Transportation policies committee. Can I get a mover in a seconder for the added move by Councillor Shananni, seconded by Councillor Ridge. All those in favor. Opposed, and that's carried. Are there any disclosures that pecuniary interests. Councillor Amos. There's about a city commission whose management in fiduciary duty were lacking. KFHC and its board are pleased with the positive findings of our review. We are reliable city - run partner organisation that is professional and accountable. It is witness to the dedication of the Corporation and city staff, the Board and Council that this review found operational management and financial duties compliant. Through the review, favorable annual audits, effective government, with policies and procedures in place to affect this, and sound operational management, KFHC is shown to be competently run. CafeHC is more than doubled its equity from 35 million dollars 15 years ago. Increased our capital reserves to 4. 5 million from several hundred thousand and have a balance sheet of 16 million dollars. Our footprint expanded by 65 percent over the same time, and there are two shovel - ready projects available whenever development funding is released. More housing is needed, and this prompted board discussions on the usefulness of a subsidiary to focus on the development of purpose - built, affordable rental housing. Expertise was gained in this area through successful completions of projects like 13, 16 Princess Street managed in - house. The success of this report, notwithstanding, we are befuddled that the report indicated, and I quote, KFHC meets HSA requirements, service manager expectations, and the shareholder agreement, but found it strange that KFAC needs to quote a line better with strategic goals and day - to - day operations of shareholder priorities. The board welcomes feedback on how to be better aligned. And in my four years on the board, I heard no indication of being out of alignment. In two generous meetings by senior staff with the board, specific examples are still lacking. It was also observed as odd that no board members were interviewed in our operational review. It would seem good governance to have had included us in this review for a report of this nature. The review identified that roles and responsibilities need greater clarification. This clarity can assist the service manager and KFHC to complement their joint and shareholder mandated arm's length work. We see value in regular service manager and KFHC meetings and to formalize relationship by adding an exophysio member of city staff to the board to support our work. This work is outlined in our five - year strategic plans reviewed and approved by this council. The current plan activated in 2024 is to quote, build and provide quality, affordable housing, advocate for caring communities and report and support promote respect, excuse me. 30 seconds. To achieve this, the corporation mandates a robust financial situation that I outlined earlier. And through repeated audits by KPMG, this is proven to be the case. KFHC is succeeding with prudent fiscal and corporate management. We orient our effort so that the affordability portion of the housing continuum is strong and healthy in Kingston. Through our plan, audits and annual reports, we meet the changing dynamics of housing while aligning with the direction of Council as Soil shareholder. We celebrate our continued work with the city to deliver on our shared priorities and our mandate. And on behalf of the board, I thank you. Thank you. You're clocked in at four minutes, 59 seconds. I went over it once or twice. Thank you. Any questions from Council. Okay, C9, thank you very much. Okay, moving on to our next delegation. We'll invite Tara Keener to Peer Beer For Council to speak to Clause 1, report number 38 from the CAO, respect to the municipal residential air conditioner assistance program. Thank you for the opportunity of speaking to you this evening. Let me say at the outset that I hope you will support option two of CAO hurdles proposed air conditioner assistance program. Her plan requests only 17, 000 dollars from the city's environmental reserve fund and likely will help a maximum of 35 people. However, as a pilot, the program can be evaluated. Its need demonstrated and subsequently it can be expanded and improved to serve additional Kingston households next summer. Given the long winter and cold spring we've had, it's hard to imagine summer. But it's coming. And increasingly heat is the most dangerous aspect of climate change. Currently it is responsible for the death of one human being every minute on earth. Has carbon emissions continue to increase temperatures will continue to rise. The danger has reached the point where cooling systems are critical infrastructure for housing. Just as heating systems are needed to keep us warm in winter. Globally, the past 11 years have been the hottest in history with Canada warming twice as fast as anywhere else on earth. But with the onset of a super El Nino this year, 2027 looks increasingly likely to set a new record, perhaps by a sizable margin. Long - term forecasts are equally dire. Predicting that the number of heat deaths will increase 100 percent by 2050. Jacqueline Wilson's letter, which I hope you all received, in support of option two is informed by her expertise as a lawyer for the Canadian environmental law Association and her familiarity with air conditioner, assistance programs, and both Toronto and Hamilton. She makes the case that in the context of excessive indoor heat, air conditioning is not a luxury. On the contrary, it is an essential public health intervention that will protect the health of low - income tenants, in particular and save lives. Climate Catastrophe is sudden and unpredictable. No one expected in the summer of 2021 that the town of Litten, B. C. would reach 49. 6 degrees Celsius. The highest temperature ever recorded in Canada, and that 619 BC residents would die from the heat and a span of a week. One study investigating the BC heat dome deaths concluded that poverty is the biggest risk factor for dying from extreme heat. That's because people living below the poverty line are more likely to have health issues, live in substandard housing, and lack the resources needed to protect themselves. Recommendations of the study included implementing heat alerts and providing air conditioning in the short term as the most effective means of presenting death. The most important lesson that we can learn from investigations of past heat waves in Canada and other regions of the world is that every heat - related death is preventable. Kingston's proposed pilot will cost the city far less than the million dollars Toronto is spending on its AC program. But nevertheless, it has the potential of huge returns thought of saving lives. I urge you to support option two of your chief administrative officers'recommendation to implement a residential air conditioner pilot program this summer and to Direct staff to report back in 2027 with an assessment of the outcomes. A delay will mean a lack of protection for Kingston's most vulnerable facing increasingly intense heat as the climate changes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any questions from Council. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, and then our third and final delegation this evening. We'll invite to Kevin Smith, who will appear before Council to speak to clause two. Report number 37 from the CAO, respect to the Kingston and Fraunk House Incorporation Operational Review. Good evening. My name is Kevin, and I'm a member of the Housing and Homeless Des Advisory Committee. I've experienced housing and stability myself. So I pay close attention to how these systems actually work on the ground. It's encouraging to see the progress that Kingston front neck housing corporation has made an expanding housing, but accountability and transparency are just as important as growth. When there are gaps in reporting or unclear rules that can impact how effectively support reaches tenants, I support strengthening the government framework. And I hope Council continue. Could you just move a little bit closer to the microphone? That might help. Should I start over? No, you can just continue where you were. That can impact how effectively support reaches tenants. I support strengthening the government framework, and I hope Council continues to focus on clear oversight and ensuring that housing systems are working for the people who rely on them. Housing isn't just policy, it's people's lives, and getting this right truly matters. Okay, thank you very much. Are there any questions? Okay, Mr. Smith, thank you. Okay. That takes us to the end of our delegations. Are there any petitions to present. Council Glad. Thank you. I have a petition to present. No urban boundary expansion decisions without full fiscal and environmental transparency. Uh, as of 1245 PM today, it had 557 signatures. It's asking that the city continue with the official plan revisions, but without making any decision on or providing city staff with direction on where to move the urban growth boundary until after all relevant reports have been completed, made public, and presented it public meetings at which members of the public can hear presentations on the contents of the reports and ask questions. Okay, thank you very much. If there are no other petitions, we have no deferred motions, we have no special motions. Uh, no briefings that this moment, so we'll move to report number 36 from the CAO. Move by Councillor Amos, seconded by Councillor Shaves at Report 36 from the Chief Administrative Officer consent be received and adopted. Okay, there are two clauses. Would anyone like to deal with them separately? Well, I guess we needed to do that. Okay, so first we will deal with clause one. 2025 year - end financial report. Okay, we will call the vote, please. And that carries. Okay, on to clause two, bylaw to amend city of Kingston by La. Number 2021 - 91, a bylaw to establish and regulate a fire department for the city of Kingston. We'll call the vote. And that cures. Okay, on to report number 37 from the CAO. Moved by Councillor Ridge, sected by Councillor Toso, that report 37 from the Chief Administer of Officer recommend be received and adopted clause - by - clause. Okay, so for Clause 1, we have a briefing regarding the Kingston from NAC House In Corporation Operational Review. Uh, so I will hand things over to Commissioner Campbell to kick things off. There we go. Uh, thank you, and through you. Um, so I'm incredibly thankful to be here tonight on behalf of The Housing and Social Services team to assist in presenting the findings of the Kingston Frontic Housing Corps. Operational review. Um, I'm joined tonight by Mitchell Grange, who's our policy manager in Social Housing. And I also do want to share regrets from Director Hartley, who is currently overseas and is unable to make the meeting tonight. Uh, as shared earlier from the board itself, this review marks an important step for the city as service manager and for the housing corporation. As the community's largest social housing and affordable housing provider, it offers an independent, comprehensive assessment of Kingston Frotknack Housing Corporations Operations across governance, tenant relations, financial management and facility maintenance. Overall, the findings of this review highlight that the Corporation is meeting, and in many cases, exceeding our legislative in - service manager requirements. Recommendations are aimed at strengthening governance alignment, improving transparency, and supporting more integrated and effective operations. Taken together the recommendations provide a practical forward - looking roadmap to the existing to build on existing strengths and ensure continued delivery of high - quality housing services. Subject to Council's approval, I do want to clarify that following this staff will work closely with the corporation. Um, the board to advance the recommended actions and bring forward corresponding updates, um, in particular, changes to the shareholder agreement. Those will need to be brought to Council for consideration at the next shareholder meeting, uh, which is currently scheduled for June 16, 2026. Um, so with that said, I'm going to turn it over to Ann Lindsay, who is our consultant from KPMG, who will share a summary of the operational review and its key recommendations. Hi everyone. Uh, my name's Anne Lindsey. I'm a senior manager with KPMG's public sector advisory practice, and I was the lead engagement manager on this file. So KPMG was engaged to complete an operational and governance review of the Kingston Frontenk Housing Corporation. The objectives of the review were to complete two key scopes of work. One was a comprehensive operational review focused on governance, resident tenant relations, finance, and maintenance. And this scope of work was to identify areas where KFHC was meeting the requirements of legislation and the housing services act to identify any gaps. The second scope of work was to review the current governance structure and funding model and ensure alignment with the shareholder and service manager objectives. The project was broken down into five phases. Uh, phase two was the operational and compliance review. Phase three consisted of the funding model in governance review. And phase four is where we pulled the key findings of both phases together. To identify the opportunities. I'm going to begin by speaking about the results of the operational review. There were a number of key strengths that KFHC demonstrated throughout the operational review. One was the large volume of properties that KFHC maintains. And the maintenance activities around those properties are very well documented. Their calendarized, and they have active building inspections that occur on a weekly basis. KFHC has also demonstrated their ability to bring new affordable and mixed income housing projects to the market, as well as converting underutilized common space into new rental units. That proactively increased the housing supply. Additionally, there's nine arms length local housing corporations throughout the province that share benchmarking and KPIs. And KFHC demonstrated that they're performing above average in a number of key areas compared to these nine other LHCs. Finally, KFHC has comprehensive board governance procedures and policies in place that are well documented and strong operational structures supporting these functions. Overall, KFHC is largely in compliance with the housing services act. The service manager requirements and the shareholder agreement with some minor gaps. KFHC's Board Bylaws allow committees to set quorums for decision - making, which does create a risk that a key committee such as finance may make decisions with as few as two board members present. So this could potentially limit the oversight of the full board. So our recommendation is to update the bylaws to reflect existing practice, which is that the role of the finance committee is advisory only. And require full board approval for any financial decisions. KFHC's market rent used to calculate the rent geared to income subsidy is currently below the CMHC average market rent. And it's also not connected to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housings Market Rent Indexes. So KFHC is bringing their baseline rents into alignment with these indexes upon vacancy, but our recommendation is to align those baseline rents in a more systematic way with targeted annual increases instead of the vacancy only increases. There'll be no impact to the rent geared to income tenants due to their income - based limits. At the time of the review, there was lack in clarity regarding who had responsibility for completing annual reviews for dual status tenants. Those are tenants that are currently housed at KFHC and that are also on the centralized wait list. As well as we had lacking clarity on KFHC's compliance with the service manager's centralized wait list directives. So our recommendation to close this gap is to increase that communication between the service manager and KFHC to ensure compliance with the centralized wait list directives. As well as the clarity regarding who's responsible for those annual reviews. KFHC acquired townhomes Kingston properties in 2022 and had not yet updated the preventative maintenance plan to reflect those properties. So to be in compliance with the housing services act, the preventative maintenance plan needs to be updated to include those properties, but that was another minor gap that was identified. So next I'm going to speak to our finance and funding model analysis. The annual information return, we call it the air, is the providence's standardized tool for verifying subsidy entitlement and is required by service managers across the province as a core accountability mechanism for local housing corporations and nonprofits. Since bringing townhomes Kingston on board in 2022, it was mutually agreed upon between KFHC and the city to discontinue reporting through the air. And KFHC's current practice is to submit an annual budget to the city to obtain their subsidy and funding. The discontinuation of the air has limited the city's ability to compare KFHC's funding needs to ministry benchmarks. It's increasing the risk of under or overfunding over time. So our recommendation is to reinstate the requirement to complete the air. To come into compliance with the housing services act, as well as to improve transparency. The air provides a detailed snapshot into unit activity that right now is not readily available to the service manager. Additionally, we're recommending a debt management policy be implemented in consultation with the city's finance department. KFHC's total liabilities have increased in recent years, but this is due to the housing development projects that they have taken on. We have no concerns regarding their current total debt load, but we're just recommending that a debt management policy be put in place to a mitigate any future risk in this area. Next, I'm going to move on to the findings from the governance review. So the shareholder in the service manager identified a number of challenges with the current governance structure, such as insufficient reporting to ensure alignment to service manager requirements and legislation. As well as a strange partnership and concerns that KFHC may be drifting from its core mandate to provide safe, adequate RGI housing for low - income households. The objective of the future state of governance for KFHC was really to ensure that perfect alignment with its core mandate and strategic direction through greater oversight and continue the strong financial stewardship and sustainability of the corporation. To achieve the future state objectives, we propose two key adjustments to the governance model. One was formalizing the reporting relationship between KFHC and the Director of Housing and Social Services who would represent the city as the shareholder. And two, adjusting the board composition to ensure greater alignment between KFHC and the city's strategic direction. In this model, KFHC maintains independence from the city and continues to drive operational decisions, but the KFHC Board is restructured to incorporate a greater city influence. The proposed structure includes the city's CAO or designate. Two members of Council, one tenant representative and four community skills - based board members. The Community Board members would include the tenant representative would be selected by the city's nominations committee. This slide represents the changes to the KFHC bylaws from 2017 to 2020, which is the current state of the bylaws. And then the proposed future state changes. So there'd be no change to the ratification of board members, which is achieved through the recommendation of appointment through the city's nomination committee. The CAO are designate role on the board would be added. And the term of limitation, the term of appointment would be, would have no limitation to term. And since the time the report was issued, we do understand city, staff, and KFHC have had subsequent discussions regarding the KFHC's boards ability to retain authority to elect their own chairperson. And we understand staffer recommending that the board retain that authority KPMG has no concerns with that change. Finally, we're also bringing forward here the recommendation from earlier just to adjust the bylaws that reflect the role of the finance committee as advisory only and require full border approval for financial decisions. The changes to the governance structure recommended through this review directly aligned to principals and objectives that are outlined clearly in the shareholder agreement originally created between the city and KFHC in 2004. The future state changed to include tenant representation on the board aligns directly to principals and objectives that indicate that tenants and other stakeholders shall have the opportunity to participate in decision - making within the corporation. The future state change to include monthly reporting from the Corporation to the Service Manager through the Director of Housing and Social Services aligns to the principles of openness, transparency, and accountability. And regular reporting to the shareholder on operations. And the future state changes to the KFHC board member composition. We'll exercise greater influence on the corporations strategic direction and ensure alignment between the city as the shareholder. That concludes my presentation for the evening. Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any questions. Council Glen. Uh, thank you. And through you. So thank you very much for the briefing. And giving us a good summary on that. I just wanted to clarify, because I'm not sure that I misheard during the delegations. Can you just clarify who was consulted in the exercise of doing this review. So who did you consult with. Through your worship? Um, we consulted with the city's housing and social service division. So a number of staff and leadership from the Division. We also spent a number of days on - site at KFHC during the review and had a lengthy interviews with KFHC leadership. Okay, thank you for confirming that. Um, and I hope this is the appropriate time to ask this next question. It has to do with the report itself. Um, I'm just wondering if somebody could explain the market rent setting strategy that's outlined there. I think that the title of it can be misleading and I would just like it to be clarified what that actually means and the benefits to it. Uh, thank you for your question and through you Mayor Paterson. Um, so market rents in social housing, uh, through KFHC, they have a mixed portfolio. So the RGI portfolio is seen differently in their exempt from the RTA and the annual rent increase guidelines. So they are, um, permitted to increase rents at any time. Uh, the benefit of doing that, it will increase their, uh, operating subsidy to a certain level. It is capped by ministry indices, uh, but currently they're well below what they're entitled to. So increasing will support their operating subsidy. And then as they are mixed portfolio, they are able to increase their market rents as per the RTA. Um, at any annual basis. And then upon vacancy, they're able to increase market rents to whatever they feel, um, the market may dictate. We like to see them around AMR 80 percent AMR. But it's a board decision. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Okay. Seeing no other questions. Thank you very much. Okay. So with that, we'll move to clause two. Kingston fraudnack housing corporation operational review. Councillor. Thank you Mayor Paterson through you. I just have a minor amendment to make. On the review. Okay. Clerk's have it. Okay. Yeah. We'll just pause the pause your time. Okay. So you don't have to read. I can just summarize if you want to speak to it. Yeah. So the report actually recommends reducing them, uh, member of skill based community members by two. And I'm just going to keep, uh, recommending to Council to keep the skill based community members the same and just add two additional, uh, TAM representative and a member of staff that's going to be an ex official on the board. We have very talented members on the board. It's just more or less keeping the board members dies quo and just adding to the board. I talked to staff there in support of this. Yeah. It's a, it's a minor governance changes, but we have a lot of change over on the board and it helps with institutional memory. So I just has Councillor's support this. Otherwise I'm fine with the rest of the operational governance review. Okay. Thank you. So, uh, so this amendment's been moved by Councillor Tozo. Seconded by Councillor Hamas. Okay. Um, is there any, any other debate or discussion on the, uh, motion to amend. Okay. We will call the vote. And that carries. Uh, any other comments on clause two now as amended. Okay. We'll call the hope, please. And that carries. Okay. Clause three province of Ontario's new bring your own BYOB alcoholic beverages for events. Can't service. Thank you, Mayor Paterson, through you. So this has been an interesting read and an interesting report to say the least. I have a number of questions and concerns about this. And I know it's a recommendation for staff to further develop a report and then finalise it and then bring it back to Council for review. And I guess I'm going to start off by saying I'm not in favor of this. I don't think we need to go down this road. I don't think, um, we need to have our staff utilise their time in a deep dive endeavour that, uh, the province feels that everyone can drink whenever they want. However, they want in an event. And I think that sets various events up. For failure. Concerns. And some of the questions, I mean, if this passes and my fellow colleagues are okay with this, so be it. And then, then these questions I ask for staff that they be put in the report. So. What happens with crowd safety and security. Where do police and bylaw come into this. What happens with emergency medical response. When we already have a 911 system under pressure. What is considered for site design. What if the event is near water. Transportation and impaired driving. Who's responsible. Because right now there is no, we have in our own bylaws set ways on how events are to run and what the province is proposing. This won't be covered. Children and youth events. If this is a family focused event, how close are we going to allow alcohol and consumption to the event. Neighbourhood impact. So what happens with complaints at real time. How is that handled. Legal. Insurance, liability. Who's responsible. Is it the organiser? Is it municipality? Is the permit holder. Next is enforcement and staffing capacity. Do we have enough staff. To even handle this. And I'm looking at our bylaw officer right now. And that's a question for you to think about. And I don't even, if you want to try and answer that, I'll leave it for you to answer. Coppempo. Thank you and through you mayor Paterson. Um, it's a big question. There's obviously from the enforcement aspect. I would say that we would anticipate an increased amendment enforcement. Necessary for this program. Because, you know, the realities of what I would be thinking this program would entail would be a focus on evenings, weekends around our tourism season. Uh, we know our, you know, I would say transparently that we are being stressed then in terms of our resources and allocation for our by law enforcement team. Um, there would definitely have to be a much larger engagement in terms of like the review to answer a lot of your questions that you posed. I would say that, um, unlike traditional licensed events where alcohol service is controlled, uh, to bring your own beer, um, act or what we're calling it ships enforcement more towards behavioral monitoring. So what I've implied by that is again, to your point managing public intoxication and disorderly conduct. We would have to be more prevalent to, you know, these types of concerns, monitoring, compliance with the designated consumption zones that it would be approved. Um, you know, the requirements for security plans fencing those types of things would have to be considered, uh, in terms of what we would be reviewing, capacity limits in crowd management, um, addressing spillover impacts, uh, into the surrounding neighbourhoods to more of your point. Um, so in short, it would put more of an emphasis on our resources, specifically as municipality. Kingston police play a role on this. And I don't want to speak on behalf of Kingston, please. But I would suggest probably a similar circumstance. Um, I think also, you know, part of my concern would be that we would have to really have a focus on public engagement for this process, a strong focus, because I think this program blurs the lines in terms of what would be allowed and what would not be allowed. And I think that would be, um, a task in itself just to make sure that the, uh, the community is well understanding what this program is and isn't. And I think that would definitely have been packs on our resources. Well, Director Compo, I think you've served a very plainly right there. I appreciate your honesty. We already have a licensed beverage system that works in this city. The province is giving us an opte. I would strongly encourage my fellow councillors. To vote no on this. We don't need to entertain this. We don't need to have someone show up with a keg to a random event. Or a cooler full of beer to a random event. Set up their lawn chairs, enjoy the event. And then all of a sudden everything breaks loose. And we don't have control mechanisms in place. And as indicated, our bylaw team has already stretched in. Our police force, as we've heard multiple times from our police chief, is stretched thin. So now we're leaving it to the event organisers to manage this. And that's not a realistic expectation, I think, that can be met. Our beverage license system works. I think it needs to stay in that lane. I guess I'll close with, we need to seriously think about what are we doing as a city. With so many events. And we are sponsoring events. We have neighbourhood activation fund that is going out to each of our districts. We're large events are taking place. Portsmouth district had a movie event. Last year, we had 150 people show up. Roughly. 30 seconds. Thank you. It wasn't intended to be an alcohol event. But now according to the province, anyone can show up. And start drinking. It's supposed to be a family - friendly event. I hope you will seriously consider this. Please vote no. We don't need to waste staff time going down this rabbit hole. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Next is Councillor Rich. Thank you. Your worship and through you. Um, so can staff walk me through what happens when somebody brings a six pack of beer to a park and they're drinking. What's the standard procedure right now? Mr. Compo. Thank you and three of you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so the standard procedure is that, uh, that's public, uh, consumption. It's against the license act. And they could be, uh, find, um, or for the rest collation for enforcement could take place. So in essence, they're not allowed to be consuming in municipal spaces. Okay. Uh, through you, your worship. Thank you very much. So I'm, I'm of two thoughts on this. So the primary one is that I think that, you know, adults reasonably should be able to, you know. Responsibly imbibe in public spaces, uh, I mean, I don't think that that's necessarily an issue if you're responsible adult. Um, but I do hear Councillor Amos's Points about the, the insurance, the hosting of the events, all of those, uh, issues that come up. I don't think that everything is going to become like the, the Tencent beer night event, uh, from the 70s, but it's, there is still, it's an important piece to consider. So I am a heating Councillor Amos's words. On this. I wish that there was more nuance in what it is that we, as municipality has been, have been presented with. So thank you. I thank you, Cancer Toso. Thank you Mayor Paterson for you. I appreciate my colleagues measured remarks because mine are not going to be measured. Um, I was looking at the budget and looking for any type of resources for housing and homelessness or anything related to the environment and climate change. And I saw that the province was laying as, have people bring their own beer to a park. Wow. This is what the province is handing us for additional municipal tools for the problems that we're having in our city. Who's asking for this. Uh, I actually think Councillor Amos said it very well. We're going to devote our time and resources on this on an issue that isn't a problem and they're offering us a solution. What's with this province and alcohol your worship? I have no idea that the solution for everything is, Oh, we have a infrastructure problem. Go down to your chorus and grab a six pack of beer. Oh, we have a housing homelessness issue. Hell would bring beer go park. Like what is this? Why are we like, why are we exploring this. I'm just, my vote on this is going to be no just because I'm so infuriated that this was a mispriority of this government. I think it's just at a gas you're worship. Thank you. Okay. Uh, thank you. Councillor Clip. Thank you and through you. Um, so I do have a question for staff with regards to this. So do you anticipate that if we don't have a look at the implications that we are going to have members of the public come and ask us about this anyways. Commissioner. Thank you. And through you. So certainly because the province put this out by way of one of their media releases. We wanted to bring the report here just for education purposes. We certainly don't know all the information. All of the, um, the details about how this would roll out. This is why the recommendation is about us doing some more work and bringing something back. But we had suspected if we didn't bring something for it, Council was informed either way. Okay. So thank you for that. So I think I want to bring this back down to what the recommendation is here. It's, it's to make sure we understand the implications. And I think anecdotally and certainly through comments that have been made. We have a pretty good idea. But the reality is every time something comes forward, uh, from the province, we get a community that's divided about their thoughts on it. So, um, going back to, I think one of the core things that we've done around this horseshoe over the last few years is we make sure that we've got all the information. I have no issues getting information. Um, yes, I would prefer that they spend more time at the provincial level concentrating on housing and homelessness. And, you know, I was hopeful the premier would just donate his plane because we sure could use one here. But seeing as that's not reality, um, uh, I would like us to stay grounded in getting good information and evidence. Uh, I'm not supportive of obviously overtaxing any of our, um, staff. I'm also not in support of seeing debauchery on the streets. But at the same time, I want to give unequivocal answers to the public on what this really means to our city. So I'm going to vote in favor of getting the information. I think that's a prudent move to make, um, this doesn't say that we're going to do anything other than get it back, review it and allow the public to know that we've done our due diligence in this case. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Shapes. Thank you. Um, I do have some concerns with this fairly grave. Let's get some clarification on here. Does this legislation or potential illustration give a blanket approval for people to drink and public spaces. Mr. Coppel. Three, Mr. Mayor. I know it does not. Okay. So it would be for organisers who are organised in an event. To apply for a permit. Would that be the case? Just a couple. Thank you. Uh, that would be the case. We as staff would have to take it back and look at the type of phased approach that we want to recommend. But yeah, again, it would be specific to what you're saying. An organised good op not to have this permit. There'd be two separate permits, one with the public field YB and not. Stock it. Do your Mayor Patterson. That's correct. There will still be the special occasion permit and the BYOB permanent available through the AGCO. Okay. Um, so when people are bringing in their own beard to these events, who would be modering that they're of legal age. To consumer Paterson, that's information that we do not have currently from the framework and is part of our review in this process. My other concern would be, this announcement was made by the province. It's going to be probably continuing to be made. People are just going to probably assume that they can bring their own liquor to a different events or to open spaces. And how are we going to be managing that our organisers? Because people will show up with their case of too far to an event. And they're going to be told, no, you can't bring that in. And I can see issues coming to that. So any comments to that. Um, I think as commissioner Agnew was speaking to, you know, part of our strategy and bringing this report to Council was to raise some public awareness around, uh, what we're facing and what the decision of Kingston will be. But I think to what Director Campo was saying that there would be the existing process at this point if someone shows up in a park with a six pack of beer. My other concern, which I brought this up with some events at the Memorial Centre, um, like rip fast when they were serving alcohol. Was a type of containers that they're be using. And the fact that it's a public space and kids can be playing there with bare feet and everything else. And like I said, the containers. And I was assured that the organisers had small plastic cups. So with this aspect, is there any restriction with type of containers that individuals could bring to an event, namely, um, glass bottles of beer. So you mayor Patterson, that information is not available to us. It's on the municipality to establish that criteria, including the containers that are allowed through this permit process. Cause that would be a concern of mine. And here's another concern. Um, who limits? Currently the way the process we have, we have servers who are certified to serve drinks in individuals and to take note if someone has been overserved and stop them from drinking any further. What happens when someone brings Joan Beer, they're overly intoxicated. They decide leave the event. Get into an incident and accident. Well, I guess not an accident that involves a collision and someone gets injured or, or worse. Um, anyone. I know this is speculation, but liability issues. Miss Morley. Thank you. And through your worship. As a reminder, this is a report directing staff to come back with precisely that type of information around liability concerns. So we do not have the specific information that is being requested right now. Thank you on that. I just want to bring that point up right now. Um, it is a concern of mine. I do have concerns with our staffing compliment. Um, I brought this up. We've constantly put more pressure on all of our staff, especially by law in the past. I have budget concerns. In regards to this as well. We're in a straight, but in regards to bylaw already stretched beyond their current capacity due to unhoused encampments and incidents and which are already affecting other areas of enforcement such as parking in other areas. So I do have concerns regards to this potential coming to the city. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Sun. Thank you, worship and through you. I was just looking in the report and laughing this still. It's just a recommendation to come back anyway. Thank you Councillor Emmets for bringing the detail concerned. I have the same concern. So I'm not going to go to the detail. I'll just say just think about homecoming week. Just think about St. Paddy Day. Just think about any other such event the game days. People, we have enough people on the street. Currently. The city is going through a lot of challenges about the, um, Mental Health. And Addiction already. And I want to thank you to Province of Ontario to introducing the new burden to the municipalities. And we don't have enough staff in the bylaus to respond to the regular calls from the constituent's or to the resident of Kingston for minor things. The police response time is already exceeded the standard time. Also facing the same issue. If we have such a program or such a recommendation implemented in the city, just imagine all the ambulance, all the fire trucks will be rushing around all day long. The emergency will be flirted with the people with the minor energies or minor stuff. So I don't know what is the province of Ontario is thinking to which direction they are taking our society today. And which direction we are having socially. It is a political, but socially is very bad for our country, for our society. Especially the young children. At this time, I will say it's okay to get the report back and see what is the other implication or complication can be with this program. But I am scared for my, probably the grandchildren. If they have to bring their own booze everywhere in their hands and walking on the Princess Street and yelling and screaming and telling the people I'm drinking, so is the other people. That will be brutal. That will be very bad. So I urge to the Council colleagues. So if we want to send this one of the recommendation back to the staff to come back with the report, uh, that, that is good. But when it's comeback, we will turn it down. Definitely. We should ban and we should continue our program and our, the way we are handling right now, the licensing and the bevering system. I think that's the best to keep a control ourselves. We won't be part of this. Thank you, Councillor Steven. Thank you Mayor Paterson. Um, I have concerns as well. In fact, I think this is probably terrible policy, but, um, actually not but. And alcohol culture is changing. People don't drink the same way they used to. The kid's coming up are healthier and smarter than we ever were. So I think the future is bright in that way. Um, that said, even with those concerns, I do, I do want to support the staff recommendation because I think if we're going to make a decision, it's better to make an informed decision. And this will give the community a chance to have their say, um, we know that Kingston people really care about engagement, um, and so I'm certain there are lots of opinions out there on both sides. And I'm curious to hear the arguments. So, uh, I'll be supporting us. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Stoff. Yeah. Thank you Mayor Paterson. Just a bit confused. Um, I, I agree with everybody here. So we're all trying to, I think it's very bizarre that a provincial government would put this, make this possible. Um, terrible. What I would like to know is we do we not have the authority Mayor Paterson to already say that we don't want to participate. Why wouldn't we have that motion first and then not give staff that. So I think we do have that ability. Like maybe staff want to just clarify. We could, we could just choose to opt out right now. That's also, is that correct, Commissioner Agni? Uh, thank you. And through you. So essentially the way the recommendations have been written if Council wanted to opt out. I think if you voted against the recommendations staff would not have the direction to move forward and do any more work. And then the issue would just stay as it is, no further work. Municipality making a decision not to pursue at this time. Right. That's interesting. Um, because the work is there. It says to determine if council wishes to participate. But I'm pretty sure we don't. So, um, if we don't support this motion, then that's like saying we don't support, um, participation. So I guess that's what I will do. Not support this. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Denny. Thank you and through you. Um, so I had a question. So say, like, do we have to do this now? Like, could we not just wait until like we've seen what other municipalities, how it's been going and then like what kind of issues or problems that they've had. Could we revisit this at a later time? I'm not currently, I'm not supported of this in this, in this form, because it's like other people have brought up say if it's done using a provider that, you know, is licensed to serve, then if somebody has gone too far, then they can like limit. They can say you're cut off. Um, but if you bring your own, then you're kind of. You're not limited by anyone except for yourself or your friends. Um, so yeah, so my question is could we revisit this at a later time once everything has other municipalities may have started doing it. And then we can see like what the results are. Commisstracking. Thank you. And through you certainly council as the ability to defer decision on this until the time or places that they're choosing with their rationale if they want to. This is an opt - in situation. So the municipality has to decide to participate. It's optional. And there isn't a timing associated with that. So that would be up to Council to make that decision. Okay. So we need to defer it for that. Or what if we vote no on this? Is this something that could be revisited like a year or two down the line. Commissaging. Thank you and through you the way the recommendation clauses are worded. I think if council chose to vote against them, that would be giving us direction not to pursue it at this time. However, um, a deferral motion would be a different direction for understanding depending on the time or place that the differ roll was associated with. I'm just going to jump in with. A question on that. So right now the timing of the recommendation says the Councillor Director staff to return to Council no later than Q2 2027. So let's say that's a year away. So, um, so I think just to kind of expand on that previous point, are we saying, is there space to kind of take a wait and see approach. And then staff could come back to council closer to the end of that timeline or is it deferral still required if council wants to take that wait and see approach? Commissioner Kimmel? Uh, thank you and through you. Um, I think it's staff's understanding that if the motion was to be supported or the recommended score to be supported as the written staff would begin doing work. Um, and so I don't know that we would have the opportunity to delay that work. Um, so a substantive amount of work would be done before we report back to Council of Council really want staff to take a pause and not execute any work until Council contemplates this. And perhaps council is deferring until the recommended time in the current clauses at which time you would contemplate the recommend. And we would then undertake the work. Council Standing. Okay. Um, I think that that would be reasonable because at this point I wouldn't want any work to be staff resources to be taken when we don't really know, um, and personally, I don't think I know enough about it. To make a decision. But at this point I would be a no. So. I'm trying to think. Now I don't think I'll do a bra. I think I'll just vote no. Okay. Thank you. Next is, um, Deputy Marabom. Okay. And that's a pass Councilloc. Thank you, your worship. I'll be voting no too. Because if the new council wants to race this again, they just have to bring emotion to say we want to opt in or go through the exact, you know, the writing is right there for their motion at that time. So I think it's easier if we just vote yes or no to this recommendation tonight. Thank you. Thank you Council McLaren. Thank you. May I ask, um, when does this actually, the provincial thing become available for say other cities to opt in. Through you mayor. Thank you. Uh, the BYOB permit is available as of April 30th, 2026. Okay. So if I understand this right, other cities could opt in at the end of this month. And if they do and we have tourists from other cities coming to Kingston thinking that it is acceptable here as well, that's going to cause an enforcement problem almost immediately. Can I ask, um. Does the current way we handle this contemplate tourists, mass tourists. Perhaps we want to encourage them to come here. Thinking about how to do this. And second question is associate with that. If we were to pass this, would staff look at this as a way to perhaps look at improving our current permit framework. Should, um, should, um, mass numbers of other people thinking that they can do this. Say people moving to Kingston over the next few years or over the next year, um, be educated on this. So two questions. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You may have to repeat the second one to those jotting down my thoughts on your first one. In terms of tourism, um, you know, it's hard to get an understanding of, you know, what individuals coming to Kingston would be informed of. Obviously, um, you know, sort of the provinces put us into a situation where it's up to each municipality. Um, I can tell you at least from our initial conversations, there's been a lot of the conversation that we've heard from our colleagues around the province that's marrying what we're talking about in Council tonight that there is, um, an appetite to view what other municipalities are doing before they're opting into this. So I can say anecdotally right now is that we have not heard that any municipality is going forward with that. That's on our limited research at this point or conversations. Um, but in terms of the tourism, um, you know, again, that's coming back to the public engagement that we're, I think one way or another going to have to, uh, go ahead to the community and make, uh, awareness happen in terms of what council decision is. Thank you. And so the second part of that, uh, question was say the public engagement. Would that help inform perhaps any review or any improvements to the current bylaws considering the more permissive nature of alcohol consumption in the province. Through you Mayor Paterson. Um, I mean, I think for this report, there is no intention at this point to review or update the municipal alcohol policy. Uh, it serves the purpose that we utilise it right now. So there wouldn't be any sort of, um, direction at this point or intention to review or update our current policy, which again, does guide the provision of alcohol on municipal property through the existing special occasion permit process. Thank you. And I guess last question about how many staff personne hours do you expect that this report would generate in work effort. Through you Mayor Patterson, it's hard to project that. I mean, I think the report does outline the various departments, uh, that would need to be consulted as part of this review. It also speaks to sort of broad public engagement, engagement with partners. So it is not an insignificant amount of work to make sure that whatever we're bringing information back to council that outlines the full picture, uh, for Kingston and Council is consideration. Okay. Well, I did not expect an extended debate on this particular issue, but here we are. Deputy Mayor, would you take the chair. Thank you your worship and I see you. And remind you to stay within your time. Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Bear. I'll be sure not to drone on and on. Thank you very much. Um, I mean, I think, I think at the heart of this is on the one hand wanting to get information in order to make an evidence - based decision one way or the other. On the other hand, I'm also sympathetic to the argument of why waste staff's time if we are absolutely already convinced this is not a road that we want to go down. So I think that's the question that I think we're confronted with. I think that Councillor Osanic actually raises a good point that there's always an opportunity to bring something forward again if we find that there's an opportunity or a proponent that really wants to push for this. But I tend to agree that, uh, we've got a lot going on as a city. Our staff time is valuable. Uh, and I think our staff are hearing the debate around the table right now. There's no way that this would pass. So I think given that, my preference would be just to give staff a clear no at this point and let's have them work on other projects that are more important for the city. Thank you. Thank you your worship and thank you for keeping it short. And I return the chair. Thank you. Okay. Uh, with that, we will call the vote on clause three. Okay. And that loses by a vote of zero to 13. Okay. All right. Um, with that, we'll move to clause four. Patterson park. If no one wants to speak to clause four, we will call the vote, please. And that carries. So that was on clause four, Patterson Park. Okay. With that, we'll move on to report number 38 from the CAO. Excuse me. Move from Councillor's move by Councillor Santa, except it by Councillor Osterhoff that report 38 from the chief administrative officer, consider be received and considered. Okay. So this is a considered report. So I will look to a member of Council to move one of the two options. Councillo Glenn. I'd like to move option two, please. Okay. Is there a seconder? Second by Council McLaren. Option two is on the floor. Councillor Glenn, uh, you can now speak to it. Thank you. And through you. So, uh, as we've heard, I think time and time again, uh, in this chamber, we're seeing the impacts of extreme heat. Hopefully we are not going to, um, as Miss Caehner mentioned, uh, experience that this summer. However, I'm not, I'm not particularly hopeful. So I'm hoping that everyone will support this. This is a modest amount of money to help out some of the most vulnerable people. And it's a pilot. It gives us an opportunity to see what kind of positive impact we can have on this situation. So right now we're looking at individuals over 65, uh, with self - declared medical conditions, uh, to give them a little bit of relief. So I'm not going to belabor the point. I think it's, um, it's fairly straightforward. I think it's a compassionate consideration for us. And hopefully we will get a bit of warmth soon. It's a little cold out there. So, um, with that, I hope everyone will support option two. I think it's reasonable. Um, and I think it adds, uh, benefit and help for some of the people that are going to struggle the most this summer in the heat. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Ridge. Thank you. Your worship interview. Just a couple of questions for staff. Uh, can Steph clarify why the 17, 000 was the amount that was screwed upon for the pilot project. So you heard. Thank you. And, uh, through you, Mr. Mayor. So this particular amount was utilised in terms of trying to target a number of units that could be purchased. So when we looked at the cost of units, um, in purchasing in bulk in particular through the city, um, we also looked at funds that are available through our different reserves. So we're trying to manage obviously our expenditures, but recognising that we, we need to look at some investment. So we've tried to put in a balance here in terms of the, um, investment. Uh, thank you very much. And through you, um, your worship. I, so I noticed in the report that the estimated cost for the air conditioning unit was approximately 450 to 500 dollars. I'm just wondering why the cost was so high for the unit. Is there like a technical specifications that are required or something? So you hurdle. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Mayor, so the units that we looked at are the 10, 000 BTUs. And I apologise if, um, uh, I believe that is the right technical term. It can cool down a space of approximately 450 square feet. Uh, the numbers that we received in terms of the cost came from different providers. So we did look at different companies and providers. There are a few places where we can get them slightly cheaper than that. And we would obviously look at trying to get a better price. But I would be concerned with going unit that is not able to cool down a space that's sufficient for a resident. So that's what we try to look at. And I believe that's what is also being used within the other programs Toronto and Hamilton. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, Inso your worship. I just appreciate the, the clarifications because there were some questions that have been raised both by myself and others who were in support of this program. So I will be voting in favor of this. So thank you. Thank you Councillor Straf. Thank you Mayor Patterson. Um, I'm just concerned that this, have we considered that the landlord tenant board has already, um, come up with guidelines for landlords. Why are we, why are we doing this at a municipal level. And what is the liability that we are carrying? I know it's not a lot of money, but as air conditioners cool, I'll room down. The wires get hot. And most people don't have a clue. That many, many houses can't handle air conditioner. Where they put them in by windows. And, um, there are, there is an electrical hazard created. And, um, that's a lifetime of experience telling you that. So. I'd like to ask, I guess from a legal point of view, if they are not installed correctly. Um. What are we doing. Miss Marley. Thank you. And through your worship, the province did introduce amendments to the residential tendencies act several years ago with respect to the installation of window air conditioning units. Unfortunately, those provisions have never been brought into effect. So landlords are not currently obligated to permit the installation of air conditioning units. Uh, from a liability perspective, as I understand it, this is simply, um, a grant of money or an air conditioner unit itself. The city wouldn't be assuming any responsibility with respect to installation of the unit. That's concerning. Thank you. And, uh, through Mr. Mayor, as indicated in the report, um, United Way, and we've been working with United Way. They have concerned that, um, confirm that they're volunteers will be supporting the distribution and installation of these units. The other thing too, to add is, and you probably have seen this in the report in other communities, the tenants are requested or required to inform their landlord. Um, we would apply the same thing. So this is something that obviously we would ask any individual that would be receiving a unit to make sure that they inform their landlord. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. That's probably the most important point for me. Um, that the landlord would know. I'm just wondering, I'm quite sure in my industry that there's still someone's going to be responsible. So I remain uncomfortable because it's not certain because, uh, I wouldn't even want one situation where the overheating. And I know too much. So, um, though I, I appreciate that it's not a lot of money right now. Um, but it could lead to that. So I can't support it without, um, knowing and knowing that there might be an electrical hazard created. And there's no certainty that that is a qualified person making that decision. Okay. Thank you. Uh, is there anybody else that wishes to speak. Councillor Sun. Thank you, worshipping through you. So if this pillar project becomes successful, are we planning to provide more money to the, uh, more people. And the second question is if something goes wrong with the unit after Installe required, who will be responsible for those repairs on yearly bids? It has to have a service on every year. See you, Hurdle. Thank you. Um, in terms of the, uh, the future of the project, um, the continuation of the program. Councillor, I would suggest that once we complete an evaluation of the distribution and how it has had impact implication, the community, we would come back to Council with information and recommendation for next steps. As far as the maintenance, the day - to - day maintenance of the unit that falls under the tenant responsibility, that's what we're also seeing for most program. I think Toronto's the only one where they do have a contractor that actually provides some additional support. But Toronto's program is obviously much bigger than ours. Second question again about the repair. So if the person who cannot afford at the first place to get the unit and installed themselves, how they will be able to repair or take the cost for further repair. So you heard all? Thank you. And, uh, and through you, Mr. Mayor. So there are definitely, I'm assuming some warranty on the unit that would carry for a period of time beyond that your correct councillor. And I would say the same thing for utilities. There would be utility costs associated with this. Um, as indicated in the other programs, all other programs do not cover utility costs either. So those are all things that would need to be made very clear with the individual receiving the unit, but obviously the city cannot be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of these portable units that would be installed in individuals'homes. So again, if the person is with the fixed income or low income and has the unit and their hydro cost go up and they are not able to pay their bills two month, three months in a row, definitely they're not going to have the electricity. So then unit will be sitting there not in use or they're not going to use the unit. And what is the circumstances after that? How are we going to take that unit? Give it to somebody else. So we're going to take it back. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Mayor. I can't comment on what's going to happen in Kingston. I don't know. Um, because we haven't obviously rolled out this program. What I can say is I can speak to the other programs that have been implemented in other communities. So these are not fictitious programs. There are real programs that have been operating in Hamilton and Toronto. People that have received units have paid for their increase in cost. Um, and I've continued to be responsible for the unit. In Hamilton in particular, they only receive a subsidy and that will often most likely not even cover the full cost of the unit. Um, they're also responsible to actually have it, um, distributed to their home, whether they're, they're actually ordering it or they're picking it up in their responsible for the installation. So it is obviously feasible and viable in other communities. And I think that's the information we're presenting to Council. To your question, uh, Councillor, if there were real issues where people couldn't pay for IDRO and that created a significant problem down the road, we would report that back to Council when we do the evaluation of the program. Thank you very much. I think it's a great program, especially the category of the people who are going to receive that. It looks very good. And it's a good program I will support this time. The question was just on technical base. How is the future look like after this program, we implemented. Thank you. Uh, okay. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak? Oh, Councillor Tozo, I have you next. Thank you, your worship. I'll be quick. Um, bulk purchaser, where are we getting this from? Like it says we'll have a bulk purchase. Is this like Costco or something? Just being a little funny there. Okay. Do you hurtle? Thank you. And through you. So we haven't obviously completed the purchasing yet because we don't yet have council approval. We usually prefer to do that first. So in terms of, of purchases, we've looked at pricing so far at different companies, including Rona, but some of these stores. So we will get in some other local companies. We will get a number of quotes and work with that. Perfect. I think that we, if we don't have a pilot, we don't know the information and more information is almost always better, almost always. Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody else that was just to speak Council Glenn any final words. Thank you for all the conversation. And we'll just vote. Okay. With that, we will vote. That carries by vote of 12 to one cancer Osterhoff opposed. Okay. Um, moving on to report number 39 from Planning Committee. Move by Councillor Chanani seconded by Councillor Stephen. The report 39 from the Planning Committee be received and adopted. Okay. There are two clauses. Would anyone like to deal with them separately. Not, we'll vote on them as a whole. So first we have clause one zoning by Law Amendment 1152 1158 Montreal Street. Clause two zoning bylaw amendment 3980 highway two. We'll call vote, please. And that carries. Next we have report number 40 from the environment Infrastructure and Transportation Policies Committee. Move by Councillor Shave, seconded by Councillor Tozo that report 40 from the Environment Infrastructure and Transportation Policies Committee be received and adopted. There is just the one clause Better Holmes Kingston bylaw update. We'll call The Vote. And that carries by vote of 12 to one Councillor Osterhaw post. Okay. We have nothing from Committee of the whole. Information reports. If you have any questions, just raise your hand as I read through them. Uh, so number one, 2025 development charges reserve fund statement. Councillor Shapes. Thank you. Um, I have some concerns here. Uh, it's within the report states approximately 90 million dollars. In development charges at summer 31st, 2025 will be recognised at a later date. A route receiving subsidies from the province regards to this. Hold. Through you. Um, no, these are the deferrals between the building permit issuance and the occupancy issuance date. Um, that was legislatively changed, I think back in 2019. Okay. Now my understanding is beyond planning for all these years. There's tends to be delay between. The issuing of a building permit. And the occupancy roughly between two to four years at best. So how we bridging, cause we still have to put in the infrastructure, spend those costs. Um, in order to have that development happen. How we bridging that gap between two to four years. It's false. Through you, your worship. Um, currently we are utilising, um, other funds in the development charges reserve. If that was depleted, then we would have to look at, uh, utilising taxation or rates to supplement in the interim. And how much do we have that, uh, development charge reserve fund right now. Through your worship. At the end of 2025, we had approximately 15 million. So less than 19 million dollars. And you're already touched on my next question, my concern concerning we're in being quite concerned with our budget and how we spend things. There's potential of either taking debt or increase in taxes. And this is something that's been brought on by the province. And I think the feds have also done this too. We're not getting any assistance up front to cover these costs. So we're basically being told we have to do this. Without any assistance. So that's my real concern here is it's the ones who are going to be paying for this are our taxpayers. Ms. Kennedy. Thank you. Through your ship, just to add to Miss Fold's comments. So that is correct. Um, there are a couple of options. So we can use other municipal funds to offset for the timing difference. Um, we can issue debt through development charges. And that would be included in the background study those interest costs would also be paid by development charges. I think the third thing though, that, that we potentially will look at and that a number of my treasure colleagues across the province are looking at right now. Um, is the actual development charge projects and can municipalities actually afford them in the timing that we've got. Um, and I know there are some reports that will be going to Council's looking at some of that information. And we'll be looking at as well in terms of the timing of projects and having to push development related projects out because we just can't, we just don't have the cash flow to pay for that. Thanks for all that. I just want to bring up my concerns on this and the potential impact it could have. So thank you very much. Okay. Uh, so we'll move on number two, February 2026, Tinder and Contract Awards subject to delegation of authority. Number three. Canada, Ontario Partnership to build initiative on Ontario Bill 98, the building homes and improving transportation infrastructure Act 2026. Ketzer Rich. Thank you, orshipment, through you. Um, so this was a very excellent report and very diplomatically written. Um, this, so this dissect is significant effects. And we were just talking about development charges. Um, can staff please, uh, detail what affects this legislation may have on the municipality's ability to collect DCs. I'm Miss Kendi. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. So, um, this particular act for Bill 98, the lot with respect to the development charges, um, there is a change to, uh, I believe a nonprofit retirement homes are now going to be exempt. Um, but I think that was the main thing with respect to development charges that happened within this particular bill. Okay. Uh, thank you through your worship. Um, okay. What potential complications will there be, um, around planning and site planning if this legislation is, uh, gain real innocent. Could be striked, dude. Thank you. And through you. So certainly there are a number of things that are contemplated. Some of the changes around environmental regulation, site plan, um, in particular, um, the suggestion of the removal of it all together as it's seen as an impediment to getting shovels in the ground or certainly, um, I think some interest groups have characterized it that way in terms of the communications with the government. Um, so those would be very significant changes for us in terms of how we regulate planning a lot of the detailed information, um, related to sites and how they function. The buildings comes through the site plan process. So if that is removed as part of new legislation, certainly we would have to, um, have a significant look at our development approvals process and figure out what we're still able to regulate, what information we're still able to ask for and where we could potentially ask for earlier in the process as long as that isn't changed as well. Um, so we will continue to follow this very closely. Um, there's information that's in the legislation. And then they posted at least five or six ERO postings, all simultaneously that are all out for consultation. So we're trying to give up to speed on all of them and certainly provide, um, commentary as best as possible relative to what's on the table and participating in any ministry, um, opportunities that are coming up individually related to different ERO postings. Um, but they are significant changes for sure. And, um, and ones that we will keep council very closely in the loop on. Thank you for that answer. And so my, my last question is, is it as through your worship, uh, with regards to that answer is, as Burden Sim or onerous as site planning and planning process can be, they often catch things that may, you know, complications that may occur in the future as a result of, uh, you know, looking at technical plans based on the information that's been presented in this report. Could one foresee more of those complications occurring thus, uh, potentially affecting how fast housing can be developed. I'm sorry, Andrew, your worship. Can you just clarify the last part of your question councillor? I just want to make sure I understand properly. Uh, of course. It was, uh, it was, so three worship, it's a question about, by removing some of these processes in the attempt to, uh, develop housing faster, could it in fact have the opposite effect because things that would have been caught in the current process are no longer going to be caught. Basically. Uh, thank you. And through you certainly that is a potential consequence of, of this for sure, like I said, once we get to the site plan stage, you're dealing with, um, buildings that are mostly like fully designed and they're getting ready to go through the building permit process. And you're also looking at things like, um, site circulation safety, uh, detailed parking, um, lots of detailed technical information, wind studies, those types of things that come up, especially when we're dealing with multi - residential buildings. So if in fact, um, site plan is further amended to remove it all together significantly modify it. There will be implications for sure. Um, I would say beyond what we're, we're able to do right now and what we've traditionally done. And we would have to look at that and figure out the way to best position the municipality to continue to make land use decisions with the best information. I would suggest our approach would that would be asking for earlier in the process, maybe through a rezoning process or something. If we are able to do that. But certainly we won't be the only municipality identifying this as a concern. And I'm sure that will come across strongly in the consultations and in the feedback. But we will keep you posted on that. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Glenn. Thank you and through you. Um, so I will probably have a lot of questions after the fact given, um, it was very lengthy report. Thank you. But just a couple of quick things here that are of concern to me. So with all this in play, do we foresee potentially this delaying, uh, the development of our new official plan. Uh, thank you. And through you, we don't see so at this point. I mean, the government has been quick to bring in legislation. And then sometimes slow to bring in the implementing regulation. And sometimes those ERO postings can be up for a couple of years. And sometimes they move on them quickly. So I would suggest based on our experience that, you know, we continue with the process as it is now. We don't see a major complication, but could this inform, um, changes that we may need to make, you know, in the future or future official plans for sure as the province continues to work on this process of streamlining. I think it's, you know, their intention to bring things, um, into streamline and consistent approach from city to city regardless of context. They're really focused on trying to get down to the bare minimum of, of what municipalities are looking at and making these decisions. Um, but we're not flagging anything immediately or we would have identified that in the report. Okay. Thank you for that. Um, so, you know, I noted that in here there was a mention of minimum lot sizes with what they're proposing to you for see that having an impact on, uh, densification at all. Um, thank you and through you. I mean, it certainly could to some extent. We do have areas of the city that have zoning that have minimum law areas. It's not consistent everywhere. Um, certainly the, the approach on that and what we've seen even in some of the, um, the severance applications that haven't been supported by staff over the last number of years of those decisions being overturned at the OLT, uh, because from a provincial level, the thinking about what's inappropriate lot size and the character of a neighbourhood is in something that they're prioritizing. And that's reflected in some of these further changes. They're talking about or at least contemplating. So I would say that it could have some impact, I would say. It's fairly minimal. We don't have a lodge of huge lots everywhere. Certainly some neighbourhoods of the city would have some greater opportunity for that to happen if it is required, but I wouldn't say that it's going to be something that it's going to have a major impact everywhere all at the same time. Okay. Thank you. Um, and so just one other question. As I said, I have many. So I'll just come and have a conversation at some point. Um, but, uh, with regards to the Parkland piece, I'm just trying to get clarification here because if I read that correctly, the developer gets to identify the Parkland. Is that what is going to be happening if this goes through? Uh, thank you. And through you. Yes. That's the intention is to have the manner in which Parkland is determined going forward being fundamentally different from how we've negotiated in the past and that it be more of a developer - driven situation where they're identifying the park land that will be provided as part of their obligatory offering of that parkland, but they determine, um, the location of as opposed to what we do now, whereas city staff are very much directing where that's taking place. So essentially handing control over what is constituting Park land in our city to developers. Okay. I'm going to have issues with that one, uh, wanting to make sure that that doesn't happen. Um, I'll, I'll hold any other questions for now because I know that, uh, other members probably have questions as well, uh, but I think we have a lot to discuss about this. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Um, so moving on, we have no, uh, information reports from members of Council. Miscellaney's business. Move by Councillor Shave, seconded by Councillor Ridge. Number one that the resignation of Era McCauley from The Arts Culture Inheritage Advisory Committee be received with regret. And in accordance with section 3. 3. 2D of the public appointment policy, Amanda Baker be appointed from the reserve pool to the Arts Culture and Heritage Advisory Committee for term ending November 14, 2026. Number two, that is requested by Taylor Tomco. Save your skin foundation city council proclaim the month of May, 2026, Esmelanoma and skin cancer awareness month in the city of Kingston. And the number three, the resignation of Eric Davis from the Kingston area tax and licensing commission be received with regret. Again, that's moved by Councillor Shave, seconded by Councillor Bridge. We'll call vote. All those in favor. Opposed. And that's carried. Okay, we have two new motions tonight. Number one move by Councillor Toso, seconded by Council Ridge. There's report number 26 - 021 received by Council on March 24th, 2026, provided information on service - level agreements, SLAs between outside organisations and various city departments. Where's the services provided under the SLAs between the city and outside organisations cover wide spectrum, including but not limited to housing and homelessness, childcare, arts and culture, recreation, heritage. Transportation, tourism and economic development. And whereas reporting to the city through these SLA's ranges from monthly updates to annual reports to sharing of audited financial statements. Whereas it is crucial that organisations receiving funding from the city operate in a manner that is open and transparent and demonstrates proper governance and accounting practices. Therefore be it resolved that staff be directed to provide council with all annual reports or audited financial statements provided to the city by organisations with service level agreements, SLAs, was said annual reports are audited financial statements to be placed as communications on Council agendas with the exception of cases where this information is already shared through council or committee reporting. And that should an organisation with an SLA with the city fail to provide any required documents. Council B advised to this failure. And that staff be directed to provide information regarding all active SLAs, including the mandates of the partner organisations, the services to be provided under each SLA. And methods for ensuring the terms of SLA are upheld to the 2026 to 2030 term of Council as part of its orientation activities. Councillor Toso, you have the floor. Thank you Mayor Paterson through you. Uh, I'm pleased to bring forward this motion today because it speaks to a very civil principle. If an organisation is receiving public money, it must be accountable to the public and council must know that the rules are being followed. I believe we all have a recent example of this not being in the case. Uh, this motion is intent to put safeguards in place so this never happens again. Um, through a service level agreements, the city partners with a wide range of organisations delivering important services, housing homelessness supports, childcare, arts and culture recreation, tourism and economic development. And these are vital services many in our community rely on. But with investment comes responsibility. Right now reporting under these agreements, uh, very significantly. And many cases, these reports go to staff and managers and directors have discretion on them. Open reporting is less consistent and less visible to council into the public. So I'm going to staff, others go to council. Our staff do great work, but I believe with public money, uh, should come public transparency. That inconsistency is the issue this motion seeks to address. What I am proposing is not burdensome or controversial. It's about creating clear consistent standards. Uh, that annual reports and audited financial statements provide the city are also shared with council through our agendas that when we're required reporting is not provide council be made aware. And as we enter a new term of council, that members be offered, well not mandatory offered a full and transparent overview of all agreements and partner organisations, including how they are monitored and enforced. Right now onboarding is up to our partner organisation and let's face it, it's pretty well hit and miss. And there's no clear and consistent standards and reviews of mandates. Our residents expect and deserve to know where their tax dollars are being used and they expect us as council to exercise proper oversight. And they expect that organisation is receiving public funds or operating with strong governance and accountability. We all saw tonight in an organisation that went through an operational and governance review. And I think that's healthy standard practice. This motions reinforces those expectations and creates a standard for our partner organisations. To be clear, this is not about questioning the value or work being done by our community partners. Many of these are doing exceptional work under challenging circumstances. But good work and good intentions do not replace the need for transparency. In fact, I believe transparency increases trust both for those organisations and for this in future councils. At the end of the day, this is mentoring that every dollar we invest is match with clear reporting, proper oversight and confidence from the public we serve. This is about transparency. This is about saying expectations in a fair manner. This is about good governance. This is about maintaining public trust. I would encourage my fellow councillors to support this motion. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else that was speak to new motion number one. Okay. Uh, Councillor Rich, go ahead. Thank you. Your worshiping through. Yes. I'll be brief. I agree with everything the Councillor Tesla said. And I thank him for moving the motion. And I was happy to second it. Um, yes. Transparency Accountability are very important. And I just want to say part of the reason one of the many reasons. I found that this motion was such a good idea. It's because we are currently experiencing what happens, um, when transparency and accountability, uh, have not occurred. So yes, I'm happy to support the motion. Thank you. Okay. With that, then we will call the vote on new motion one. And that carries. Okay. On to new motion number two, move by Councillor Sanek, secated by Councillor Ssaan. Whereas the continued growth in Kingston has caused causing increased speeding and traffic on previously calm streets. Whereas there are a number of intersections that do not meet the current warrants for all way or three way stop signs. However, the intersections are problematic and cause grave concerns to the citizens who reside in these neighbourhoods as well as the drivers who must navigate them. Whereas it is important and essential that speeding and reckless driving with a neighbourhoods be curtailed and mitigated for the safety and peace of mind of residents and drivers. Therefore be resolved that a four - way stop being installed at the following intersections. Mona Drive at Woodbine Road, Drennan Street at Wilson Street, Regent Street at Coruther's Avenue. Weed Hill Street at Swanfield Street, Mack Street of Hellen Street. Williams Street at Wellington Street, Earl Street at Syddenham Street. And then a three - way stop sign be installed with the following intersections. Elmer Crescinet Clark Drive, Anderson Drive at Chadwick Drive, Watersideway at Summer Street, Watersideway, Biscain Street. Graceland Avenue and Lincoln Drive and Wheat Hill Street at Grayson Drive North. Councillor Sanek, you have the floor. Thank you, your worship. There are residents who have been asking for stop signs as some locations for many years. The province has removed speed enforcement cameras that were used to slow down traffic. So what are the other options? We know that Bullards don't work in all situations. If you have a street with a really narrow front yard, there's just not room to put, you know, to Stow Park on the Street, have a bullard, and then driveway. There's just not enough room. It makes the street really tight, dangerous for anyone writing a bike. So Bullards are not the answer. Plus also, they have to be removed in the wintertime. Then we have pedestrian crossings. There's the type D, that's the most common. They're the ones that you just wait there by the pedestrian Crossing, try to make eye contact with the drivers of the vehicles, and they'll give way and let you cross over. But as we get more of those pedestrian cross scenes out there, we've been hearing that the drivers are not all drivers are actually obeying those pedestrian D crossovers, which is really disappointing. So, so then what's left? So the tried and true stop signs that have been around, you know, since we've had cars on the road, um, I know that they require concrete, you know, to put into the ground and concrete is more expensive, you know, with inflation over the last many years. But they still work, they're effective. They slow the traffic down to a stop, and they allow illegal way for pedestrian to still cross over that intersection. And these are the streets that we're proposing. Thank you. Okay, thank you Councillor Sun. Thank you, worship, and through you, and thank you Councillor Sanic, to bring this motion. Uh, at this time I have a menement to present today's motion. And Mr. Clark or Madam Clunk has men on. Okay. Uh, sure. If we can, if I just see that amendment on the screen. Uh, okay. So I have an amendment, uh, so move by Councillor Assan to amend new motion number two. Uh, as follows in the first resolve clause by deleting bullet, wheat hills, number four wheat heel street at Swanfield Street, and renumbering the remaining bullets accordingly. In the second resolve clause by deleting bullet six, wheat hill street at Grayson Drive South. And then by adding the following is a third resolve clause that a pedestrian crossover be installed at We Dill Street at Swanfield Street and Wheat Hill Street at Grayson Drive South. Secondared by Deputy Mayor Bohm. Kid Councillor Sign, you can, you can speak. To. Thank you, Worship. The reason for this amendment after talking to the transportation and traffic department, um, we see, we recognise some technical issues on that street for still now. And the new measures, the recommended by the staff that I want to try that. And we want to hold that stop sign option for some other time if it's required. If we resolve the issue, with the recommendation by the staff, we'll be happy as well. That's all I want to say at this moment. But, uh, I mean, the stop sign is an answer for the traffic coming as well. But in some cases is not as well. But I will keep this option open for the future, but this time I want to go with the recommendation from the staff. Okay. Thank you. Deputy Marbel. Thank you. Worship and through you just to jump on my colleague's comments there. I think that's a great approach. Um, I did The Water Sideway in Biscayne Street have the pedestrian crossover. Unfortunately after monitoring it, it wasn't very successful. And the other concern with the two that I picked there, are there's parks right there. So the kids crossing. We tried The Pedestrian Crossover in a sense almost made things worse because the pedestrians anticipated the vehicle stopping. But the vehicles didn't stop just because of painted lines. So I guess to follow up on Councillo Sanic's comments, sometimes I agree we should try the simple solutions first. Sometimes the simple mitigation measures just or simply not functional. And that's why we get here. And I know this is something we all hear about. So it is nice to every now and then kind of, you know, get these solved. And sometimes you got to, you know, step right into the process, so to speak. But let's not do that too often. Thanks. Okay. Anybody else on the amendment. Only. Okay. So we will call the vote on the amendment. And that cures. Okay. So we're now back to the new motion number two as amended. Is there any further discussion? Councillor Ridge. Thank you, your worship and through you. I also have an amendment for this motion. Okay. If we can put that amendment up, please. Uh, okay. Move by Councillor Ridge. Second by Councillor Toso. That new motion number two be amended in the first resolve clause to add John Street and Patrick state as the eighth bullet point, uh, to read his follows. Therefore, if we resolve that a four - way stop being installed of the following intersections and then you just see the addition of number eight, John Street at Patrick Street. Councilloridge. Go ahead. Um, thank you, your worship. I intend to take up the entirety of my time on this amendment. I, no, it's just something that's been identified by a number of constituents as having traffic and visibility issues. So I just want to add it to the list. That's all. I hope people support my amendment. Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody else that wants to speak to this. Okay. We will call the vote on the amendment, please. And that carries. Okay. Council shapes. Thank you. I also have amendment for this motion, please. Is it. April 1st. Okay. If we can put up that amendment, please. Okay. The new motion number two, uh, be amended in the second resolve clause by deleting bullet number two, Anderson Drive at Chadwick Drive and renumbering the remaining boats accordingly. Let's move by Council Shaves and Second Edby Council Rasa. Cancer Shaves, you can speak to the amendment. Thank you. I won't take long. Um, since putting this recommendation forward, uh, speaking with transportation staff, been informed that a present Crosswalk is going to be installed just down the street. Which would basically nullify it because considering the distance. So I'd rather have the best at Crossing at this point in time. And I'm also further spoken with transportation, uh, staff in regards to basically a new form of travelling. We're bullards are narrow the street or a slowed out of vehicles. And I think that's a good option. I've been talking with a bit in a different location. So, um, I'm going to go with that route and pull this right now. So I would appreciate the sport. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else on the amendment. Okay. We'll call the vote, please. And. That carries. Councillor. Thank you. Your worship through you. I haven't amendment. I'm just joking. I don't have an amendment. Uh, question I have is how much is this casting us? Like all these stop signs. And multiple way stops. Do we have a ballpark figure of how much. Thank you. And through you, our program this year, we're making upgrades to about 12 locations and it's 550, 000 dollars. Oh, wow. 50. Okay. All right. Good to know for future ones. Uh, yeah. Thanks. Depreend the chair. No. No. But I recognise you. Yes, I will. So I was going to, I was going to hold my tongue on this. But I am perturbed. It seems that we just have a, my understanding or my impression is that this motion has been fed in perhaps Southern Counsel Senate. Were you consulting with district Councillors on potential stops on locations? Okay. They didn't qualify. Okay. I guess I appreciate that. I guess from my view as mayor, what I'm seeing is a number of different intersections without necessarily corresponding evidence or information with the whole context, understanding. And I appreciate that there are times where we do want to override staff policy or stuff recommendations. So I'm in no way suggesting that that's an issue. Um, there's a large number. And I'm just like, are we, are there others that we should be considering here? Like we have intersections all over the city. Uh, so. I think I'm going to defer to Council on this. But this shouldn't continue. I just think that there's got to be a better system than this. I think if, if the argument to be made that we want to put a stop sign where staff would not otherwise recommend it, then I think we should see those arguments and be able to weigh that out. What I don't want to see is that we start putting stop signs just because that's where some residents want them. Because then that will spread and everyone will know, okay, you just have to ask for stop signs. And then we're going to end up with stop signs like all over the place. And then you start to get too many stop signs and you know what will happen. Then people start running the stop signs because they suddenly go in locations that don't make sense. That's my rant for tonight. So take, take that under advisement. I will defer to accounts on this, but I'm going to ask that. We think about maybe a better process and approach for future. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, worship. And I returned the chair. Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak deputy mayor Bohm go ahead. Thank you, worship. And, uh, just to follow up your comments there, I think that is exactly what needs to happen. I think when we have processes where there's identified concerns in the community. And Councillors bring it forward to staff. And then staff review it and look at the modelling and go, well, yeah, there's an issue. But our hands are tied because of certain provincial regulations or it doesn't meet the threshold. Sometimes in certain areas, there could be an issue, but it just never really necessarily meets the threshold. So I do agree we need to maybe have a motion that looks at the overall policy of what would feed into this. And that I think we also have to limit this going forward because it can become the wild, wild west. And we are all at the whims and desires of our constituents. So for me in this instance and my particular two, this has been an issue that's existed for nine years that I've heard about. In those particular spots. And I waited and waited. I let the pedestrian crossovers. I, we tried other things. And it still persisted. And then another part got added down the way. And it's a very long winding road with no stop sign on it at all. So I didn't just come to this solution. You know, I was just like, oh, right there. There was a lot of thought and a lot of kind of information that built into this. So I take your point there, your worship. You really do have to be careful and kind of think through this. So I think this would be the last one that I would support in this format. And we need to come up with a better way forward. To create a better process that this feeds into. Thank you. Uh, okay. Thank you. Councillor Son, you've already spoken. Yes, but you had to speak to the new motion in order to put forward the amendment. So, um. The only person that can speak twice is cancerous sanic because she moved the motion. So Councilloc, you can speak last. Is there anybody else that has not spoken to the motion that wants to speak to it. Okay. Councillo Seneca, you have the last word. Yeah. Thank you, your worship. Um, I appreciate having the last words. I think a lot of this has to come with the planning of future subdivisions. I think that they have to, like the stop signs have to be built more in to keep traffic down. It's like slow it down, especially because we don't have many other options available to us. Um, like we just talked about, you know, like the speed enforcement cameras. I know some people hated them. Other people, they actually wanted them to have them on their street. That's not associated with a public school because they knew that it would slow cars down. So, um, but we, I don't know what we see at planning committee. It's not streets with stop signs at every cross. Um, but some cities do use them a lot. Prince Edward Drive in Octopaco. They have them all the way down. Every crossover street stop sign. Yes, it keeps traffic down. It might be an annoyance, but it really slows down traffic. Brampton uses them a lot too. Lambeth Crescent. There's not the warrants, but they have some, you know, the four way stop signs. He's a wood drive. I can give so many, um, examples. So, um, also too, in this motion, you know, uh, we don't specify the year. So we can spread it out. That's why a year is not actually in the motion. It's not saying, oh, these stop signs to be done in 2026. It can be spread out. And I know staff have to do stop signs according to the warrants from the MTO guidelines. But other municipalities, the city councillor does bring motions together stop sign. And we've done that a bit in the past. Maybe we need to do it individually more. But I know that when I did at Hudson Drive and Downing Street has been effective as far as I've heard to slow traffic down. And, um, it's made a difference in the neighbourhood and all the stop signs on Catwood's drive from a long time ago between Bayward's Drive and, um, Gardeners Road's Road. Been very effective to slow the cars down. So thank you. Okay. We will call the vote on new motion number two. And that carries. Okay. Uh, we have no other new motions. Are there any notices of motion. Okay. Sing none, Madam Clerk crosses for minutes, please. Move by deputy Mayor Bohm, seconded by Councillor Stephen. And the minutes of city council meeting 2026 10 held Tuesday, April 7th, 2026 be confirmed. Although, some favor. Opposed. And that's carried. Is there any other business. Madam Clerk calls for bylaws, please? Move by Councillor Glenn Second by Councillor McLaren that bylaw numbers one through four, seven, and six be given their first and second reading. All this in favor. Opposed. And that's carried. Move by Councillor Quinn segmented by Councillor McLaren that bylaw numbers two through five, seven, and six be given their third reading. All this in favor. Opposed. And that's carried. Motion to adjourn please. We buy Councillor Steven, seconded by Councillor Shaves. All those in favor. Opposed, and we're urgent.