Okay. So now it's a 119. So uh just um the cow of the uh uh company of the whole meeting resume. So we are getting into the business. This items coming is 11.10 part of disc project ped by councelor Thompson. Yep. The floor is yours. >> Okay. Thank you uh uh through the chair. First, I want to thank uh staff for the work that's gone into this report. I am encouraged that staff have confirmed that there are opportunities for disc golf in Richmond Hill. And I and I do remain very supportive of of uh moving this initiative forward. But having reviewed the report, I think we need to go back for a moment and better explain what it was that I was really hoping we would explore through my original motion. Uh so the best way I can do that is with a question and that is what if we could reclaim forested areas overtaken by invasive species, restore them with native trees and plants, create opportunities for environmental education and at the same time introduce low impact recreation. So that's in a nutshell where I was really trying to go. And uh what really caught my attention as I learned more about disc golf was that in other jurisdictions disc golf isn't necessarily being looked at simply as another recreational activity. Uh there are examples where it's being incorporated into a much broader approach to managing and restoring natural areas. And right in my own ward in Ward 2, Holy Trinity School uh is a is a good local example. They are dealing with a forest, a forest that's heavily dominated by invasive buckthornne. And their plan involves removing the invasive species, restoring the area with native trees and shrubs, creating opportunities for environmental education, and incorporating a low impact disc golf course into that restored landscape. And there's other examples as well. And I pointed out that the Toronto Regional Conservation Authority and Conservation Halton have experience incorporating disc golf into natural settings as well as in ward one you have St. Andrews College and and it has also taken a broader approach. Uh that's why when staff reached out to me for clarification following my motion, I specifically said I hoped we would simply ask where can we install a disc golf course? I wanted us to be asking where could disc golf help us achieve broader recreational, environmental, and stewardship uh objectives. And I described it at the time as looking beyond baskets, tees, and a park. Um, and so maybe we have opportunities in Richmond Hill where recreation, ecological restoration, environmental education, and stewardship can all work together. And maybe we don't. I don't know. But I don't think we need to resolve that today. What I would like to suggest is that we defer consideration of this item to next week's council meeting because my intention at council will be to bring forward a referral motion so that we can take another look at the opportunities for disc golf through a much broader lens uh which you know to to what I just described. Uh but I don't think we should try to construct that referral motion on the fly today. Uh because you know I look at it, we have a week um we can actually think about it and how we should use it. That will give me an opportunity to continue working with staff and my council colleagues to make sure the referral is clear and concise and that everyone understands what we're asking staff to explore and that staff understand exactly what council is looking to have come back. So, I want to emphasize this isn't about stepping away from disc golf. It's about making sure we're asking the right questions before we decide what the right opportunity should look like. So through the chair, I'd like to move that consideration of this item be deferred to next week's council meeting. >> Okay, got it. Uh city manager, want to speak >> through you, Mr. Chair, uh respectfully uh through to the counselor. Um, that's a lot of uh information and it's not possible for staff to report back on any of that in a week. Um I I would suggest that if it's council's desire to continue to have a conversation on dis golf and all the environmental considerations that you suggested is that we're likely looking at next term of council >> and um through through the chair. I don't disagree with what uh the city manager is saying. What I'm saying is today I'm only looking for a deferral to next week so that we can get the language correct for a proper referral which will do exactly what you're talking about. He's not ask. >> So >> would So I ask city manager. Does does that make sense to you? >> Um through the chair. Uh so you're just looking for language on a motion associated with this, >> right? So, so right at the moment because I I don't want us to try and do a referral today and try and come up with something on the fly. I would much prefer that we just defer to next week so that I can work with yourself with staff and come up with a proper referral that will do exactly what we're talking about moving it down the road >> through the chair. Understood. Uh, I think there is an opportunity to have a conversation with staff to do exactly what you're suggesting, councelor. >> Okay. So, that's uh what I would prefer if we can defer to next week. Uh, city clerk. >> Um, thank you. Uh, uh, through the chair. So, then my advice would be that at this meeting, what you're doing in keeping with practice since council is the decision-making body is you're referring this item to next week without recommendation. So it'll appear on the agenda next week at which time it would certainly be in order to bring along a motion to refer this back to staff having had those discussions. >> That is correct. >> So then M will have a motion on Florida to defer the discussion to next week in the council meeting. That's more easy to understand. Yeah, >> correct. And my apologies for springing that on the uh city clerk. Yeah. Yes. Straight forward. It's okay for the wordings and the language. Councelor Thompson. >> Yes. I I I think that captures the essence of what we're looking to do at the moment. Thank you. Any discussion for this motion to defer the next week? Councelor Leo. >> Thank you. I'm just uh wanted to make it clear um that this referral motion is for a referral purposes. >> Sorry, this is >> um is that refer here? So it refer to next council meeting because we want to refer this to next c next year. I just want to make it clear that you know everybody understand that because to the public they have one week to come and speak with this speak to this um agenda item and and I think we need to state it very clear that we refer this because we want to refer it right. If if we have residents come and you know make delegates and and and stuff it's it's going to be open at can of worms >> based my understanding this is a deferred motion the next week only simply but at the end of the day I think the target councelor Thompson want to make is refer back to the staff at at last right >> thank you to the chair and I understand what councelor Leu is saying is that you know he wants it to make it clear that it sounds like the intent of council would be to refer this back to staff for further >> I can't say yes 100% that's what will happen because that's actually up to council next week council could completely change its mind and do something different but I would say yes clearly the intent that is being suggested here is that at council that's what's going to be proposed whether that happens or not will be up to council and how it votes and moves a motion next week. Can we make the wordings like uh defer the discussion and the decision to next week? I think it's more clear. >> Thank you. Uh through ter this actually does this you by adopting this you are essentially you can't defer because you're subject to council's approval. Everything that happens here is subject to council's approval. So what you're saying is we're not suggesting to council what you do but we're letting you consider it next week. That's what this motion says. Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, but if the intent is to refer it to next term of council, why can't we do it today? Um, you have you have like a few months to talk to staff. I don't want to to be honest with you. My intent is to shut down this staff recommendation. I I I cannot support the staff recommendation. And if the mover of this referral motion, councelor Thompson, is thinking about referring it to next term, let's do it today. >> Mr. What? >> It doesn't matter how wordings you you you wanted to like polished. It's going to go to next term for council. I don't want because next week is the last meeting of this term and we do not have any public consultation on this agenda item and if all of a sudden council approved this this is going to be disaster. So I was recommend council that we refer it to next term of council today not next week. Just want to get back to councelor Thompson. Is it what you want to refer to the next term of council at the end of the day? So, so the intention was I didn't want to try and have us craft a referral on the fly today because um as the city manager pointed out, there was a lot to adopt in what uh what I had brought forward here. if that's the type of direction that we want to give to staff or at least I would like to see that that's the direction that we give to staff. Um so my intention was that to buy us some time to actually get a proper referral motion to do that. So that was my intention here. >> Yeah. Actually councelor Thompson can pull out this item for separate discussion next week even in the council meeting because This is only a cow meeting. >> Uh thank you through the to you, Mr. Chair. >> So regardless like whether it's this motion that's on the floor right now or a motion to refer back to staff to report back next council term. Regardless of what motion that is right now that's being considered, it's still going to be on the council agenda next week and it could be pulled out. either or either or scenario is a reality and I understand what councelor Leu is suggesting. He doesn't want the public to think that we are are going to um you know deal with this next week but that's I can't say that that's definitive because council actually has to vote on it. >> Say the manager >> uh through you uh Mr. chair. Um it could uh a consideration could be to vote on the report as it stands today uh per councelor Leu's uh comments uh because I think there is some opposition to what's being recommended in location and and those kinds of things. You could vote on that report today and then councelor Thompson would have some time to meet with staff uh to come up with uh new direction for staff, you know, in the next term of counselor by the end of this year uh on all the considerations he's laid out today and then it's clean that way. But it's at the uh disposal of council to decide whether you want to refer it as recommended or whether you want to vote on the report as is. >> Got it. Uh Mayor Wetsz. >> Um okay. So I I mean I I I actually was working with councelor Thompson to some degree to come up with the strategy that I thought would work the best for council. Um, maybe I I missed the mark on that one, but um but what I what I what I think is trying to happen here is that I I agree. I've talked to a number of members of council. There's some definite concerns with the staff report and the and the recommendations as it's written and I share those uh particularly with implementing this in some in some of the parks that were listed there. That that to me is a non-starter. But I think what councelor Thompson is saying is that there's a lot more to to what he sees as the potential for this motion should it ever pass than is being realized by the staff report in the present moment. So what I think what he's trying to do from what I understand is to just move this off to council so he has an opportunity to without words smithing and making a motion on the fly to come up with a referral motion to the next term of council with the appropriate uh direction to staff so that it's specific as to what it is that he's wanting them to look at because right now um I'm not sure that we would be able to have this discussion very efficiently and we'd be all, you know, doing things on the fly. But if we if we did this, if we gave counselor Thompson the ability to move this off to to next week, he would spend the week uh with staff explaining to staff what it is that that he's looking in a future motion. this recommendation or any of the recommendations in the staff report would not be adopted because he's looking for more information and that it will be up to a future um the future term of council to make the determination as to what where and how if we wanted disc golf to happen and and where and to in what circumstances. But through that discussion next week, there will be plenty of uh opportunity for council members to uh also add their input. And I would certainly do that uh when the time is right to explain why some of the um the parks that are listed in there are just not parks that I would like to see disc golf in. But there's one or two that might work. One in particular that I think would work really well. And with councelor Thompson's additional input, it might actually be beneficial from a perspective other than just disc golf. But we won't know that until we get the report back from council. So or from staff. So I hope that I think that's your intention. I counselor. I mean I don't want to put words in your mouth because that's not hygienic, but but I think that's what you're trying to achieve. Um and I I would support that approach, but it's up to council to decide whether they agree. Okay. >> I think I still have the floor. >> Yeah, at least we have a uh motion on the floor, but but uh >> No, no, I I think with all due respect, uh Mr. Chair, I haven't finished speaking. >> Okay. So, >> thank you. >> Just go ahead. >> Um Okay. In that case, I understand. Um I respect the the intent. I I I don't have a problem. The problem that I have is if we all of us if we now referring this motion back to to next week so council members won't have a an opportunity to speak to the motion or make any amendment >> now. Now I want to do it now. This is committ of the whole >> I I I some you know I next week might be too late. uh through through the chair. I I I would agree with that assessment that there are no amendments to this potential motion because it's a clear motion to refer this without recommendation. So, you can't tweak that in any way, shape, or form. I would >> Yeah, I would I would appreciate a chance to speak to the motion by every single council members before we make a referral motion. So through the chair, it' be my advice that this motion on the floor doesn't preclude you from discussing the staff report because and the because it's not a simple referral. It's not a simple deferral. It's saying we're not making a recommendation to council. Well, here's why. >> Yeah, but I don't have a I I respect that, but I I want to make amendment before we make a referral, and I don't have a chance to do that as a member of council. does take away my right to make an amendment. I don't have a problem with referral, but I don't want to refer the whole report to next week. So, if with all due respect, I would like to have a chance to speak to the main motion before any referral motion be tabled. Mr. Chair, it's your call. So actually councelor Le you can just vote against this defer motion if you want to. >> No no no I no that's not the case is easily I'm going to vote vote against this motion but with all the respect if councelor Thompson would like to withdraw this and wait until everybody can speak to the main motion then I would be more than happy to support a referral motion. >> Okay actually I just want to get back to the mover. Uh, councelor Thompson, do you want to withdraw this defer motion before making an amendment? Because uh, councelor Le want to make an amendment. If we just go for this deferral and this carried, we have no chance to discuss this mo this stud report. That's the case. So, will you want to put the amendment go first and then go back to your deferral motion? >> Right. So, I I need more information before I would uh go down that route. So I need to understand the impact. If we go back to the main motion and the main motion gets defeated. Uh when would I be allowed to actually bring this up again? Next week. >> Well, no. If it gets defeated then week. >> So uh thank you. Uh through the chair. So here's my advice then. I think to do that let's assume this motion is withdrawn and we go back to the staff recommendation which had two clauses A and B right >> uh and even assuming that councelor Leu makes his amendment that passes undoubtedly that's only going to be amendment to clause B since clause A is just to receive the report my advice would be then simply vote on clause A and clause B separately the first one to receive the second one to do action and then I can guarantee you that this report will be on the next agenda and you can have the discussion then. >> Y >> is it a good solution for you councelor Thompson and council? >> Uh yeah as as long as it doesn't preclude me from being able to move things forward >> in a timely manner. Yeah. >> Okay. Good. So uh now you refer your deferral motion and we just get back to the staff report now. >> So I will withdraw the deferral motion. Thank you. >> Okay. So get back to the staff report. Okay. 11.10. So any comment for this staff report? Anyone? Okay. Councelor Leo. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Um and I thank you for all the indulgence. Um I think you know the amendment I I just go straight to uh what I'm trying to do here. Um I made it myself very clear to staff and to council members um on Monday that I don't think Ada McKenzie Park is a suitable option for this golf um because of parking because of no public consultation whatsoever uh because of a lots of different reasons. I don't want to state it out here. I don't want to repeat myself. I just wanted to make sure that you know I have no problem with A but I wanted to make an amendment to B that um A McKenzie Park be take can off the test. Okay. So now we will have a motion to amend the co clause B of this item. We take out a mechanic part from the list. just revealed the language in the morning. >> Thank you. I'd like to speak to the amendment or does pastor speak first? >> Just wait for the council for >> um >> who's reviewing the wordings? >> I have a little bit trouble with um at a park cuz I I think the mayor already said, you know, can can we just do a Mackenzie Park? No, not major mcdah mckenzie park. Okay. Operation of a disc golf course at a park other than a mckenzie park. So >> Okay. All right then. All right. Thank you then. Okay. Yeah, that's my uh that's my amendment. Thank you. >> Okay. So, any discussion about this amendment? U Councelor Davidson. >> Thank you. I feel there's no rush on this and to approve $35,000 draw for something that never had any public consultations for a a sport that I have never been asked for. And I'm not saying that there aren't pockets that are are into it. and to just unilaterally decide on taking a draw on a of $35,000 when we have spent so much time on this council in the last four years. Talk about the competing recreational groups in this city that want something from archery all the way through racket sports to everything else. I I don't agree with be so I'm not going to support this. I think it's premature and we're not in a rush to approve this one one um Frisbee location. I I don't quite understand what the urgency is here. So, I don't support this and I and I wasn't going to support the original report. So, I can't support this motion, which I know is just another quagmire. >> Any other discussion? >> Um, >> well, it's the mover of the amendment. So what if we just take away B? >> Yeah, just a >> um through through the chair. So in parliamentary procedures, the process to remove an entire clause from a motion is to vote against that motion. It's not an amendment. An amendment is to change words within a clause of a motion. So my original advice about, you know, I if council just voted to approve clause A to receive the report, that's all that goes forward. So my advice is that it's not generally in order to propose to delete an entire clause. >> Yeah. Just just only for a minute, but can delete it. Okay. Uh, Mayor West, next speaker. >> Okay. Uh, I I mean I I Adah McKenzie is one of the parks that I think would not be appropriate for this. So ultimately, I'm not unhappy to see that being taken out, but let me cut right to the chase. I think that one of the uh parks that would be appropriate for this is Phyllis Rollinsson. If we're going to do it, and that's up to council to decide, but if we're going to do it, I think that's the location. So, can I ask staff um and this is Germaine, just bear with me for a second, but um it don't laugh, Mr. Clerk. Um uh what why is Phyllis Rollinsson like what are some of the big barriers to Phyllis Rollinsson being an appropriate location? >> The chair. Um, as you know, Phyllis Rollson was one of the four sites that were were assessed. Um, there are a few reasons. Um, first and foremost, timing was one of the considerations. Um, we were under the impression that this is a pilot that needed to be implemented sooner. um works at Philins Rollson are a little bit more involved due to the nature of the natural setting there and also trying not to be in conflict and also find appropriate um topography and sight specific criteria based on the professional dis golf association. So that was ruled out at the time for the reasons of trying to find a site that is more manageable and and could be implemented sooner. Having said that, there is some opportunity there um given the space and the other considerations with respect to adjacent neighborhood impacts. Um I can't I won't say it's it's a perfect situation from my understanding because again um a lot of the emphasis there is ecological restoration. There's also a lot of invasive species. There would be a lot of work still to be done and also the timing of the revitalization for that park was set um a few years out in the capital forecast. So if we wanted to also move forward doing this efficiently, um that would probably be more ideal. So it really boils down to timing and the site constraints as well as um you know the cost as well. But I mean it's not impossible but um it really depends on what the priorities are in the direction that we're given for implementing this pilot. >> Okay. what what I would like to see done and I hope this is helpful but I I would I would suggest that maybe again notwithstanding the approach that councelor Thompson was trying to achieve which was to uh in in involve some ecological restoration which is exactly what you just said that could happen in conjunction with the development of this disc golf course I do agree that there's I mean I'd like to see it done you know relatively soon but I mean it doesn't have to be done tomorrow. So I think that the in my opinion the the needs that you are outlining for Phyllis Rollinsson are more aligned with what council is thinking and the whole point of what councelor Thompson was saying was that the coun that staff staff report was definitely good but it wasn't exactly in tune with what he has envisioned and explained to me. So, if we uh passed a motion saying that we would like to further explore this at Phyllis Rollinsson Park and then let councelor Thompson next week add some of the criteria that he would hope to get between now and then, I think that would be beneficial. All of the other parks that we are dealing with here, there's going to be some conflict with with um other users of the park, I think. And I think that if we Phyllis Rollinsson, the the model that I have in my mind when I think of disc golf is is at uh Bruce's Mill, right? And I'm on the TRCA board and I was there when they opened that that course. And the Phyllis Rollinsson site seems kind of similar in a lot of ways to the to the setting of Phyllis Rollinsson. So, in my opinion, I think that would be the best location, but I'm I'm in council's hands. I will I will not I will not vote against this amendment but I I think that maybe the more efficient way to go is to just if everybody agrees and I don't know if they do or not but if everybody agrees that Phyllis Rollinsson should be the place that we at least explore further. If that doesn't end up panning out then it'll be the next council that'll decide no that's not the place to go. We'll do something else. But that would be my approach but it's up to council to decide. So, next week, uh, councelor's syllabus. >> Uh, well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Not to throw a wrench in the works here, but it's not up to council, it's up to Phyllis Rollinsson's deed. So, through you, Mr. Chair, to our legal department, um, are you in any way familiar with Phyllis Rollinsson's deed and bequeefment to the city? because I have a feeling that there are very specific um she she made very spec specific wishes about what this park is to be used for and what it's not to be used for. And with all respect to to to Mayor West, I don't think that this is part of it. I don't want to put you on the spot, but okay. Commissioner, anybody I there's something here that needs further discussion. >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. So, uh the deed or the bequeethal did require that the land be used for environmental purposes, but I wouldn't say that this is necessarily contradictory to that um because it's it's not going to do any environmental damage necessarily. And if I think uh councelor Thompson from what he's explained uh if his uh vision can be played out then it would be consistent with the environmental vision but that's a matter of interpretation I would thank you commissioner I appreciate that um I I I can't support anything that has Phyllis Rollers Park included because there are legal issues here that need to be further um further investigated before we can even go there. Um um I don't believe that with all respect to councelor Thompson that this is what Phyllis um envisioned her property to be used for which was a horse farm. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comment for this amendment? Councelor Thompson. >> So we're only speaking to the amendment right now. >> Yeah, it's only on the >> Okay. Um I I would actually support the amendment as long as you know what uh city clerk had said earlier is that we can at some point come back to this in uh in a manner of the way that I was talking about because what I'm looking at um I don't disagree with councelor Leu what I saw with Ada McKenzie Park is that we just basically looked at baskets, tees in a park and that's not what I wanted to have happen. You know, I wanted to us to look at all of the parks. So, I'm not specifically saying Phyllis Rollinsson here that when we look at our parks, look at the ones that are underutilized for a number of different reasons. And that would and when I look at things like uh what has happened with TRCA and uh and conservation Halton and what I pointed out with uh Holy Trinity and St. Andrews, there are forested areas that are not being utilized because we they're overrun with um invasive species. So, I wanted us to look at the parks that we have that may have things like that that would uh allow us to perhaps move this in a direction that helps us reclaim some of those parks in a way that we can now utilize them. And what I what I saw in the report says that we didn't actually do that. I mean, I can ask that question right now. I would imagine that uh you know that would be the answer I would get back. So maybe I should just find out was that a criteria that was used when you looked at the parks >> through the chair. Um my understanding is that was not criteria. >> Fair enough. So, um, that's where I'm looking to to end up with all this is that what what we do is that we actually go back. This is why I wanted to refer it back, but I again, I didn't want to have to try and draft up something on the fly here today. So if this completely fails the whole entire motion then well let let's say that the amendment gets uh passed here today uh and then next week who knows what would happen. I guess my question is that how quickly I can bring that back because we've I've heard in the past that we have to wait x number of months that type of thing. >> Thank you uh through the chair. Uh so I think there's a couple procedural questions there. Uh so let me kind of work through them. Um let's assume the amendment passes. Well, that's just a vote on the amendment. Then we go back to the main motion as amended and they still be in council will have the option to vote on clause A and B. Let's say both clause A and B fail. Nothing comes forward next week. This matter is done. Yes, a member of council could bring back a a member's motion. Clearly, this is the last cycle of meetings before the election. So, the earliest that could happen would be for the meetings in December. Now, your question about reconsider, you're talking about reconsideration that you can't bring back the same thing within a period of time. Well, that actually doesn't apply to the meetings in December because that's a new term of council. The motion to reconsider rules only really apply to this term of council. A motion to reconsider is not needed. So, if this all, for lack of a better word, dies here, that would not preclude any member of council from bringing back the exact or similar thing next term. Does that help? >> Uh, yeah, I think that helps because I would rather see us get this right than to fumble our way forward at at this particular time. So, I mean, if we were talking about the main motion, I'd probably be saying vote it down, you know. So, but here we are talking about the amendment. So, um we'll go from there. Thank you. >> Okay. So, any discussion for this amendment uh dep >> um I wasn't thinking about speaking. Um I understand where council new is coming from for the amendment. have been mentioned about um uh appears to be lack of the consultation of these parks that was on the list. Um I was but I I'm thinking like um council Davidson uh what's the urgency? I know once we don't make a decision here that next term might take a while for this to be coming back. So I would probably if I cannot I can support this amendment but at the end when back to the main motion uh I have to say I would support I would not vote in support of B. I mean it sounds contradictory but it's not um because I just want to show support for council uh news reasoning for uh putting an amendment. So those are my position. >> Okay. So any other comment on this amendment? Seeing none. So let's vote on this amendment. Do you want to record vote council? Okay. Record vote. >> Thank you. Voting on the amendment uh moved by Councelor Leu. Councelor Leu. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Councelor Silivetsz. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Councelor Thompson. >> Yes. Thank you, Regional Local Councelor Depala. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Councelor Tree. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Councelor Davidson. >> Thank you, Regional Local Councelor Chan. >> Thank you, Mayor West. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Councelor Shu. >> Yes. >> Thank you. The amendment does carry. >> Okay. So, let's go back to the amended motion now. Any other discussion for the amended motion? Because we have to make amendment already. So let's discuss on the amended staff report. >> I I care voting A and B separately. Correct. Mr. >> Yeah. But before voting we have to discuss the amend motion. Yeah. If there's any other discussion for this amendment motion. This is a procedure. >> I think I I can still speak to the main motion. >> Yes. Of of course. Yeah. Miss Mr. Cler, is it okay to discuss for the amend motion? >> Thank you. Uh through the chair. So we are Yes. back to the main motion now as amended. So, but we're we are on the same first round of speakers that we were prior to moving the amendment. So, yes, if anyone can speak to the >> Yes, just go ahead. >> Thank you very much. I still have four minutes. Uh I won't use it up though. Um I I think you know, thank you very much my council colleagues for supporting uh my amendment. Um my my only intent is to make sure that Adah Mckenzie Park um is ticking off the list. But you know speaking to the main motion I I I do have a few questions um through you Mr. Chair who asked for a pilot project. >> Yeah. What I see is potential locations suitable for disc golf courses, options for seasonal, temporary, or pilot course installations. Oh, okay. That's the pilot here. I didn't see it. Sorry. Okay. Um, that's fine. But I think you know um this is quite controversial and is you know having this recommendation at this point of time I think is dangerous. No matter is a pilot project or any planning matters we need public consultation. And I emphasize this many many times and this doesn't give us the time and opportunity for public consultation even for a pilot project. I think we need public consultation. We need public input and because of this point of time and I ironically as a council member we can't even reach out to our residents during election time. I don't have a chance to talk to well if I go knock on the doors I I cannot go knock on all the doors in one week that okay well there's a this disc golf course coming to a Mckenzie Park so I think the timing of this is is is troublesome and I'm glad to hear that you know hopefully next week council will support a referral motion instead of making any decision because without public consultation is a no no for me. Thank you. >> So, next speaker, Councelor Davidson. >> Thank you. Um I appreciate my colleagues um remarks. I agree with him. I I don't see a rush here. I don't think we need to ram this through before the end of this term. And um I'm going to be voting no for this because it it approves the money before we've even found out if it's what our residents want. So, I'm not in support of this motion. If we want to break it up A and B, I could do that. But anyway, no. Thank you. >> Thank you, Daniel. Uh, any other comment? Uh, councelor Thompson. >> I don't disagree with my colleagues here. I mean, you know, staff know that I had a number of questions about the report even before any of this uh came up. Um and so yeah I I don't feel that this was the direction that uh I wanted to bring this and so yeah it it would make sense to actually defeat this uh alto together and start over again. So that's uh about the best way I can put it. Thank you. >> Thank you uh councelor Silifus. >> Thank you sir. Um my question through you uh to whomever wishes to take this is if a is approved that the staff report be received, what what does that what does that mean for a future for future discussions, for future um debates or whatever it is that a council may have to have with regards to um the report before us. I'm just if we just receive it as opposed to just refusing everything but and B is another question entirely. >> Um thank you. So couple things. Uh if council next week just formally receives this report, what that does procedurally is it fulfills staff obligations under the member's motion to report back. If your question which I think correct me if I'm wrong your question is does that preclude any action on this in the future? No. My same comment that I made earlier is that because in December it'll be a new term of council when committee the whole next meets >> there is no reconsideration rules. Council at that time can bring forward whatever it wants and and this does not bind that those hands. >> Thank you. Um that's thank you. I I appreciate it Mr. Clerk. Exactly what I wanted to know. So I if no one else has done it, I would ask for separation of of A and B. Okay. >> Okay. Any other comment on this amend report? Okay. Yeah. And I agree what council c said because we are talking about this report and this report proposed at the massive part will be the spot and we just now we have the clause B to refill to to remove this spot so there's no point to discuss anymore actually so so um I would suggest to separate both clause A and clause B right is it okay to separate course >> of course okay good okay so so now Uh record vote, right? Oh, you have second round. I Yeah, second round. Yes, you have second round. Council Leo. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I just want to make it very clear. I heard that, you know, um council member said, you know, just defeated all together and now we are separated A and B. So if A failed, do we still have to vote on B? Yeah, that's a good question. >> Uh, thank you. Uh, through the chair. So, in this case, yes, absolutely. Because those are two very distinct discrete clauses that don't rely on each other. >> You have to vote vote on both. >> Yeah, we have to vote on both separately. Okay, fair enough. Okay, so let's vote on the clause A first. >> Oh, second round. Okay, >> thank you. Sorry, I just have that that spurred me on to another question. Um, where would that through through you, Mr. Chair, to our clerk? Where would that leave Ada McKenzie Park? Because um, councelor Louu is emphatic about this not being at Ada McKenzie Park. So, if we simply receive this, how does that protect Ada McKenzie Park? uh through the the chair. So what I would say to that is it from the that perspective of protect or not use a Mackenzie Park for the purpose, it's protected because council's not approving a pilot project by quash. If if clause B fails completely, council wouldn't be approving the money, wouldn't be approving the pilot project, so it wouldn't happen. >> Thank you. That's what I needed. Thank you. I hope council I hope that helps. Okay. So now it's time to vote for each of them, right? Class A first. >> Report the vote, please. >> Vote. Yes. Voting on the clause of the motion by councelor Thompson to receive the port to receive the report. Councelor Silhivette. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Mayor West. Yes. >> Thank you, Councelor Shu. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Regional Local Councelor Depala. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Councelor Davidson. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Councelor Tree. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Region Local Councelor Chan. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Councelor Thompson. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Councelor Leu. >> No. >> Thank you. Clause A of the motion carries only. Voting on clause B of the motion. Councelor Silivetsz. No. >> Thank you. Region Local Counselor Chan. >> No. >> Thank you, Councelor Leu. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Councelor Davidson. >> No. >> Thank you, Region Local Counselor Depala. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Councelor Thompson. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Mayor West. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Councelor Tree. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Councelor Shu. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Six. Clause B of the motion carries and the entire motion is carried. >> Okay. Okay. Now we getting into the other business. So all items be done and item 12 other business. We have one member motion left. Uh by Mayor West or city supporting OBCM solve the crisis. May West >> that vote was surprising. >> Uh thank you Mr. Chair. So, um, just a bit of background, uh, the Ontario big city mayors, um, group has done a great job, I think, over the last few years advocating for the for proper jurisdiction and funding and and a number of other things uh, to help cities in Ontario uh, deal with uh, the crisis in homelessness that we're all seeing in and we are certainly seeing in Richmond Hill as well. Um, and this discussion has has evolved over the last couple of years. Uh, and it's been tweaked and we've responded to different things that have happened or not happened uh with um funding and and um improvements to uh the policies at the provincial level that would help us deal with with homelessness and addictions and mental health. Um, I won't go through the entire wherees and all that stuff because it's right there in front of you, but basically, um, there's several components to this motion that are are new and, uh, they're not they're in addition to what we've already asked for, but declaring a state of emergency in homelessness, I think, is uh, something we've been we are asking for right now. And I think this really highlights the growing crisis. Um we want to see significantly uh in increased uh uh investment in treatment. Um and I think this is really really important. I mean the provincial government is making investments in their heart hubs and different um things that they're doing but um it's not moving the needle as much as it needs to move the needle based on the crisis that we're in right now. Um, and also I think that there needs to be uh a review of the mental health act to make sure that we're doing the very best thing for people that are afflicted with some of the uh drug addiction and mental health issues that we're seeing on our street. I don't profess to be uh an expert on that and I'm certainly we've heard from a lot of experts on different ways to deal with this. But what I think it's we need to be very clear on is that what the Ontario big city mayors are asking for here is for a res an effective timely response to what we're seeing on the streets of our cities. And you know, it is it is um not okay for people to be uh suffering the way that they're suffering in some of the uh the things that we're seeing in Richmond Hill. And honestly, we're we're seeing it far more in other Ontario municipalities. um aside from Richmond Hill even to a greater extent. Um so I think there needs to be a review. Uh I think there really does need to be expanded uh addiction treatment and rehabilitation programming. Uh that seems to me as a no-brainer and additional funding for uh housing options. And you know this is a matter of health. It's and health is not a jurisdiction of uh city government. So the jurisdiction, the legislation and the funding frankly needs to be coming in a great deal uh more rapidly and in larger quantities um than what I'm seeing it come from now. And that is the general consensus that uh the Ontario big city mayor's caucus has agreed upon now for quite some time. So, um, this is this, uh, passing this motion in Richmond Hill today would reinforce what we've already passed, uh, during the AMO conference at OBCM and and sent this to the Ontario government. But I think it's important um given what we're seeing on our streets in in Richmond Hill and other mayors will be doing this I'm sure in their own communities to also have their um local council councils have a um an opportunity to take a look at this and and uh and respond uh to and send their voice to the Ontario government as well. So um that's my motion. Happy to take any questions if there are any and uh hopefully I can get your support and get this passed. Any comment and questions from members of council for this motion? Uh, councelor Thompson. >> Uh, yeah. Just just so that I'm I'm clear, uh, all we're we're only uh saying what we would like the province to uh look into. you know, we're not actually telling them that there's certain aspects or how to do it. We're just saying we want you to look into these things. They may not come up with something we we necessarily like in the end, but um again, we're just starting it's a starting point to at least get that conversation going in the right direction. Correct. Uh yeah, I mean the in advocacy with the provincial government, it's been my experience that they very rarely do exactly what I would like them to do or anybody else would like them to do, frankly. Um but I think what we're doing is, you know, OBCM has done a lot of research and in particular with some of the things that are happening in Alberta right now and we're seeing early results from Alberta and things that are working and things that aren't. So we're not just giving them a blanket statement, hey, go and fix this. We're we're trying to be as helpful as we can. Whether the provincial government um you know who I'm quite certain would do an extensive uh consultation with a bunch of experts that know a lot about this particular subject would they would then craft the policies and the and the funding and and so on and so forth um that would effectively uh deal with this problem. So, so yes, like any ad other advocacy position, this is this is what we think some of the things that we've found could help, but what ends up hopefully in some future action by the province, I mean, that's obviously up to them, but uh you know, but we're trying to narrow it down a little bit if we can. >> All right. Thank you through the chair. I mean obviously there's a a component in here that I think will be concerning to some people um because we don't know how that might be taken and how that might be uh rolled out but um again it it's more to ask that they explore uh the various opportunities that might be available to them. So yes I can support the motion. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comment? Seeing none, seeing none. Uh let's vote. All those in favor oppose carry unanimously. Thank you. So we have no emergency time sensitive matters and now a motion to adjourn. Um councelor Ja and all those in favor oppose unanimously. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you councelor. You did