►
Description
Heritage Kingston meeting from October 20, 2017. For the full meeting agenda visit https://goo.gl/4f4j8u
A
Good
morning,
everyone
it's
now
9:30
I'm
gonna
call
the
meeting
to
order
in
my
opening
rocks.
I
just
wanted
to
thank
all
of
the
members
who
attended
in
October,
beginning
of
October
for
the
scheduled
meeting
that
in
which
we
did
not
meet
quorum.
Those
of
you
that
did
attend.
Thank
you
also,
thank
you
to
dawn
for
being
fully
willing
to
chair
that
meeting.
A
So
we
need
to
approve
the
agenda.
That's
in
the
package,
it's
the
exact,
identical
agenda
as
that
October
Meade,
the
first
meeting
in
October
that
was
cancelled,
so
there's
nothing
been
added,
except
in
the
add-ins
you'll,
see
a
delegation
of
dr.
Bray
who
will
want
to
speak
to
the
committee
regarding
the
report
on
designations,
and
so
that
would
be
under
delegations.
Hopefully
he
arrives
in
time
so
you'll
see
we
need
a
mover
in
a
seconder
to
get
it
on
the
floor,
move
by
Paul.
Second,
by
dawn,
any
suggestions
on
the
printed
agenda.
B
A
There's
he's
talking
about
briefing
7b
grant
Heritage
bylaw
update
the
information
was
in
the
package
there.
The
briefing
is
to
talk
about
that
and
on
briefings.
The
kibbeh
members
are
permitted
to
ask
questions.
Detailed
questions.
There's
no
limit
on
that.
As
far
as
an
actionable
item
the
proceed
reality
is
as
follows:
the
it's
a
council
decision
to
make
a
change
to
the
grant
program
and
that's
I
presume
why
there's
no
debatable
item
on
the
agenda
related
to
this.
Unless
there's
one
yeah,
I
guess
the
mr.
A
A
At
this
point,
what
we
should
do
is
wait
till
it
comes
up
in
the
agenda
and
mr.
Newman
will
introduce
it,
and
all
questions
are
an
order.
So
the
questions
you're
asking
me
now
really
should
be.
It
would
be
better
addressed
by
him.
Now
he's
not
permitted
to
speak
during
the
agenda
setting.
So
a
vote
of
the
committee
is
not
required
on
an
item
which
is
an
information
report
or
briefing
to
the
to
the
committee.
A
A
B
A
He
declares
his
funerary
interest
when
he
arrived.
He
was
allowed
to
declare
at
that
time
anything
no
seeing
none
presentations,
no,
but
we
do
have
a
delegation,
and
here
he
comes
just
in
time.
This
is
dr.
Bray
and
he's
up
next
to
speak
to
us
regarding
the
designation
bylaws
in
the
package.
Please,
dr.
Bray
come
right
to
microphone,
you're,
just
you're
right
on
time,
where
we've
just
arrived
to
your
item
just
up
to
the
lectern
here
and.
A
D
I,
don't
know
whether
any
of
you
were
at
the
kc
bi
220
v
reunion.
A
few
weeks
ago
I
was
able
to
go.
I
was
performing
there.
One
of
the
things
that
really
came
through
to
me
was
the
strong
association
eval
use
of
that
property,
not
just
with
the
people
who
went
there,
but
with
the
community
at
large.
So
in
terms
of
designation
going
back
to
the
criteria
under
regulation,
906,
it's
more
than
just
the
building.
D
All
three
categories
are
covered
in
terms
of
the
evaluation
and
I
think
it's
important
to
think
of
it
beyond
architecture.
Yes,
it's
important
architectural
ii,
but
it's
also
important
in
terms
of
its
association
and
also
in
terms
of
its
contextual
value
as
part
of
an
institutional
precinct
embedded
in
the
downtown.
So
those
are
things
to
consider
the
other
thing
about
designation.
D
Is
that
and
I'm
often
asked
this
and
I'm
sure
you
are
too,
it
doesn't
freeze
things,
it's
a
form
of
change
management,
it's
a
way
of
the
community,
asserting
their
values
and
putting
those
in
play
for
anything
that
might
happen
to
the
property
in
the
future.
One
of
the
other
things
to
consider
about
that
property
is
that
it's
not
just
the
school
building,
there's
quite
a
bit
of
land
around
it.
D
So
the
designation
covers
the
entire
property
and
I
think
that's
important
too,
because
again
in
terms
of
any
kind
of
future
development,
there
is
an
opportunity
there
that
wouldn't
necessarily
directly
affect
the
building.
The
other
thing
to
remember
about
the
building
itself
is
it
as
an
evolved
structure.
D
There's
there
are
remnants
of
the
1890s
building
in
the
in
the
rear
wing,
and
then
you
get
progressive
iterations
in
the
20th
century,
culminating
in
the
1968
wing.
So
you've
got
what
we
often
find
in
heritage
buildings
and
evolved
structure.
Each
era
has
a
particular
hortence
and
it
tells
an
ongoing
story
of
education
in
this
community
and
also
the
way
in
which
that
building
responded
to
the
needs
of
the
time,
and
so
certainly
I
encourage
you
to
foster
the
designation
of
KC
bi
and
some
of
you
may
know.
D
I
was
the
parent
representative
during
the
so-called
PARCC
process,
which
was
what
the
school
board
ran
at
the
time
when
Sir
placing
school
property
was
being
discussed
so
I'm.
Well
aware
of
all
of
the
different
issues
involved,
I'm
also
well
aware
of
many
of
the
details
of
the
building
itself
and
the
property
itself,
so
I'm
not
going
to
take
more
of
your
time,
but
certainly
if
you
have
questions
about
the
property,
I'm
very
happy
to
answer
them
and
again,
thank
you
for
your
time.
I
encourage
you
to
move
this
designation
forward.
D
It's
it's
always
a
delicate
balance
when
you're
writing
a
statement
of
cultural
heritage,
value
or
interest
and
listing
heritage
attributes.
Certainly
in
an
ideal
world
I
would
have
listed
interior
attributes,
particularly
the
auditorium
practically
often,
it's
better
to
start
with
the
exterior
make
sure
that
that's
part
of
the
designation
and
then
in
depending
on
on
what
types
of
development
or
redevelopment
are
planned
for
the
property
in
the
future.
Then
the
interior
elements
become
components
of
it.
E
I'm
very
impressed
that
you
actually
acknowledge
that
there's
there's
more
than
just
the
building.
There
is
the
story
behind
the
building
in
the
use
of
it
as
a
school
in
education.
Coming
to
talk
to
us.
Are
you
concerned
that
that
story
may
be
lost
if
it's
not
designated
or
it
could
or
are
you
concerned
that
it
should
stay
within
the
education
realm
to
tell
that
story?
Well,.
D
So
yes,
I'm,
certainly
concerned
about
the
future
of
it
and
I
think
it's
important
that
it
remain
in
institutional
use.
The
Heritage
Act
doesn't
cover
land
use,
though
so
you're
working
within
the
Heritage
Act
now
I.
Think
designation
will
be
a
strong
message
to
support
institutional
use
as
a
continuing
use
on
that
property.
So,
yes,
it
will
have
an
effect,
but
the
Heritage
Act
doesn't
directly
deal
with
that.
Planning
Act
aspect.
A
I'd
like
to
ask
a
follow-up
question
on
that
aspect,
so
in
the
bylaw
so
schedule
a
on
page
55,
and
this
is
a
typical
structure.
You
have
an
introduction
description,
the
property,
a
statement
of
cultural
heritage,
Val
your
interest
and
then
a
cultural
heritage.
Attributes
which
are
listed
in
point
form.
Is
it
ever
appropriate
to
put
cultural
heritage
attributes
that
are
non-physical
such
as
the
stories,
the
famous
alumni
and
things
like
that
in
the
cult
inherited
attributes
list,
or
is
it
it
kind
of
moot?
D
I
think
the
the
nine
or
six
criteria
are
broad
enough
under
the
associational
value
category
that,
yes,
those
are
valid.
I
mean
the
the
perhaps
most
obvious
example
of
that
would
be
something
some
famous
event
happened
here.
They
you
know,
Confederation
started
in
this
building
that
kind
of
thing,
but
it
is
certainly
valid
to
list
those
and
I'm
trying
to
remember
the
the
wording.
D
I
don't
have
the
bio
law
in
front
of
me,
but
whether
you've
got
some
description
in
the
association
of
value
of
some
of
the
famous
people,
for
example,
who
have
come
from
KC
VI,
some
of
the
again
some
of
the
community
associations.
It
would
be
important
for
the
history
of
Kingston,
so
yes,
it's
a
broad
category,
associational
Valley,
Historical,
Association
'value
and
yes,
you
can
put
things
like
that
in
it,
the
other.
Just
to
add
to
that
one
of
the
other
questions
I've
been
asked
in
terms
of
the
future
of
the
building.
D
What
about
things
that
aren't
nailed
down
some
of
the
memorabilia
sand,
the
artifacts,
the
Heritage
Jack,
doesn't
really
give
you
a
lot
of
guidance
on
those
and
I.
Think
that's
almost
a
separate
conversation
about
how
those
are
conserved,
where
they're
conserved
of,
of
course,
but
also
in
what
way,
and
so
designation
of
the
property
doesn't
necessarily
cover
goods
and
chattels.
If
you
will
and
and
that's
really
a
an
issue
with
the
act,
so
we're
not
going
to
solve
that
today,
but
I
just
want
to
do
two
alert.
A
The
the
I
guess
the
other
way
task
question
is
in
if,
if
we
go
ahead
and
designate
in
the
council
passes
the
bylaw,
and
this
would
apply
to
the
internal
contents,
I
like
to
remember
billion,
but
also
I,
believe
to
the
things
like
the
auditorium,
because
in
the
Heritage
permit
process
for
alterations,
even
though
it's
not
listed
in
the
Heritage
absolutes
in
the
bylaw,
the
Heritage
Committee
will
consider
the
entire
context
of
the
story
in
the
decision
to
grant
a
permit.
Is
that
correct?
Yes,.
D
I
mean
the
the
committee
and
staff
and
council
would
consider
the
property
holistically
if
it
went
to
the
Ontario,
Municipal,
Court
and-
and
you
were
having
to
describe
you-
were
having
to
focus
on
the
attributes
that
could
there
could
be
an
issue
if
someone
wanted
to
completely
gut
the
interior
and
just
leave
the
facade.
If
the
facade
elements
are
the
only
things
that
are
actually
listed
as
attributes,
you
could
be
in
a
bit
of
hot
water
there.
So,
yes,
it's
it's.
A
tough
decision,
I
mean
again
as
I
say
in
an
ideal
world.
D
F
Thank
you,
dr.
grey
good
to
see
it.
I
just
wondered
if
this
is
also
an
issue
that
is
subject
to
some
of
the
other
designated
properties,
specifically
religious
sites,
and
that
site
is
very
significant,
but
but
but
the
physical
matter.
The
attributes
that
we
that
the
by
law
describes
may
or
may
not
actually
convey
the
significance
of
the
site.
So
much,
and
can
you
suggest
maybe
that
wording
be
added
in
the
attribute
somehow
to
phrase
the
significance
of
the
site
so
that
it
can
be
considered
as
an
attribute
that
may
be
physical?
G
D
D
D
A
D
Don't
know
exactly
my
feeling
would
be
if
it
was
actually
a
fresco,
for
example,
integral
to
the
wall.
Then
it
would
be
part
of
the
of
the
of
the
building.
If
it's
something
that
can
be
removed
and
most
plaques
I
believe
can
be
detached
from
a
wall
surface,
then
it
becomes
a
channel
and
would
be
part
of
the
disposition
of
all
of
the
movable
objects.
So
it
wouldn't
be
part
of
the
designation.
That's
my
understanding
of
it.
It's
again,
it's
a
a
gray
area
in
the
designation
in
the
in
the
legislation.
A
A
I
So
when
I
was
first
gonna
come
here,
I
was
gonna.
Talk
to
you
all
about
hey,
we've
got
a
final
talking
circle
and
it's
the
last
opportunity
for
members
of
this
group
or
others
that
you're
in
connection
with
in
the
community,
to
think
about
how
you
can
get
involved
in
the
engage
for
change
project
in
this
first
phase
of
its
iteration,
and
that
was
the
ten
talking
circles.
I
So
you've
seen
this
before
it's
been
a
while,
perhaps
for
some,
this
was
the
structure
of
the
engage
for
change.
First
year
of
work,
we
were
working
on
ten
talking
circles
with
a
community
partner.
Three
things
consulting
the
idea
was
to
generate
action
items
to
draft
a
protocol
for
the
City
of
Kingston
to
adopt
in
early
eighteen
via
council,
a
protocol.
Then
that
would
help
us
to
understand
how
we
engage
with
the
indigenous
community
in
city,
business
and
city
matters
in
a
more
formal
way.
I
We
also
had
the
school
programming,
so
we
worked
with
the
teachers
from
the
local
district
school
boards
for
public
engagement.
Now
that
we've
entered
a
new
school
cycle,
we
did
engage
almost
300
children
in
the
sort
of
1617
school
year
and
we're
already
seeing
how
that
has
kind
of
snowballed
into
the
next
year,
and
this
isn't
just
our
work,
but
again
it's
about
how
are
the
small
things
that
we
initiate
kind
of
rolling
out
and
affecting
larger
change.
I
So
we
know
now
that
many
teachers
in
the
district
are
actually
engaging
in
reconciliation
projects
as
part
of
their
core
curriculum,
and
this
is
a
mandate
that's
coming
through
the
education
processes,
but
one
that
we've
been
able
to
work
with
those
teachers
about
drafting
curriculum.
We're
also
now
in
a
position
where
we
have
things
like
public
performances
and
digital
stories.
So
at
the
Grand
fatty
legs,
which
is
a
story
of
residential
schooling,
that's
been
brought
to
the
stage
and
has
an
education
component.
I
We
have
over
I
believe
right
now
we
have
about
1,200
students
coming
to
see
that
performance
and
engage
in
that
as
part
of
their
learning
exercises.
We
have
other
things
happening
as
well,
of
course,
council.
The
idea
here
is
that
we
were
to
bring
and
adopt
that
protocol
through
council
and
this
as
necessary
in
this
process,
is
shifting,
as
we
have
noticed
and
gotten
feedback
through
the
engage
for
change
process.
So
we
thought
naively,
as
we
always
begin,
big
things,
I
think
with
a
degree
of
naivete
but
a
passion.
I
I
The
work
that's
happening
at
the
third
Crossing
is,
from
our
perspective,
in
a
legal
parlance
really
about
nation
to
nation
conversation.
So
we
have
indigenous
community
desire
on
a
local
level
from
our
local
Kingstonian
residence,
but
we
also
are
now
increasingly
and
dialogue
with
what
we
would
call
this
nation
to
nation,
and
so
all
of
these
things
have
started
to
really
start
to
move
and
that's
great,
but
it
has
left
us
kind
of
thinking
about
what
are
the
appropriate
next
steps
for
the
engage
for
change
process.
This
is
the
blog.
I
If
you
haven't
visited
it,
I
would
encourage
you
to
go
and
see
this.
This
is
the
engage
for
change
blog.
It's
hosted
on
the
history
and
innovation
website
of
the
city
of
Kingston.
This
was
a
collaboration
effort
with
members
of
our
local
indigenous
population
to
generate
content,
and
we've
actually
received
feedback
where
community
members
from
all
walks
of
life
on
all
different
stages
of
their
own
journeys
had
said
to
us.
You
know:
some
of
the
information
that's
been
shared
here
has
been
quite
surprising
for
them.
I
So,
for
example,
one
blog
post
was
about
is
reconciliation
even
possible
and
they
thought
oh,
that
doesn't
sound
like
what
the
city
should
be
saying.
Like
you
be
questioning
this
you're
a
municipality,
you
should
be
certain
of
the
the
kind
of
path
we're
taking,
but
this
has
been
a
really
impressive
engagement
tool
from
my
perspective,
because
we're
getting
community
members
that
we
usually
don't
reach,
who
are
reaching
back
and
saying
I,
don't
usually
trust
the
municipal
government
and
I.
I
Don't
think
that
the
City
of
Kingston
is
thinking
about
my
needs
and
now
they're
saying:
okay,
I'm
still
a
little
unsure,
but
I
recognize
you're.
Trying
to
do
something-
and
maybe
I
do
want
to
have
a
seat
at
that
table
and
I
do
want
to
be
a
part
of
that
conversation
in
a
way
that
perhaps
I
didn't
feel
empowered
to
do
so
in
the
past.
This
is
just
an
image
from,
of
course,
City
Hall.
I
What
does
it
look
like
for
you
as
a
part
of
that
youth
generation
of
Kingston,
and
how
can
we
make
changes
and
their
ideas
and
the
things
they
brought
to
the
table
were
incredibly
deep,
very
heartfelt
and
actually
incredibly
well
thought
out,
and
this
for
us
is
a
real
demonstration
about
how
much
we
need
to
be
investing
in
kind
of
that
youth
conversation
and
how
we
need
to
get
young
voices
into
this
conversation
to
help
us
define
what
their
future
is.
Gonna,
look
like
in
this
city
and
the
protocols
that
we
develop
therein.
I
Of
course,
talking
circles
we
have
concluded
now
10:00
talking
circles.
They
averaged
about
30
attendance
at
each,
so
in
total
we
reached
out
to
about
3,300.
Excuse
me
various
members
of
the
Kingston
population,
from
all
walks
of
life,
to
have
a
conversation
about
next
steps
in
reconciliation
and
education,
and
so
every
group
was
different.
Every
time
we
met,
we
heard
different
things.
I
I
What
the
next
steps
are.
I
also
wanted
to
highlight
that
we
are
in
conversation
with
other
individuals,
both
within
the
corporation
and
without
the
mayor
has
expressed
interest
in
fostering
relationships.
There
have
been
other
community
meetings
happening,
so
there
are
a
lot
of
initiatives
happening
and
we're
really
working
to
think
about
how
to
bring
those
together.
I
would
welcome
conversation
with
any,
and
all
of
you
about
this
I.
Don't
know
what
the
formalities
of
our
interaction
right
now
or
ultimately
can't
allow.
I
But
if,
if
it
permits
you
know,
I
would
love
to
receive
feedback
or
information
from
you
all.
You
should
want
to
send
me
an
email
or
reach
out
to
talk
about
things
that
you
might
be
thinking,
ways
that
we
can
engage
with
you
I
mean
I,
think
this
group,
even
when
we
think
about
heritage
designations
for
built
property,
we're
talking
about
those
intangible
elements
and
the
stories
they
tell,
and
things
like
this
ultimately
in
the
lens
of
engage
for
change.
For
me,
this
always
comes
back
to
an
act
of
decolonization.
I
So
you
know
City
Hall
is
a
colonial
space
in
some
ways
needs
to
bend
to
the
fact
that
right
now
we
need
to
think
about
those
decolonization
efforts
and
how
we
bring
a
space
here
that
is
safe
and
welcoming
and
represents
all
of
Kingston
and
I.
Think
we're
taking
those
steps
complicated
by
historic
designations
and
national
historic
sites,
but
I,
don't
think
we
should
see
those
as
bindings.
I
E
We
actually
have
a
legal
obligation
through
the
Truth
and
Reconciliation
Commission
and
there's
particular
three
action
items
there
that
this
municipality
has
to
look
at,
particularly
so
I
think
it's
important
that
this
committee
look
at
as
a
as
our
responsibility
to
take
this
important,
not
just
because
it's
a
feel-good
right
thing
to
do
right
now,
but
is
it's
a
legal
obligation?
We
have
it's
also
an
obligation
to
our
citizens,
and
it's
not
this.
E
The
indigenous
community
and
we're
very
fractured
in
the
digits
community
and
you
think,
heritage
Kingston-
has
its
differences,
we're
very
fractured
and
we're
from
all
different
walks
of
lives.
All
different
communities,
different
social
economic
issues,
but
one
of
the
things
is,
is
that
I
think
this
indigenous
community
is
in
line
with
the
citizens
saying
it's
time
to
do
this.
E
I
do
want
to
acknowledge
that
that
this
is
great
work
to
be
done,
but
it's
not
the
end
and
I
look
forward
to
see
what
comes
out
of
this
I
look
forward
to
I,
encourage
the
city
to
look
out
of
the
box,
because
the
corporation
is
an
institution
but
I
think
through
this
engage
for
change.
Even
the
one
or
two
that
I
attended.
I
was
only
allowed
to
attend
one
officially,
but
the
two
that
I
was
sort
of
involved
with
it
wasn't
set
in
stone
in
a
box,
institutionalized
and
I.
E
Think
the
city
needs
to
look
at
that
more
think
out
of
the
box,
not
think
within
itself
and
how
things
get
done,
because
I
think
the
community
citizens
at
times
looks
at
the
corporation
as
an
institution
and
they
don't
know
how
to
navigate
it.
So
maybe
it's
time
to
think
differently
of
how
to
navigate
this.
This
issue
and
again
it's
it's
our
responsibility.
So
the
members
here
sitting
here
wondering
why
we're
having
this
and
where
does
it
fit
within
heritage
Kingston,
there's
a
lot
of
reasons.
Why
so.
K
K
So
the
idea
of
engaged
for
change
the
circles
to
continue
probably
with
different
people,
leading
because
as
Paul
mentioned,
there
are
many
groups
in
the
city.
There
are
many
indigenous
groups,
so
I
think
you
know
the
structure
could
be
run
by
different
people,
putting
it
that
way
and
I'm
not
sure
who
the
lead
should
be
each
time
in
terms
of
finance
and
decision
making,
but
they
were.
It
was
a
fabulous
experience
and
something
that
yes
I,
I
noted
and
and
I'm,
seeing
with
people
just
as
they
whole
again.
K
The
city
structure
has
changed
so
much
in
the
last
ten
years
in
terms
of
history
and
culture,
and
this
is
another
piece
that
never
was
even
on
the
wavelength
of
us
of
a
city
organization.
You
know
in
Kingston
as
a
city
and
there's
an
interest
in
historical
records
of
this
of
this
city
and
I
know.
There's
been
work
done
through
Queens,
but
I
think
that's
one.
K
The
things
that
we're
gonna
feed
into
the
city,
more
probably
through
the
Heritage
Resource
Center
I've
chatted
with
Ryan
and
I'm
planning
to
find
out
more
about
the
archeological
results
when
people
do
digs
in
Kingston,
that's
not
sort
of
public
information,
but
there
I'm
sure
there's
a
wealth
of
information
about
the
city
and
and
how
it
grew
how
it
was
created.
You
know,
500
years
ago
the
artifacts
found
and
I
think
certainly
as
a
councillor
I'm
going
to
encourage
that
that
continue.
K
That
process
continue
of
information
being
gathered
by
the
city
for
availability
to
the
public,
because,
certainly,
as
we
all
know,
the
first
thing
you
need
to
know
is
is
have
some
knowledge
of
what
went
on,
not
conjecture,
but
not
what
your
next
door
neighbor
said
about
what
dad
said
six
months
or
six
sixty
years
ago,
but
some
actual
knowledge
that
we
can
build
on
as
we
continue
this
process.
So
thanks
for
that,
and
as
I
say,
my
boat
engage
for
change
and
that
sort
of
process
continue
absolutely
students
being
involved.
K
L
Just
a
question
and
a
suggestion,
I
was
just
wondering
if
you've
made
any
connections
with
Queens
students
at
Queens
like,
for
instance,
there's
the
indigenous
student
council
I
believe
with
various
they
I
mean
there's
so
many
very
interesting
initiatives
how
it
was
in
the
Queens
community,
led
by
students
and
I,
think
they
could
be
real
youth
leaders.
You
know
process
like
this
as
well.
I'd
be
my
recommendation.
L
I
Yeah
I
know
I
think
that's
great
Jamie
and
it's
a
good
suggestion.
We
did
reach
out
with
the
Queens
community
groups
to
sponsor
for
directions
was
involved
in
one
of
the
talking
circles
and
certainly
we're
hoping
to
have
an
ongoing
dialogue
with
them.
The
students
are
certainly
hungry,
I
think
to
participate
and
contribute
in
those
ways,
and
that's
great
and
I
think
right
now.
I
In
this
moment
we
have
a
great
opportunity,
like
you
said,
to
think
about
how
do
we
kind
of
roll
this
out
and
empower
it
through
these
different
groups
for
sure
so,
I
point
well-taken,
and
certainly
when
we're
working
to
address
I
just
wanted
to
loop
back
quickly
to
councilor
shell,
the
funding
was
eighty-three
thousand
was
received
from
Canadian
Heritage,
which
largely
paid
for
the
talking
circles
and
the
work
that
we
did
in
this
year.
Council
did
approve
as
part
of
sesquicentennial
celebrations,
a
hundred
thousand
in
support
of
the
engage
for
change
initiative.
I
We
were
very
fortunate
and
that
we
were
able
to
offset
some
of
that
spending
through
that
canadian
heritage
receipt
and
so
right
now
we're
in
conversation
about
next
phase.
You
know
there
is
money
earmarked
to
support
this,
but
how
do
we
then
report
back
to
council
about
the
spending
we've
made,
but
also,
then
the
intention
is
moving
forward
about
how
to
most
effectively
kind
of
roll
that
out
so
I
feel
good
that
right
now
we
still
are
in
a
good
position
to
be
able
to
do
this
work
with
what
we
were
originally
allocated,
but
I.
I
Think
right.
Now
is
the
time
for
these
updates
and
sort
of
this
next
directions.
Conversation
to
be
happening.
I
also
did
just
want
to
add
that
the
Ministry
of
Tourism
culture
and
sport
are
actually
engaging
in
a
redefinition
of
where
archaeological
materials
will
ultimately
end
up
being
housed
and
we've
been
invited
into
that
dialogue.
I
There
is
no
promise
for
what
that's
going
to
look
like
at
the
end
of
the
day,
but
actually
to
Paul's
earlier
point:
TRC
recommendation
57
through
61,
and
if
you
want
to
quote
me,
really
do
impact
municipalities
in
their
relationship
both
to
museum
collections
and
archaeological
materials.
So
there's
a
lot
of
pieces
here,
both
legislative
municipal
ii,
funded
and
then
kind
of
community
engagement
exercises.
So
thank
all
three
of
you
for
your
your
input.
A
A
What
is
it
that
we
are
proposing
that
be
changed
and
I
think
a
lot
of
people
take
it
with
the
reconciliation
federal
initiative
kind
of
for
granted?
They
don't
ever
stop
and
think
what
they're
actually
suggesting
the
change
that
we're
talking
about
is
decolonization,
as
you
mentioned,
and
what
does
that
mean?
That
means
that
all
of
the
assumptions
that
our
culture
is
based
on
left
out
a
very
important
aspect,
and
that
is
respect
for
the
origins
of
the
original
habitants
of
this
land.
A
That
was
the
part
that
was
easy
to
achieve,
but
the
protocol
is
putting
the
cart
before
the
horse
if
the
general
population
has
not
yet
come
to
the
conclusion
that
the
change
is
absolutely
essential
because
what
you
get
instead-
and
this
is
happening
at
the
federal
level
over
the
place-
you
get
fake
change.
You
get
an
appearance
of
acknowledgement,
you
get
a
lot
of
talk
and
you
don't
get
any
real
change.
That
happens
on
other
things
at
the
federal
level,
but
it
especially
have
is
happening
on
this
file,
not
by
everybody.
A
So
if
that
never
stops,
we
will
never
finish
this
file,
and
so
I
would
say
that,
as
you
engage
in
this
process,
you
you
make
sure
you
remind
everyone
that
we
have
a
reputation
of
saying
things
and
they'll
following
up
and
we
as
a
co
meal
culture
and
that's
the
thing
that
needs
to
change.
That's
my
comment.
Thank
you.
I
F
J
I
I
just
wanted
to
say
thank
you
Sherman
for
sharing
that
just
yesterday.
I
just
want
to
share
that.
You
know.
Bck
is
on
site
this
week
beyond
classrooms.
Kingston
talking
about
local
government
and
one
of
the
initiatives
we've
been
focusing
on
is
diversity
representation
on
council
on
committees,
in
all
of
the
work
that
we
do
in
engagement
and
that's
not
just
about
the
indigenous
community.
That's
about
diversity
in
all
of
its
facets
and
we
I
just
wanted
to
share,
because
I
think
there's
always
an
importance
to
relocate
ourselves
in
a
situation
of
hope.
I
We
had
really
good
conversations
yesterday
with
members
from
iske
and
Kipp,
and
we
had
lots
of
engagement
around.
How
can
people
get
involved
in
committee
structures
and
opening
government
in
all
of
its
facets
to
the
diversity
that's
represented
in
our
population
and
absolutely
about
locating
yourself
in
a
field
of
privilege,
but
we
also
can
locate
ourselves
as
allies
and
supporters
of
those
initiatives,
so
Thank,
You,
Sherman,
I,
think
it's.
A
Big
which
know
when
our
next
item
is
another
briefing
from
McKenzie
on
the
Heritage,
Grant,
bylaw,
update
and
I-
think
be
an
introduction
from
mr.
Newman
and
again
as
we
just
had
with
this
engage
for
change
item,
it
can
be
a
bit
of
a
discussion
even
if
there's
no
vote
attached
to
the
item.
So
you
want
to
go
first.
H
Thank
You
mr.
chair
I,
guess
what
I'll
say
is
McKenzie
is
gonna,
give
a
briefing
on
the
proposed
changes
to
the
Heritage
Grant
violence
and
we've
been
working
on
for
the
past
six
to
eight
months.
Maybe
a
bit
longer
and
we
have
had
an
open
house
and
I.
Think
McKenzie
will
touch
on
the
the
efforts
to
engage
the
public
that
we've
undertaken
to
date,
but
today
we're
presenting
the
substantial
changes
to
the
bylaw.
H
Maybe
what
we
would
do
is
consider
presenting
to
council
that
in
the
first
year
of
the
administration
of
this
program,
perhaps
the
window
was
extended
a
month
or
two
recognizing
when
the
bylaw
may
be
in
full
force
and
effect.
So
today
we're
looking
for
feedback,
we're
gonna
receive
the
feedback.
Take
it
back
digest
it,
try
to
finalize
the
bylaw
so
that
we
can
bring
it
back
potentially
for
our
next
meeting,
but
as
I
say,
we'll
see
what
the
comments
have
and
whether
or
not
it's
it's
reasonable.
A
H
A
So
if
you
understand
members,
that
means
today
is
like
the
preliminary,
like
pre
consultation.
If
you
wish,
with
the
briefing
and
we
are,
we
are,
comments
will
be
received,
but
they'll
be
in
the
form
of
questions
after
the
briefing
and
then
the
actionable
item
will
be
when
it
comes
back
to
us
before
the
end
of
the
year.
Hopefully,
okay,
very
clear,
thank
you
and
that
kind
of
answers.
Don's
question
from
right
here:
go
ahead.
M
M
So
just
this
just
to
start
the
beep,
the
purpose
of
the
update,
the
intent
behind
this
the
project,
the
Heritage
Grant
Bravo,
was
established
in
2005
with
only
two
amendments,
since
its
establishment
and
the
last
being
in
2007,
which
was
ten
years
ago,
so
that
was
a
major
driver
for
the
update.
Secondly,
as
you
well
know,
councils
made
a
significant
commitment
to
designation
we're
actively
designating
new
properties,
pretty
well
monthly.
There's
nine
new
properties
being
proposed
today
on
the
agenda,
so
with
the
increase
in
the
increasing
designations,
we're
anticipating,
also
an
increase
in
grant
applications.
M
So
this
update
has
tried
to
consider
how
we
would
deal
with
that
that
influx
and
then
thirdly,
just
kind
of
general
cleaning
up
with
the
bylaws
you
can
imagine
there
were
references
to
programs
that
no
longer
exist.
Some
definitions,
for
instance,
we've
added
examples
of
eligible
and
ineligible
work,
just
to
try
to
communicate
the
intent
of
the
program
a
little
bit
better
so
that
we
could
administer
the
more
successfully.
M
M
We
also
did
a
public
survey
in
the
spring
to
ask
for
feedback
from
the
public
to
see
how
they
wanted
the
program
to
function.
What
was
working
what's
not
and
then,
based
on
that,
we
put
together
a
draft
which
we
brought
to
the
Heritage
working
group
and
then
that
that
generated
a
good
discussion,
which
we
made
some
tweaks
and
brought
a
revised
draft
to
a
public
open
house
in
August.
M
So
we,
but
we've
done
quite
a
bit
of
public
engagement
so
far
and
and
based
on
the
feedback
we
received
in
August.
We've
considered
those
comments
in
this.
This
last
version
of
the
draft,
which
is
currently
available
online
and
today,
was
originally
intended
to
be
the
last
day
for
comments
from
the
public,
so
just
a
quick
overview
for
comparison.
The
way
the
bylaw
works
right
now,
the
program
works,
applications
for
heritage
for
eligible
properties
for
eligible
work
are
received,
starting
in
March
and
eligible
properties
can
receive
50%
of
the
project
cost
up
to
$2000.
M
Those
applications
have
to
be
tied
to
a
heritage
permit
and
they
must
be
submitted
together
and
then
grants
all
the
grant.
Applications
are
reviewed
by
by
this
committee.
So
the
major
changes
that
we're
proposing
we're
proposing
an
increase
of
the
amount
of
funding
per
grant
up
to
$5,000
from
the
the
current
two
we're
proposing
to
limit
certain
types
of
projects
for
replacement
of
asphalt,
shingles
cleaning
of
masonry,
the
replacement
of
aluminum
eavestroughs.
That
would
only
be
eligible
for
50%
up
to
$2,500
and
and
just
to
draw
the
community's
attention.
M
So
the
way
the
program
works
now
the
applications
have
to
be
submitted
together,
we're
proposing
that
permits
could
have
been
approved
previously
within
the
last
twelve
months.
So
this
is
to
kind
of
capture
situations
where
perhaps
an
emergency
repair
was
done
or
funding
had
been
given
out
exhausted
and
an
applicant
wasn't
eligible
to
receive
funding,
and
then
thirdly,
this
is
probably
the
biggest
change
is
to
receive
all
grant
applications
at
the
beginning
of
the
year,
starting
January
1st,
until
the
last
business
day
of
March
to
assess
the
proposals
against
each
other.
M
M
So,
as
mr.
Newman
mentioned,
we're
taking
comments
on
from
the
public
online
until
today
and
then
hoping
to
bring
a
recommendation
to
the
next
heritage,
Kingston
meeting
in
November
in
hopes
of
getting
the
project
the
program
in
place
for
for
the
new
year,
so
that
was
kind
of
a
high
level
overview
happy
to
have
a
discussion
this
morning
and
and
receive
your
comments
just
so.
M
C
Think
that
I
mean
staff
I,
think
after
you
really
congratulate
it
for
increasing
the
number
of
designated
properties
and
continuing
to
do
that.
One
of
the
issues
that
arises
for
me
in
that
context
is
given
what
this
proposal
seeks
to
do,
that
we
are
increasing
the
fund
from
thirty
six
thousand
to
fifty
thousand
and
we
are
doubling
the
the
the
limit
more
than
doubling
the
limit
from
two
to
five
thousand.
So,
in
fact,
what
we're
doing
is
we
have
a
larger
number
of
potential
applicants.
C
Grants
to
to
give
out
and
we're
proposing
to
reduce
that
to
ten,
which
you
know
I
mean
on
one
side
I
guess
you
can
say
that
that's
good,
you
increase
the
competition
I.
Think
it's
going
to
put
some
people
off
I!
Think
that
when
you
know
the
number,
when
people
see
that
there
are
a
10
possible
grants
out
there
that
there's
I,
probably
you
know
I'm
not
going
to
bother
doing
this,
and-
and
so
you
know,
it
seems
to
me
that
a
more.
C
E
E
$2,000
is
a
does
that
cover
usually
half
of
most
of
them,
or
is
that
not
enough
and
that
the
other
thing
is
you're
talking
about
asphalt,
shingles,
clean
mess
and
replace
aluminum
Eve
troughs
what
heritage
value
does
those
have
to
a
heritage
building
and
if
they
don't
have
any
heritage
value?
Why
are
we
covering
that
with
in
a
heritage
grant,
because
then
it
depletes
that
even
that
smaller
amount
that
and
I
do
grieve,
you
run
a
designate
more
you're
gonna
have
a
potential
of
more
applicants.
L
Think
you
can
see
probably
knows
what
I'm
going
to
I
say.
First
of
all,
I
like
to
say,
I
think
this
is
great
the
changes
and
it
really
demonstrates
a
sincere
you
know:
interest
and
dedication
to
protecting
heritage,
build
heritage
in
Kingston.
However,
I
was
I
think,
particularly
in
light
of
these
changes.
L
The
grant
program
could
be
further
strengthened
by
differentiating
between
types
of
applicants
for
primarily
individual
community
members
who
privately
owned
a
house
and
as
the
house
they
live
in
and
as
a
way
to
mitigate
they
apply
to
this
grant
as
a
way
to
mitigate
their
personal
cost
versus
yeah.
You
know
you
agreed
to
in
terms
of
private
businesses,
who
would
be
using
the
grant
to
mitigate
costs
or
essentially
their
profit
margins
and
I
know.
The
argument
is
that
they're
in
a
heritage
building
that
building
needs
to
be
protected
and
I
agree
with
that.
L
However,
I
do
think,
there's
an
optic
issue
here,
as
well
as
a
point
of
principle
being
that
you
know
proceed.
Ostensibly
it
can
be
perceived
that
the
City
of
Kingston
is
prepared
to
use
public
funds
to
sit.
You
know
to
support
a
profit
margin
of
a
business,
whereas
I
would
suggest
I
mean
my
recommendation,
perhaps
not
would
be
to
say
they
can't
apply,
but
give
them
a
slightly
different
application,
and
perhaps
a
different
monetary
amount
that
they
are
allowed
to
access.
I,
think
the
focus
should
be
on
supporting
individual
residents
of
Kingston.
B
There
are
a
lot
of
difficult
issues
and
I'm
sure
nobody
will
be
entirely
satisfied
with
the
procedures
so
but
I
I
have
well
I
do
have
some
concerns,
as
almost
everybody
does
so
I'll
state
them
here
and
we
may
discuss
them
a
bit
more
later.
I
thought
it
would
be
well
I,
I
kind
of
regret
that
the
committee
hasn't
already
got
the
draft
by
law
in
their
hands.
They
could
look
at
the
details,
so
I
did
copy
my
own
or
download
my
own
and
so
I
have
a
look
through
that
and
some
questions.
B
A
couple
of
questions
come
up.
One
of
them
is
actually
up
on
the
screen.
Why
do
you
say
asphalt?
Shingles
rather
than
roofing
and
why'd,
you
say:
aluminum
eavestroughs
rather
than
eavestroughs
I
mean
there's,
there's
lots
of
galvanized
metal
eavestroughs
that
need
replacing
as
well
as
living
windows.
Actually
aluminum
eavesdrops
actually
lasts
a
lot
longer
than
other
ones,
so
I'm
the
little
puzzled
by
the
wording
there
and
and
what
suggests
of
the
kind
of
change
that
I
mentioned.
B
So
so
my
understanding
is,
is
that
if
heritage
attribute
is
in,
you
know
decaying
or
something
like
that
and
in
some
respects
the
property
or
the
person
isn't
eligible
to
apply
for
a
heritage
grant.
The
director
may
use
their
discretion
to
something
like
that.
So
that's
my
question
there,
the
other,
my
one
other
comment
is
house
knew
not
was
it
not
we'll
see,
sort
of
mechanics
which
I
on
the
whole
I
think
they're
pretty
good?
You
know,
but
I
realize
not
everybody
likes
them,
but
I'm
concerned
about
the
procedure
and
not
the
new
procedures.
B
A
Thank
You
Donna,
maybe
I'll,
go
next.
I
have
a
few
points
regarding
what
Don
just
said,
what
kind
of
backwards.
So
on
the
on
the
point
of
removing
the
oversight
of
the
committee
or
Council
there's
another
possibility
for
me
for
me:
I
back
up
even
further
and
say
that
the
problem
with
the
model
isn't
in
the
structure
but
in
the
removal
of
any
civilian
input
or
residents
input.
So,
for
example,
to
contrast
it
with
a
different
grants
program
the
arts
funding
grant
program
which
has
it's
a
it's.
A
A
Obviously,
that
place
is
a
very
high
priority
on
input
from
the
public.
In
fact,
the
decisions
are
made
by
members
of
the
public.
So
in
this
model,
its
decisions
are
made
by
members
of
staff,
and
perhaps
the
professional
staff
need
to
be
the
ones
paying
the
decisions
they're,
the
only
ones
with
the
full
big-picture
knowledge
of
of
how
it
all
fits
in,
but
there
should
still
be
input
at
either
at
a
working
group
level
or
at
the
committee
or
council
level,
because
committee
and
council
are
also
made
up
of
members
of
the
public.
A
So
so,
in
other
words,
I
would
strongly
recommend
against
having
a
process,
that's
100%,
handled
by
staff
formally,
because
then
you
miss
all
of
you
miss
all
the
public
perception
pieces
and
and
things
that
will
generate
a
backlash.
You
won't
necessarily
have
access
to
that
information
in
a
timely
manner,
if
you're
doing
it
all
internally.
A
Regarding
the
deadline
so
mark
the
proposed
window
so
started
in
January
to
March
and
then,
if
the,
if
not
enough
applications
are
put
in
for
the
50,000,
then
you're
saying
then
it's
first-come,
first-serve
sort
of
like
the
old
way
I
would
say,
consider
a
third
option
which
would
be,
if
you
don't
have
the
50,000
applied
for
by
the
end
of
the
window.
Extending
the
deadline
that
happens
often
with
grant
applications
so
extend
the
deadline
until
you
do
have
at
least
enough,
so
that
you
can
do
the
comparative
process.
A
A
If
you
don't
get
enough
applications,
I
would
suggest,
extend
the
deadline
until
you
do,
and
and
and
obviously
within
reason,
because
you
still
have
to
make
the
decisions
in
a
County
or
so
you
can't
extend
it
forever,
but
I
would
I
would
suggest
that
as
a
solution
and
then
the
third
point
I
have
is
what
Jamie
mentioned
about
private
versus
commercial,
so
she's
suggesting
a
two-tiered
system.
It's
more
complicated,
unfortunately,
but
I
would
say.
I
would
guess
that
her
position
enjoys
the
support
of
a
majority
of
members
of
the
public.
A
It's
in
the
basement,
I
currently
rent
that
as
well
there's
two
units
above
one
large
one,
small,
we'll
turn
it
by
queen
students.
At
the
moment.
All
of
this
rent
goes
my
landlord.
It's
residential
space,
the
landlord
isn't
making
that
much
money,
especially
if
he's
doing
renovations
to
the
heritage
building,
which
is
from
1850.
If
I
was
to
buy
the
building,
I
wouldn't
be
doing
it
for
the
commercial
aspect.
A
I
would
be
doing
it
to
raise
enough
money
from
rent
to
pay
for
the
maintenance
of
the
building
and
I
and
I
would
be
taking
on
that
responsibility.
That's
kind
of
decision
that
many
heritage
homeowners
make
they
decide
to
be
the
stewards
of
the
building
and,
if
they
rent
out
a
unit
of
a
larger
building
and
many
of
the
heritage,
buildings
are
large
enough
to
do
that.
It's
not
really
the
same
thing,
so
that's
where
it
becomes
difficult
to
split
the
hairs.
A
We'd
have
to
have
a
very
specific
definition
of
what
is
a
commercial
use
of
building
and
just
to
point
out
how
thorny
this
is
on
a
during
the
interim
Control
bylaw
debate,
I
mentioned
in
the
media,
not
council,
but
in
the
media
I
mentioned
the
possibility
of
charging
commercial
tax
rates
to
owners
of
rental
properties.
You
can
see
currently
they're
paying
residential
tax
rates.
That's
part
of
the
reason
we
have
so
many
commercial
landlords
in
Kingston
is
because
they're
taking
advantage
of
that
tax
structure.
The
residential
tax
rate.
A
That
is
a
fundamental
change
that
I've
suggested
in
the
media.
It
would
be
revolutionary
and
the
backlash
was
was
very
Swift
amongst
rental
owners,
as
you
can
imagine.
So
what
you're
saying
is
a
little
bit
controversial
and
because
of
the
reality
that
many
heritage
buildings
might
be
a
hybrid
model
might
be
actually
a
single
owner
that
rents
out
one
unit.
You'd
need
to
have
strict
definitions
of
that.
Maybe
number
of
rental
units
that
you
that
you
manage,
or
something
like
that.
But
but
I
like
the.
A
G
Thank
you
I'm,
sorry
that
I'm
late
somebody
might
have
brought
this
up.
I'm,
not
sure,
but
one
day
it
seems
to
me.
In
the
old
days
we
used
to
have
really
substantial
money
for
a
restoration
work.
He
had
to
be
doing
real
restoration
work.
You
know
it
wasn't
just
you
know,
because
there's
a
vinyl
window
and
there
he
put
a
vine
I
mean
I'm,
exaggerating
a
bit
there's,
but
there's
real
difference
between
doing
something
is
actually
part
of
the
initial
restoration
of
the
house.
G
Like
you
know
the
proper
shingles
or
the
proper,
proper
wood
details
that
pull
something
that
looks
like
it,
which
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
them,
lots
of
cases
I'm
doing
but
I,
don't
think
we
should
paying
a
grant,
particularly
now
they're
being
$2,000
I,
think
doesn't
matter,
but
we
getting
$5,000
or
more
than
I,
think
I.
Think
that
I
think
I
should
get
back
doing
real
authentic
restoration
and
the
only
III
so
I
guess
what
you're
proposing
is.
G
Is
they
use
you
get
all
the
bits
together
and
then
make
a
choice
as
opposed
to,
as
opposed
to
just
first
come
first
serve,
which
I
think
it's
a
good
idea.
My
only
concern
there,
and
maybe
you
do
like
in
a
and
in
like
two
half
seasons
or
something
like
that,
because
people
are
wanting
to
do
work
and
think
I
wait
for
four
months
to
find
out
whether
or
not
getting
a
grant
or
not.
It
doesn't
seem
very
you
know,
trying
to
make
his
process
quicker.
It's
just
making
his
floor.
G
So
if
you
work
I
like
the
idea
of
making
choice,
though,
might
be
difficult,
but
making
choices
and
that'll
bring
his
product
closer
to
the
proper
restoration,
not
restoration,
but
I.
Think
all
the
all
the
application
should
be
from
her
to
restoration.
But
but
if
he
had
like
one
section
of
the
spring,
then
one
section
for
the
end
of
summer
or
something
if
you
didn't
get
all
the
amounts
in
it
for
the
spring
that
opposed
to
waiting
to
get
all
the.
G
Okay,
I,
don't
personally
I,
don't
think
this
read
your
history.
Commercial/Residential
I
mean
there's
some
residential
people
that
are
getting
grants
or
multimillionaires.
You
know,
and
you
know,
but
they've
they've
got
a
heritage.
Building
we're
talking
with
the
Builder
we're
not
talking
about
what's
happening
inside
the
building.
I,
don't
feel
there
should
be
any
difference.
Was
he
owned
by
commercial
or
commercial
building,
a
residential
building?
G
G
I've
been
office
in
the
back,
my
house,
son,
I,
pay,
you
know
yeah,
you
know
it's
not
a
very
big
office
and
I
pay.
You
know
a
third
of
the
tax
I
pay
for
the
whole
house,
so
I
mean
there
is
the
difference
already
in
residential
commercials.
You
talk
about
something
right:
there
is
a
commercial
below
and
residential
above
or
something
or
any
quite
understand.
Your
comments
about
I
vote.
G
A
A
G
K
K
The
grant
application
is
to
the
building
and
I'm
sure
the
legal
department
is
right
in
there
with
this
any
kind
of
discussion
of
grading
buildings
as
to
you
know
how
who's
going
to
get
the
the
grant,
because
I
think
that's
part
of
it,
that
staff
would
be
deciding
who
gets
the
grants
and
in
what
amounts
through
a
process
that
obviously
would
have
to
pass
the
legal
test.
You
can't
you
know,
decide
one
more
than
the
other
unless
you
actually
have
a
policy
that
buildings
of
eighteen
fifty
get
the
grants.
First,
eighteen
sixty
they
get
them.
K
Second,
you
know
you
could
get
into
a
terrible
process
and
I
think
that's
part
of
what
I'm
hearing
you
could
get
into
an
incredibly
onerous
process
and
I
think
staff
are
trying
to
make
it
clear
and
fair
and
timely,
and
that's
what
I'm
hearing,
but
the
the
discussion
has
been
excellent.
So
but
that
would
be
my
suggestion,
a
blind
process,
we
don't
know
you
don't
know
who
owns
the
property
while
it's
happening,
but
that's
just
a
small
part
of
it.
Thank
you.
A
H
H
So
there
has
been
some
dialogue
about
the
the
value
and
whether
or
not
the
value
of
the
grant
dollars
should
be
proportional
to
the
amount
of
dollars
in
the
pocket
of
money.
That
counsel
provides
to
support
this
program.
We
wanted
to
just
share
this
information
with
the
committee,
because
we
have
done
a
review
of
the
value
of
the
grants
that
have
been
issued
over
the
last
three
years
to
see,
based
on
the
number
that
have
been
submitted.
How
many
would
have
actually
been
entitled
to
the
full
five
thousand.
H
H
Six
of
them
were
over
the
the
threshold
that
would
have
been
eligible
for
five
thousand,
so
it's
about
25
percent.
When
you
do,
the
math
of
the
applications
in
the
last
three
years
would
have
been
eligible
for
the
full
five.
So
it
it's
not
a
direct
sort
of
proportional
relationship
to
doubling
the
amount
of
the
grant
dollars
is
going
to
mean
that
we
have
half
as
many
people
being
entitled
to
the
funds.
It's
it
doesn't
work
out
that
way,
or
at
least
it
hasn't
in
the
past
three
years.
Sorry.
A
I
just
wanna
interrupt
for
a
second.
This
addresses
Katherine
and
Paul's
point
so
because
I
did
the
same
thing
when
I
first
looked
I
said:
oh,
my
god,
that's
less
grants,
but
what
he's
saying
is
that
they
came
up
with
the
number
of
50,000
based
on
analysis
of
actual
last
three
year
grant
applications,
and
so
what
you're
saying
now
is
that
50,000
and
the
increase
to
five
thousand
maximum
would
only
affect
a
quarter
of
the
larger
applications
right.
H
A
H
I
mean
one
of
the
other
points
brought
up
was
I.
Think
actually
Katherine
brought
this
up
as
well
as,
like
people
feel
there's
a
bit
of
nuisance
to
even
applying,
and
so
some
some
people
feel
that
applying
for
$2000
isn't
isn't
worth
it.
Some
of
the
comments
that
we've
here
and
we've
heard
through
the
open
house
and
public
discussions
is
that
2,000
isn't
enough:
they're
not
actually
going
to
undertake
a
major
restoration
project
at
all.
H
They
get
is
2,000
and
that
I
think
should
be
concerning
to
the
committee,
because
it's
some
of
those
bigger
cost
items
that
really
ought
to
be
undertaken
for
the
conservation
of
the
resource,
big
masonry
projects,
for
example,
where
there's
maybe
a
structural
component
there,
where
the
building
itself
is
compromised.
We've
ideally
we'd
be
able
to
put
a
little
more
money
out
there
to
support
those
projects.
G
Just
briefly,
I
think
that
if
I
know
lots
of
people,
we
just
don't
bother
applying
me
as
$3,000.
Is
it
worth
it?
But
if
it
was
$5,000,
they
probably
would
have
more
applications
over
the
$10,000
limit
too,
but
I
understand
your
logic,
and
that
certainly
makes
sense,
but
there
would
be
more
if
they,
if
they,
if
them
but
there's
more
money.
There.
C
H
So
when
the
comments
that
Paul
brought
up
was
what's
the
value,
it's
a
heritage,
value
of
the
asphalt,
shingles
and
I
think
Mack
brought
this
up
as
well
as
why
are
we
supporting
these
some
of
these
projects
that,
maybe
don't
add,
a
lot
of
value
to
the
conservation
of
the
resource?
So
that's
partly
why
we
did
want
to
have
a
lesser
grant
entitlement
to
things
like
the
repair
of
roofing
or
eaves,
so
I
think
to
Don's
point
as
well.
H
A
M
A
K
Think
what
Mac
had
said
was:
if
someone
replaced
with
a
full
wood
window
or
under
a
window
policy,
you
can
put
in
a
steel
covered
metal
covered
which
still
isn't
authentic,
but
if
someone
would
replace
with
a
true
wood
replacement
window,
it'd
get
the
five
thousand
I
think
that's
where
it
was
leading.
It.
A
B
Think,
there's
a
little
bit
of
wondering
from
the
point
this
business
about
roofing
and
eavestroughs
and
cleaning
masonry
have
very
little
to
do
with
heritage
attributes.
Every
house
needs
those
that
kind
of
work,
and
so
I
think
staff
are
quite
right
in
reducing
the
amounts
that
are
targeted
towards
things
that
are
more
or
less
maintenance
in
common
to
all
properties.
What
are
we
getting
into
Windows
is
a
very
difficult
and
different
subject
than
we
shouldn't
complicate
that
original
point
with
how
we
deal
with
windows.
H
So
well,
maybe
if
members
of
the
committee
want
to
sort
of
sleep
on
that
and
give
us
your
thoughts,
we
McKenzie's
away
for
the
next
couple
of
weeks,
but
Ryan
and
I
would
like
to
finalize
the
bylaw
I.
Just
ideally
again,
it
doesn't
sound
like
there's
any
opposition
to
the
window
idea
window
for
submissions,
so
it
sounds
like
we
might
be
in
a
position
to
try
and
move
this
forward
for
November.
H
The
one
thing
I
just
will
mention
on
the
distinction
between
the
general
reference
to
roofing
and
asphalt.
Roofing
was
someone's
replacing
a
slate
roof,
that's
a
fairly
substantial
investment,
and
that
is
something
that
ideally
we'd,
maybe
wanna
entitled
to
5,000.
Potentially.
So,
if
we're
gonna
have
the
two-tiered
approach,
I
think
we
need
to
be
really
purposeful
in
identifying
what
would
only
be
entitled
to
up
to
twenty
five
versus
five
thousand.
H
So
if
you
can
think
on
that
a
little
more
and
give
us
your
thoughts,
we
will
do
the
same
and
see
if
we
can
craft
something
that
makes
sense
I'm,
just
the
distinction
between
for-profit
versus
not-for-profit
owner.
My
suggestion
is
that
we
we
don't
go
down
that
road.
It
really
is
ultimately
the
conservation
of
the
resource,
that
is,
the
purpose
of
the
funding.
H
M
B
M
It's
something
that's
included
in
the
bylaw
currently
and
some
interpretation
we've
made
it's
it's
for
situations
where
an
attribute
of
a
property
is
being
compromised.
There's
an
there
potentially
is
a
property
standards
order
that
relates
to
that
attribute.
So
in
those
cases
we
didn't
want
to
exclude
the
owner
from
being
able
to
apply
if
the
attribute,
if
the
grant
would
go
towards
the
restoration
of
the
attribute.
M
E
To
clarify
and
Don's
point
so
you're
you're
done
you're,
okay
with
the
the
two-tier
the
24
I
have
500,
if
they're
doing
or
less,
if
they're
not
doing
like
heritage,
or
would
you
be
more
apt
to
say
it's
not
a
heritage
value,
it's
maintenance
and
then
the
second
one
I
have
the
floor.
You
were
saying:
there's
another
possible
fund
a
lot
of
times
when
people
do
grants,
they
do
ask
you:
are
you
assets
accessing
other
municipal
funds?
Will
that
take
in
accounts
of
to
the
double-dipping?
M
Three
mr.
chair
to
Paul's
point
the
way
that
by
law
is
written
currently,
is
that
you
wouldn't
be
able
you
wouldn't
be
eligible
to
receive
grants
from
several
more
than
one
program
at
the
same
time,
for
instance
the
Heritage
Fund
administered
through
the
museum's.
They
offer
some
project
based
and
programming
based
funding.
M
A
Let
Greg
finish
and
then
just
to
keep
in
mind
that
this
this
there's
actionable
item
is
actually
gonna,
be
on
our
next
meeting.
Probably,
and
that's
where
the
the
full
debate
should
happen,
but
we're
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
get
the
input
in
for
them,
so
that
the
final
product
that
we
get
to
consider
is
fully
polished.
So
that's
and-
and
you
can
continue
to
send
suggestions
by
email.
A
If
you,
if
something
comes
to
you,
if
you
take
a
closer
look,
as
dawn
has
on
the
draft
by
law,
we
will
lose
one
member
soon,
I
think
Sherman
said
he
can
only
stay
for
two
hours,
so
we
may
have
coram
issues
and
Mac
as
well.
So
we
need
to
get
to
the
business.
Otherwise,
we've
just
spent
the
entire
special
meeting
on
non
actual
items
and
we'll
need
another
special
meeting.
So
go
ahead,
go
so.
H
Be
very
brief,
so
councilors
failed.
You
offered
a
suggestion
for
potential
extension
of
the
window
as
opposed
to
going
straight
to
first-come
first-serve
if
there's
remaining
funds
available
after
the
first
window.
So
that's
something
we
will
certainly
look
at
and
then
that
could
also
suggested
to
half
sessions
or
seasons
for
the
windows.
So
we'll
look
for
a
window
for
submission.
So
we'll
look
at
that
as
well.
H
The
the
last
item
I
think
that
was
discussed
was
just
how
we
engage
the
committee
and
some
concerns
that
the
committee
is
being
cut
out
of
the
process.
What
I
can
suggest
is
that
as
we
currently
do,
we
bring
we
bring
grant
applications
to
the
committee
for
comment,
so
we
would
continue
to
do
that.
What
I
would
suggest
that
we
could
do?
H
It
would
be
a
procedural
thing,
so
I
don't
know
if
it
would
be
articulated
in
the
bylaw,
but
we
could
establish
a
procedural
document
that
says
that
we
would
engage
the
heritage
properties
working
group
after
staff
have
gone
through
the
first
round
of
submissions
with
our
recommendations,
see
what
the
discussion
is
amongst
the
group
and
then
bring
a
report
with
all
of
the
recommendations
for
grants.
The
dollar
amount
the
related
projects
to
to
the
committee
for
consideration
we
could
bring.
H
We
could
probably
build
a
component
of
that
into
the
bylaw
there's
an
administration
section
in
the
bylaw.
That
said,
we
could
say
something
like
planning
staff
shall
engage
the
committee
in
the
review
of
the
submissions
in
the
first
window
or
something
like
that.
So
we'll
look
at
that
as
well
as
to
how
it
might
be
articulated
in
the
bylaw.
But
if
it's
not
explicit
in
the
bylaw,
we
I'm
thinking
an
administrative
document
to
accompany
the
bylaw
would
be
something
we
could
do
as
well.
H
A
Okay:
let's
keep
moving
business,
8,
D
statutory
first
ones
to
18
King
Street
East.
The
Mackenzies
can
introduce
it.
I'm
gonna
run
to
the
bathroom
cook.
Yeah
Mac's
gonna
give
his
unary
statement.
I'm
gonna
run
to
the
bathroom
quickly
so
dawn.
If
you
don't
need
to
go,
if
you
could
take
over
the
chair,
I'll
be
right
back.
M
So
this
application
pertains
to
the
property
at
218,
King,
Street,
East,
it's
located
on
the
west
side
of
King
Street.
The
corner
of
erlin
King
contains
a
two
and
a
half
story,
limestone
house
constructed
in
the
1830s,
with
several
rear
later
additions,
the
main
dwelling
was
constructed
around
1830,
while
the
mean,
while
the
one-story
garage
at
the
rear
was
constructed
in
the
mid
20th
century.
The
property's
designated
under
part
four
and
also
part
five
as
part
of
the
old
Sydenham
district.
M
This
is
a
close-up
image
of
the
rear
garage.
So
this
the
subject
property
is
located
in
the
King
Street
corridor.
It's
identified
in
the
old
synonym
district
plan
as
the
ceremonial
entrance
to
the
downtown.
The
attributes
of
the
sub
area
include
buildings
that
form
the
strong
Street
edge
prominent
buildings
at
corners
and
buildings
associated
with
prominent
Kingston
architects,
as
well
as
views
to
the
lake
and
city
park.
M
M
This
application
has
been
submitted
to
construct
a
new
timber,
arched
pergola
above
the
mid
above
the
the
modern
garage,
the
currently
the
the
patio
that's
above
the
garage
features
a
simple,
naturally
stained
wooden
balustrade
that
echoes
the
traditional
rectilinear
forms
in
the
area.
According
to
the
applicant,
the
patio
is
underutilized
and
they'd
like
to
use
the
space
as
an
exterior
room
without
feeling
enclosed.
M
The
proposal
includes
the
construction
of
a
timber
inverse
arched
pergola
that
would
be
connected
in
the
center
with
a
steel
collar
and
the
Timbers
are
proposed
to
be
laminated
for
beams
with
raised
posts
at
the
corner
to
allow
for
the
curves.
The
beams
are
proposed
to
be
left
a
natural
color
in
order
to
tie
into
the
existing
cedar
railings
and
not
draw
attention
from
the
main
building.
M
This
application
was
circulated
to
internal
departments
whose
comments
have
been
incorporated
as
conditions
where
appropriate.
This
application
is
subject
to
a
minor
variance
application
to
accommodate
the
non-complying
side,
yard
setback
and
that
application
will
go
before
the
community
adjustment
on
Monday
the
23rd.
A
J
A
A
N
Thank
you
sure
this
property
is
also
in
the
Sydenham
district.
It's
at
104,
bagage
Street.
The
property
is
located
the
northwest
side
of
a
--get
just
not
far
from
city
park
and
the
it
includes
a
one
unit,
one
unit
in
a
three
unit,
two-story
brick
row
house
known
as
Park
Place.
This
is
the
unit
here.
N
It's
cultural
value
is
based
on
the
the
building
itself
and
it
was
Park
Place.
The
name
has
been
around
at
least
since
1904,
but
could
have
been
around
since
the
beginning.
Since
building
was
built
in
1873,
it
was
built
for
a
hardware
merchant
named
Chau
and
it
forms
part
of
the
streetscape
on
Bay
get
in.
You
know
what
sidam
district
the
application
before
you
is
to
remove
this
balcony.
N
N
Agencies
came
back
with
only
one,
noting
that
the
building
permit
is
required
for
this.
This
alteration
this
committee
was
circulated
through.
We
had
a
couple
of
concerns,
noting
the
requirement
for
the
type
of
brick
given
size
and
color
and
such
and
then
that
any
damage
from
where
the
balcony
is
now
be
repaired
and-
and
that
has
been
added
as
a
condition
of
our
recommended
approval
and
mr.
chair,
we
do
recommend
approval.
This
application.
A
Here
I
am
so
again
the
process,
those
of
you
which
in
this
case
is
just
dawn
because
Peters
not
here
where
your
comments
captured.
Actually
yes,
remembers
the
public
I'll,
also
not
here
so
here's
your
chance
for
final
oral
submissions,
seeing
none
I
need
a
mover
in
a
seconder
for
the
recommendation
by
Paul's
are
gonna
die
match.
So
it
is
that
the
alteration
be
that
we
support
Council's
approval
of
the
alteration
which
is
removal
of
that
balcony,
and
there
are
three
conditions:
yes,
Donna.
Sorry.
B
I
did
have
a
final
comment
that
I
didn't
have
a
chance.
Matching
Rick
is
good.
It
is
important.
Matching
color
of
more
fair
is
also
very
important
and
I've
seen
many
examples
downtown
where
brickwork
has
been
repaired
by
Masons,
who
are
not
careful
about
that
and
you
get
sort
of
white,
mortar
and
otherwise
dull
gray
house,
and
also
even
many
cases
where
the
bricks
are
not
even
mortar,
is
not
even
cleaned
off
the
brick,
so
the
bricks
are
half
covered
with
with
mortar.
B
A
So
we
see
number
condition:
number
three
any
damaged
bricks,
be
carefully
repaired
and
replaced
with
bricks
of
summer
color
sides
that
would
that
include
the
caning
of
the
mortar
off
the
bricks.
In
that
condition,
is
there
leeway
in
the
way
it's
worded
or
something
that
you
could
communicate
to
the
applicant?
Maybe.
N
J
A
A
N
Must
admit
mr.
chair
I,
don't
think
we've
ever
done
nine
in
one
fell
swoop,
so
this
is
very
exciting
so
before
you
today
is
a
proposed
notice
of
intention
to
designate
nine
properties
in
the
city
of
Kingston,
so
they,
the
report,
outlines
the
background
work
that
we've
done.
Each
of
these
properties
was
evaluated
under
Ontario
regulation
906,
which
requires
an
evaluation
of
their
design,
historical
associative
and
contextual
value,
and
it
was
determined
that
these
properties
satisfy
one
or
more
of
these
regulations
and
therefore,
accordingly
can
be
designated
under
the
Heritage
Act.
N
N
Kcb
I
can
trace
its
roots
back
to
1786
when
it
was
established
by
the
Reverend
John
Stewart
as
the
first
secondary
school
in
Ontario,
the
earliest
building,
which
is
in
the
top
left
of
your
screen
portion
of
the
building
on
those
properties
from
1911
and
has
dr.
Bray
mentioned
that
we're
additions
done
in
the
30s,
50s
and
60s,
and
more
recently,
this
building
has
extensive
associative
value
not
only
with
Reverend
Stewart
and
the
history
of
secondary
education,
but
also
with
well-known
architects
who
involved
in
this
building
Joseph
power
and
Colin
driver.
N
N
There
was
a
recent
case
which
I
can
I'll
try
to
find
and
circulate
to
this
committee.
I
believe
it
was
in
st.
Mary's
Ontario
that
was
processed
through
the
conservation,
Review
Board,
where
it
was
determined
in
that
case
I
think
it
was
actually
a
well-known
and
large
clock
that
was
attached
to
the
wall.
The
community
wanted
to
add
it
as
an
attribute.
The
board
made
the
ruling
that,
because
it's
a
removable
object
from
the
building,
it
is
considered
chattel
and
the
Heritage
Act
doesn't
allow
chattel
to
be
included
as
a
heritage
attribute.
N
So
there
are
some
features
in
this
building
that,
while
extremely
significant
to
the
history
of
this
building,
unfortunately
can't
be
included
in
this
bylaw.
So
that
leads
me
to
the
question
of
intangible
attributes
and
while
dr.
Bray
referred
to
the
Heritage
Act
as
as
broad,
you
may
also
call
so
want
to
call
it
vague,
and
it's
been
our
practice
that
intangible
the
history,
the
story
of
these
buildings
is
included
in
the
cultural,
the
statement
of
cultural
heritage,
significance
in
the
bill
in
the
bylaw,
so
the
write-up,
that's
in
if
pendeks
a
of
your
appendix
B.
N
If
your
report
is
where
those
stories
belong
is
under
the
legislation,
the
attributes
are
essentially
those
things
so
that
the
actual
tangible
things
and
the
property
that
that
relay
and
our
part
of
why
it
has
value
and
they're
the
things
that
we
can
control
and
that's
why
and
protect.
So
those
are
why
they're
listed
specifically
the
stories
and
and
whatnot
is
difficult
to
sort
of
control
from
a
legislative,
implemented
procedures
or
process.
N
So
that's
why
they're
they're
not
included
some
of
my
my
counterparts
would
include
more
intangible
attributes,
but
I
think
that's
how
we
interpret
it
is
that
it's
you
can
put
them
in
there
they're
there
pretty.
They
maybe
tell
the
story,
but
there's
really
from
a
functional
and
from
an
implementation
perspective
the
hard
to
implement
and
hard
to
control.
So
that's
why
they
were
left
out
in
this
particular
case
and
I
should
also
mention
this
by
law.
N
We
have
been
working
on
for
a
number
of
years
now
and
have
met
extensively
with
the
school
board
and,
and
they
well
I-
think
they
still
have
some
reservations
about
this.
They
have
assured
us
that
they're
not
objecting
to
it
at
this
point,
so
we
have
reached
a
point
where
the
owner
is
satisfied
with
this
bylaw
and
that's
I
think
a
big
success
in
this
case.
So
so
we'd
like
to
proceed
as
as
per
the
package.
So
moving
on
the
next
property
is
as
a
landmark
out
on
front
road.
It's
the
Wortman
farmhouse.
N
N
It
also
has
associative
value
with
the
United
Empire
Lord's
family,
the
Wortman,
who
farmed
this
land
for
over
a
hundred
years,
and
these
owners
have
confirmed
to
us
that
they
had
no
concerns
with
the
designation.
This
is
the
printe
Street
United
Church.
It
has
direct
association
with
the
history
of
Methodist,
the
United
Church
in
Kingston.
It's
the
current
sanctuary.
N
It
was
built
in
the
collegiate
Gothic
style
in
1931
by
well-known
local
architect,
columned
River,
and
has
it
displays
high
quality
craftsmanship
and
it's
Tudor,
arches
and
sanctuary
ceiling,
and
it's
a
landmark
and
Williams
Hill
next
door
to
this
property
is
the
Prentice
Street
United
Church
mance,
which
is
a
two
and
a
half
story,
Edwardian
style
building
it
was
built
in
1907.
It
was
originally
built
as
the
manse
for
the
former
Methodist
Church
from
1884
that
was
removed,
and
it
again
has
direct
history
with
the
Methodists
and
United
churches
in
Kingston.
N
We
have
met
with
the
owners
of
this
these
two
properties
and,
while
I
believe
they
still
have
some
reservations
on
this
designation.
They
too
have
noted
no
objection.
This
property
is
at
946
old,
Kingston
Mills.
It
is
the
holy
name
of
jesus
Roman,
Catholic
Church.
It
is
a
Gothic
Revival
Church
built
in
1887
out
of
sandstone,
which
is
kind
of
interesting
for
Kingston
and
includes
locally
sourced
limestone
detailing
again.
N
N
N
N
This
is
1216
unity,
Road
the
former
Glen
Burnie,
Methodist
Church.
It
includes
a
limestone
building
built
in
1857,
as
well
as
a
wild,
designed
Hall
addition
built
in
1957
by
well-known
architect,
will
from
soar
Wilford
Sorensen
again.
This
is
a
landmark
in
this
in
this
community
and
and
it
has
a
direct
association
with
the
history
of
Methodist
Church
in
this
area,
and
we've
received
support
for
this
application.
This
designation
and
finally,
this
is
the
coupler
Methodist
Episcopal
Church
on
Kepler
Road.
It
is
a
Gothic,
Revival
red
brick
church
from
1878.
N
It
has
association
with
the
paui
family,
who
were
you
Els
early
Sutter
settlers
in
this
area
and
with
the
history
of
the
community
of
Keppler,
which
I've
come
to
discover
is
quite
a
cute
little
community
didn't
know.
Even
existed-
and
this
is
the
landmark
in
that
committee
because
it
does
really
stand
out
on
our
street
corner
and
these
owners
have
also
confirmed
no
concerns
what
they're
doing
with
the
designation.
N
So
all
of
these
bylaws
have
been
reviewed
by
the
historic
properties
working
group
who
support
the
the
designation
and,
as
I
noted
earlier,
the
bylaws
or
the
the
evaluation
satisfies
the
prescribed
criteria
criteria
under
the
Heritage
Act,
and
we
recommend
a
request
that
that
heritage
Kingston
recommend
to
council
to
direct
staff
to
serve
a
notice
of
intention
to
designate
all
these
properties.
And
should
we
have
no
objection
within
the
30-day
peel
period
that
council
advanced.
The
designation,
bylaws.
A
Thank
You
Ryan,
so
this
as
with
all
designations,
there's
the
clause
about
the
30
day
and
then
there's
the
clause
that
describes
the
property
and
all
there's.
It's
all
one
recommendation
with
18
clauses:
that's
what
we're
going
to
discuss.
Normally,
we
would
have
questions
from
members
of
the
committee
to
staff
at
this
point,
but
questions
only
go
Mac.
G
N
Mr.
chair
we've
had
extensive
conversations
with
each
of
these
property
owners
and
I
think
for
the
most
part,
while
I
think
they
have
some
reservations.
There
was
just
the
one
that
I,
don't
think
has
come
around
to
actually
supporting
it.
So
I
would
say
yes,
I
believe
they
still
have
an
objection,
and
that
was
that
was
the
Westbrook
church.
G
E
A
E
Ask
all
your
questions:
okay
and
then
KCI
dr.
Bray
was
talking
about
internal
versus
external,
the
auditorium
and
there's
a
shooting
range
because
there
used
to
be
an
Army
Cadet
unit
there
in
the
basement.
Do
we
have
the
ability
to
designate
stuff
internally?
That's
not
attached.
That's
not
channel
at
this
to
make
sure
certain
attributes
are
taken
care
of
or
well
or
is
it
only
an
external
like
he
was
saying,
I
was
a
little
confused
without
part
I.
N
Thank
You
mr.
chair
I'm,
gonna
start
with
the
last
question
first
and
that's
the
including
of
internal
features
that
is
part
of
that
broadness
of
the
Heritage
Act.
We
do
have
the
legal
ability
to
a
designate
interior
features
we
have
in
the
past
and
actually
the
Prince
Street
United
Church
has
some
interior
features
that
we've
suggested
as
attributes
are
I,
don't
know
if
I
should
speak
for
all
of
us.
My
opinion,
as
far
as
internal
features
goes,
has
always
been.
N
If
the
public
can't
appreciate
the
the
interior
feature
can't
take
a
benefit
from
it,
then
it
has
no
place
in
a
publicly
designated
by
law.
So
in
this
particular
case,
if
this
property,
when
this
property,
if
this
property
I
guess
changes
out
of
the
School
Board
hands
into
private
hands,
that
space
would
be
private
space,
and
while
the
auditorium
is
an
interesting
on
that
property
and
probably
should
be
conserved,
I'm,
not
sure
it's
the
place
of
the
city
to
say
that
in
this
particular
case.
N
So
it's
been
my
opinion
to
leave
those
type
of
features
out
unless,
in
the
case
of
a
church
or
a
publicly
accessible
building
like
this
one,
there
are
people
that
can
appreciate
those.
So
traditionally
we
leave
out
in
turf
interior
features
unless
there
are,
unless
there
is
that
public
accessibility.
As
far
as
the
first
question
can
I
ask
which
property
you're
asking
but
I'm
sort
of
missed
the
topic
matter,
which
it's.
N
E
How
do
you
know
that
the
case
VI
will
become
not
a
public
entity,
because
there
is
a
public
institution
that
is
next
door
to
that?
That
could
possibly
be
continue
to
be
a
public
entity
that
building
so
should
we
not
look
at
that
ahead,
just
in
case
and
I
may
have
to
clear
a
conflict
of
interest.
I,
just
thought
of
that.
H
Thank
you
mr.
chair,
through
you,
it's
a
good
point,
I
mean
it
could
go
into
public
ownership
or
another
publicly
established
entity,
so
it
just
has
been
the
practice
of
of
the
city
not
to
designate
interior
attributes
and
despite
the
fact
that
there
are
property
sort
cities,
some
of
which
are
owned
by
institutions
that
have
interior
designated
attributes.
H
One
thing
I
will
say
is
we
have
worked
quite
closely
with
the
limestone
district
school
board
on
the
designation
of
this
property.
There's
been
a
lot
of
discussions
in
behind
the
scenes,
as
with
all
of
these
Ryan
and
I
are
going
and
sitting
down
with
people
at
their
kitchen
tables
or
wherever
the
case
may
be,
and
the
idea
of
adding
interior
attributes
to
this
bylaw
has
not
been
discussed.
I
would
be
somewhat
reluctant
to
add
it.
I'll
leave
that
to
the
discretion
of
the
committee,
but
it
hasn't
been
discussed
today.
So.
A
A
You
so
the
K
CPI
is
in
my
district,
so
I'm
addressing
as
Sydenham
counselor
regarding
the
auditorium
I
mean
all
of
the
significant
events
that
I
have
attended
at
KCI
were
in
the
auditorium.
So
to
me,
have
a
strong
association
in
my
mind
and
that
so
do
all
of
my
residents
with
the
auditorium.
I.
Don't
think
anyone
in
Sydenham
would
disagree
with
the
historical
nature
of
it.
A
So,
if
forced
to
weigh
in
on
it
counsel,
if
staff,
because
staffing
without
the
blessing
of
the
current
owners,
who
will
be
the
sellers
and
who
get
to
decide
who
to
sell
to,
we
add
more
complication
to
the
to
the
problem,
so
I
think
if
they've
been
approached
about
the
current
bylaw
and
are
not
planning
an
object
to
it,
that's
very
significant.
So
we
should
keep
that
in
mind.
A
B
B
Just
to
comment,
it's
great
to
see
a
large
number
of
important
properties
being
designated
in
this
way.
Unfortunately,
designating
doesn't
mean
protecting
there's
a
lot
more
has
to
go
on
to
ensure
that
protection
happens,
and
that
needs
the
vigilant
vigilance
of
this
committee
and
staff
and
so
on
and
this
you
know
we
are
aware,
I,
think
of
a
our
property
488
Division
Street
that
we
just
designated
last
year
mentioning
the
log-house
addition
in
the
rear
with
the
visible
dogs
and
as
a
heritage
attribute
and
that
property
was
sold
and
the
log
house
was
demolished.
B
F
Just
want
to
for
something
that
I
brought
forward
at
the
property
group,
and-
and
that
was
a
suggestion-
that
there
be
some
sort
of
acknowledgement,
whether
it's
a
package,
it's
a
it's
a
well
I,
think
a
package
that
goes
to
the
the
new
property
owner
or
the
owner
up
newly
designated.
That's
that
really
outlines
how
the
city,
how
the
community
does
support
the
owner
to
take
responsibility
for
the
the
the
the
significance
of
the
property
and
and
I
would
encourage
staff
to
to
really
move
forward
on
the
creator,
create
the
package.
F
Welcome,
you
know,
welcome
home
sort,
whatever
it
is
a
package
that
supports
this.
That
suggests
that
the
city,
the
community,
does
support
through
the
grant
program
through
the
whatever
programs
through
this
committee.
The
preservation
of
these
of
these
phases
and
I
think
that
that
that
should
be
part
and
parcel
part
of
the
the
approval
of
this
process
to
to
also
increase
its
viability
through
the
creation
of
a
support
system
that
encourages
the.
A
A
A
I
Like
okay,
thank
you
and
three
mr.
chair,
so
the
cultural
heritage
working
group
report
or
they
own
the
heritage
assets
report,
I,
should
say:
we've
seen
ones
like
this
before
it
basically
is
bringing
a
number
of
acquisitions
to
the
city's
collection
brought
to
this
committee,
then,
as
a
recommendation
on
to
Council
the
objects
represented
in
the
report
or
the
the
working
group
notes,
speak
to
the
history,
of
course,
of
the
city
of
Kingston
and
supplement
the
Civic
Collection.
I
A
number
of
the
items
come
to
us
through
past
mayors,
aldermen
and
kind
of
speak
to
the
evolution
of
the
amalgamated
City
of
Kingston,
and
so
they
actually
do
quite
nicely
supplement.
Our
existing
collection.
I
did
just
also
want
to
point
out
for
this
committee
that
the
next
time
you
receive
motions
in
this
nature,
they're
going
to
come
to
you
as
an
independent
report,
and
so
they
will
be
moved
into
the
business
of
of
the
committee.
I
So
we
didn't
want
to
cloud
that
scenario,
because
we
do
have
an
additional
piece
that
will
be
moving
next
meeting
in
that
report
process.
But
we
didn't
want
to
do
that
at
both
times.
In
the
same
meeting
to
have
it
in
notes
and
then
as
well
as
a
report,
so
if
there
are
questions
about
any
of
the
objects,
I'm
happy
to
answer
them.
A
So
business
I
made
a
cultural
heritage,
but
in
item
8c
heritage
assets,
if
there's
actual
items,
they
should
probably
go
there
under
business
good
for
this
business,
but
for
today
only
we
will
consider
the
recommendations
that
are
in
the
Civic
in
the
heritage.
Has
a
working
group
notes
which
started
on
page
115
right
near
the
end
of
the
package?
A
Then
we'll
do
those
right
now
and
then,
when
we're
done
with
those,
we
will
vote
on
receiving
all
three
working
group
reports.
So
so
these
are
individual.
Recommendations
were
to
consider
the
first
one
is
that
heritage
Kingston
recommend
Council
to
accept
the
freight
connection
owned
by
Bob
Frei
for
the
Civic
Collection.
Do
we
need
a
promotion
for
each
okay,
so
I'm
gonna
read
them
all
out
if
anyone
wants
any
of
them
separated
because
they
want
to
comment
or
ask
a
question,
then
raise
your
hand.
A
A
The
third
one
is
at
Heritage,
Kingston,
recommend
to
council
to
accept
this
collection
of
materials
connected
with
the
Salvation
Army
in
Kingston,
currently
owned
by
Lydia
McPherson
for
the
civic
collection.
The
fourth
one
is
we
already
own.
It
is
the
recommendation
that
heritage
Kingston
recommend
council
to
accept
the
search
on
a
McDonald,
bicentennial
pins
owned
by
the
city,
Kingston
for
the
Civic
Collection,
and
there's
two
more
that
Harwich
Kingston
recommend
to
council
to
accept
the
final
selection
of
documents
and
photographs
from
this
group
for
the
Civic
collection.
A
That's
the
sorted
City
documents
from
62
90s
and
the
last
one
is
that
hedge
Kingston
recommend
counsel
to
accept
the
golden
leaves
from
Canada's
past
owned
by
the
City
of
Kingston.
For
the
civic
connection.
I
just
have
a
question,
so
we
can
get
a
straight
in
their
minds.
I'm,
don't
sit
on
this
working
group
for
things
that
we
already
own.
Are
they
just
in
storage
and
then
by
moving
them
to
collections,
they
would
go
through
the
rotation
of
display,
and
that
kind
of
thing
is
that
the
difference.
I
Thank
you,
and
through
you,
mr.
Jarrett,
so
objects
that
the
city
has
right
now,
within
its
kind
of
administrative
documentation,
often
organized
via
clerks
into
our
archives,
for
the
city's
essential
operations.
Objects
like
that,
don't
fall
under
the
same
protection
guidelines
and
criteria
as
objects
that
are
held
in
the
civic
collection.
Specifically,
so
we
are
basically
proposing
when
we
move
objects
that
we
already
own
were
offering
them
an
extra
layer
essentially
of
protection.
I
They
would
then
become
civic
collection
artifacts
and
would
be
warranted
and
allowed
all
of
the
treatment
and
conservation
associated
with
that
process,
so
things
that
might
exist
in
our
paper
archives
that
could
be
susceptible
to
damage
or
deterioration.
This
is
basically
us
saying
these
are
weighted
significantly
to
the
point
that
we
would
want
to
protect
them
through
acts
of
conservation
if
necessary
and
ensure
that
their
storage
is
is
appropriate,
given
their
condition
and
if.
I
J
A
Okay,
we
need
to
move
her
in
a
seconder,
we're
by
Sherman
seconded
by
Katherine
that
all
six
of
those
recommendations
we
would,
they
basically
all
say,
recommend
to
council
to
accept.
So
with
one
with
the
one
motion,
we
would
be
recommending
all
six
all
those
in
favor
opposed
not
carried.
Thank
you
now
we
need
a
motion
to
accept
the
three
working
group
reports
for
the
record.
Move
by
add
on
sacrum
accounts
are
shell,
any
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
opposed
and
that
carries.
A
Any
motions:
no
notices
of
motion,
the
item
that
daunts
just
further
business,
is
coming
back
in
the
form
of
a
an
actionable
item
when
the
bylaw
is
complete.
As
mentioned
earlier.
There
is
no
correspondence
our
next
meeting
just
to
highlight
this.
We
meet
the
third
Wednesday
for
the
next
six
months
or
until
further
notice.
The
next
meeting
is
November
15th
at
9:30,
I.
Think
that's
three
weeks
away
and
you
know
motion
for
it
to
adjourn
mumbai
max
by
dawn
all
those
in
favor.
This
meeting
is
adjourned.
Thank
you
very
much
for
coming
in.