give you a bit of a summary. I'm sure I got everybody's attention, even if you just read the first two or three pages. So there's a lot of information in there, so I'm going to, I think I have 10 minutes, so I'm going to talk fast. And Lana's agreed to answer all the hard questions. So we're tag teaming tonight. And I need to figure out how to do this. Okay, so this is probably the most important slide. If you ignore me for the rest of the briefing, this is the important one. This is going to provide just a bit of a context for this report and what we were trying to do. Um, you'll see a lot of information, and I'm sure a lot of the information in there was familiar to folks. Um, we've talked a lot of the different types of fiscal impacts and things that are in that report in the past, certainly at budget time in particular. But what we wanted to do is take a step back. Um, and pull all of those individual components together into one more of a comprehensive long - term, um, outlook on things. So a little bit of where are we today and what do we have facing us over say the next 10 to 15 years? Um, as we start to update some of our models. And as I go through this, you'll see we do have a couple of key things in terms of decisions. Um, around some of our fiscal strategies going forward. So it's connecting all of those elements together. Um, obviously as if you read through highlights a lot of fiscal challenges that we are facing, um, I would say the majority of them are not just us. It's municipalities right across Ontario. Um, and we try to show some of the interdependencies. So you can't talk about budget, uh, without talking about funding and you can't talk about debt funding without talking about capital reserve funds. And so we tried to show some of those interdependencies and what that means for the future of our financial capacity, as well as Council Decision Making and prioritizing. And of course, affordability for our taxpayers. So it does provide a bit of context around some of the strategies that we're going to look at and they're listed in the recommendations. Um, but gives you a little bit of context today. So as we start to bring some of this information back to Council, you've got a little bit of that foundational piece as to why we're bringing some of that back. Um, I do want to stress. This is a long term vision, a long - term perspective. We continue to make the important community investments that we do today. We continue to advance on Council's priorities. It's still a kind of a business as usual today. This is really looking at what's our next 10 to 15 years look like and what are some of the strategies that we need to be considering. So there is a section on the operating budget performance and outlook. It's not been that long since we were here doing budgets. So there. We also did bring you the year end report to the Last Council meetings. So you sought a lot about our 2025 results. Um, we talked in that report about very tight operating budget for 2025. We only had a million and a half of municipal surplus of which 1. 1 was one time funding that we're not anticipating. Um, so some real pressure is going forward in that regard. Um, we talk about economic conditions and cost drivers within this report. Some of the other operating pressures wage and benefits. And certainly demand for services. And I put including those under the provincial jurisdiction. Because certainly the last couple of years in our budgets, that has been one of the most significant challenges is funding some of those things that frankly are provincial responsibilities and have fallen to the municipal level. Um, a bit of a reminder in the report about our operating budget projections. So we have a 5. 4 million dollar gap for 2027 that we are starting with. I would suggest today as we start pulling some numbers, it's probably a little bit higher than that. Um, certainly some of the things that have happened over the last few months and looking at the 2025 results, we've got some challenges happening in 26 that will also go through to 2027. We do talk in the report about the working fund reserve and we've had some conversation about that. Um, our working fund reserve is about 6 million dollars right now. We like to have about a 9 to 10 million dollar reserve and there is some risk assessment behind that, which I have included in the report that talks about, um, why nine to 10. We look at some of the potential things that we might have to rely on around things like winter control. Market conditions like investment income if something happens to the rates. Um, wage agreements. And sometimes things we don't always have a whole lot of control over. So there are things like that that we build in and say, okay, what is that number that we feel comfortable having? So the information in the report on that. The other thing I just want to mention about the operating budget performance, um, is while we have some recommendations, uh, tonight in this report. Staff continue to look at innovative, um, other ideas that we can come up with continuous improvement strategies, um, around cost saving measures, efficiency improvements, um, looking at the way that we provide services. Is there a better way? Is there a more efficient way? Looking at our workforce. We have a lot of retirements coming up. Is there a better way in terms of our workforce optimization? Um, and there is a section in there that's a bit of new information around new revenues. There's a section in there about fees and charges. Um, and one of the things that staff want to take a look at is one, do we have the right fees? Are they recovering appropriately the service costs that we want to recover? And that's not just operating. It's also capital. There would be a capital component. But also where we have a service, let's pick transit an example where we have a fees and charges, but it's also tax subsidized as well. Is that the right proportion? And so do we have the right payers, the right people paying based on fees and charges and based on the taxation subsidy. So that's something that we certainly want to take a closer look at. There's a couple of other municipalities that have done that in the last few years and have set up a new policy around it. So it's something I think we want to take a look at. In terms of capital, capital budget pressures, not going to spend a lot of time here. We know they're here. We talked about them a lot at budget time. Um, certainly pressures around cost escalation supply chain challenges that are also increasing our costs. Um, uh, Ms Folds will be bringing a report back in June on the Biontario Act and some of what we have done in terms of complying with some of that new legislation, uh, particularly with our construction contracts. Um, but we are at first glance anticipating that this could increase our construction contract cost by up to as much as 10 percent. So we will be bringing information back to you on that. But there is a bit of a high level overview in the report. Um, the report talks about 940 million dollars in our capital plan over the next five years. That 940 is funded. So it does show us being funded either from reserve funds or grants or from debt. But what we don't have in there in total is asset management and we have Mr. Fowler's brought a lot of information back to Council on our asset management plans. Um, we know we're short about 30 million, probably a little bit higher than that just on the municipal assets. Um, that we still need to include into our plans. And we also know with some of the work that's being done right now on the official plan, um, the Integrated Mobility Plan. We know that there's growth related costs that are coming that are not in there today. Um, some of which would be funded by development charge, but I'll get to that in a moment. So a lot of new data coming. And I think that's why we're kind of at this crossroads in terms of what does the next 10 to 15 years look like? We have a lot of new data coming at us now. Um, and so it's time to start looking and saying, okay, what are we going to do for the next, uh, the next 10 to 15 years. Capital funding, there is some information there on the Capitol Reserve funds based on that five year model, uh, and the 900 plus million of capital costs. Um, we have at this point, uh, about 100 million dollars going down in the next five years, that's an error on my slide. It's actually about 55 million by the end of, uh, year five. Um, so and that does include the one percent capital levy. We do talk about that in the report a little bit. Um, certainly that needs to continue to help to offset these capital costs that we have coming. Um, and I think they'll have to be some serious conversation. Like is happening at other municipalities right across the board. Do we need to increase that capital levy? Certainly from municipalities that haven't had it for the last 26 years like we have. Um, probably a little bit trickier for them. So maybe that's a little bit of good news we can take out of that. Development charges. You did see the development charge report. And the last meeting or the meeting before. Definitely the impact of exemptions, but even more so the impact of deferrals that the province has put in place. Um, the biggest one is the residential, uh, development charges. So used to be paid at building permit time. Now paid at occupancy. Over the last two years, cause it takes at least two years between building and occupancy. 19 million dollars that we do not have in the bank for 2024 and 2025. But the development charges projects and plans haven't changed at this point. It might be something that we have to take a look at. But there's 90 million dollars that will eventually come in, but we're going to have a two to three to four year period before we're actually going to start seeing those dollars coming in. Oops. I went the wrong way. And then finally, uh, long - term debt. Lots of information in here about long - term data. And I think this is a strategy in particular that we do have to revisit. Um, we have that current self - imposed limit of 500 million dollars. If I step back, I might need an extra minute for this, Mr. Mayor. If I step back to 2000, um, the Council at the time had similar discussions. And it was around debt levels at that time were very low, but the assets had not been maintained. So subsequent, just subsequent to amalgamation. There was a decision made. We will put the one percent levy in place. And we will utilise debt to invest in our existing assets to at least get them up to a better state than they were at the time. Normally you don't want to use debt to do replacements. You want to use debt for your larger assets and in particular, your growth related assets. So because you want the people that are requiring those growth assets, the new folks coming on to be paying for some of that. But there was a decision made to do a different strategy to build up those reserve funds with the one percent and then the meantime utilised debt. We reached a turning point, I would say about three, four years ago, um, where we got to where the objective was for that strategy. And we are starting to use debt mainly for growth related assets or large assets. We are using pay as you go from our capital reserve funds for our existing assets for maintenance and replacement. I think we're now at a point again in the next couple of years as we get some of this additional data, uh, finalised. We need to look at that and say, what is that new strategy? What is the self - imposed limit that we're comfortable with? Keeping in mind that we need to look at who should be paying for it. Affordability should always be at the top and our credit rating considerations. So finally, whoops, I keep going the wrong way. So I've just listed the recommendations here, but you've got them in the report. Um, I have sort of rolled them up into types in terms of a couple of them that actually relate to investment returns. This includes some of returns from our utility investments because we do actually invest in those utilities. We have capital that has been invested in those utilities. Um, we have three that are related to what I call asset rationalization strategies. So really looking at our assets, are we getting full cost recovery where we're releasing them out? Um, and then looking at everything else in terms of are these assets that we need to own and should be owning. Um, are they being utilised properly? Could they be repurposed or do we even need to own them at all? And should we be talking about disposition? And then there's just a couple others there that are at the bottom of those, those recommendations. Um, the last one I just wanted to mention was the finance advisory committee. Again, something that staff are going to take a look at and bring some recommendations back. We did look at this about five years ago, I would say we looked at whether to have what I would call finance audit committee at the time. Um, and council at that time decided that what we had under the administrative policy was enough. We'd like to take a look and revisit that at this point. We've gotten bigger. And I think it's something we want to just take a look to see whether or not there is the possibility of establishing a committee and what would that look like. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Thank you. Uh, thank you very much, Ms. Kennedy. Um, at this point we'll open up to questions. Councillor Tozo. Thank you, Mayor Paterson, for you. Uh, so other than our debt, our infrastructure, our costs, uh, the amount of verifying, right? Like other than I'm being facetious here. Yeah. This, this is, this is, I'm glad that we're having some strategies based on the challenges that we're facing. So I, great report, really eye - opening as, I think, not unexpected based on the topic issues we've had at budget. So one of the questions I've never questions. First one is, uh, the report looked at prudent investing strategies. What are we doing now? Because it said we need to do more prudent investing strategies. I'm Miss Holt. Through you, Mr. Mayor. Um, current, we are using the municipal act investing our funds in low risk Canadian bonds. There have been legislative changes in the past that have allowed for, um, fund equity opportunities, Canadian equity opportunities. And then recently, well, not recently 2018, they changed an allowed for the prudent investor. Investments. Okay. Thank you. Um, another question I have is one of the, uh, things in the report and recommendations was looking at cost recovery for some of our City owned assets. And what would this create some barriers to some community groups that wanted to use them if we were looking at purely cost recovery? Cause I could see that sometimes people use say facilities because they're cheaper. I see you hurdle. Thank you. I'll get started and I'm sure my, my colleagues may want to jump in as well. Um, thank you Councillor for the question. Our focus is not going to be looking at community facilities. So I want to be clear, uh, we're not going to be focusing on CUNY centres arenas, those types of things. We're, we're really going to be looking at some of our assets and properties that quite frankly, we do have commercial leases on a number of different properties. Are we getting the return we should be for those assets. And really, that's where we're going to start by focusing because we understand that, uh, communities have limited, um, financial resources as well. Okay. Um, another question. So underutilized assets, that's going to come back to Council, right? So if we identify someone, you're utilised assets that we could put up for sale where this will come back into Council Report, presumably. Skinnedy. To you, Mr. Mayor. Yes. That will come back. Most of these recommendations, we will be bringing back further discussion with Council. Okay. Um, another question I've sort of had over the years. And I think this is a good opportunity time to sort of bring it up. So if we do entertain some MSCs for some of our, um, like we started more MSCs for other organisations. Is there a crate reading based on the debt for all of our other organisations as well? Because ultimately we'd be liable for any MSC and any default that they would have. Or is there credit rating purely based on the amount that we have dead as the City of Kingston proper. Thank you through Mr. Mayor. So, uh, it depends. Um, so there is the City debt, the cities issued that would be part of that calculation. Um, we, if the debt is been guaranteed. So on an MSC, the debt moves off the city books. It moves on to the MSC books. And it is funded by the MSC. Um, there is some potential if the city was to guarantee that debt. We might be able to get a better rate on it, particularly just for the first two or three years of the MSC because they'd be a new corporation until they built up some, some financial data. Um, so there is that potential. I'll be honest, it's a bit of a great area whether that guarantee would be included in the debt calculation or not. Um, what I would say is we would include it in the provincial calculation because hopefully we would never get to the 1. 4 billion dollars, but we may, if we were comfortable with say a 500 million dollar limit, a self - imposed limit, we might make that 650 because there's 150 that we're guaranteeing because it's very low risk. It would be paid over by the rate pairs if we were talking water and wastewater. So sorry, log answer. No, grey area. Okay. That's a little worrisome. Um, I think another question I have is the 500 million dollar self - imposed limit. Is that just self - imposer? Is that to please credit like the credit rating agencies? Is there a reason that that has been that soft sort of bars in place. Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor. So, uh, we've had that for a number of years now. It was determined initially based on a few things. One, what we could afford. So we have to pay that debt back. So what could our capital reserve funds afford at the time? Um, and looking at a benchmark of around 20, maybe 25 percent the most of our total capital dollars going to debt. We're at about 20 percent now, but looking at maybe no more than 25 percent So affordability, um, we also looked at it in terms of some of the indicators that standard empowers looks at. So for instance, standard employers looks at the percentage of our debt charges to total revenue. 500 million is roughly our total revenue, including water and sewer from our audited financial statements. So that's one indicator that they look at and say it's within that. If we start to get up a little bit more, they might take a closer look at it. But that was the other thing in terms of that number. Okay. Thank you. And my final question is one of the recommendations was to look at a, uh, financial advisory committee. So another municipalities is that for councillors is that for staff, how does that, do we have any idea what the composition that would look like. Through Mr. Mayor. It varies across municipalities. I would say there are some that have public on them. Um, and then some that are just counsel. So I would say it varies across the board. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Next is Councillor Miss. Thank you worships for you. Um, couple of questions for you, CFO. And, um, bear with me. There's a few here. So the report talks about increasing budget pressures. And I just want to do a little bit of dive into that one. And then I want to talk long term. So we know what's happening across the world and we can see it reflective in gas prices that are happening here locally and all nationally. Our budget is set. At a given rate for our gas prices. And we know that March and April gas has exploded. Are we even close to being on budget right now for our fleet. Ms. Treller. Through you, Mr. Mayor, thank you for the question councillor. Currently, uh, with the prices averaging around a dollar, we're basically costing us over budget about 150, 000 a month starting in, in April. With the current fuel prices. So I just want to make sure I heard that right. It's costing us 150, 000 extra per month if they stay the way it is. Which could lead down the road of a million dollars by the end of this budget year. Thank you for the question, Councillor. If prices stay the same as they are today, absolutely it could. That is also including the federal federal fuel tax reduction that was just put in place. So that saves us approximately about 75, 000 for the three months that they put it in place, uh, forecasts are projecting that those fuel prices will start to come down, obviously nobody planned for the conflict that's occurring. There's a lot of pressure on the government to step in, but, uh, with April's fuel prices, that was approximately 150, 000 dollar impact, primarily to the transit transit operation. Okay. So that's sobering. Um, the other one is we've had a very long and painful winter. And are we, did we pretty much blow up our winter operations budget? Um, I'm assuming we're well ahead of schedule on that. S fault. Through you, Mr. Mayor, um, currently we're at about 86 percent of our budget in a historical year. We're around 60 to 65 percent at this time of year. So assuming, uh, consistent trends through the rest of the year. We will be over budget in winter control. Okay. So given the gas prices and our winter control, which we have no control over. Is when we run into Large's deficits like this, we tend to tap into our working reserve. Would that be an accurate statement? If we can't draw from any other department surpluses. Through you, Mr. Mayor, that's correct. Um, the fluctuations, um, from our variances from our, um, estimates usually come from the working fund reserve. Okay. I bring this forward, uh, for consideration at this table. And I know that there will be a shareholders meeting with utilities Kingston. We are the primary and only shareholder. Uh, utilities kinks and is showing a very large surplus and their wastewater management program. And obviously it's needed to a certain degree in their infrastructure. However, our CFO has already indicated that we were sitting at 6 million in our working reserve fund. And we are now if world economics stay the way they are for any sustained period of time, we're looking at probably dipping in more into that working reserve fund. I would question Mayor Paterson if we should be having conversations with utilities Kingston, uh, in regards to their surplus. And assisting us with our working reserve fund, knowing where we're sitting with us. And I'd like to have a, perhaps a comment from our CFO or CEO or CAO, sorry. About what that would look like. Or it has that been done in the past. Let's see. Hurdle. Thank you. And, uh, through Mr. Mayor, so, uh, Councillor Amos, thank you for the question. It's very timely question. We do have a meeting set up with, uh, utilities Kingston this week later this week to talk about, uh, return on investment from, from certain utilities, um, that they operate. We understand obviously that with Kingston Hydro, it's quite regulated in its structured differently. Um, and we also know that we need to make some significant investments in that particular area. Um, but that leaves room to have conversations around natural gas. Our water heater, uh, program. There are a number of other things that I think we can talk to utilities, Kingston, about and see what kind of changes we may want to consider for the future. I think our safety net is dwindling. And that safety net is our, our, our working reserve fund. And if we're sitting at five million given if budget constraints say the way they are. And we have another entity that is showing a very large or multi - million dollar surplus. I think it's time that we as a shareholder, um, start considering other avenues. I noticed on page 14 to the report that under utilities Kingston report, it says interest in dividends are listed at five million dollars. Is that a fixed amount. And typically dividends are a rolling number based on performance. Has the dividends and the interest amounts, uh, as the shareholder ever changed. And is this something that a conversation needs to be open with, with that board of directors. Miss Kennedy. Thank you to you, Mr. Mayor. So yes, thank you Councillor Amos. So the, there are notes receivable, um, from utilities Kingston that we earn five percent interest. So that is a fixed rate that comes back to the city as well as we get some dividends, particularly on the, on the gas operations. That varies depending on the performance. Um, one of the things that, uh, one of the recommendations in the report is asking to take a broader look at the city's investment in these utilities. Um, and whether there is the opportunity for increased return on those monies. Um, and I think to your previous question, that also would be part of that. If there's continued surpluses, then I think we should be looking at that as well. Protects, a higher return on that. So, Hurdle. Thank you. And through Mr. Mayor, just to add to that, that will be part of conversations in our upcoming meetings. Um, it's something that we want to start to talk to utilities Kingston about what that looks like moving forward. Um, the fibre business is another one that we also want to raise because it hasn't generated actual dividends so far. Um, they utilities kink CNES paid interest on a loan, uh, from the city. All good on the rabbit hole. How long have we been holding the loan for the utilities Kingston infrastructure of the, of those lines. And if it's only paying interest, how long are they only paying interest? At what point do they start paying principle. Miss Kendi. Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. So, um, the majority of those loans that are earning the five to seven percent interest, the majority of them have been around since I'm going to say early 2000s, 2000 to maybe 2002. Most of them related to transferring the assets, um, some of the, sorry, not the water and wastewater. That's still with us. But transferring some of the other assets over in terms of operations. So when the operations were moved over to utilities Kingston, there were some loans receivable that came back to the city, um, for part of that investment. So early 2000, so for roughly 20 to 25 years, we've been just accepting interest payments on a fairly large loan. So I think in consideration needs to be, uh, looked at for that situation. So you heard it. Thank you. Um, and I just want to add that we also have a loan for fibre. I believe it's around 7 million dollars at the time that was, um, that was the amount of the loan. I'm not sure how long ago that would have been well before my time, but I'm looking at our CFO that might have more information. It was definitely over 10 years ago, but, uh, I wouldn't have the exact date. Miss Foles. Through you, Mr. Mayor, I know for sure that we renewed the notes receivable for the fibre business in 2014. So the original, um, it was originally shares in the, uh. In the fibre business. And then we converted to a notes receivable in 2014. Okay. So we're sitting with, with two outstanding loans. And we have been for roughly 10 years and another one for roughly 20 to 25 years. And this is putting pressure on our, um, loan infrastructure of what we have available. And if I recall correctly, we are sitting at a cap self - imposed, but a cap of 50 million dollars available for any more infrastructure development. And if we take these two loans off our books, how much cap space then do we have. Kennedy. Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. So, um, I think taking the, taking those loans off the books would help us with our cash flow. Um, and, and could provide, it wouldn't necessarily increase our debt amounts, but it certainly could provide some room, uh, for pay as you go. If we have those one - time funds coming back and definitely would help on our cash flow, um, I think the other thing to look at too is just, we are earning five to seven percent which is roughly what we would earn on the, our long - term investments today. Um, and as the report talks about and Ms. Fold talk about prudent investor and some of what we want to bring back to Council to change in terms of investment policy could be more than that. And I think to your point certainly would be a good time to also look at whether or not, you know, is that five to seven then appropriate. Could we earn more elsewhere. Agreed. CFO, you also talked about in your presentation over the next five years, we're going from 100 million dollars in reserves for our capital expenditures down to 55. If I heard you correctly. Over those next five years. And so we're tapping a lot and taking a lot out of our reserves to make sure that our infrastructure is seeing is being upgraded and taken care of. Have we ever explored municipal bonds? And is that an avenue that can be explored at our end to support some of our capital infrastructure development. Thank you through Mr. Mayor. So, um, if I'm defining municipal bonds correctly, I think that the difference between that and what we do today municipal bonds, generally we would just be issuing those out in the market. It would still be a debt very much like borrowing from infrastructure, Ontario. So we actually do issue bonds, um, through infrastructure on terror, but we issued them to infrastructure Ontario as opposed to going on the market and issuing to individual investors. Okay. So item is for consideration potentially down the road if we needed to. You, Mr. Mayor Mayor. Yes. Absolutely. Um, when we issue debt, when we bring a recommendation to Council to actually issue debentures, one of the things that Ms. Fold and I look at is and keep an eye on regularly is other municipalities that are actually going out to the market and not going through infrastructure, Ontario, particularly to see if there's any rate differential on them. Um, and I would say up until present, um, there hasn't been mostly what we see when folks are going out to market. They're for much larger amounts than what we would issue. Um, and what an infrastructure on terrio couldn't handle that. Um, but it is something we keep a close eye on. And I would say the margin is narrowing. Um, and I have a discussion every year with our bank as well, um, because they would love to have our debt business. Um, and I would say up until a couple of years ago, they didn't really even bother asking because they knew they couldn't match those rates at the market to what infrastructure Ontario was giving us. I'd say the last two or three years that we've met with them, they're starting to take a closer look because they feel they could now get closer to those rates. So something we definitely keep an eye on. Thank you. Just exploring all options. So my, my concern here is obviously the working reserve fund and another entity that we are, the primary shareholder. And they are showing massive amounts of surplus. And we are struggling. We are struggling to make our bottom line full credit to CAO hurdle, CFO Kennedy, and all of the team that are able to bring in what we really have as a modest surplus of 500, 000 dollars in a 500 million that is cutting it very, very tight. And at the end of the day, there's another entity that can help support us in this. And I think it needs to be more of a shared venture in assisting this. And I'm looking at Mayor Paterson with some head nodding going. It's time. It's time to open that door and have that discussion. And, uh, I'll leave it at that. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Um, and again, keep in mind, we'll have a chance to speak to the strategies, um, but suprema questions is fun. Um, next is Councillo Glen. Thank you and through you. So, um, I'm going to be following up a little bit on my colleagues concerns with the working fund reserve. So I have a few questions, but I'll start there. So with the working fund reserves that's sitting at five to six million against a target of nine to 10, what's our actual risk of exposure if we face a multi - year chakra even, you know, worse, a shock in two years. So say we had spring flooding and then we had a terrible winter and, you know, had to put an extra ploughs and all kinds of things on the road. So, um, can you speak to that? And at what point, uh, does it become a credit rating concern. Thank you, Councillor, through you, Mr. Mayor. So, um, I think I'll start with, so if we were to drain the working fund reserve and then we had some challenges, we had a bad winter or fuel costs kept going up higher and higher. Um, and we had a deficit in that year because we had nowhere else to pull funds from to balance it. That municipalities can have a deficit in one year. They have to fund it the following year. So if we ended up with a deficit, we would have to include it in the tax rate the following year. So if we had a two and a half percent tax rate increase, we would have to add to that to cover whatever that deficit was. So that would be the, I think the risk for us if that was, if that was to happen. Um, standard impuras doesn't really look at our working fund reserve. I think they look at it from the extent that, that it's a, it's a good financial planning tool that we have. Um, and that we monitor it and that we have a level that a target. They look at those types of things. Um, but they don't, there's no indicator around that at all. Um, it's just more around a financial management piece of it. Okay. So thank you for that soon. Uh, not going to hit our credit rating, but, uh, certainly would hit our tax base with increased taxes. Um, and we're cutting it quite close. Um, my next question is going to go to, uh, DC's, which we've had lots of conversation about, but given the DC exemptions and deferrals, uh, that are shifting millions onto the tax base, uh, can you tell us how much of our capital programs are now being subsidized by existing taxpayers rather than growth. And what kind of magnitude are we talking about in comparison to what it used to be. Mr. Mayor. In 2025, it was approximately four million dollars that was subsidized by the tax base. Um, that's pretty consistent unexpected for the future. Okay. And so how does that compare with previous years before we had these exemptions and deferrals. Through Mr. Mayor? So, um, if we go back, the only thing there wasn't a lot that was, um, provincially legislated in terms of exemptions. The main thing that we had was the Industrial exemption, which we still have today that Council approves as part of the DC background study. And I would say that might have been around a million or two a year. We pay that back as the assessment comes on the role. Um, with all these new exemptions now that the province has put in place, um, uh, we have to now repay those as well to make the DC hole. Um, and so I'd say we've gone from one or two million to probably closer. I know we had about four million last year, but in our projections, we're roughly averaging about five million dollars a year. Okay. Thank you for that. So again, uh, those provincial changes are simply putting this back on our municipal tax base. So again, we're seeing increased affordability issues. Um, all right. So that takes me to my next question. So your report, which was very well done, by the way, thank you clearly states that municipalities are absorbing responsibilities and housing, health care and homelessness. What percentage of our budget today is funding services that are not traditionally municipal responsibilities. And how are we tracking and advocating for any form of reimbursement. Through you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so I don't have the information rarely available for what we are investing at this point. Um, but we do participate in advocacy efforts through AMO in particular as well as FCM. And we actually were part of a survey. A couple of years ago with AMO that looked particularly at this across a lot of the larger municipalities. At that point, um, it was probably, I would say around somewhere between six and eight percent municipalities. And that looked at not just some of the social services pieces and the housing and the homelessness. Um, but also the health pieces. Um, and support to the hospital as well. So it was sort of a whole thing. Um, I was trying to get my hands on a final report. And I actually not sure it's been issued yet from AMO. But that just kind of gives you an idea sort of generally across the larger municipalities. Okay. So suffice it to say again, portion fairly substantial portion of our budget going to, um, municipal responsibilities. Um, so my last question I'm going to put forward, cause I'm sure the lots more, uh, that are coming. So we're projecting 940 million in capital, um, over five years, well - reserves or declining. And debt is rising. So my question is what percentage of this plan is realistically fundable without increasing taxes beyond targets or reducing service levels if we don't make some substantial changes. Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. So the 940 million, the next five years in the Capitol plan at this point is all funded. Um, and so either from our capital reserve funds or dad, or there are some grants in there as well. So that piece is funded, but keep in mind, we don't have all of the asset management gap amount in there. We have some, but not all of it. We're probably short about, uh, 30 million or so a year on that. Um, and we know there's more demand coming for capital, um, for growth as well that is definitely not in there. So those are the pieces that, that would not be funded. Um, and I think, you know, if we just stuck with the 940, um, yes, our capital reserves would be going down, but they still would be at 55 million dollars We would be keeping within that 500 million of debt, give or take, I think as we're paying some of it off, um, but when we start to add these other things in, that's when we start to have the challenges. And we're going to have those challenges because I don't think we're going to have any choice but to do at least some infrastructure. Given the state of some of it. So thank you very much for the report. And it is sobering. I'll hold the rest of my remarks for our next portion. Okay. Thank you. Next is Councillor Stroff. Thank you Mayor Patterson. And you mentioned something there. This is four questions you were trying to say cautious for what? I'm just, I just want to make sure that everyone understands this is asking questions and then we'll have time to make comments on the motion when we get to clause two, which lays out the recommendations. Okay. Obviously always allow a little bit of prestation. Obviously, but just, just keep that context. I respect that. I'll try my best. I want to ask about you mentioned about the 19 million dollar delay from development charges. Where is that money and who has the money? Is that developers. Through you, Mr. Mayor, it is a delay in when we're collecting the funds from the developers. So we used to collect it at the building permit issuance. And now it's been deferred until Octancy Permit. Thank you, Bency. So, um, is that money already accounted for or is that money that you know, it's going to just go to development, um, further development, right? Of our infrastructure. It's not money that goes into our budget. Through you, Mr. Mayor, it's not going to go into our operational budget, but it will go into the development charges reserve fund. Okay. And how much is in that development charge is reserve fun. Um, at the end of 2025, there was 15 million dollars. Which is low. That's not much, yeah. Okay. So there are comments on there that I'll make then about what I like and I don't like on your, um, review. I wanted to ask, um. I have always struggled in our budgets. Every year. When we have growth. And we never really acknowledge growth. The past year. We kind of bury it in our budget, an increase. And so sometimes we have a 2. 5 increase. But we don't. And then, but that's not including the percentage increase of what we gained. And I've always struggled with that why we aren't more careful, you know, and I know that we have been exemplary as a city of our size really in managing our debts. I think I met with you very, very early on many years ago when we said we'd never crossed the 500 million dollar threshold. I remember that conversation because we wanted to be careful. And here we are talking about it, excuse me, this thing is grabbing crazy. And, um, so that concerns me. I'm up a little bit. But I wanted to ask a little bit clarity on that. And, um, why aren't we more, um, is it a time now to look at growth and manage it and protect it and not, um, put it in the right places then that are giving us the right pressure. So instead of into the general coffers. Miss Kennedy. Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. So, um, it is shown separately in the budget. And I think you make a good point, Councillor, it's something you and I have talked about the Last of Us even as part of budget engagement is getting that information out there, the importance of growth and the impact that it has on tax rates. So if we have a three and a half percent tax rate, but we had, if we didn't have, say one percent of growth, we'd have had a four and a half, right? And I think that's sort of a piece that we need to try to keep communicating out to the public. Um, the importance of that. Um, I would say, you know, based on usually having one to one and a half percent of growth, one of the things that we do look at when we're pulling the budget together, um, is how much of our budget actually relates to growth. So I remember previous Directors of Engineering always telling me about every five years we had to add a new garbage route on, um, or a new snow ploughed on. And so, uh, what we, I would say we don't have a specific policy on it, but what we like to try to watch for is if we have one percent of growth, do we also have an increase in costs related to growth that are offering that? And generally around one percent we do. We would have that. Um, if we had years of larger growth, it would be something that we certainly would look at to say we don't really need all of that for, for growth. And so we would bring something back as part of budget to council and say, is the strategy to use that for other cost pressures? Or do we want to put that away because we know we're going to have more costs coming in the next three to four years. Um, related to that. So, so again, it's also a reason we have a four year budget. So we can kind of see what that looks like going out as well. Thank you. I think it's important to think about those things and where we put that money and recognise the positive, positive results from growth. And so I hope that this is also a conversation that we recognise the importance of our decisions in the next month or two when we talk about growth healthy growth, a balance growth for a city that will also be part of the solutions to this and that we have a economy that is supported. So that's on my mind for us as councillors. So I'll leave it for that Mayor Patterson till we talk about the motion. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Next is Councillor Stephen. Thank you Mayor Paterson. Um, thank you for the report. It's interesting. We've heard of all of these things over the years. It's interesting to see it all put together in one picture. Um, I want to touch on something to do with the capital reserve funds. So there was a politician who was making these comments about Acts the tax. We heard about that a lot at the federal level. And while he didn't get to ask the tax someone else did it. So that federal gas tax is important to us as a municipality. Can see it right here for capital reserve funds, 8 million dollars. So if that tax husband axed. What's happening with those funds. There's folds. Through you, Mr. Mayor. We have a commitment for another three years of the federal gas tax fund. Um, so we have, if the fund goes away, then it will no longer fund asset management replacement for infrastructure and assets. So that's what it's funding right now. Three of you mayor Paterson. So over those three years, is it expected, is Kingston always in receipt of eight million or does it change. Through you, Mr. Mayor? It is a set amount of about 8. 3 million dollars. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Mayor, has the federal government sent any indication of what they plan to do after this? Or we just don't know yet. Through you, Mr. Mayor, we just don't know yet. I recognise eight million as a drop in the 500 million bucket. If we're, I mean, that's operating, but still, um, that's the number that comes to mind. So yeah, that's, that's concerning as well. It might colleagues have asked all my other questions. So thank you. Thank you. Councillor Senek. Thank you, your worship. Um, one question about the report, do the financial projections in here. Did that, does that include expanding the urban growth boundary in all three different directions. Miss Kennedy. Through you, Mr. Mayor. No, the cost included for that. Okay. And, and another question I see is kind of, uh, the question that Councillor Amos has asked, I see a lot with all the letters that have been written to us recently about how when the Memorial Centre was built, it was built using community like Bonds, like from the community. And then we just heard that the bonds we use now are from infrastructure, Ontario. And so is that the best way to use the bonds as opposed to doing something from the community. Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. So, um, yeah, that's a great question. We are in the process of, um, looking at the opportunity for, uh, community bonds for affordable housing projects. Um, and actually, I think I have a meeting later this week on that. I have had some conversations with tapestry, which is an organisation of Toronto that manages community bonds, um, for most of the ones that have already been issued across Ontario. They tend to be the one that manages those. Um, and I was talking with them a couple of weeks ago and he actually asked me the same question. Do you have any projects other than Affordable Housing that might fit within a community bond regime? So it's definitely on our radar. I think we're sort of focusing now on the Affordable Housing piece. Um, and maybe that's sort of as a test, but it's definitely on our radar. I think, you know, it's looking at whether there's an interest in the community, um, to be a part of something like that and to want to invest in something like that. Thank you Councillor McLaren. Thank you. I seem to recall a conversation I had with you back in 2014 about the one percent Infrastructure Tax Levy. And at the time there was some hope of getting rid of it in the late 2020s. Are we anywhere near that right now. Through you, Mr. Mayor, no, we are not near that. That was certainly something we thought maybe at the time might work. Um, but I would certainly say particularly with all the work over the last four or five years around asset management. Um, and getting better data around our assets. And we have, um, and, and the condition of those assets. I would say, um, we're not going to be yet there. And right now the one percent continues within our 15 year models. And may I ask, um, how far into the future before taxpayers can get any relief from this at, at today's, uh, rates. Um, through you, Mr. Mayor. Hard to say at this point, I think until we can get some, uh, get some of this information, new information into our models, um, but I would say certainly, we need it definitely for the next 15 years. And I would say even we probably could go more than the one percent if we're trying to actually, um, address that asset management gap. I think most municipalities right now, we know what the gap is from all the information we have now. Um, the next thing is how do we address that gap? And it's not necessarily just funding. Um, I know in the report that Mr. Fowler brought previously there were a lot of other initiatives as well. Uh, around reducing that gap and getting better information on conditions and those kinds of things. Um, but I think certainly, uh, if we were just to address the gap that we've got for municipal assets, um, we'd need more than the one percent over the 15 years. Thank you. I also seem to recall a few surprising things from my first term. Um, have we ever thought of not assuming new roads or new privately built assets? And I'm thinking in particular here of how, um, the city took over the responsibility of lighting and ploughing and cleaning the comedy cove pathway that was part of the deal to let them be built. And I understand that when subdivisions are built, we don't immediately take our assume control of the roads. But when we do, it becomes our responsibility to pay for painting, maintaining. And if their lights, lights and all that kind of stuff, has there been any thought of not assuming any new roads or any other new private, um. Assets. Commissioner. Uh, thank you and through you. And I think Mr. Sample may want to add some information as well, potentially. So to your question, Councillor, if something is a private road, we don't assume those assets. Those would be usually assets that would be maintained maybe by a condo corporation. Um, the situation you're referencing with respect to elevator Bay, some of that was taken as part of whether the city would be taking ownership over the walkway versus using an easement at the time, the ownership was preferred. And that was negotiated in terms of the lighting and the upkeep as well, just as part of how that development was negotiated. We do different things on different developments depending on the circumstances. Um, in terms of the actual assumption of municipal assets for new plans to subdivision, there is a period of time usually from construction to when we, um, assume them. And that's just based on a completion, um, percentage that needs to happen before the municipality steps into assume that asset. And that also has to do with, um, ensuring that the condition assessment is appropriate for municipal assumption. Uh, so that is part of our process and how we maintain those as, as public assets. Mr. Semple, please add any more information. So I guess my question was, are we required to take them? If we have proven a subdivision, for example, are we required to take those streets on our public time considering I understand that low density of that kind is often, does not pay for itself. Commissioner Stagna. Uh, thank you. And through you, it's definitely in the municipalities best interest to absorb the assets. If they're municipal assets in their design to a municipal standard, um, I don't think it would be reasonable to assume that all new development would be done by way of a plan econom. Like that's not typical. So I would say our approach is very standard for most municipalities. And would continue to be so in the future. I don't know if you have any, but, but it is our responsibility to assume those those municipal assets once they're appropriately constructed. Okay. I heard earlier that these numbers do not include the possibility of an urban boundary expansion. Am I to understand though that the urban boundary would be a much bigger upfront cost to the city and would make these numbers worse. Cobra strike, do. Thank you. So certainly any part of growth of the city, there are costs that the municipality has to assume. We haven't yet fully seen any of those numbers. And those will be presented to council. But certainly, um, any expansion of municipal infrastructure is going to have a cost associated with it. I think with the report does highlight is, um, based on some of the changes that have happened with legislation, they're diminishing opportunities for the municipality to recover, um, from what were things that were paid by developers, some of those exemptions of come in that are no longer payable or the deferral of the timing of payment for which we do receive the payment, but it's later in the process. So that affects our cash flow. Those are going to be situations that the municipality will continue to face. But as always, face, even since amalgamation, it's a matter of understanding them and strategically planning and budgeting for them. But there is recovery associated with that. There's upfront costs that are paid for it by the developer. And certainly to the points that Councillor Strhoff was making the way that we recover is through new assessment growth, which becomes a permanent part of our tax base moving forward. No, that's a great segue. Um, new growth. Uh, considering I recall there was a, um, life cycle, um, benefits and costing report back done a long time ago. That pays for itself and with a surplus ideally, uh, is much preferred to growth that barely pays for itself or doesn't pay for itself. Usually low density versus high density. Has there been any thought of massively increasing the amount of density that's allowed within the urban boundary as a way to reduce the overall costs going forward rather than greenfield expansion. Uh, thank you and through you. So a couple of points of clarification. So the life cycle analysis that we did, I think that was in 2016 or 2017. It showed us that, um, single family or single detached family dwellings were actually the best cost recovery of any form of development. Certainly when she get into some of the other more medium forms of development, high density development and particularly, um, that is condominized is one of the highest rates of return as well for the municipality from a tax based perspective. Um, so the, the growth that's been planned for in the future, um, at least what's drafted right now in the official plan is that almost 70 percent of all new growth that's planned within the draft as it's currently laid out is all happening within the urban boundary the way it's defined right now. So that will involve infrastructure investment within the urban boundary the way it is now to upgrade infrastructure to be able to support that to separate sewers and then directing 30 percent of that to happen as outward growth or greenfield development incrementally over time. Thank you. And another strategy. Have we considered reducing the levels of service for various things we do? I know it won't be popular, but if we go from say two days to three or four days before streets are and sidewalks are cleaned, um, it won't be popular, but it may be fiscally responsible. Is this something that has ever been considered in any of this? And not just that, the other service levels that we go. That just may be the biggest one because of the staff complements necessary. Scandi. Thank you to you, Mr. Mayor. So, um, certainly the recommendations in the report tonight. We're trying to stay away from service level changes and looking at some of these other opportunities first. But I think it's still something that a senior management, we continue to look at in terms of whether the opportunities, not necessarily to cut back, um, but particularly how we're providing services. And is there a more efficient way of doing that? So it's always on the table in terms of looking whether there's a better way to do something. Thank you. Okay. Next is Councillor Sun. Thank you, worshipman through you. Um, just a quick question to CFO. Is with the city require or is more comfortable level of the working reserve fund is nine to 10 million dollar. And we are sitting on six million right now. Would you be able to. Share some of the reasons why we lost the four million dollar. From the reservoir front. I remember that it was nine or 10 million couple of years ago. Kendy. Through you, Mr. Mayor. So, um, we're just trying to remember some of the detail. Um, we do have the summary in the report. I think for the last three years of what has come out, um, I know there was a large amount. I think it was three million dollars and that was. In 2022. And that was for, sorry, why don't you go ahead. Through Mr. Mayor. In 2022, there was a three million dollar budget approval for the Clean Tech, um, industries, uh, support. Um, we're also. We're also, uh, seeing a decline in our, um, operating budget surpluses. Prior to the pandemic, we were seeing, um, approximately, uh, an average of 3. 3 million dollars in annual municipal surplus where we're down to an average of about one million dollars being put back into the reserve fund. Oh. So you heardle. Thank you. I just want to add that, um, during this term of council, because I appreciate some of the, um, items, uh, identified earlier were prior to this term of council, but you would be familiar with the family physician recruitment program. I think Council approved up to three million dollars over this term to move forward. So that was probably the biggest contribution during this term of Council. But there are small amounts that obviously tonight council be considering another one of these small amounts that are outside of the municipal services scope. But it's all of those things that ultimately have implications for the working fund reserve. The second question is, uh, in the report is mentioned some of the R assets, the staff is recommended to possibly to dispose of or resell it. Um, the revenue will be generated from those properties. If we get the recommendation approved to dispose of is that revenue going to help to rebuild our negative balance on the capital reserve fund or many other areas. Miss Kennedy. Thank you through Mr. Mayor. Yes. Normally what we would do if we were disposing of a capital property, um, that money would go back into the Capitol Reserve funds. And so that would help in terms of funding additional capital. So what kind of a property or asset we will determine that we need to sell it. They are not doing anything or not bringing a lot of revenue. As they are just sitting up there. How are we going to determine that. Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. So I think, um, that's part of what the review will look at. I think as CAO hurdle said we wouldn't be looking at things like community centres and those types of things. But, um, if I recall from our Director of Facilities, we have something like 160, um, different buildings. And so I think it's just looking to see what are some of those particularly, we, we do have commercial leases in some of those. So we would be looking at those to see, are we properly recovering based on the rental income that we have coming in? Are we recovering the costs? Um, but also asking the question, do we want to be a commercial landlord? Why are we a commercial landlord? So that will be part of what the review is that staff will be looking at and bringing that back to Council. Do we have the possibility to use those property some other way around to reinvest it. And generate the revenue instead disposing up or selling it. What we can do with those, uh, without selling, if we're not selling it, is that way to generate revenue from those properties. Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor. So yes, absolutely. So the least revenues today that we have, um, the lease revenues go into our operating budget. And we have operating costs that offset that. Um, we also have a transfer that goes to the capital reserve fund to cover off some of that capital piece. Um, if we were to sell the buildings, uh, that money would go in the capital reserves. Those capital reserve funds do earn interest. So they are invested in both short and long - term investments. Um, and so that was certainly help in terms of bringing some of that back in as well. Um, but then Council also has the opportunity to use those funds. So rather than just investing them to use them towards, uh, funding other capital projects. So those funds also can be used to ease the burden for the urban boundary expansion plan as well. Can we use some funds for that as well. Through you, Mr. Mayor. So yes, they would go back into our capital reserve funds. Um, and then, uh, could be used towards any municipal share of capital cost towards the urban boundary expansion. There would be a growth related as well. So there would also be development charges, um, related to those costs. But yes, they would go into the Capitol pool and then, and then be used available for capital projects. Thank you for the good report. I appreciate it. Okay. Next is Councillor Schapes. Thank you. Sorry. A few concerning comments earlier by some fellow colleagues. Would you like to get some clarification on. Um, one being in a safety issue. I believe it was requested or suggested of saving money by delaying, no clearing. We have staff here. I was wondering if they could share with us, is there illegal requirements, provincial requirements for snow clearing. That we have to follow. So I'm just going to caution going too far down the rabbit hole on this. I think that a high level questions are reasonable, guess. I just, yeah, I mean. So I'll allow this one, but I just, I just want to avoid us going too far into, we're not actually solving and making decisions on these strategies tonight. So I'm going to say that. Steph want to answer that, the kid. This intent. Three, Mr. Mayor. Yeah. There is the minimum maintenance standards that fall into the provincial legislation that set out timelines for how quickly you have to plough or make a road usable. Uh, we also have a winter maintenance policy for the city that also sets out timeframes, um, associated with the minibil maintenance standard as well. Okay. Thank you. I guess I'll leave my other question for CFO some other time. Thank you. Okay. To be continued. Thank you. Any other questions at this point. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much, uh, both Miss Kennedy, Miss Folds for that briefing. Uh, so now we'll move to clause two, which is a consideration the financial overview and fiscal outlook. Is there any discussion. Councillor. Thank you. And through you. So I appreciate the report very much. I also appreciate the recommendations. But I'm a bit concerned. To me, selling assets and optimizing leases is a temporary kind of measure. Um, and it's going to get us some funding in the short term, maybe a little bit of interest off of it. But what about next year and the year after. Um, it just seemed to me that a number of the strategies are around cost containment, which is critical, um, clearly. But I don't think we can just sort of contain or cut our way out of the situation that we're in, especially when we've got a situation where the responsibilities are growing faster than the revenues that are coming in. So I think we find ourselves in a really high pressure situation here. And I think we need to sort of come together as a council and deliver a strategy that goes beyond just simply looking at fines and fees, um, we need something that's really a proactive revenue generating strategy that actually leverages the assets that we do have. We've seen in the past with other municipalities much larger than us, selling off property. And then regretting it. Because all of a sudden they realised they could have done more with it. They could have done something else with it. They didn't have it when it was necessary. So that piece is a big concern to me. Um, and I think we also are in a position where we really need to understand the full burden of the downloading. We talk about it, um, I know that we have some numbers, but I think having it pulled together in one regular report to us. Is very telling and allows us to speak more clearly to the other levels of government. You know, so, um, when they're making decisions about policy, it's critical that we can have that conversation. So to Councillor Stevens question about The Gas Tax, that community, you know, Canada Community Building Fund, yeah, we don't have a guarantee. What I can say is that the Federation of Canadian municipalities, this is a standing advocacy item. So we, it's funding 3, 700 communities. So without it, it's not just us. It's going to be a lot of other people. So I don't think it's going to get ripped away, but it still needs to be a major advocacy point. Um, so I actually have an amendment that I'd like to have put up, please. Okay. Uh, so this is amendment, uh, moved by Councillor Glenn, seconded by a cancer ocanic. Uh, the report 42 clause two received from the CAO recommended be amended by adding the following strategies. So one developing a business asset strategy that evaluates assets for revenue generation potential, not just optimization and considers disposals the last resort. Number two, developing a debt optimization and investment framework that strategically uses debt for non - tax revenue generation while maintaining the city's AA plus credit rating. Number three, producing an annual municipal burden report to quantify the provincial and federal downloading costs with trends over time that can be used for intergovernmental advocacy and provide for greater public transparency. Okay. Councillo Glenn, the amendment is on the floor. I will restart your time and, uh, we'll go from there. Thank you very much. So some of my previous comments are pertinent to the amendment. I think that we need to stretch ourselves here. We need to be more creative. The reality is that this is not going away without us looking at both ends of the spectrum. How do we generate more revenue as well as how we contain costs? So we need to do both things at the same time. Typically, I don't think municipalities have, have done as much of this. I think we've done a pretty good job when I look around at other municipalities. But we can go further. And I want to make sure that we turn over every stone, consider every potential option. And so this amendment is just to ensure that we stretch ourselves. Um, so part two of this developing a debt optimization investment framework. So if we are going to take on any more debt, even a small amount, is it maybe a small amount that actually then generates revenue that comes back in that offsets other operational costs. So I don't have all the answers, certainly, uh, but I think it's important that we delve into this a lot more deeply than we have. We're facing some really difficult decisions based on our current financial situation. And I think the implications could be very profound. You know, we've already had one member here saying, well, can we cut services. Uh, I don't want to see us get into that situation. Uh, we're going to try to preserve them as much as possible. But if we are not future thinking and don't start doing this now, it'll be difficult. I think we need to take a bit more of a business approach to this. Um, I don't think there's a single one of us who doesn't want to find solutions. So let's see what else we can dig up. So I'm suggesting that we consider not just how we manage, but how we're going to actually adapt to what's very changed political environment in the last decade or so in particular. Downloading's always been going on, but it's become more profound. So we continue to be asked to do more with less. And it seems that's the one constant we face. But the answers can't be always to cut to defer to sell. You know, we need, I think to surely consider how we do new revenue growth, smarter financing. And how do we get a fair deal from the other orders of government. So these things are to ask for that. The information so we can do better advocacy and really have a good conversation. And then investigating all other revenue, uh, potential options based on our assets. And if we do decide to take on any debt, what kind of revenue can we make from it? Thank you. And I hope you'll, um, approve the amendment. Okay. Thank you. So we'll open it up to discussion on the amendment. First up is Councillor. Thank you Mayor Paterson through you. I always like to know I'm voting for us. Okay. Just get staffs take on these bullet points. The third one I think is actually, I'm okay with. But can I just get staff's take on this? What are we directing you to do and how is it different than what's currently in the report? Thank you. Ms. Kennedy. Thank you for you, Mr. Mayor. So, um, I would say certainly the First Amendment, um, around evaluating the assets for revenue generation potential, um, would fall within our asset rationalization strategy. So the three recommendations that are in the report, um, and certainly taking the Counselor's point around, uh, disposal as a Last Resort, but we would be looking at those already, um, as far as, as the different assets. And are we getting the revenues from them? Um, the second one I would say, um, just to clarify, um, we can only issue debt for capital projects. Um, so we cannot issue debt. Get that money into the bank and then turn around and invest it to make money potentially if we could make more money than what the interest is on it. Um, debt has to be issued against very specific capital projects. And you'll recall when Ms. Folds brings the debt issuance reports. It lays out specifically what those projects were and when they were approved by council. Um, and then finally the last one, um, and I think I had mentioned earlier, certainly I think we get a bigger bang for our buck when we join in with other municipalities through FCM or AMOS surveys, um, in terms of advocacy. Um, but certainly I think, uh, in terms of our contribution towards some of these particularly the federal and provincial downloading costs, I think that's something we could start to consider including maybe in our fourth quarter report that comes to council. So once a year when we bring the year end report, um, we could include what that, that burden is from that, that previous year in terms of where we've paid costs that particularly we thought were provincial or federal responsibilities. Okay. I'm a little confused about bullet point number two. The third point I really like. I think it's good that we have that that's great for advocacy. But I'm torn this because I don't really get what we're directing for bullet point two. Thank you. Uh, thank you. The deputy mayor isn't here. Who is the previous Deputy Mayor. Previous Deputy Mayor Council Annie? Would you take the floor, please? Yes, I take the chair and recognise you. Uh, thank you. So, um, I think just picking up from the previous speaker, I think, um, what I'm going to propose is doing just three separate votes on this amendment. So we can just deal with them individually. I'm not going to support the first two. I will support the third. Um, I do think that the first is implying or misreading the menu of strategies that staff have laid out in front of us. This is not a, this is not a chop and cut costs. There's a whole menu of different things. And when you're developing a financial strategy, you need a mix. Uh, I think we've already here clearly from staff that, you know, any, any properties with potential disposal would be likely because there isn't use for it from the community. There isn't potential revenue that can be gained from it. So I think the staff have been very measured in how they've put this list together. So again, I think that my problem with the first one is it suggests that it's a slash and burn and that's not what's in front of us. It really is. It's rationalization. It's looking at what I think safer already doing. And again, my concern was exactly what CFO Kennedy said, but the second point is that. That we're very limited in what we can do with, with debt. So debt is for capital projects. You can't use debt to be able to cook up other revenue generating options. So, so for that reason, I'm not going to support the first tube. I will support the third. I think that that's fine. It's a good advocacy strategy. So Councillor Glenn, you're bang on, right? If we can find a way to be able to talk about what that gaps looks like and be able to feed that in into our larger efforts to lobby the province, the federal government, of course, then that's valuable. So, uh, again, I would ask Council to support, um, the third of the three, but not the first two. I think. You're going to return the chair. Okay. Next time I list is cancer emers. Okay. I'm sorry. Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Councillor McClar. Thank you. When I read that second bullet, um, I'm wondering if we were to say, uh, get debt to get a super health hub that actually generates income for the city. Would that qualify. We're spending it only on capital, but the capital investment generates operating dollars after it's built. Could we issue debt for a project like that. Three, you Mr. Mayor. Yes, we cannot issue debt for, um, an asset to construct an asset that will be revenue generating. Um. Just in terms of the investment framework, it would have to, the revenue generated would need to recover all of the costs. Um, of operations. And then pay a return to the city. So in that case, would you be doing that without this bullet or is this adding something to your toolbox. Miss Walter. Through you, Mr. Mayor, we would be doing it without this recommendation. Um, I think. We are looking for strategies to maximize on all of our assets. And return on our investments. Okay. So it's not a slash and burn or anything like that. It's, it is a thing that you are doing right now. And this is making it more clear in some sense. Miss Kelly. Thank you through your Mr. Mayor. So, um, yes, I think, I think the recommendations there would cover that. And maybe I just give you an example. You know, if we have a commercial lease property for whatever reason that we've got, um, and hopefully because when we look at the lease rates, hopefully we are setting those lease rates appropriate that we're at least covering our costs. Um, but I would also say, are we getting another say five percent return on that as well over and above recovering the costs? And I'm not sure that we are. I don't know that. And I think that's part of what this would review would be. Then the question would be if we're not, if we're just recovering our costs, do we want to continue to lease that and at least recover our costs? Or do we get out of that business? Or do we increase the lease so that we are making that five percent or do we get out of that business and take that money and potentially invest it maybe in our long - term investments where we know we are making roughly five percent. So that's some of the review that I think we need to look at and bring back to council. Um, in terms of just some of these assets. And I'm talking not assets that are used for community services, um, but potentially some of the assets that we're leasing. So is that the business we want to be in? Or is there a better business we could be in to earn a better return. Thank you. I sense a little bit of deja vu here from earlier in the term. There was a council meeting in our first year in which Councillor Glenn said suggested that, uh, we form a post - secondary working group. And I recall some of the discussion around there. There was a lot of doubt about it. Um, but we gave her the benefit of the doubt. And the result was that new ideas that were not thought of. At that time and at that council meeting manifested. The result has been millions of dollars of reduced costs in policing. I'm sure we all remember that. We've seen it over the last three years of our budgets. I'm going to suggest that there might be possibility, if we approve all three bullets of new ideas that we haven't thought about, really quickly. At this moment in time. And if we were to let it percolate in staff's mind, new ideas might come up. We heard already that they're already doing most of this. Why not make it more explicit. In the hopes that perhaps new ideas that we can't even think of at this moment on such a quick and short notice might come up. This is, it doesn't cost us anything. And, um, we could get a lot of benefit out of it. She has already demonstrated this that her intuition on this is spot on. Saved us several millions of dollars. In policing budgets. Let's do it again. I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt. Uh, okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else that wants to speak to the amendment. Councillo Glenn, you have a last word. Uh, thank you. And through you. So I think I'm just going to back up a pinch here and talk about the fact that this was not about slashing and burning, um, and I didn't think that's what we were doing. But I do think that we need to change in the culture of how we think of our assets. Um, so my concern was that what I heard about was do we want to be doing commercial leases, not about do we want to take an asset. And make a business out of it, basically. So Councillor McLaren referred to the health hub. That was a different idea. We had to bring in somebody from outside to do a business plan. And it was a new concept that we could actually bring dollars into the city that would come out of a different pile of money that it would come out of, um, extended healthcare benefits and long - term disability benefits and veterans affairs. Um, so there were all those avenues where we could be doing that and providing a really great service in partnership with someone. But the report that we had come back, um, clearly stated that we could offset a lot of operational costs. And so that's the idea is that I'm hoping that we can work towards. So in putting these forward, it's not a criticism of what's already been laid out. It's asking us to stretch a little bit further because I think we have to. And it's asking to keep it top of mind. And to the point about, you know, investing in building a property that then can help us generate more non - tax revenue. So, um, well, you know, I have great confidence in staff. I do think at this point in time, given the seriousness of the situation, that it needs to be explicit that we are looking for revenue generation. And we are looking beyond the traditional ways in which we do this because we have to. Um, so I appreciate the comments. Um, I appreciate the supports, particularly for the last one because advocacy takes a lot of work effort and information to move forward with. And I also think the public having a clear picture of what we are having to take on will be helpful in our conversations with them. So I hope you'll vote for the amendment and thank you for the consideration. Okay. Thank you. So we will, um, we'll call three separate votes on the amendment. So we'll just go through the added strategies one at a time. So first we'll call the vote on the first strategy. Or the first bullet point. And that loses by a vote of four to seven. Now we'll do a vote on the second bullet point. That loses by a vote of four to seven. Now we'll vote on third bullet point. And that carries. Okay. Um, so now we're back to clause two as amended Council Glenn. You still have two minutes and 30 seconds on the clock if the. No at this point I don't have anything else to add other than a thank you to staff. I know that these, uh, reports and having to bring this kind of information to Council can't be a lot of fun for you either. Uh, so I appreciate the time and effort. And I'm going to keep my fingers and toes crossed to see some, uh, innovative things come forward to help us navigate this difficult financial picture. Thank you. Thank you. Council Stoff. Yes. Thank you, Mayor Pastor. I forgot we had the whole motion yet. Um, I just, I just wanted to be a couple comments over the past two terms, I think. I sense a growing restlessness in our community about our taxes and people want to know more, especially at budget time. And I think we all get those calls. So I would really hope that we would work to establish a financial advisory committee. Um, I think that there are a lot of good ideas out there. And I think what Councillor Glenn was really pursuing was, um, a bit of an open door. And all respect to staff. I hope that there's no sense that we don't, but we've, it's been brought to us, the concern. And Council wants to make a difference. We want to add, um, the ideas and the solutions, but, um, and so I'm a bit disappointed in the results. But I still think the message is there. I think the most important message is that, um, we, we want to look deeper as Councillor Glenn has had an open, do more exploring. And with a business mindset too. And that, um, that makes, uh, there's a lot of support out there. Mayor Paterson and a lot of great ideas. And so a committee would do that, whether it's partially business community, uh, economic development and people, you know, the citizens of Kingston and giving them platforms. So I wanted to say that. I believe the time is now for that because as our CO has said the growing, um, concern about the families in our community and their ability to pay. And so we need to really do the hard work now. And, uh, so we're in here. We're in it together. I hope nobody feels they have to carry it alone. We're in this together. And I think that we have it. But, um, we have to do the, do the hard work. And so I still think, uh, Connie in the end, that we're going to get what you wanted in your motion. I hope. So I wanted to mention as well, um, about opportunities from municipal service corporation. I really hope we get that a very close look. I think there is some opposition to it, but the more I hear about it, the more I think that it's something to pursue. So, um, anyways, I'll leave it at that for now, but I do hope that we can, uh, move, uh, move forward. I went, last thing I want to say Mayor Peterson is. I hope we don't do amps on parking. I think that just makes the community, makes them angry. And that we don't need to make our community more angry. Um, you know, we want to, I don't know where they all, uh, what to justify an amp like that. But I'd be cautious with that one. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Next is Councillor Shapes. Thank you. Um, I believe earlier in the briefing, it was asked. And I think it's a good question is to, um, services that we are providing for that upper levels government are not. And I have a pretty good example of that. Amil during the ammo conference, the Minister's farm, which members can go up and ask questions. And last year I decided to go outside my comfort zone and I asked them about the heads and bed stacks. Which is set at 75 dollars, which has been there, not mistaken, but 20, 40 years. Yes. So I reached out to our revenue department, taxation department for information. What should that total be? With inflation. And it came up to 215 dollars. I asked that question of the Minister. If they were willing to update that. The answer was a quick no. And response was we give you enough grants and funds anyways already. So, um, so that was a well used two minutes of my time. So yes, I see that. And the only thing I want to add is as a. West end representative, I get complaints now from, I'm going to take my leisure on this one from residents who complain about services levels that they're not receiving. And with the high amount of taxes that they receive. So I know it sort of suggests about service levels and roads, lights and things like that. Really don't think it's going to get off well with a special in my district, which is one of those being developed. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Next is Councillor Tanene. Um, I just wanted to. Highlight one thing that Councillor Streff didn't like though, but, um, about the amps for parking enforcement. I think though that this would unlock, I have an idea that we could make the city probably a lot of money and solve a problem that is across the city. Um, that actually anchors probably more people. Um, so. Um, I'm, yeah, I'm, I'm happy that this is in here to look at so that because there's some, it unlocks some opportunities to solve a lot of problems in other creative ways. So yeah, I'm happy this is in here. Uh, thank you. Is there anybody else on clause two. Okay. We will call the vote on clause two as amended. And that carries. Okay. Uh, moving on to report number 43 from the administrative policies committee. Move by Councillor Toso, seconded by Councillor Hussan, the report 43 from the Administrative Policies Committee be received and adopted. There's just the one clause. Tax write - offs pursuant to the municipal Act 2001. We'll call the vote, please. And that carries. Okay, report number 44 from the arts recreation community policies committee. Move by Councillor Shave, seconded by Councillor Amos that report 44 from the Arts Recreation and Community Policies Committee be received and adopted. Okay. There's just the one clause. So there's a motion here that I'll read. Whereas the Kingston Consumption and Treatment Services CTS is operated since 2018 serving hundreds of vulnerable residents annually. Diverting hundreds of emergency room visits to prevent any opioid overdose deaths. Whereas the province of Ontario announced on April 10th, 2026 that a new homelessness and addiction and recovery treatment, hearthub will be established in Kingston and then the provincially funded consumption and treatment services site of the Integrated Care Hub 661 Montreal Street. We'll close effective September 30, 2026 with services to transition to the new Kingston Hart Hub. And whereas harm reduction services are evidence based policies and programs designed to produce the health, social, and economic harms associated with substance use, including the provision of safer use supplies overdose prevention and response, health education, and connections to treatment and social supports without requiring abstinence as a condition of access. Therefore be resolved, the Council Direct staff to work with Kingston Community Health Centres Trellis HIV and Community Care, Addiction and Mental Health Services, Home - based Housing, Southeast Public Health, and other Integrated Care Hub ICH Consortium Partners and other Community Groups to share information with the public about harm reduction services and where these supports can be accessed following the closure of the consumption and treatment services, CTS. And the Council Directly Chief Administrative Officer to report back to Council on the implications of the Provincial CTS closure for the ICHS, ICH programming, and the City's 500, 000 dollar annual shelter - by contribution. And the Council Direct the City Solicitor and Consultation with the mayor and the Chief Administrative Officer to formerly assess whether a Declaration of Emergency Intersection 4 of The Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act is warranted given the documented interlocking policy gap created by provincial defunding and federal program ineligibility and report that assessment to Council no later than the end of Q3, 2026. And the Council considers up to 350, 000 dollars as a one - time funding from the working fund reserve to support new proposals for new community groups that introduce pilot projects to reduce harm to the public and potentially lower cost to the city. And the staff develop a process with partner expertise for the allocation of funds and the Council Director staff to request that Kingston Community Health Centre collect all consumption treatment services and harm reduction information and data and report back to Council. Okay, so we have that motion. Yes, Councillor McCurring, go ahead. Thank you. So I was at the meeting when this happened, and I want to thank Councillor Amos and Councillor Ridge for moving the amendment that put the fourth, their fort we resolved clause in there. But in a conversation with staff, um, just outside the meeting at the time, the word consider, uh, was found to be meaningless because we can consider it and do nothing. So I would like to move an amendment, seconded by Councillor Rosterhoff, or sorry, Councillor Amos, to change the word consider to a more appropriate word. Approve. Okay, so we have an amendment move by Councillor McLaren, seconded by Councillor Amos. That in the motion, uh, everyone sees it's the second last paragraph that we would delete the word considers. And instead insert the word approve. Councillor McLaren, your amendments duly moved in secretary. If you have anything else, I know you sort of already spoken to it, but if you have anything else, you know, when I say to it, you can now. Otherwise we can open up the debate. Okay. Great. Is there anybody else that wants to speak to that amendment. Councillor Steven. Thank you, Mayor Paterson. Just looking to staff for this one, does this change what they were expecting. CORDL. Thank you, Antho. You know it does not. Okay. Thank you. Okay. There's any further discussion, otherwise we will call the vote on the amendment. And that carries. Uh, okay. I cancel McLaren, is there anything else that you wanted to have the floor? There's anything else you want to say to them. Thank you. Very happy to hear that this happened and that we are doing this. One of the things that I think we are facing a challenge with in the city, as we've heard earlier, is that some of the institutions that we have are not working in the way that we would like them to do. That's why we have intractable problems. And, um, this came as a result of. Ideas that were coming from the public that could help support the cities armed reduction efforts at a lower cost. And since we are looking for ways to save money, it seems that this is an opportunity to see if that could happen. That's the whole point of this pilot project. Take ideas from people on the front lines that want to start new enterprises, social enterprises that actually benefit people in a new and different way. I think this is a great way forward, and I hope that it succeeds. Because what we've been doing up until now seems to be getting, making no. The situation seems to be getting worse regardless of what we continue to throw the money we throw at it. So it's time to find some new ideas. And hence the word new community groups, um, and new proposals. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Nick's. This cancer Tozo. Thank you, Mayor Parrison. Through, I'd like to thank The Art's Recreation and Services Committee for this motion. And Councillor McLaren for putting it forward originally. I think it really touches upon a real challenge that some of more vulnerable members of the community are facing. I do have an amendment because I want it to be crystal clear the position of Kingston City Council. And so if the clerks can put it up. Okay. Uh, motion to amend, move by Council Tosos, second by Mayor Paterson, that the motion be amended by inserting the following is the first operative clause. Therefore be resolved that Kingston City Council opposes the Provincial Government's decision to close consumption treatment services in the City of Kingston. Casitoso, you have the floor. Thank you and thank you Mayor Parterson for secting this. Um, I think that there's substantial amount of work on the financial side has been done, but I think it's important that we send a clear message to the community where we as a political body stand on this. This is closing of this will cause harm. It will affect a vulnerable community. And I want us to just make it a position that we fully oppose the closure of the CTS in the city of Kingston. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else that wants to speak Council Glen. Thank you for bringing the amendment. We've talked a lot about the continuum of care and the loss of CTS is going to leave that big gap, which I think was what drove the concern for the original motion to Council and led to some good conversation amongst the members of the committee. So, uh, thank you for bringing this. I hope that it gets heard. It's at least worth saying. Thank you. Councillor Senek. Thank you, your worship with this amendment. I have to declare conflict of interest. Because I work for the official government. Okay. Thank you and noted Councillor Sennek. Is there anybody else then on the, uh, amendment? Councillor Store. Mayor Paterson, thanks. Yeah, this is a new motion to me. I'm troubled by it. Um, I think that there are better ways to go then. Um, I understand the challenges with it. But I wanted to get some clarity on what other communities are doing. Now this motion indicates that the provincial government is intending to close the hub with supports and with a better, better options for our community. And so I'm just wondering if someone can tell me what's going on with across the province, as our other cities also, uh, how many cities in Ontario are have consumption sites and what's, what's happening there. Anyone know from health? Uh, CORDL. Thank you and through you, Ms. Mayor, I'll get started. And my colleagues can jump in as well. Um, Councillor, the province has started, probably it was about, I'm going to say around two years ago where they started to make decisions to cut funding to CTSs across the province. Um, most other communities until recently, Kingston, those were also receiving funding for heart hubs. So basically the province was deciding to close CTS. And then they were also providing funding for hard hub. We were recently confirmed to receive funding for future hard hub. So with that, of course, we are facing the Provincial Decision of removing the funding for the CTS. So that's why I need clarity because I understood that was the way to go. So I can't support this. I believe that the heart and with, um, addiction recovery. I believe that it's the better way to go. So I can't support this. Okay. Thank you. Um, anybody else on this Councillor Sun. Thank you, Worshipman, through you. Um, the same thing, the Councillor Straf. I think we, as the municipality have not given an option that we can oppose that the CNFD Provincial Government. So what we can do, what was our on hand to prove this 350, 000 dollar to support that cause for now until the something else come up or provincial government to do that, I think it's not a good strategy to just oppose their decision. That's what they see in that statement that their responsibility. So we have to live with it, but we'll continue to support however we can do. I will not support this amendment. Thank you. Councillor Tanney, would you take the chair. I think the chair and recognise you. Uh, I think it was Councillor Ridge. Who is not here tonight, who I think put it very eloquently when we first debated this. Said what we really need is a CTS and a hard hub. This is not about suggesting that we're not in favor of the hard hub. The hard hub is great. It's a huge new investment into the community that will offer hope and recovery, uh, for those that are struggling with addiction. I'm a huge supporter of it. And I can hardly wait to see it up and running. What I'm suggesting, and I think that what has been discussed is that ideally you would have both. So that you can have, uh, a place where you can meet people where they're at. Um, obviously not everybody is ready to immediately move into, to recoveries. So allow them to be able to access harm reduction services and then be able to transition into the hearthead. I think you could see both of those working together. So this is really, my abu, I was happy to second this because I think it just shows on principle that if it was up to us, we would want both. Um, it's not in any way poking at the province. We're, I think we've been very vocal that we've been helpful or very grateful for the hard hub. But I think it still is very clear that ideally you would have both. So, uh, for that reason, um, I'm happy to second this, uh, this amendment. Thank you. All right. I returned the chair. Is there anybody else on the amendment. Okay. We will call the vote on the amendment. And that carries by a vote of eight to two. Councillor Osterhoff and Cats for Assana Post. Okay. So now we're back to the main motion now as amended. Is there any further discussion? Councillor Stephen. Thank you Mayor Patterson. So in the motion, the, um, a clause where it's directing staff to work with and it outlines various partners. And it also says other community groups. Um, there's a group that I'm a part of that I need to mention. And it's because I'm the Council rep on the library board. So the library in particular are urban branches have been experiencing substance use. That's no surprise. Um, but staff are also finding an increase in drug paraphernalia, both inside and outside the branches. So this is having a significant impact on library staff in that it's, it's really sort of inhibiting their ability to provide library services. So the reason I bring this up is that I want to make sure that the library is included in these conversations. They might not be thought of as an immediate partner, but I just want to flag that for staff. I'm seeing a nod. So I just want to make sure they're on the radar. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else on the motion. Council Glen. Thank you. And through you. Um, I'm very heartened to see this motion coming forward. And I hope that, uh, it's going to pass. I think I feel a positive wind here. Do you believe that pilot projects may lead to some gold nuggets? We have deep seated challenges here and removal of support for the CTS is eventually going to hit this community really hard. So I think one of the things that needs to be reiterated here is that removal of these sites and other municipalities has led to an increase in overdoses. It's led to increased, um, emergency room visits, uh, Hamilton's one of the places that's been mentioned a few times that seen this sort of thing happen. Uh, so I'm glad that we're going to do what we can to bridge the gap. And hopefully, um, preserve some services and see where we go from there. But, uh, in the short term, uh, I think this is the right step forward for us. And then we'll have to have more conversations about how we get those other gaps filled and how we get the province to fill them for us because we can't continue this way as we've seen with our budgetary pressures. Uh, so thank you to my colleagues for all the hard work on this. And, um, hopefully things, uh, things will not deteriorate any further with the interventions that we're putting in place. Okay. Thank you. We will call the vote on clause one as amended. And that carries byhood of nine to one Councillor Osterhoff a post. Okay. Moving on to report number 45 from the Heritage Properties Committee. You by Councillor Osterhoff seconded by Councillor Glenn that report 45 from the Heritage Properties Committee be received and adopted. Okay. So unless anyone like any of the clauses separated, we'll vote on the report as a whole. Call, please. And that carries. Okay. On to report 46 from Planning Committee. Move by Councillor Tanani seconded by Councillor Stephen. The report 46 from the Planning Committee be received and adopted. There's just the one clause. Official plan and zoning by Law Amendment. Uh, 2061 Joyceville Road. We will call the footplace. And that carries. Okay. We have nothing from committee. The whole information reports. If you have any questions, please just raise your hand as I read through them. Number one winter road maintenance practices and alternatives review. Councillo Sanek. Thank you, your worship. Um, thanks for staff for looking into The Beat Juice. Now we know. And, um, I'm fine with the way that it's written, that is too expensive to do. And also that, um, it's not as effective as, um, as people have led on that it has been. So now we know if anyone asks us, you know, next winter, we have a report that we can refer to. But I also just wanted to say there's someone also told me and I don't know if, uh, you read about this as well when you did the research into it. But because beet juice is sweet. The sugar content that is then left on the road can actually attract wildlife to the road such as deer and dear to me, they also mentioned reptiles like turtles. And the last thing we want is to attract turtles onto our roadways in the springtime. So I didn't know that. And I just wanted to pass that on. And because information reports always have to ask questions. My question is, does staff, um, uh, see that as well. And, um, maybe they can add that to the report in the future. Thank you. And through Mr. Mayor, yeah, we did see some of that from some of the communities, but we did not include it in the report. So yeah, we can look to add that as additional information if you require it going forward. Yeah. Thanks very much. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Tozo. Thank you Mayor Patterson through you. I am disappointed. We can't use beat - based solutions. And I'm really disappointed Councillor Bohm isn't here because that this was his motion. The beat goes on, I guess. Thank you. Is there a question Councillor Tozo? No. Okay. All right. Moving on. Okay. All right. Um, if there are no questions, other questions there. Number two, quarterly report tourism Kingston, Q1 2026. We have no information reports to members of Council. We have no miscellaneous business. And so we will move to new motions. We have one new motion this evening. It's moved by Councillor, seconded by Councillor Avis. Whereas the accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities Act 2005, AODA has a stated purpose of developing, implementing and enforcing accessibility standards in order to achieve accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities with respect to goods services, facilities, accommodation, employment buildings, structures, and premises on or before January 1st, 2025. And whereas the city of Kingston is a large designated public sector organisation is defined in Ontario regulation 191 - 11 integrated accessibility standards, IASR. With those organisations, obligated to meet the general requirements of the IASR by January 1st, 2015, and whereas the City of Kingston Accessibility Standards Policy includes the foundational principles of ensuring the creation of no new barriers to accessibility and achieving the highlight of inclusion in all work where possible, above, beyond, meetings, the requirement of the AODA and its regulations. And whereas Rich Donovan in connecting the 2023 legislative review of the AODA stated it is near certainty that the goal of an accessible Ontario by 2025 will pass and declare the current state of accessibility in Ontario to be in crisis. And whereas persons with disabilities and disability advocates across the province have confirmed that the Sentiment of Rich Donovan's review that a fully accessible Ontario by 2025 has not been achieved. Whereas the anterior government must appoint a reviewer of the AODA every three years in the accessibility standards advisory council at the direction of the Minister for seniors and accessibility must review the five accessibility standards within the IASR every five years. Whereas the anterior government has not made significant updates to the AODA or IASR since 2016. Therefore be a resolve that Council call upon the Ontario government to make amendments to the AODA and IASR based on the most recently conducted reviews and to provide financial and technical support to public and private sector organisations to meet these new requirements. That the Ontario government commit to conducting additional reviews of the AODA and IASR as required by legislation and commit to the implementation of the recommendation stemming from those reviews. And the copy of this motion be shared with the Honourable Doug Ford, MPP Premier of Ontario. The honourable Raymond Show, MPP Minister for Seniors in Accessibility. MPP Ted Schu Kingston, the islands and MPP John Jordan Leonard Frontenk Kingston. Councillor Toso. You have the floor. Thank you Mayor Paterson for you. Uh, first of all, I'd like to just recognise the work of, um, uh, Clerk Deputy Clerk O'Shea, who I know has worked on the accessibility file. He and I have heard from a number of different community advocates, but they're frustration, certainly with a lot of built environments that are on private property. And a lot of services as well from the AOD. And that really led to the Catas of this motion. So over the past few years, we've heard of numerous complaints related to the inability of the AODA to meet accessibility standards outside of City facilities. Um, but the history in 2005, the province passed the accessibility for Ontario's with disabilities act with clear, measurable promise, a fully accessible Ontario by January 1st, 2025. Not aspiring not working towards fully accessible. That date has now passed. What do we hear now from those with his lived reality? Not celebration, not satisfaction, not a barrier - free Ontario, but frustration and fatigue. This promise was not kept. In 2023, a legislative review led by Rich Donovan did not mean words. It called the state of accessibility in Ontario a crisis and said plainly that the 2025 goal would be missed. Disability advocates across the province have confirmed the same. This is not a marginal issue. This is a systemic failure to deliver on rights that were recognised over 20 years ago. And here's the uncomfortable truth. When governments failed me accessibility goals, people don't just face an inconvenience. They face exclusion. Exclusion from jobs, exclusion from housing, and exclusion from participating in public life. Let's bring this back home. The City of Kingston has done really important work. We have our policies, we have standards. We speak about inclusion not just as a requirement, but as a principal. The past four years, we've done a tremendous amount of work for accessibility in our parks, in our playgrounds. We've hired an accessibility coordinator. And we support the Inclusive Play Project. I saw many of you in the past week with smile cookies at Tim Hortons. And this is part of our shared commitment to inclusion in the city. We aim to create new barriers and to go beyond minimum compliance. We've made tremendous gains. But principles in our actions alone are not enough with the broader system falling behind. I mean, this pallies like ours are being asked to carry out ambitious accessibility goals without proper legislative framework. And without consistent provincial direction. And critically without the financial and technical support required to meet those goals. We cannot fix a provincial gap with municipal tools as we are all aware of. This is why this motion matters. It's about accountability for a commitment that was made to people of the province, especially those who have waited the longest. We are calling on the province to do reasonable things. Update the legislation and standards based on the reviews that it has already commissioned. Reviews that have been completed but not acted upon. Second provide financial and technical support necessary for municipalities, businesses and organisations to meet those updates standards because accessibility without resources is just words on a paper. And third, actually commit to following through with a review Cycle required by law, the very law set up by the provincial government in implementing those recommendations that come from it. This is responsible governance because at the end of the day, accessibility is not nice to have. It's not an add - on. It's something we do when we do it. It's not something we do when it's convenient. It's a matter of dignity. It's a matter of equity and it's a matter of rights. Ontario has missed the 2025 deadline. That cannot be undone. Let's in the clear message today. The work is not finished that people with disabilities are not forgotten. Standards must improve and the province must lead. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak. Okay. We will call the vote on new motion one. And that carries. Okay. We have no other new motions. Are there any notices of motion. Councillo Glenn. Thank you. And through you. I'm giving notice of motion tonight that I will be moving emotion seconded by Councillor Oceanic at the next meeting of Council on Reestablishing Council Direction on the process in planning assumptions for the YG 220K official plan. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, so with that, Madam Kirk Cross for Minutes, please. Move by Councillo Sanek, seconded by Councillor McLaren that the minutes of City Council meeting 2026 11 held Tuesday, April 21st, 2026 be confirmed. Although in favor. Opposed. And that's carried. Okay. Is there any other business. Council McLaren. Thank you. I would just like to, um, congratulate our colleague Connie Glenn who has just been, um, put on the alpha board. Alpha is the association that lobbies the government for public health units. She is the representative of the Eastern Ontario area. And, uh, we'll now be hopefully getting us more money because we are getting short. But also representing the needs of our city and our region, um, to the ministry that way. Okay. Thank you very much. Congrats Councillor Glenn. Okay. Is there any other business. Madam Clerk? I will ask for bylaws, please. Move by Councillor Chanani Sekna by Councillor Osterhoff that bylaws one through six, nine and eight be given their first and second reading. All those in favor. Opposed. And that's carried. Move by Councillor Chananny Second by Councillor Osterhoff that bylaws one through seven, nine, and eight be given their third reading. All those in favor. Opposed. And that's care. Motion to adjourn, please. Move by Councillor Stephen. Second by Councillor Sanek. Old Lidl's in favor. Post. And we're a journey. Thank you very much.