►
From YouTube: Kingston Ontario - City Council - September 3, 2019
Description
City Council meeting from September 3, 2019. For the full meeting agenda visit http://bit.ly/2MUm5Ba
A
Oh
good
evening,
ladies
and
gentleman
say:
go
Ani
Buju,
ndo
watch
aya
quake
way
as
the
mayor
of
the
city
of
kingston.
I
offer
these
words
and
the
spirit
of
this
gathering.
Let
us
bring
our
good
minds
and
hearts
together
as
one
to
honor
and
celebrate
these
traditional
lands
as
a
gathering
place
of
the
original
peoples
and
their
ancestors
who
are
entrusted
to
care
for
mother
earth.
A
Since
time
immemorial,
it
is
with
deep
humility
that
we
acknowledge
and
offer
our
gratitude
for
their
contributions
to
this
community
having
respect
for
all
as
we
share
this
space
now
and
walk
side-by-side
into
the
future.
So
we
were
just
meeting
in
committee
of
the
whole
close
meeting.
We
did
discuss
one
item
with
respect
to
a
corporate
organization
update,
so
I
will
ask
for
a
motion
to
rise
without
reporting.
Please.
C
A
A
Okay,
seeing
none?
We
have
no
presentations
this
evening.
We
do
have
a
couple
of
delegations,
so
we
will
first
invite
dr.
Karen,
Moore
medical
officer
of
Health
for
K
FL
and
a
public
health
to
appear
before
council
to
speak
to
information
report
number
one
with
respect
to
the
city
of
Kingston's
radon
strategy
and
just
to
reminder
to
our
delegations
that
you
have
five
minutes.
A
D
I'm
going
to
give
a
brief
background
on
what
radon
is
so
radon
is
a
naturally
occurring
Radia
radioactive
gas
resulting
from
the
breakdown
of
uranium,
it's
colorless,
odorless
tasteless
and
then
accumulates
within
some
of
our
residences.
It's
this
second
leading
cause
of
lung
cancer
in
Canada,
and
it's
only
behind
smoking.
There's
a
strong
link
between
also
smoking
and
radon
that
they're
additive
as
an
exposure
causing
lung
cancer
I
think
we
all
know
about
asbestos
and
asbestos
association
with
lung
cancer.
Radon
causes
10
times
as
much
lung
cancer
as
asbestos
dis.
D
D
This
puts
our
community
at
risk
for
lung
cancer,
spatially
I've
we've
drawn
out
maps
of
the
Health
Canada
recommendation
and
the
World
Health
Organization
recommendation,
and
you
can
see
it's
across
our
region.
We
have
higher
levels
of
radon
exposure
in
the
homes
that
are
tested
and
there
is
some
higher
concentration
of
exposures
in
the
South
Frontenac
area,
but
I
would
say
all
of
our
region
is
at
an
increased
risk
of
radon
exposure,
hence
putting
our
community
at
risk
for
lung
cancer
as
a
result
of
our
testing.
D
We
share
that
information
with
the
city
and,
in
particular,
with
your
chief
building
officers
of
our
region
and
I
want
to
commend
Lisa,
Capener
Hunt
and
her
team
in
the
manager
of
building
services
group
that
have
created
a
radon
mitigation
strategy,
so
a
strategy
to
reduce
the
risk
of
lung
cancer
in
our
community
within
carefully.
At
present,
we
have
around
a
hun
diagnosed
cases
of
cats
lung
cancer
per
year.
D
This
is
the
number
one
leading
cause
of
death
from
cancer
in
our
community,
and
around
16
of
those
hundred
could
be
reduced
if
we
can
bring
radon
to
a
lower
level.
There's
no
safe
level
of
radon
in
our
homes
and,
and
so
the
chief
building
officer
has
come
up
with
a
mitigation
strategy.
It
is
preventable
the
exposure
to
radon.
D
We
can
construct
our
homes
differently
to
protect
our
family
members
being
exposed
to
radon,
and
that
plan
has
been
shared
with
this
council,
so
you
can
put
in
pressurization
systems
under
the
concrete
floors
to
move
the
gasses
away
from
entering
the
home,
or
you
can
put
in
permeable
membranes
along
the
concrete
home
to
prevent
the
gases
from
seeping
in,
and
these
strategies
have
been
put
in
play,
I
believe
for
September
and
overtime.
We
should
see
reduction
in
lung
cancer
rates
within
our
region
as
a
result
of
this
forward-thinking,
proactive
prevention
strategy.
D
So
my
goal
today
was
to
share
with
you
the
results
of
our
testing,
to
commend
the
city
for
taking
action
to
mitigating
the
risk
of
lung
cancer
and
to
encourage
further
testing
of
all
members
of
our
community
for
the
houses
that
currently
exist.
Kay
Fla
will
be
providing
radon
testing
kits
at
a
reduced
cost
of
around
20
dollars
per
kit
starting
in
November
this
year
and
will
try
to
provide
as
many
kits
as
community
members
will
take
up
as
long
as
that,
we
can
afford
it.
E
D
Thank
you
very
much
through
you.
Mr.
mayor,
there
have
been
other
communities
that
have
tested
for
radon,
including
Windsor
and
Thunder
Bay
regions
and,
and
many
of
them
are
adopting
mitigation
strategies.
The
Ontario
Building
Code
recommends
that
you
can
take
this
up,
but
there's
only
been
a
few
municipalities
that
have
taken
up
this
new
mitigation
strategy
to
reduce
community's
exposure.
So
again,
a
reason
I
wanted
to
present,
on
behalf
of
our
agency,
to
commend
the
city
for
taking
these
mitigation
strategies.
Thank.
E
D
F
D
D
Developed
and
approved
after
September
1st
for
existing
homes.
We
recommend
it
carefully
that
the
home
gets
tested
and
that,
if
your
levels
are
above
acceptable
ranges
so
above
two
hundred
becquerels
per
meter
cubed,
you
would
seek
out
an
expert
radon
expert
that
could
help
you
reduce
the
exposure
of
your
family
to
radon.
G
You,
your
worship
and
thanks
so
much
for
this
information.
So
what
brought
on
this
study,
so
we
know
that
health
candidate
did
an
initial
study
several
years
ago.
Did
we
start
to
see
high
rates
of
cancer
of
lung
cancer
in
Kingston,
or
was
it
calm,
complaints
that
radon
is
really
high
in
my
home
and
you
started
to
see
that
as
people
were
initiating
their
own
radon
test?
What
brought
on
this
study
so.
D
Through
you,
mr.
mayor,
we
had
multiple
presentations
to
us
at
the
Health
Unit
regarding
concerns
of
community
members
as
well
as
builders
and
those
that
have
been
tasked
with
remediating
homes,
I
actually
tested
my
own
home,
which
is
relatively
new
and
found
that
my
levels
were
exceptionally
high
and
as
well
standards
by
which
Public
Health
must
work
said
that
we
should
address
radon.
That
was
the
first
time
it
was
put
in
our
regulation
that
we
must,
at
a
local
level,
address
it
and
hence
the
reason
we
invested
to
test
further
our
community
exposure
to
this.
G
You
and
just
a
follow-up
question:
is
there
going
to
be
a
follow-up
study
and
maybe
five
years
or
what
will
happen
like
I
know?
It
said
in
the
report
that
people
should
take
their
own
initiative
to
you
know,
implement
the
mitigation
measures
and
then
get
it
retested.
But
would
there
be
an
overall
study
like
you
just
done,
I
have
just
completed,
and
you
know
five
years
time
or
so
through.
D
D
We
also
are
studying
knowledge,
attitude
and
beliefs
of
members
of
our
community
regarding
radon
so
that
we
can
increase
the
awareness
of
it
because
we
know
not.
Many
people
are
aware
that
it's
an
o1
cancer-causing
agent
that-
and
there
are
prevention
strategies
for
it.
I
will
take
away
your
suggestion
to
our
board
and
and
strongly
suggest
that
we
have
an
ongoing
communication
and
education
strategy
with
our
public
I.
D
Through
you,
mr.
mayor
I,
think
that's
a
wonderful
suggestion.
There
may
be
some
resistance
because
there
is
a
cost
to
remediating
I
think
the
most
cost-effective
means
is
preventing
radon
exposure
in
new
homes,
but
it's
it's
not
an
overwhelming
cost
to
make
sure
that
that
home
is
safe,
yeah
I
think
we
don't
allow
people
to
go
into
homes
that
have
active
asbestos
when
there's
10
times
higher
cancer
rate
from
radon.
Why
we
shouldn't
be
mandating
homes
to
get
tested.
Is
a
question
I
think
we
should
be
addressing
again
at
a
provincial
level.
D
J
J
You,
dr.
Moore
for
very
informative
report,
I
focus
on
one
element
of
the
report
where,
because
you've
been
speaking
about
private
dwellings
or
single-family
dwellings-
and
it
says
in
here
that
the
code
doesn't
have
a
guideline-
doesn't
have
line
guidelines
for
multi
residential
and
we
also
commercial
institutional.
But
for
those
Kingstonian
is
living
in
multi
residential.
Can
they
get
a
radon
testing
kit?
And
if
so,
what
would
they
do
if
they
found
high
levels.
D
So
if
the
questions
specifically
about
a
landlord-tenant
relationship,
if
the
levels
are
high
in
a
tenant
being
exposed
to
radon
in
the
end,
they
did
a
self
testing
or
got
the
test
through
us.
We
could,
depending
on
how
high
the
level
is
advocate
on
behalf
of
those
individuals,
for
increase
in
radon
reduction
strategies.
As
as
simple
as
turning
on
the
furnace
fan,
to
increase
the
ventilation
in
in
a
in
an
apartment,
dwelling
or
building
can
reduce
levels.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
a
very
expensive
remediation
strategy.
J
Related
question
for
those
residents
in
in
the
multi
residential
apartment
buildings,
but
also
would
apply
to
institutional
or
commercial
spaces
we've
just
we
passed
a
recent
motion
about
air
conditioning
and
keeping
your
doors
closed,
which
makes
sense
if
you're
trying
to
keep
the
air
cool
from
air
conditioning
reduce
energy
use.
Is
there
any
evidence
in
the
studies
showing
that
open
windows
reduces
radon
exposure?
D
K
D
A
Okay,
see
no
other
questions.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.
Okay.
So
moving
on
to
our
next
delegation,
Roger
Healey
will
appear
before
Council
to
speak
to
Clause
1,
a
report
number
71
from
the
environment,
infrastructure
and
transportation
policies.
Committee
respected
the
City
of
Kingston
Road
Safety
plan
vision,
sir.
L
L
I'm
I
represent
Kingston
Coalition
for
active
transportation.
We've
been
working
on
this
I've,
been
on
it
for
10
years,
so
we're
working
with
the
city
and
and
health
unit
and
and
schools,
and
queens
to
try
to
try
to
influence
better
road
design
and
and
more
active
transportation
and
cities
moving
along
very
nicely
on
that.
L
The
three
things
that
I'd
like
to
that
I
think
we
should
focus
on
and
we'd
like
you
to
focus
on
to
achieve
vision.
Zero
is
to
prior
to
a
speed
reduction
and,
secondly,
design
roads
for
lower
speeds
and
I.
Think
we
have
plenty
of
examples
of
that,
and-
and
the
third
thing
that
may
seem
counterintuitive
is
it
actually
improves
traffic
flow.
L
L
The
whoops.
This
thing
seems
to
be
very
ok,
I,
don't
know
if
these
slides
are
in
the
same
order,
I'm
used
to
it
anyway.
The
Netherlands
happens
to
be
one
of
the
places
of
places
with
the
happiest
road
drivers.
Actually,
the
road
users
of
all
these
countries,
rated
by
an
app
called
ways
which
tries
to
rate
road
driving
and
yet
and
also
the
Netherlands,
has
that
one
of
the
highest.
Probably
it
is
the
highest
act
of
transportation.
L
These
are
bicycle
uses
only
and
when
you
add
walking
and
other
forms
of
active
transportation
there
over
50%
in
the
Netherlands
and
I
think
we
can
learn
a
lot
from
that.
You
notice
Canada
way
down
here
in
the
US
down
at
1%
bicycling
the
thing
that
moved
the
Netherlands,
the
Netherlands
didn't
wasn't
always
Haven
for
bicycles.
If
you
look
along
the
this
is
starting
from
post-war
1950
on
the
lower
axis,
they
had
it
like
everyone
else
in
Europe.
L
We've.
We've
had
some
examples
of
how
Road
design
can
can
happen
and
it
actually
happened.
Accidentally
I
lived
on
the
corner
of
Beverly
I
live
further
up,
Beverly
Street,
but
at
Beverly
and
King.
When
the
park
was
improved
at
breakwater
Park,
it
became
a
crisis
zone
for
pedestrians
darting
across
there's.
No,
no
stop,
but
the
the
city
immediately
put
up
these
paddles
that
force
people
to
slow
down,
and
it
worked
quite
quite
effectively
as
a
stopgap
measure
and
now
there's
a
pedestrian
crossing
there.
L
But
the
main
things
we
have
to
deal
with
our
horizontal
deflection,
vertical
deflection,
narrower
lanes,
textured,
road
surfaces
and
peripheral
features
like
bollards.
So
there's
some
examples
of
that.
Ballard's
textured
surfaces,
much
like
you
have
around
Market
Square.
Here
there
they're,
actually
beautiful
and
they're
effective,
narrower
lanes
raised
intersections.
So
it's
like
a
table
sort
of
warns
drivers
and
then,
of
course,
our
roundabouts,
thirty
seconds,
okay,
the
the
so
designing
the
road.
L
It's
in
the
preamble
of
the
document,
we
design
the
roads
to
protect
road
users,
and
it's
not
enough
to
just
change
the
the
speed
limit.
The
speed
limit
itself
will
be
ignored
if,
if
the
road
allows
people
to
speed
and
their
unfortunately,
is
the
gruesome
probability
of
death
by
collision.
If
you
look
at
anything
over
twenty
kilometers
30
kilometers
an
hour,
you
have
a
very
high
likelihood
of
becoming
a
statistic.
Thank.
J
L
Well,
the
the
whole
notion
of
separation
of
the
vulnerable
users
from
the
high
traffic
areas
and
the
high
speed
areas
and
again
I
keep
referring
to
speed
reduction.
But
that's
that's
in
the
act
of
transportation
implementation
plan
which
you'll
deal
with
later,
but
I
think
that's
one
of
the
keys
and
then
the
other.
The
other
element
of
that
plan,
which
maybe
gets
all
overlooked
a
little
bit
as
this
all
neighborhood
focus.
L
If
neighborhoods
get
engaged
in
in
finding
out
how
they
best
get
around
their
neighborhood,
they
can
tell
the
city
staff
what
needs
to
change,
and
it's
not
a
and
and
I
think
a
lot
of
it
will
come
down
to
speed
reduction
in
a
way.
But
but,
as
I've
said,
with
proper
design,
you
can
you
can
approach
some
of
that.
Speed
reduction
will
actually
improve
traffic
flow.
M
L
The
real
problem
is
that
Sir
John
a
was
designed
like
a
miniature
401
and
you
you
know
as
a
driver.
You
just
want
to
go
fast
on
that
road,
and
so
you
don't
have
cues
that
tell
you
to
slow
down
and-
and
the
unfortunate
part
of
that
is
that
when
you
design
an
internal
City
Road
like
a
miniature
401
it
it
serves
as
a
barrier
for
people
crossing
the
neighborhoods
and
and
also
people
don't
ride
bicycles
on
that
road.
Very
much
so
so.
L
Some
of
the
some
of
the
current,
the
active
transportation
implementation
plan
that's
before
will
be
before
you
soon
doesn't
deal
much
with
sir
Johnny
McDonnell
Boulevard
right
now,
but
eventually
it
will
and
it
will
be
I
think
a
key
component
in
that
neighborhood,
your
district
and
and
the
Williamsville,
and
and
and
just
above
that,
around
around
the
Kingston
shopping
center.
I.
Think
those
are
areas
that
are
crucial
for
there's
a
lot
of
schools
there,
a
lot
of
lot
of
people
moving
back
and
forth
to
Queens,
as
you
know,
and
and
st.
N
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
your
presentation,
quick
question
regarding
one-way
streets.
The
two
streets
in
my
district
and
one
of
them
is
shared
with
councillor.
Strauss
district
are
one-way
streets,
Brock
and
Johnson,
and
they
seem
to
be
Speedway's,
I
know
under
New,
Urbanism
and
street-smart,
and
other
they've
addressed
the
issue
of
one-way
streets,
multi,
Lane,
one-way
streets
and
discourage
them.
L
That's
a
tough
one
when
I
first
moved
to
Kingston
Queen
Street
was
a
one-way
street
and
it
was
converted
to
two-way
and
I.
Think
I
still
find
myself
even
after
25
years
or
whatever
30
years.
You
know
not
being
sure.
So
it's
a
very
tough
thing
to
try
to
change
that.
That's
for
sure,
I
know
that
personally,
but
but
with
the
new
ballers
that
have
been
put
on
on
Johnson
and
Brock
they've
had
a
dramatic
effect
and
I've.
L
Had
people
tell
me
a
lot
that
they've
really
noticed
a
slowdown
of
traffic,
so
it's
it's
had
as
it
has
had
an
effect
of
slowing
traffic
down
for
sure
and
and
it's
made
cyclists
I
think
feel
a
lot
more
comfortable
because
of
not
just
because
of
the
reduced
speeds,
but
because
their
lane
is
more
delineated.
So
you
know
when
it
comes
to.
If
you
wanted
to
switch
Johnson
and
Brock
to
two-way
I.
Think
you'd
have
a
you'd
have
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
people
wondering
about
that.
F
Thank
you,
Mary
Patterson,
I
know.
Most
of
this
is
urban
focus.
Have
you
had
successful
ideas
in
in
the
rural
areas
and
some
of
our
thoughts
and
questions
are
for
pave
more
paved
shoulders
to
give
the
bikes
more
room
and
also
walking?
You
know
families,
and
just
just
that
alternate
transportation
or
modes
of
moving
around
and
and
that's
one
question
then
the
second
one
related
to
do.
You
see
success
stories
for
us
to
consider
in
in
the
plan
as
well
about
four
roundabouts.
L
Getting
back
to
the
question,
but
rural
areas
paved
shoulders
for
sure
are
very
important,
especially
for
people
walking,
dogs,
and
you
know,
kids,
walking
to
school
and
stuff
and
I.
Think
the
minimum
you
have
to
do
is
pave
the
shoulders,
but
as
far
as
other
issues
with
rural
areas,
I
think
the
questions
really
become.
You
know
who's
who's
using
it.
So
you
really
should
talk
about
separated
pathways.
L
You
know
the
KNP
trail
is
wonderful
out
there
and
and
you'll
see
a
lot
of
people
using
that
and
that
becomes
their
focus
for
dog
walking
and
family
activities,
so
focus
more
on
off-road
trails
for
for
now,
because
the
space
is
there
but
I
think.
Ideally,
if
we
had
to
redesign
a
city,
we
would
have
more
trails
through
the
city.
L
A
A
B
A
J
Stroud,
thank
you.
Worship
I,
have
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
staff
about
this
today.
To
ask
you
a
couple
questions
that
arise
from
my
reading
of
the
report
and
I'm
sure
residents
might
have
had
the
same
questions
so
I'll
just
ask
one
or
two
questions
of
staff:
I'm
satisfied
with
the
answers,
and
maybe
staff
could
answer
them
here,
and
that
would
also
answer
the
question
for
whatever
residents
might
wonder
about
this.
J
So
we've
got
the
provision
so
the
cleaning
of
floor
mats
we've
got
the
request
to
go
to
a
company,
an
external
company
called
Cintas
for
an
annual
cost
of
24,000
to
essentially
swap
out
the
mats
and
clean
ones
for
dirty
ones,
and
that
service
comes
at
a
cost
of
$2,000
a
month
for
the
municipality.
So
my
question
is
that
cost?
How
does
it
compare
to
what
we
must
have
done
before,
which
is
have
city
staff,
city,
cleaning
staff,
wash
the
rugs
or
the
floor
mats
themselves?.
O
Mr.
Calus
three-year
ship
in
facilities,
management,
construction
services
in
our
area,
staff,
internal
custodians
staff
and
contracted
custodial
staff,
they
clean
the
mats
on
a
daily
schedule,
so
the
vacuum
mop
them.
The
mass
that
we
change
out
is
more
seasonal
affected.
So
in
the
winter
months
they're
taken
out
and
cleaned
and
clean
mats
are
replaced.
We
don't
have
the
staffing
resources
to,
or
the
equipment
right
now
or
in
the
past,
to
clean
these
mats.
O
J
J
J
You
worship,
this
is
a
similar
questions
on
this
regarding
cost
and
rationale.
But
it's
a
larger
budget
item,
so
I
guess
hopefully
we'll
get
some
more
answers.
I
believe
it's
also
facilities
department,
so
I've
read
the
report.
There's
ongoing
leaking
in
the
roof
of
the
brick
building
that
and
all
attempts
to
mitigate
have
not
provided
leak,
free
roof.
That's
what
it
says
in
the
report,
including
removal
of
the
rooftop
garden
and
patio
and
other
attempts
to
fix
the
leaks,
and
so
now
the
recommendation
is
to
replace
the
entire
roof
at
significant
cost.
O
O
Various
consultants
and
contractors
have
looked
at
the
roof
since
well
before
2014.
One
of
the
main
causes
is
when
the
rooftop
garden
was
installed.
Previously,
a
lot
of
penetrations
happened
in
the
roof,
and
it's
gotten
to
the
point
that
the
membrane
underneath
is
soaked
in
the
insulation
and
even
though
sections
were
replaced
a
few
years
ago.
This
was
the
best
and
only
option
right
now
that
we
have
to
stop
these
leaks.
J
O
Correct
a
lot
of
thought
and
work
has
been
put
into
this
over
the
last
six
seven
years,
but
just
how
the
construction
occurred
many
years
ago
prior
to
the
city
owning
the
facility,
there's
a
lot
of
leaks
from
skylights
to
where
rooftop
units
are
and
the
curbing,
and
even
the
unit's
themselves,
to
the
actual
membrane
itself
to
even
how
the
flashing
was
installed.
There's
a
lot
of
challenges
with
the
roof.
Okay,.
J
My
final
question
has
to
do
with
the
timing
and
budgetary
implications
of
the
cost,
so
it
sounds.
The
rationale
sounds
fair
to
me.
That
replacement
may
well
be
our
only
option,
and
that
is
the
cost.
So
that's
not
it
dispute.
The
question
would
be
if
this
was
not
foreseeable
for
the
budget
year
and
why
it
was
not
included
in
the
budget
amounts
for
four
facilities.
O
It
was
included
in
the
budget,
but
the
cost
came
back
as
more
investigation
occurred,
that
there
were
significant
challenges
with
a
roof
and
also
we're
looking
at
replacing
all
the
insulation
and
increasing
the
amount
of
insulation
help
reduce
greenhouse
gas
emissions
and
we're
putting
back
a
membrane
that
will
be
able
to
take
a
rooftop
garden
in
the
future.
If
one
is
installed
back
again,
but
the
installation
is
not
included
in
this
price
of
the
rooftop
garden.
J
So
this
one
is
again
a
significant
cost.
It's
a
different
department.
I
guess
some
of
the
some
of
the
report
is
fairly
straightforward
and
easy
to
understand.
I
mean
this
is
a
software
suite
that
all
city
staff
would
have
access
to
it's
a
subscription
through
microsoft.
It
is
up
up-to-date,
cutting-edge
software,
I'm
assuming
the
annual
cost,
though
after
this
year
is
over
two
hundred
thousand
a
year,
and
it's
a
five
year
contract
and
making
this
agreement
worth
almost
a
million
dollars.
And
the
question
is
it's
a
sole
source
to
RFP?
C
You,
mr.
mayor,
the
one
of
the
realities
of
the
Microsoft
Office
suite,
is
it's
so
inherent
in
business
and
in
usage
that
there
aren't
really
a
lot
of
competitors?
There
are
some
there's
Google
Docs.
There
are
some
other
versions
out
there,
but
when
we
assess
the
capabilities
of
those
as
well
as
the
amount
of
integrations
that
other
systems
in
the
city
are
using
with
email
with
other
opportunities,
the
cost
of
of
the
city
to
switch
out
to
a
competitive
product
is
really
would
be
much
more
than
what
this
cost
is.
I.
J
Feared
that
would
be
the
answer,
so,
if
I
could
offer
my
opinion
on
this,
we
are
behind
the
8-ball
on
this
item,
because
this
is
a
monopoly
and
Microsoft
are
worldwide
and
they've
got
us
where
they
want
us.
They've
got
us
forced
to
enter
into
a
contract
with
them.
It
sort
of
reminds
me
of
what
happens
with
some
telecommunications
companies.
J
When
you've
got
a
monopoly,
you
can
net,
you
can
ask
your
own
price
and
and
you're
gonna
get
it,
and
that's
what
we're
seeing
here,
despite
the
fact
that
we
have
a
procurement
by
law
that
requires
a
competitive
process.
It
sounds
like
the
answer:
I
just
received
tells
us
that's
not
possible,
so
Microsoft's
business
practice
is
incompatible
with
our
procurement,
bylaw
and.
J
To
the
point
of
whether
city
staff
could
function
without
renewing
this
subscription
or
obtaining
the
subscription
I
guess
that's
debatable,
because
I
do
not
have
a
current
subscription
of
Microsoft
I
have
the
one
I
bought
with
my
computer,
it's
obviously
out
of
date
now,
but
I
still
use
it.
It
still
works
and
I.
Don't
understand
why
the
city
can't
do
the
same
or
get
a
cheaper
version.
J
A
B
A
H
Yes,
you
mr.
chair
I,
recall
when
this
discussion,
affordable
housing
had
come
up
in
strategic
planning,
as
well
as
when
we
allotted
18
million
dollars
towards
our
budget
with
respect
to
the
development
of
potential
partnerships
for
affordable
housing
and
the
question
I
asked
if
this
opportunity
would
also
be
presented
to
the
private
sector,
because
18
million
dollars
is
a
lot
of
money
and
my
under
interpretation
of
the
18
million
dollars,
so
that
would
be
coupled
with
some
sort
of
leveraged
program
with
the
federal
or
provincial
government.
P
You
in
3
mr.
mayor
so
a
couple
of
things
one
is
in
in
conversation
and
during
the
development
of
the
strategic
plan.
The
conversation
with
council
was
very
much
about
90,
affordable
units
and
looking
at
some
form
of
sustainability
of
those
units,
there's
nothing
preventing
us
from
working
with
the
private
sector,
but
typically
the
private
sector
looks
for
time
frame
that
are
not
necessarily
permanent
or
sustainable.
In
the
long
term,
they
are
usually
looking
for
20
years
or
less
in
terms
of
guarantee
for
affordable
housing.
P
Having
said
that,
there's
nothing
preventing
us
from
working
with
the
private
sector.
It
would
probably
not
be
in
the
same
at
the
same
level
of
funding
as
what
we
would
look
for
providing
to
not-for-profit
because
of
the
time
frame,
the
period
of
affordability
and
it
could
most
likely
be
on
another
site.
So
the
report
does
identify
that
the
city
will
work
with
partners
not
just
on
13
16,
princess
Street,
but
also
other
property,
including
non-for-profit,
potentially
properties.
So
it's
not
only
limited
to
to
this
parcel
of
land.
P
N
P
P
Those
units,
don't
necessarily
all
have
to
be
located
on
1316
princess
and
that
was
part
of
of
I.
Think
the
content
of
the
report
indicating
that
we
are
gonna
be
working
with
partners,
including
non-for-profit,
that
may
have
other
properties
where
they
may
be
interested
in
building
affordable
housing.
So
the
number
was
the
one
that
council
directed
us
to
achieve
and
the
properties
themselves
I
mean
would
include
1316
princess
Street,
but
not
necessarily
be
limited
to
that
property.
Thank.
N
P
Thank
you
and
three
mister
mayor
so
based
on,
and
this
is
just
looking
at
what
Kingston
Frontenac
housing
corporation,
built
in
the
last
few
years,
I
think
they.
The
range
was
between
160
to
200,
based
on
the
size
of
the
unit,
so
it
varied,
and
it
could
be
also
depending
on
the
site.
So
that's
what
we
would
assume
in
terms
of
costs
and
those
would
be
the
dollars
we
would
probably
consider
and
contemplate
for
permanent,
affordable
housing,
meaning
if
it's
an
organization,
that's
going
to
provide
those
units
on
a
permanent
basis.
P
Thank
You
three
mr.
mayor,
all
all
start
and
mr.
egan
boss
can
definitely
add
in
terms
of
the
property
itself,
because
his
team
worked
on
the
acquisition
and
the
record
of
site
condition.
Actually,
so
there's
been
a
lot
of
work
done
on
the
property
I'm
assuming
counselor,
that
you
might
be
referring
to
some
very
high-level
estimates
that
have
been
floating
around
without
a
whole
lot
of
surely
background
information
connected
to
them.
So
we
we
have.
We
are
currently
working
through
that,
but
we
have
been
doing
due
diligence
as
part
of
the
process.
J
Thank
you.
Your
worship,
I
have
a
couple
questions:
I
had
I
had
a
chance
to
speak.
I
have
a
really
good
conversation.
Mr.
leadmon,
on
on
this,
so
I
I
was
happy
to
learn
a
few
things
and
I
just
think
that
some
of
these
things,
the
the
the
citizens,
will
wanna
hear
too
and
so
I'm
gonna,
ask
you
a
few
questions
to
that
effect.
First
of
all,
so
the
Omni
on
the
this,
the
basic
strategy.
Here,
it's
clear
to
us-
we've
talked
about
it
before
in
stage
planning.
J
In
this
space,
which
the
preliminary
work
indicates,
164
units
total
are
possible
on
the
site,
so
that
is
a
known
number
one
of
the
unknown
that
some
of
the
unknowns
were
and
the
need
for
further
reporting
is
around
what
is
feasible
with
the
not-for-profit
model,
which
types
of
affordable
units
are
GI
versus
percentage
of
market
red
and
so
on,
different
types
of
affordable
and
there's
at
least
three
types
that
I
discussed
today
with
mr.
leadmon.
J
So
maybe
we
could
get
a
rundown
on
that
just
so
that
we
would
know
what
we're
looking
what
numbers
were
going
to
receive
in
the
future.
So
we
have
more
comfortable
supporting
this,
then
the
the
90
added
units,
so
the
the
the
council
direction,
with
the
strategic
planning
and
with
the
budget
motion,
were
to
add
90
units
of
affordable
housing,
and
so
the
question
would
be
if
this,
if
this
project
isn't
shown
to
be
feasible
to
add
the
full
90
units,
what
else
can
we
do
to
get
to
that
number
of
90?
J
And
what
would
that
look
like
and
then
the
other
question
being
regarding
the
Rideau
Heights
units
that
are
our
GI
units
that
are
being
moved
here
eventually,
hopefully,
with
the
model
weather
that
those
units
that
are
moving?
What
would
happen
to
the
old
units?
Are
they
being
demolished
or
transferred
to
some
other
type
of
housing
stock
and
then,
finally,
as
part
of
that
first
question,
the
various
types
of
affordable?
Q
Floors-
yours
sure,
through
you,
mr.
Muir,
so
I
think
just
starting
for
maybe
the
last
question
you
answer
just
to
clarify
the
portable
housing
benefit
item
is
is
separate
from
this
project
staff.
There
has
been
a
pilot
project
ongoing
for
2019,
where
we've
been
trying
out
a
new
model
of
instead
of
providing
subsidy
to
an
organization
or
private
landlords,
to
provide
subsidies
directly
to
clients
themselves
to
take
into
the
private
market.
Q
The,
if
that's
a
viable
option
to
consider
as
we
try
to
expand,
affordable
housing
in
the
city
in
the
county,
and
we
intend
to
have
a
report
back
to
Council
in
October,
describing
the
success
of
that
and
whether
that
should
be
continued
or
not.
So
that's
just
one
component
moving
forward,
but
we
wouldn't
expect
to
have
that
on
this
particular
property.
Q
The
types
of
units
certainly
councils
direction
in
the
strategic
planning
was
that
it
should
include
a
range
of
affordability,
so
the
range
of
affordability,
as
councillors,
trout
as
correctly
identified,
could
range
from
moving
our
GI
units
to
the
site.
The
three
providers
that
are
proposed
are
all
social
housing
providers.
They
would
all
be
able
to
provide
social
housing
in
their
units
because
we
have
existing
agreements
with
them.
Q
Part
of
the
implementation
plan
that
we've
committed
to
bike
in
the
recommendation
is
that
that
range
of
affordable
ability
would
be
nailed
down,
as
we
worked
with
our
partners
to
determine
how
many
units
could
be
feasibly
provided
at
each
type
of
affordability,
and
obviously
that
would
include
a
financial
analysis
pro
forma
analysis
of
the
various
development
proposals
to
determine
how
much
at
various
levels
we
can
provide
and
make
the
unit's
sustainable
in
the
long
term.
I
believe
you
had
me
one
other
question:
I
probably
have
an
answer:
gedan.
J
Yeah,
so
to
Claire,
just
to
reassure
us
about
the
original
motion
that
asks
for
90
added
units
of
affordable
housing
and
if
some
are
moving
from
Reno
Heights
then
are
we
losing
those
units
in
in
Reno
Heights
or
what's
happening
because
it's
90
added
unit,
so
net
90
added.
So
how
does
that
all
fit
together?
Sure.
Q
So
three,
mr.
mayor,
correct
that
it's
it's
it's
an
understood
by
staff
that
it's
a
net
90
new
units,
certainly
those
units
that
are
moved
from
Rito
Heights.
We
have
already
started.
Do
it
from
the
portable
housing
benefit
program
as
well
and
have
allowed
KF
HC
to
return
them
to
what
we
would
simply
call
market.
However,
they
don't
the
nature
of
the
market
in
those
areas.
They'll
remain
affordable
at
the
80%
level.
Q
P
You
and
through
you,
mr.
mayor,
so
the
the
90
units
may
not
all
be
located
at
1316
princess
street.
We
have
a
partner,
for
example,
that
we're
trying
to
work
with
that
actually
owns
other
properties
and
they're
interested
in
building
on
some
of
their
properties.
So
there
may
be
a
portion
of
the
90
that
gets
built
on
some
other
properties,
so
it
doesn't
mean
that
all
the
nine
you
will
actually
be
at
1316
princess,
okay,.
J
P
J
Hey,
thank
you
very
much
for
those
detailed
responses.
I
would
just
say
to
my
colleagues
that,
obviously,
with
the
housing
crisis
and
general
affordability
and
everything
in
the
national
headlines
that
we're
generating
here
in
Kingston
on
this,
this
is
very,
very
important
and
I.
Don't
need
to
tell
you
that,
but
because
of
this
I
think
that
the
nuance
that
we've
gone
over
today,
thirty.
J
The
way
that
we're
getting
more
what
I
like
is
the
last
Clause.
The
last
Clause
tells
us
that,
even
though
we
don't
have
all
the
answers
now,
we
will
be
getting
them
and
we're
moving
towards
more
affordable
housing
stock,
and
for
that
reason,
I
will
be
supporting
this.
These
recommendations.
Thank
you.
Thank.
R
Mr.
mayor
just
to
be
clear
but
I
think
that
was
clear,
but
there's
another
way
of
looking
at
it,
and
that
is
the
original
proposal
suggested
30
rgi
30,
affordable
in
30
market.
So
we
might
understand
that
the
30
rgi
will
not
necessarily
be
at
1316
princess
street.
It's
sort
of
the
flip
side
of
the
question
that
was
previously
asked,
but
I'm
not
sure
the
answer
is
symmetrical
in
in
in
the
council's
strategic
priorities,
thing
I'm
not
going
to
quarrel
about
that.
R
It
says
90,
affordable
units
and,
in
fact,
in
a
way,
staff
have
actually
improved
the
proposal.
Okay,
let's
be
clear
about
this
by
saying
they're
going
to
make
all
the
other
ones
affordable.
What
I'm
concerned
about
is
the
fate
of
the
30
rgi
units
was
in
the
original
proposal,
because
that
covers
a
whole
section
of
the
population
and
why
it
was
in
that
in
the
proposal.
The
market
units
that
would
call
for
in
the
original
proposal
were
there
to
make
sure
that
the
rgi
units
were
affordable,
like
from
from
a
project
point
of
view.
P
You
Andrea
mr.
mayor
I,
just
so
happened
to
have
exhibit
a
big
plan
with
me
and
I
do
have
the
measureable
listed
here
for
this
item
and
it
reads:
minimum
of
90,
affordable
units
ranging
from
rgi
to
80%
CMHC
market
rent
within
a
hundred
and
sixty
approximately
housing
unit
development
at
thirteen.
Sixteen
princess
street
land
use
planning
and
development
approvals
agreement
were
in
2019,
2020
and
construction
in
2020
20
seconds.
P
R
R
The
proposal
was
a
march
30
market
30,
affordable
and
30
rgi,
because
they
thought
that
would
address
all
three
sections
of
the
fragmented
market
that
we
face
and
would
allow
for
though
we
would
need
those
30
yards
gie,
because
the
people
at
the
bottom
are
the
ones
that
are
most
acutely
affected.
So
what
I'm
trying
to
find
out
is
in
the
thinking
of
staff.
Where
did
those
30
rgi
units
go?
Are
they
going
to
be
there
at
all
and
that's
an
issue
they're
not
there?
It's
all
so.
A
A
R
I
agree
with
that,
but
I'm
trying
to
relate
that
to
the
original
concept
and
I
put
before
council
and
how
that
would
work
and
what
would
make
it
affordable
across
the
board
for
different
segments
of
the
population
and
so
I'm
concerned
about
the
people
at
the
bottom
of
the
income
level.
Okay,
and
that,
where
those
are
dia
units
went
arrow.
If
we're
gonna,
do
it
in
terms.
P
You
and
three
misdemeanors,
so
we
will
definitely
include
our
GI.
The
number
I
don't
think
we
finalized
I,
don't
think
we
finalized
the
overall
number,
either
in
terms
of
sixty
percent
market,
rent,
etc.
The
thing
that
I
would
add
as
well
for
council
is
that
from
a
staff
perspective,
we
would
never
recommend
financing
market
units.
P
So
if
we
take
the
90
units,
as
as
it
was
suggested,
and
the
18
million,
this
means
that
we
would
be
providing
as
a
city
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
for
a
market
unit
which,
from
a
staff
perspective,
we
would
not
recommend
that
investment.
We
would
instead
utilize
that
money
to
create
more
affordable
housing,
whether
those
range
from
our
GI
two
to
80
percent,
so
the
actual
number
and
the
breakdown
hasn't
yet
been
determined.
But
that's
what
would
be
reported
back
to
Council,
okay,.
R
So
I
just
want
to
put
that
question
about
the
30
rgr
in
the
table
to
be
answered.
I
agree
that
you
should
the
reason
why
the
market
rents
were
in
there
in
the
beginning
was
to
help
you
finance
the
30
rgi
that
were
part
of
the
original
okay.
You
were.
We
understand
that
concept,
because
kfh
C
doesn't
now
their
market
rent
is
not
what's
going
on
like
so
the
old
term
is
to
be
the
economic
rent,
okay,
and
so
you
know,
average
people
could
buy
them,
otherwise
they
couldn't
back
in
mid
80s.
R
The
problem
is
up
to
20
years.
Those
units
lapse,
they
are
no
law
and
then,
as
people
move
out,
they
become
bull
market
because
there's
no
rent
control
I'm
after
move
out
right.
So
when
you're,
comparing
the
price
of
what
you're
paying
and
what
you're
getting
you
need
to
measure
that
model
against
the
not-for-profit
model,
which
is
essentially,
you
put
your
investment
in
as
as
a
government,
and
you
get
it
in
perpetuity
like
forever
or
in
more
practical
terms,
50
60
70
years
they're
going
to
be
affordable,
they're
permanent
now
to
the
taxpayer.
R
What
does
that
mean
to
the
taxpayer?
They
paid
that
50
thousand
or
millions
of
dollars
into
those
private
to
development
over
time
they
they
they
paid
for
that
in
their
lifetime
and
it
lapses
after
20
years.
So
if
you
live
to
be
80,
you'll
get
to
pay
for
the
same
amount
of
affordable
housing
four
times
in
your
life.
So
what's
the
better
deal?
Clearly,
I've
done
the
money.
I've
done
the
analysis.
The
better
deal
is
a
not-for-profit.
S
R
And
so
it's
important
to
look
at
the
whole
roll
out,
see
what's
more
affordable
to
the
taxpayer.
I
realized
I
thought
the
only
thing
we're
looking
at
here.
We
got
a
crisis,
but
it's.
If
you're
talking
about
the
spending
money
wisely,
the
not-for-profit
route
works
better
and
most
developers
don't
want
to
do
it
because
it
isn't
maximize
profit.
Obviously
thank
you.
B
A
You
so
there's
the
one
item:
2019
budget
update
county
of
fraud,
nak
services-
this
is
a
consider
report,
so
just
to
remind
council
how
to
consider
report
works.
There
are
three
options
that
are
before
us:
I
would
look
to
Council
to
a
counselor
to
move
one
of
the
options.
We
will
then
debate
and
discuss
that
option.
If
it
passes,
then
we're
done.
If
it
fails,
then
there's
an
opportunity
for
a
counselor
to
put
forward
another
option
until
one
of
the
options
passes,
comfortable
I'd.
A
T
You
or
shifting
through
you,
I
know
this
has
been
a
very
difficult
file.
There's
been
numerous
meetings
over
this
there's.
Also
a
lot
of
public
concern.
That's
come
forward
about
funding.
Obviously
you
see
land
ambulance
in
there
as
well
and
for
him
out
Home
for
the
Aged
and
there's
obviously
big
budget
implications.
T
When
we
direct
our
site
agencies
to
come
in
at
around
two
and
a
half
percent,
and
then
you
start
having
ones
that
are
in
at
three
or
four
times
that
so
it
does
create
quite
a
lot
of
head-scratching
and
basically
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
make
this
all
Drive.
Every
single
budget
at
the
city
right
now
and
then
across
the
country
is
facing
pressure.
T
So,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
this
is
something
where
it's
a
middle
road
I'd
like
to
thank
staff
for
proposing
it,
and
I'd
asked
also
like
to
ask
the
city
treasurer.
What
are
some
of
the
implications
here
and
are
there?
Some
cost
savings
that
can
be
found
and
maybe,
if
she
could
elaborate
a
little
bit
more
on
how
the
agreement
with
with
the
county
actually
works.
Miss.
A
U
Thank
you
for
your
worship,
so
just
just
quickly
in
terms
of
how
we've
reached
to
this
point,
so
the
council
will
recall
when
we
were
in
budget
in
January.
County
council
had
not
yet
started
their
budget
deliberations.
So
there
was
an
estimate
that
we've
included
in
the
budget
as
an
envelope
for
the
county
Frontenac
for
both
services.
We
did
have
some
preliminary
numbers
that
had
come
from
the
county
initially
and
working
with
the
county.
We
were
able
to
to
get
the
projections
down
a
bit
and
we
did
that
by
a
couple
of
things.
U
One
included
in
their
original
submission
were
some
special
one-time
projects
which
which
we
treat
it
as
like
an
increase
in
service,
and
so
we
pulled
those
out
and
based
on
some
of
my
discussions
with
the
county
management.
They
felt
that
those
still
needed
to
go
through
County
Council
and
that
there
would
be
a
good
chance
that
those
would
not
actually
happen,
particularly
in
a
year
where
there
was
such
challenges
with
just
the
basic
level
of
service
that
they
had.
U
The
other
thing
that
we
had
included
at
the
time
was
looking
at
some
of
their
future
projections,
which
obviously
now
are
a
bit
out
of
date
and
based
on
new
information
that
we've
got
more
recently
from
the
province,
but
based
on
their
projections.
We
saw
that
the
land
ambulance
in
particular,
was
actually
staying
fairly
flat
in
the
subsequent
year,
and
so
we
talked
about
a
way
that
perhaps
we
could
phase
in
some
of
the
increase
over
two
years,
rather
than
taking
it
all
in
one
year.
U
So
based
on
those,
we
put
an
estimate
of
about
5%
overall
in
the
budget,
because
we
had
this
and
a
couple
of
other
smaller
agencies
that
weren't
quite
finalized.
We
did
include
about
another
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
in
contingency
funds
as
well,
knowing
that
these
budgets
still
needed
to
be
approved.
So
we
had
roughly
about
six
and
a
half
percent
in
overall
for
the
county,
including
that
$50,000
the
county
did
come
and
present
as
you'll
recall
at
the
budget
deliberations
and
they
presented
their
base
budget.
U
They
did
not
present
at
the
time
the
special
projects,
because
those
were
definitely
an
unknown.
Subsequent
to
that.
When
they
actually
finished
their
budget
deliberations
and
approved
their
budgets
and
sent
us
the
the
new
revised
invoice,
it
did
include
the
base
budget
plus
the
special
projects
plus
about
another
hundred
thousand
dollars
of
additional
things
that
had
happened
after
our
budget
had
been
passed,
which
got
us
up
to
thee
to
the
higher
amount.
So
that's
just
a
bit
of
the
the
chronological
events
that
happen
that
brought
us
to
to
this
point.
T
Thank
you
and
through
your
worship,
so
I
think
this
is
something
where
I
mean
definitely
we're
all
facing
different
pressures.
This
is
a
very
difficult
file.
I
know
you'll
notice.
We
have
a
number
of
paramedics
in
here
who
who
live
and
breed
this
every
day.
So
I
think
this
is
something
where
we
want
to
be
cognizant
with
the
frontline
services
and
and
the
great
work
that
they
do.
T
But
at
the
same
time
we
have
to
find
a
way
to
be
able
to
kind
of
do
that
with
within
the
realm
of
today,
and
that's
that
everybody's
facing
budget
restrictions
and
tightening
so
to
is
a
little
bit
of
a
middle
ground,
and
so
hopefully
we
can
support
that,
and
then
we
can
all
work
together
going
forward
in
the
future
to
try
to
make
up
that
difference.
Thank
you.
Thank.
N
You
and
again
I
had
an
opportunity
to
speak
to
staff
earlier
I
just
wanted
to
confirm
with
the
treasurer,
if
I
might
that
in
all
of
these
options,
but
particularly
option
two,
because
that's
what's
on
the
floor,
the
the
amount
of
money
that
we
are
pledging
towards
land
ambulance
services
that
is
allocated
funding
for
land
ambulance
services.
Is
that
correct
the
count?
The
reason
I'm
asking
is
the
county
can't
turn
around
and
reprioritize
any
of
that
money
and
flow
that
money
to.
N
I
didn't
have
the
opportunity
or
the
motivation,
I
guess
to
go
to
the
rule
act,
meeting
I'm,
just
curious
if
I
could
direct
a
question
to
either
staff
or
either
of
our
members
on
that
committee,
the
amount
that
is
now
on
the
floor
for
option
two.
Does
that
maintain
urban
level
of
service
proposed?
Does
it
increase
it
slightly
as
the
proposal
in
front
of
us
from
the
county.
U
You
through
your
worship,
so
the
proposal
on
the
table
works
out
to
about
seven
and
a
half
percent
which,
as
councillor
Bowman
said,
is
sort
of
a
middle
of
the
road
in
terms
of
dollar
value.
So
we
started
with
a
variance
of
about
four
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
dollars
of
which,
with
the
proposal
on
the
table,
the
city
would
be
taking
up
about
two
hundred
and
fifty
of
that,
leaving
about
two
hundred
thousand
short
from
what
the
county
has
approved
as
part
of
their
budget.
F
Yeah
I
would
sort
of
echo
what
councillor
Boehm
has
said.
I
will
also
support
option.
Two
I
think
it
is
the
best
option
and
I
I
do
want
to
thank
staff
for
putting
this
together
as
well
and
for
it's
a
difficult
file
and
even
well,
especially
for
me,
probably
trying
to
really
grasp
at
all,
but
I
I.
Think
that
we're
really
finding
the
middle
ground
here
and
commend
staff
for
that
and
I
hope
that
we
can
be
at
the
table
more
as
a
rule.
F
E
You
mayor
Paterson
through
you,
a
question
that
option
two.
It
says
that
the
rule
Acme
ting
happened
on
June
26,
but
in
the
report
it
mentions
the
commitment
from
the
provincial
minister
of
health
at
the
end
of
August,
at
amo
to
increase
land
and
then's
transfers.
4%
I'm
wondering
if
that
would
alter
the
dollars
that
we
see
in
this
option.
U
That's
a
good
question:
I'm,
not
sure
exactly
what's
been
included
what
the
counties
included
in
the
revenue
line
item
I
know
they
did
include
a
percentage
whether
it
was
4%
or
not.
I'm,
not
sure
in
terms
of
that,
I
know
that
the
provincial
funding
for
the
land
ambulance
is
always
a
year
behind
as
well.
So
that's
another
challenge,
so
they
would
know
what
those
numbers
were.
So
my
guess
would
be.
It
wouldn't
affect
it.
But
but
I
stand
to
be
corrected
on
that.
Okay,.
U
A
I
I
guess
my
question
then,
would
be
if
that
we're
going
to
end
up
in
arbitration
in
any
event,
or
that
seems
like
a
likelihood
you
know
we
have
asked
people
to
kind
of
show
some
some
restraint.
We
worked
with
them
in
terms
of
establishing
the
budget
priorities.
You
know,
and
here
we
are
kind
of
looking
at
a
10%
increase.
I
Potentially,
if
that
you
know,
if
that's
what
the
county
is
looking
for,
ultimately
and
in
terms
of
going
to
arbitration,
so
you
know
I,
guess
I'm
I'm
I'm,
although
I
certainly
understand
the
the
need
to
provide
this
service
and
I
want
to
see
our
citizens.
You
know
adequately
protected
and
I
certainly
want
to
work
in
partnership
with
the
county.
I
do
take
some
exception
to
the
letter
that
we
received
from
the
from
the
CEO
today
that
sort
of
suggested
that
you
know
because
of
extra
calls
on
the
west
end.
I
You
know,
that's
the
that's
the
cost
center.
That's
created
the
problem.
Well,
I
suspect,
there's
lots
of
different
kinds
of
issues
relative
to
cost
centers
throughout
the
county
and
and
maybe
throughout
the
city,
so
I
guess
I
would
would
probably
be
inclined
to
support
option
two,
but
I
do
it
with
some
reluctance
because
of
the
way
the
process
has
worked.
This
time.
R
R
I'm
a
little
reluctant
to
support
an
option
that
has
can't
even
get
on
the
table
of
the
partner
you're,
trying
to
communicate
with
I've.
Also
a
little
unclear.
There's
a
question
to
that.
Why
did
the
staff
recommend
that
I
read
they
recommend
option
three
in
and
if
so,
what's
the
big
advantage
or
maybe
there's
no
big
advantage,
but
what's
the
advantage
over
option
two
in.
P
You
and
through
you,
mr.
mayor,
so
from
a
staff
perspective,
we're
actually
not
recommend
making
a
recommendation
on
this
one
we're
providing
Council
with
two
options
for
consideration.
I
can
tell
you,
though,
that
unless
council
chooses
to
support
option,
three
I
think
we
would
most
likely
end
up
in
a
process
of
mediation
of
some
type.
P
The
keep
in
mind
that
the
option
three
is
something
that
we
are
also
potentially
likely
to
see
again
next
year,
meaning
that,
based
on
permanent
preliminary
discussions
with
county
staff,
they
have
indicated
that
they
anticipate
the
increases
to
be
the
same
next
year
and
that
there's
really
not
much
that
they
can
do
to
change
that
at
this
point.
So
in
in
this
situation,
it
would
mean
that
we
would
be
having
this
conversation
again
next
year.
Even
most
likely,
we
selected
our
council
selected
option.
Three.
R
Okay,
so
I
guess
that's
a
decision
council.
Some
some
councillors
indicated
Cobb,
so
do
I
understand
that
not
sure
that
he
actually
gets
us
anywhere,
but
I
objections
to
council
option
three,
although
it
looks
like
all
the
options
gives
us
the
same
place
of
my
main
objection
to
option
three
is
or
just
the
process
as
it
works.
It's
no
kind
of
budgeting
when
you're
raiding
your
reserve
funds
to
pay
for
something,
that's
an
operating
expense.
That's
just
not
good
practice.
I
know
in
this
case:
it's
not
the
fault
of
the
city.
R
We
asked
we
didn't
get
it.
We
can
get
the
information
in
time
and
also
the
idea
that
we
would
have
a
special
levy
due
to
cover
this.
Personally,
from
my
personal
point
of
view,
we're
gonna
have
problems
with
what
the
province
is
doing.
We
may
have
a
special
levy
for
that,
so
we
can
show
people
wasn't
hard
doing.
This
was
downloaded
on
us
I
think
we
were
in
my
opinion.
We
should
reserve
that
for
that
that
provincial
potential
outfall
so
now
somebody
can
clear
up
this
logjam
because
I
don't
really
know
I
I
think
I.
V
R
Okay,
so
superior
of
two
parties
with
two
different
interpretations
of
the
agreement:
right
and
agreement,
it
seems
to
be
pretty
general
and
so
I
suppose,
in
some
sense,
with
attendant
agreements
over
the
years.
So
maybe
that's
I
know
if
that's
avoidable,
but
that's
probably
part
of
the
problem,
so
I
think
I
personally
think
it
should
go
to
mediation
and
necessary
arbitration
and
which
optionally
vote
for
probably
make
some
difference.
But
enough
to
matter
in
this
case,
because.
R
Because
of
the
letter
that
we
got
indicates
that
just
not
looking
at
it
the
same
way
at
all
I
object.
I
just
want
to
say
somebody
in
councillors
say
that
we,
the
county,
is
subsidizing
us
we're
paying
79
percent
of
the
cost
of
the
land
ambulance,
and
you
have
to
have
a
system
to
make
that
work.
Because
we've
talked
about
the
communications
and
all
that
I
suppose
we
could
suggest
that
the
county
go
and
ask
the
province
to
break
the
agreement.
R
W
W
Just
for
the
sake
of
this
argument,
let's
say
it
is
true
and
they
provide
that
at
a
later
date.
It
strike
me,
then
that
they
are
subsidizing
us
and
not.
We
subsidizing
them
in
any
way.
May
I
ask
that
if
we,
my
preferred
option
is
three
just
to
be
clear
between
option
number.
Two
and
number
three
are
the
proportions
that
we
pay
and
the
proportions
that
they
pay
constant
like
they
are
not
stiffing
us
for
any
extra
charges.
As
a
result
of
having
more
syrup
calls
for
service
within
our
jurisdiction,
it's.
U
Immersion,
yes,
that's
correct,
so
the
proportions
are
staying
the
same.
The
the
land
ambulance
is
based
on
a
weighted
assessment
which
we're
paying
about
just
under
80
percent,
but
78
percent
and
the
Fairmount
home
for
the
agent
is
based
on
a
negotiated
percentage
and
it's
a
flat
68
percent.
So
those
have
not
changed
at
all.
It's
just
the
amount
of
the
actual
lab'
that
that
they're
requesting
so.
W
A
U
Worship
so
I
going
back
to
the
previous
question.
They
have
to
be
kept
separate
as
separate
services,
so
they
don't
have
the
ability
to
move
those
amounts
between
the
two
services.
They
would
be
kept
separate
how
they're
gonna
deal
with
it.
I
don't
know
what
they
would
do
it
therein,
but
they
do
have
to
keep
them
as
two
very
separate
services.
So.
U
U
They
could
also
look
at
where
they
could
find
some
cost
savings
if
there
is
additional
revenues
coming
from
the
provincial
announcement
and
I
just
to
confirm
that
they
have
an
increase
in
the
revenue
of
about
two
and
a
half
percent
is
showing
in
their
approved
budget
now,
I
would
say
it
would
be
probably
closer
to
three
points,
something
because
that
was
a.
It
would
be
a
nine-month
that
the
province
has
confirmed.
U
W
A
On
this,
when
it's
my
turn
but
I
think
all
I'll,
just
jump
in
so
in
the
discussion
of
the
relaxed
meeting
with
it
what's
been
very
clear,
is
that
the
funding
commitment
has
already
been
made.
So
this
is
not
a
discussion
on
whether
we're
going
to
adjust
the
level
of
paramedic
services.
Those
decisions
have
already
happened.
The
decision
is
just
about
who's
going
to
pay
for
it,
so
there
is
no
difference
between
option
one,
two
or
three
about
the
actual
amount
of
service.
A
W
A
V
The
two
costs
would
be
the
cost
of
representation.
We
would
do
this
in-house
and
the
costs
are
shared
of
the
portion
of
the
mediation
of
the
arbitration.
I
can
only
sort
of
estimate
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars
in
relation
to
you
know
a
multi-day
mediation
for
the
mediator,
but
that
would
be
very
potentially
high-end.
So
I
don't
look
at
this
as
a
process
of,
for
example,
entering
into
complex
litigation
and,
as
we
note,
the
the
value
of
the
total
value
between
two
and
three
is
total,
just
a
little
over
two
hundred
thousand
dollars.
V
W
V
W
V
V
W
When
you
say
successfully,
I
mean
closer
to
option
2
rather
than
closer
to
option
3,
but
not
exactly
option
to
like
do
it.
Does
anybody
ever
get
exactly
what
they
want?
No
okay.
So
if
we
were
to
go
to
arbitration,
there
would
be
some
cost
in
between
option
2
and
3,
plus
lawyer
fees,
plus
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
So
we're
talking
about
essentially
wasted
money.
Is
that
correct,
as.
W
So,
as
I
see
it
there's
a
certain
justice
in
this
because
we
are
using
it
more
than
they
are
and
we're
paying
less
than
they
are
proportionately
to
what
we're
using
it's
a
service.
That's
a
health
service.
I
mean
this
is
a
critical
thing.
I
think
nobody
would
actually
want
an
ambulance
to
be
late
or
anything
like
that.
W
If
we
go
with
number
two
anyway,
it
would
seem
better
just
to
save
your
lunch
time
and
your
evenings
and
avoid
that
altogether
and
lower
fees
to
these
other
guys
that
we're
gonna
have
if
we
were
to
take
number
three
essentially
where
we're
paying
for
a
service
we're
growing.
We
need
ambulance
care
and
it's
going
to
go
up
when
we
are
paying
for
a
service.
That's
what
taxes
are
for.
W
We
are
taxing
forest
service
and
if
you
want
to
be
secure
and
safe
in
your
home,
knowing
that
a
paramedic
is
going
to
get
there,
we
need
to
pay
for
it
now.
I
understand
that
the
provincial
government
is
also
cutting
a
bunch
of
stuff
and
I
suspect
that
they
will
be
cutting
their
portion
of
whatever
they
fund
us
on
this
they're
transferring
essentially
the
cost
of
this
from
the
income
tax
payer
to
the
property
tax
payer.
W
K
Thank
you,
worship,
I,
guess.
First,
a
question.
The
the
letter
from
the
CEO
suggests
that
the
the
rationale
for
option
3
essentially
is
has
to
do
with
staff
cuts
in
the
four
hour
a
day.
Minimum
care
is
that
I
know
that
we
like
I,
guess.
First
of
all,
that
seems
to
me
to
be
a
policy
that
is
unrelated
to
what
we
do
here.
P
You
and
through
mr.
mayor
I'm,
assuming
that
you're,
referring
to
the
fair
amount
hold
for
our
of
care
internal
policy
that
they
decided
to
set
for
themselves,
which
is
you
know,
which
is
something
that
they
have
decided
to
do
on
their
own.
It
is
not
legislative
that
are
mandated
by
any
means
by
the
province,
so
this
is
a
decision
that
they've
made
independently
to
increase
their
level
of
service.
To
achieve
that,
great.
K
Thanks,
that's
that's
sort
of
what
I
was
thinking
and
I
really
do.
You
know
fundamentally
support
the
four
hour
a
day,
minimum
care
all
across
the
province.
But
again
this
is
that's
a
the
provincial
level
and
therefore
option
two
makes
the
most
sense
because
going
down
the
road
of
supporting
what
would
be
out
of
our
jurisdiction,
valid
as
it
is
important
as
it
is,
takes
it
outside
of
the
scope
of
what
we
should
even
be
considering
so
I,
certainly
support
option.
Two
I
think
we
need
to
consider
you
know
going
beyond
our.
K
The
the
financial
constraints
that
we
have
here
and
our
desire
to
keep
the
budget
requests
where
we
want
them
to
be
I,
think
we
do
need
to
look
at
what
is
behind
the
numbers
to
some
extent
so
increase
in
calls
there.
There
are
some
factors
that
have
led
to
this,
including
the
opioid
crisis,
mental
health
crisis,
and
we
have
frontline
staff
if
we
have
paramedics
who
deal
with
those
calls
and
increase
in
calls
leads
to
increase
an
injury
and
therefore
increase
cost.
So
there
are
legitimate
sort
of
societal
factors,
issues
that
are
happening.
K
J
I
think
that
there's
two
main
aspects
here
we
need
to
consider
one
is
the
looming,
mediation
and
arbitration,
which
sort
of
forces
our
hand
of
what
what
to
do
from
a
governance
perspective
financially
and
the
other
one
is
the
larger
the
higher
level
aspect,
the
interaction
with
with
the
province
essentially,
but
not
just
the
interaction
with
the
province.
The
demographic
shift,
combined
with
the
rise
in
acuity
amongst
the
both
population
that
might
need
ambulances,
which
is
an
aging
population
which
we,
as
we
know,
is
now
the
largest
demographic
and
the
population.
J
It's
just
happening
at
the
same
time
as
the
climate
things
that
are
happening,
such
as
the
category
five
hurricane,
that's
happening
in
Bahamas.
They
these
this
rise
in
acuity
amongst
our
population,
sicker
and
sicker
people
coming
to
hospital
via
ambulance
is
real
and
it
is
a
larger
problem
than
either
the
county
or
the
city
can
deal
with
on
their
own.
J
Therefore,
maybe
we're
best
to
just
look
at
the
governance
issue
of
the
finances
and
separate
the
other
gloomy
picture
coming
our
way
because
it
affects
all
of
all
of
healthcare,
all
healthcare
workers,
all
help,
health
care
budgets
and
it's
up
to
the
province
and,
ultimately,
the
federal
government
to
start
doing
something
about
it.
So
you
know
if
you
were
in
the
Bahamas
and
the
water
was
rising
and
you
had
a
few
sandbags.
J
You
know
you
could
argue
with
your
family
members
how
me
sandbags
to
put
down,
but
really
you
need
to
maybe
get
get
back
from
the
water.
So
we
need
a
high
level
of
solution
to
the
rising
acuity
and
the
need
for
more
ambulance
calls
the
thing
that
it's
flooded,
my
cardiac
unit,
the
entire
summer,
is
rising
acuity.
So
would
you
know
this
budgetary
dispute
between
us
in
the
county?
Is
it's
nothing
to
do
with
that,
and
therefore
we
don't
do
us
any
services
by
picking
option
three,
because
there's
very
little
upside
in
picking
option
three.
J
M
Thank
you
and
through
you,
it
was
mentioned
earlier
that
we
will
have
to
go
through
this
over
again
next
year,
so
with
the
Forester
with
option
two,
it's
likely
that
we
will
have
mediation
and
arbitration.
That's
correct
right
will,
that
is,
it
is
there
a
likelihood
that
that
would
be
a
very
positive
process
to
go
through,
so
we
won't
have
to
go
through
this
again
next
year.
V
I
point
that
out
to
illustrate
in
the
past
on
this
just
one
arrangement
with
the
county:
we've
had
at
least
six
or
seven
disagreements
in
needing
clarification,
so
I
wouldn't
want
to
give
the
hope
that
this
would
solve
all
issues,
especially
in
the
context
of
the
changes
that
are
coming
from
upper-level
government.
But
we
can
expect
that
this
matter
of
how
we
come
to
a
budget,
which
I
think
is
this
year's
matter-
that
we're
asking
is
this
municipality
to
have
a
greater
say
at
the
table?
M
A
You
so
I
certainly
appreciate
the
discussion
we've
had
around
the
table
on
this
item
so
far
tonight,
so
this
has
actually
been
an
ongoing
discussion.
Now
for
a
number
of
months,
the
warden
of
the
county
and
I
have
spoken
on
many
occasions
on
the
phone
and
in
person,
and
we
have
had
very
good
discussions.
We
quickly
identified
that,
through
a
series
of
events
that
we
had
a
gap,
we
had
budgeted
for
a
5%
increase.
A
They
came
in
with
a
10%
increase,
and
so
we
were
trying
to
work
collectively,
the
two
of
us
to
try
to
find
some
way
some
creative
option
to
be
able
to
somehow
bridge
the
gap,
understanding
that
this
is
not
about
not
valuing
the
services
that
are
provided,
of
course,
they're
very
important
again.
Those
funding
commitments
have
already
been
made.
So
what
is
the
best
approach
moving
forward?
So
I
want
to
thank
the
warden
for
his
help
on
this
trying
to
come
up
with
creative
solutions.
A
That
was
a
concern
to
me,
because
I
believe
that,
in
the
spirit
of
partnership,
when
these
issues
arise,
it's
important
for
us
to
discuss
and
see
what
we
can
do.
So
here
we
are
now.
The
ball
is
in
our
court.
In
my
view,
option
two
is
exactly
in
the
same
vein
of
what
the
word
and
I
had
been
discussing,
which
was
some
compromise.
Can
we
somehow
meet
in
the
middle
when
they're
here
and
we're
here?
So
this
is
basically
restating
our
desire
for
compromise
again.
Can
we
find
creative
solutions,
as
deputy
mayor's
said?
A
Is
there
something
that's
come
from
from
provincial
funding?
Are
there
other
options
available?
We
talked
about.
Even
could
we,
you
know
we're
up
for
option.
Two.
We're
gonna
have
to
put
some
of
our
reserves
on
the
table,
so
we
talked
about
well.
Is
there
an
option
for
the
county
to
put
some
of
their
reserves
on
the
table
again
to
maintain
that
spirit
of
partnership
moving
forward,
so
I'm
hopeful
I
think
that
this
is.
This
is
actually
us
extending
a
hand
to
the
county,
saying:
okay,
we
want
to
partner
with
you.
A
We
want
to
work,
please
work
with
us
and,
let's
see
what
kind
of
compromises
is
possible,
so
I,
don't
think
that
mediation
or
arbitration
is
an
absolute
object.
We
may
end
up
there
and
if
we
do
Soviet
but
I
think
it's
important
for
us
at
the
end
of
the
day
to
say
a
ten
percent
budget
ask
is
simply
too
high.
It's
four
times
higher
than
our
budget
increase
and
I.
A
Don't
believe
it's
fair
to
all
of
our
other
external
agencies
and
partners
when
they
are
all
working
very
hard
to
try
to
reduce
their
asks
that
we
would
then
be
treating
one
of
our
partners
differently
from
the
others.
So
this
is
a
statement
from
us
that,
yes,
on
the
one
hand,
we
want
to
compromise
in
partnership,
but
we
also
have
to
recognize
fair
play
with
our
other
external
agencies
as
well.
So
for
that
reason,
I
will
absolutely
support
option.
Two
would
encourage
council
to
support
that
as
well.
A
The
other
thing
that
I
will
say
is
that,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
there
was
some
miscommunication
on
both
sides.
Everyone
acted
in
good
faith
here
and
there
would
be
no
suggestion,
otherwise
that
one
of
the
things
the
warden
and
I
did
talk
about
is
that
we
will
have
another
elect
meeting
before
our
2020
budget,
where
we
will
sit
down
and
we
will
talk
about
each
other's
budget
targets
and
we
will
try
to
avoid
this
situation
happening
again
in
2020.
A
A
C
A
A
A
Okay,
so
there
are
three
items:
if
no-one
would
like
any
of
them
separated,
we
will
vote
on
them
as
a
whole.
Number
one
is
amendment
to
draft
plan,
a
subdivision
conditions:
700
governor's
Road
number,
two
approval
of
an
application
for
zoning
bylaw
amendment
of
1381,
Newport
Avenue
and
number
three
approval
of
an
application
for
zoning
bylaw
amendment
to
35
and
243
Colborne
Street
and
60
62
and
64
Elm
Street
I'll
call
the
vote
things.
B
B
W
C
A
A
B
A
M
A
M
A
M
A
Okay,
so
this
is
a
motion
to
amend,
moved
by
Councillor
Doherty
seconded
by
Councillor
Neil.
Thank
you.
So
it's
to
amend
number
one
delete
the
word
not
and
the
words
in
the
applicant
shall
remove
these
items
from
the
plan.
So
the
bullet
reads
as
follows:
propose
it
to
install
a
bench
and
lamppost
on
the
city's
right-of-way
are
approved
cancer
Doherty.
Would
you
like
to
speak
to
the
amendment?
Thank.
N
This
is
a
really
good
plan
that
allows
what
is
now
a
great
community
asset
to
be
more
accessible
to
the
to
the
community.
Broadly
and,
as
the
previous
speaker
pointed
out,
the
committee
itself
were
supportive
of
this,
and
the
representative
for
the
spire
spoke
strongly
about
tweaking
it
in
this
way.
So
I
hope
this
passes
unanimously.
A
Y
Thank
you
and
through
you,
I'll,
provide
some
introductory
comments
and
then
Commissioner
Kidd
I
believe
we'll
have
some
additional
comments
as
well.
So
in
the
process
of
reviewing
this
application,
it's
circulated
to
the
different
technical
departments
within
the
city.
As
part
of
the
technical
comments
that
came
back
from
engineering
services,
some
concerns
were
expressed
with
respect
to
the
location
of
the
bench
being
within
the
city
right-of-way
and
the
lamppost,
because
it's
contrary
to
our
policies
with
respect
to
right-of-way
protection.
Y
Z
You,
mr.
mayor,
yes,
I,
was
briefed
by
staff
on
this
matter
this
afternoon
as
well,
and
the
technical
answer
is
that
we
we
always
tried
to
protect
the
road
allowance
in
the
city's
right-of-way
so
that
if
we
have
to
do
work
within
the
right-of-way
or
any
underground
work
that
we're
not
facing
any
encumbrances.
Z
Probably
the
bigger
concern
is
setting
a
precedence
which,
which
we
tend
to
always
concern
ourselves
with
I,
don't
think
it's
the
end
of
the
world
and
we
certainly
commend
the
the
project
as
proposed
and
the
accessibility
of
it
and
I,
but
I
think
the
greater
concerned.
The
bench
is
something
that
can
be
moved
if
necessary,
quite
easily.
I
believe
that
the
lighting
post
itself
with
electricity
run
into
it.
W
Z
Through
you,
mr.
mayor
in
the
right-of-way,
we
restrict
it
so
that
if
we
do
have
to
to
dig
or
or
access
the
area
or
for
future
rail,
widening
or
sidewalk
widening,
or
something
like
that,
it
becomes
because
it's
within
the
right-of-way
the
city's
right
away
in
the
road
allowance.
If
there
we
do
allow
in
our
encroachment
bylaws.
Sometimes
we
have
temporary
agreements
and
if
that's
the
case,
there
are
stipulations,
but
there's
no
provision
in
our
current
encroachment
by
law
for
something
like
this,
so
I
suspect.
W
V
Macleod,
we
may
have
to
have
a
follow-up
report
to
clarify
what
is
being
done.
We
also
I
would
expect
the
Heritage
Committee
would
not
have
been
defining
where
and
at
what
type
of
technology
is
going
in
the
land
post.
This
is
just
a
preliminary
approval
to
put
the
idea
onto
the
into
the
place
into
the
space.
Is
that
correct
and
that's
what
I
understand
to
be
correct?.
Z
W
We
were
given
different.
We
were
given
different
instructions
during
the
capital
debate
when
we
had
a
revote,
but
the
bylaws
stood,
because
apparently
there
were
requirements
for
capital
for
public
consultation,
and
since
this
is
a
land
use,
thing
I
believe
that
that
by
law
may,
you
know,
may
take
effect
here,
so
it
granted
for
some
bylaws.
W
Z
W
A
J
J
The
bench
to
me
is
not
that
big
a
deal
even
if
it
needs
to
be
move
like
the
commissioner
said
that
bench
can
be
moved
even
if
it's
bolted
down,
I
can
still
be
moved
quite
easily,
but
the
lamppost
I
mean
we
have
lampposts
in
the
right-of-way
all
over
the
district
over
the
heritage
district.
The
city
installed
the
lampposts
in
those
spots
and
people
deal
with
it,
but
none
of
them
are
blocking
the
sidewalk,
so
I
guess.
My
question
is:
does
this
lamppost
block
pedestrian
use
in
any
way
a.
O
J
Okay,
so
I
gotta
think
here.
So
this
is
a
heritage
district.
So
therefore
it
is
a
part,
five
application,
so
the
heritage
application
has
a
time
limit,
but
this
barrier,
which
is
lamp
post
to
our
decision-making,
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
Heritage
District
other
than
what
was
in
the
report
on
how
map
lamps
have
to
appear
in
a
heritage
district.
But
that's
not
the
issue,
it's
the
location
of
the
lamp
post
that
we
need
to
know.
So
my
if
anyone
knows
that
answer
great,
put
up
your
hand
like
because
you
were
there
during
discussion.
J
Y
Thank
you,
sorry
and
three:
you
are
able
to
locate
the
drawing
that
was
some
in
this
part
of
the
application.
So
what
is
proposed
is
that
the
lamppost
is
going
to
be
going
adjacent
to
the
widened
walkway,
but
it
will
not
be
within
the
actual
sidewalk.
So
it
looks
like
there's
a
free
span
of
sidewalk
for
pedestrians
to
be
conveying
across
the
property
through
the
property.
It's
just
that
the
city's
right-of-way
goes
wide
enough,
that
it
goes
on
to
the
property,
where
you
wouldn't
actually
think
that
it
is,
but
it's
technically
City
property.
J
That's
very
helpful,
so
I'm
imagining
what
you're
saying
is
that
a
lamppost
on
the
accessible
walkway
towards
the
spire,
which
is
technically
on
the
city
right-of-way
on
the
edge
of
the
city
right
away,
but
not
encroaching
on
the
sidewalk
encroaching
on
the
edge
of
the
right-of-way
and
from
talking
briefly
with
the
council,
approves,
of
course,
electrical
contractor
by
trade
I
understand
that
the
lamppost
could
be
made
Wireless
and
therefore
be
a
lot
easier
to
move
if
needed.
So
with
that
in
mind,
I
will
support
this
amendment.
Thank
you.
A
M
Thank
you,
and
through
you,
I,
was
going
to
respond
with
the
suggestions
of
slightly
amending
the
motion
which
may
solve
the
discussion
that
we're
having
tonight,
okay,
okay,
so
the
suggestion
is
that
we
request
that
these
items
receive
heritage.
Approval
with
instant
installation
pending
approval
through
other
departments
and
municipal
procedures
needs
appropriate,
in
other
words,
that
this
application
that
we
can
still
that
the
applicant
can
still
have
resolve
these
issues
through
engineering,
but
they
will
not
have
to
go
through
the
heritage
process
again.
A
Okay,
so
if
I'm
clear,
your
proposal
is
to
amend
your
motion
to
amend,
to
add
a
line
that
says
so
the
proposal
to
install
a
bench
and
lamppost
on
the
city's
right
away
or
approved
pending
approval
from
relevant
city
departments.
Exactly
can
I
get
just
some
comment
from
staff
in
terms
of
is
that
wording
understood
what
that
means.
V
Said
this
not
as
clearly
as
I
wished
earlier,
but
they'll
be
ancillary
permits
so,
as
was
described
earlier,
this
is
an
encroachment.
We
have
an
encroachment
by
law,
there's
probably
a
permit
process,
there'll
be
technical
requirements
to
make
sure
the
lamps
electricity
connects
with
our
system
correctly.
Those
are
permits
that
will
come
through
the
engineering
department.
Okay,
so.
A
I
I
have
another
suggestion
here.
If
this
is
not
time-sensitive,
can
we
just
defer
this
to
our
next
council
meeting
until
we
can
get
some
of
this
information
to
clarify
because
we're
going
down
the
rabbit
hole,
we're
gonna
be
spending
an
hour
or
talking
about
where
the
lamppost
is
on
the
property
and
I
feel
like
there
are
some
other
items
on
our
agenda
tonight
that
probably
require
our
attention
and
discussion
is,
that
is
that
reasonable?
Would
somebody
like
to
move
a
motion
to
defer
to
the
next
meeting?
A
M
C
A
A
M
You
so
we
have
a
motion,
that's
going
to
be
on
this
screen
in
a
minute,
and
that
is
it's
a
motion
to
defer
this.
To
give
staff
time
to
so
heritage
committee
asked
for
a
quote
from
a
heritage
Mason-
and
we
know
we
know-
Mason's
are
hard
to
come
by,
as
in
all
the
trades
are
very
busy
at
the
moment.
So
we
would
like
to
defer
this
by
a
month
to
give
staff
time
to
to
get
a
quote
from
a
stonemason,
a
heritage,
stonemason,
okay,.
W
Order
to
make
it
to
time
or
place
I
asked
because
the
the
proposer
suggested
that
they
wanted
a
heritage
stonemason.
But
it
says
a
stonemason
only
if
there's
a
difference
with
regards
to
finding
at
the
time
to
find
a
heritage,
stonemason
versus
a
regular
stonemason
and
if
that's
important
or
not
so.
A
J
B
A
H
H
P
Thank
you
n3,
mr.
mayor,
so
the
intent
is
absolutely
not
to
limit
the
working
relationship,
our
collaboration
between
city
staff
and
members
of
council.
You
know
it
does
happen
quite
frequently
that
members
of
council
will
reach
out
to
city
staff
to
to
try
to
work
through
some
issues
in
their
in
their
district.
So
that's
not
the
intent,
but
maybe
to
give
you
an
example
of
where
this
could
apply
is.
P
If
you
wanted
as
a
councillor
a
traffic
signal,
for
example,
in
your
district,
you
wouldn't
have
the
ability,
as
a
councillor,
to
direct
a
city
staff
to
go
ahead
and
implement
a
traffic
signal.
This
would
have
to
actually
come
through
as
a
motion
of
council,
because
there
would
be
budgetary
implication
and
there
would
also
be
quite
a
lot
of
time
from
a
staff
perspective
that
would
be
required
to
do
that.
Work.
Z
When
a
situation
fits
within
the
approved
policies
and
there's
a
budget
approved,
if
staff
can
accommodate,
they
do
try,
but
if
staff
does
not
recommend
or
support
the
recommendation,
then
the
individual
counselors
desire
is
is
not
much
more
than
that
of
a
citizen.
That's
why
council
as
a
whole
comes
together
with
motions.
A
And
that
carries
by
vote
of
12
to
one
number,
two
discounted
fees
for
municipal
programs
and
services.
So
I'm
just
gonna
make
a
couple
of
comments.
First,
just
just
to
guide
the
discussion
on
this,
so
this
has
come
with
a
negative
recommendation.
So
I
will
remind
people
when
it
comes
to
vote.
But
what
that
means
is
that
a
yes
vote
here
at
Council
confirms
the
decision
of
administrative
policies.
A
So
if
it's
a
negative
recommendation,
it
means
administrative
policies
has
said
no,
and
so,
if
you
agree
with
that
decision,
then
you
would
vote
yes,
so
we'll
go
over
this
again
when
it
comes
to
voting,
but
just
server
ones.
Clear
with
that.
The
other
piece
to
keep
in
mind
is,
of
course,
that
this
is
part
of
a
report
with
a
number
of
different
options
that
were
presented
by
staff.
The
staff
recommendation
is
for
option
C,
so
we
will
not
amend
option
C.
A
We
will
have
a
debate
and
discussion
on
option
C
and
we
will
take
a
vote
on
option
C
and
if
it
loses,
then
there
will
be
an
opportunity
for
any
other
member
of
council
to
put
forward
a
different
option
and
then
we
will
discuss
and
debate
and
we
will
basically
go
as
long
as
we
till
something
passes
or
until
we
don't
want
to
present
any
other
option.
So
there
were
unclear
on
the
roadmap
for
this
okay.
So
with
that,
the
staff
recommendation
is
now
on
the
floor.
N
N
It
just
was
never
within
her
DNA
to
ever.
Consider
doing
that
and
so
I'm
a
little
troubled
by
this.
The
other
thing
is
I
think
that
whenever
possible,
services
should
be
universal,
we
don't
request.
We
don't
have
a
two-tier
medical
coverage
and
charge
people
extra,
because
they
make
extra
money.
We
charge
them
extra
when
we
tax
them
and
that
allows
for
a
certain
universality
to
take
place
and
the
reality
is
yes.
N
N
The
idea
of
not
charging
like
allowing
seniors
bus
passes
I
called
last
year
and
again
this
year
about
a
dozen
municipalities
in
in
Ontario
and
I,
couldn't
find
one
that
didn't
have
some
form
of
discount
for
seniors
and
there
are
other
ways
of
helping
seniors
with
transit
issues.
Halifax
has
a
brilliant
idea
and
you
could
do
it
for
one
or
two
days
a
week.
Halifax
allows
free
transit
to
seniors
in
non-peak
times
on
Tuesdays
and.
N
Therefore,
people
who
are
retired
could
plan
their
their
trips
around
that
day
or
two
a
week
when
you
got
when
you
could
ride
for
free
in
non
peak
times,
and
so
I
think
there's
ways
that
we
can
address
this
issue,
but
I
I
believe
that
having
a
discount
and
I'm
quite
willing
to
support
a
deeper
discount
and
I'm
quite
willing
to
support
a
discount
and
and
a
form
of
free
bussing,
but
I
just
know
seniors.
That
I
know
would
feel
comfortable
going
to
social
services
and
requesting
this.
E
Thank
You
mayor
Paterson,
through
you,
I,
have
two
questions
to
start
and
then
a
few
comments
and
I
want
to
build
off
councillor
Neil's
comments
about
the
delivery
of
the
service,
and
there
was
a
great
discussion
about
that
at
administrative
policy,
of
which
I'm,
a
member
and
I'm
hoping
staff
can
articulate
what
they
did.
Then
nap.
Now
about
the
delivery
of
the
service
so
question
the
staff,
could
you
explain
how
a
potential
means
based
discount
would
be
applied.
AA
Thank
you
through
you,
mr.
mayor,
the
process
is
quite
simple:
if
it's
a
single
senior
or
a
couple,
they
bring
in
there
anyways
and
staff,
look
at
line
236,
which
shows
their
net
income
and
staff
determine
whether
they're
above
or
below
that
income
threshold,
and
if
they
are
eligible
for
the
program,
they
receive
a
card
that
basically
gives
them
access
to
all
of
the
services
within
the
my
Kingston
program.
That
structure
and
intake
process
was
developed
with
the
poverty
roundtable
many
years
ago,
when
the
program
was
established
in
fact
ten
years
ago,
almost
this
month.
AA
I
understand
some
won't
want
that
option,
but
certainly
we
have
a
number
of
seniors
in
our
community
who
are
on
computers
and
use
them
regularly
and
then.
Thirdly,
the
other
thing
we're
going
to
go
back
to
doing
that.
We've
gotten
a
bit
away
from
is
doing
intake
in
other
locations.
So,
for
example,
we'd
do
eligibility
it's
a
pretty
mobile
program
because
it
is
so
simple
we
can
do
intake
at
the
Senior
Center.
We
currently
do
it
at
Rideau,
Heights,
Community
Center,
as
well
as
Montreal
Street,
but
we
could
look
at
doing
intake.
E
Thank
you.
So
if
I
could
paraphrase
that
response,
is
it
fair
to
say
that'll
be
an
easy
process?
It
will
be
potentially
private
if
it
can
be
online
in
the
comfort
of
your
home
and
it
will
be
decentralized.
If
you
choose
to
do
it
outside
of
your
home,
you
can
do
it
in
other
city
locations,
so
you
don't
necessarily
have
to
go
to
the
social
assistance
building
itself.
Is
that
a
fair
B
capital?
E
AA
E
You
and
I
think
that
those
points
address
councillor
Neil's
good
points
about
who
this
could
impact
potentially
adversely,
and
hopefully
those
of
you
who
had
those
similar
concerns
will
see
that
those
have
been
well
addressed
in
this
report
and
I
think
this
report
also
well
addresses
what
the
my
Kingston
program
was
designed
to
do.
We
heard
a
moment
ago
that
this
came
out
of
the
mayor's
Task
Force
on
poverty
about
ten
years
ago
and
in
other
words,
it's
intended
to
help
those
who
are
in
need
and
that's
exactly
what
option
C
does.
E
It
deepens
the
discount,
while
at
the
exact
same
time
lessening
the
burden
on
the
taxpayer,
which
I
think
is
incredibly
important,
we're
actually
doing
more
with
less
or
you
could
say
it's
more
effective
and
more
efficient
at
once,
which
makes
it
good
public
policy.
But,
of
course,
good
public
policy
isn't
just
theoretical.
It
actually
impacts
real
people's
lives
and
I
thought
I'd
share
very
briefly:
two
experiences
that
I
had
that
solidified,
why?
This
is
a
good
option
in
my
mind,
and
the
first
came
from
this
past
municipal
campaign.
E
One
of
the
first
doors
that
I
knocked
on
was
a
man
who
was
working
full
time.
He
had
two
young
kids
and
his
wife
was
working
part
time,
so
she
could
bring
in
some
income
but
be
at
home
with
the
kids
for
the
other
time
and
their
combined
income
as
minimum
wage
workers.
Full-Time
and
part-time
was
about
thirty
nine
thousand
dollars,
which
would
put
them
over
the
current
threshold
of
support
from
the
my
Kingston
program,
but
obviously
with
thirty
nine
thousand
dollars
for
four
people.
E
It
essentially
made
everything
except
food
and
shelter,
an
on
a
non-starter.
They
couldn't
afford
to
put
their
kids
in
rec
programs.
They
could
hardly
afford
to
get
on
the
bus
and
I
think
that's
a
big
problem.
So
this
recommendation,
which
asks
us
to
raise
the
threshold
of
who
can
be
eligible
to
this
program,
is
really
essential
for
working-class
families
and
more
than
that,
as
I
said,
it
deepens
the
discount.
So
there
not
only
gonna
get
20%
off
they're
gonna
get
50%
off.
E
So
this
is
who
it's
for,
in
my
mind,
who
it
is
not
for-
and
this
is
the
second
experience
I
want
to
share-
comes
from
my
research
with
seniors
and
looking
at
particularly
aging
well
in
rural
communities,
and
what
I
found
is
perhaps
not
surprising,
that
is,
people
who
have
pensions
from
a
long
storied
career
of
working
people
have
government
support,
in
addition
to
that,
and
people
who
have
property
and
family
support
so
kind
of
four
major
financial
streams.
Don't
really
need
discounted
governmental
programs.
E
So
what
this
option
does
is
recognize
that
and
says
for
those
who
have
that
ability,
those
who
have.
That
means
we
shouldn't
be
supporting,
but
those
who
don't
and
those
who
need
the
support
we
should,
and
we
should
do
that
in
a
more
meaningful
way.
So
for
that
reason,
I
hope
that
everyone
will
support
this.
It's
good,
financially
and
socially
and
I
thank
staff
for
this
great
recommendation.
Thank
you.
Thank.
K
Thank
your
worship,
so
the
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
start
with
just
building
a
little
bit
on
councilor
Kylie's
comments
and
also
in
response
to
something
that
councillor
Neill
brought
up.
This
report
was
not
brought
to
us
because
there
was
any
desire
to
take
something
away.
It
was
brought
forward
because
the
existing
policy
for
our
municipal
discounts
is
B
is
to
ensure
that
programs
and
services
are
accessible
to
people
on
low
incomes.
K
This
report,
all
the
work
that
the
staff
have
put
into
this,
is
trying
to
keep
us
in
line
with
current
policy,
and
if
someone
would
like
to
have
a
new
policy
thats
related
to
any
age,
based
reasons
that
we
should
be
doing
things.
That's
that's
another
idea,
but
it
is
actually
separate
from
what
we
were
speaking
about.
K
First
of
all,
this
is
about
policy
shouldn't
be
about
rhetoric,
it's
not
about
who's
getting
one
and
who
deserves
what
it's
about
the
fact
that
they're
individuals,
this
community,
as
councilor
Kylie,
has
mentioned,
who
cannot
access
programs
and
services
that
are
not
just
a
convenience
or
a
luxury,
or
something
to
do
on
a
Saturday
afternoon.
They
are
a
matter
of
improving
one's
life,
quality
of
life,
improving
their
health,
improving
their
ability
to
access
education,
new
employment
opportunities,
for
example,
groceries.
K
We
had
a
program
which
we
were
quite
proud
of,
and
the
last
term
of
council
that
was
dedicated
to
providing
free
transit
to
recipients
of
ontario
works.
We've
received
information
from
staff
on
what
that
program
accomplished.
What
it
accomplished
was
a
huge
increase
in
ridership
with
a
vulnerable
population
and
what
those
those
transit
trips
did
for
those
people.
Eighty
four
percent
of
those
people
had
increased
access
to.
They
used
it
for
personal
appointments
for
employment
opportunities
to
do
things
like
get
groceries.
K
So
what
this
report
is
about
is
about
increasing
access
and
deepening
the
discount
to
ensure
that
those
people
who
are
struggling
with
their
household
budget
have
the
opportunity
to
access
what
they
need
and
to
ensure
that
their
children
have
future
opportunities.
That's
what
we're
dealing
with
today.
This
recommendation
came
back
with
more
information,
more
options,
the
you
know,
we've
said
as
a
council
we're
committed
to
two-and-a-half
percent
tax
rate
increase.
This
goes
a
long
way
to
supporting
us
and
bringing
the
cost,
and
you
know
not
to
mention
the
fact
that
we've
increased
ridership
and
transit.
K
Just
as
an
example,
we
see
an
increase
in
the
gas
tax
revenue
which
accounts
for
8
percent
of
the
road
repair
budget,
the
City
of
Kingston
that
we
have
and
that's
another
priority
that
council
has
so
it's
good
policy
all
around
this
is
it's
it's
a
clear
step
forward
in
terms
of
equity
and
many
people
who
sit
on
this
council
would
like
to
talk
about
progressive
policies
and
progressive
attitudes
and
and
I
I
would
argue
that
this
is
the
best
way
to
demonstrate
a
progressive
approach.
Thank
you.
Thank.
I
Thank
you,
your
your
worship
and
I
at
the
risk
of
getting
in
trouble
with
all
my
old
friends.
I
completely
agree
with
what
councillor
Kiley
and
councillor
Holland
has
said.
The
I'm
pretty
good
example
of
exactly
what
we're
talking
about
in
this
candid
I
worked
in
a
school
board.
This
community
used
to
be
an
industrial
community,
and
it's
not
anymore,
and
in
those
days
people
didn't
have
adequate
pensions.
I
They
didn't
have
adequate
salaries
or
hourly
rates
to
be
able
to
put
money
aside
for
for
their
old
age,
and
so,
in
many
cases,
I
think
we
introduced
these
kinds
of
discount
senior
discounts
in
order
to
address
the
fact
that
when
people
moved
out
of
the
workforce
in
those
days
they
did
move
into
lower
income
bracket
and
in
some
cases
many
cases
into
poverty.
The
community
has
changed
substantially
since
that
time.
So
this
is
really
a
much
sector
community
right.
I
This
is
people
were
communities,
they
work
in
universities
and
school
boards,
and
hospitals
and
government
and
I
read
and,
and
they
have
good
pensions
and
I-
think
I
understood
what
I
read
that
the
median
income
for
seniors
retired
people
in
this
community
is
actually
at
the
level
of
the
median
income
for
the
for
the
community
as
a
whole.
So
it's
it.
You
know.
People
who
are
retired
people
in
this
community
for
the
most
part
are
doing
quite
well
and
I
would
be,
as
I
said,
a
pretty
good
example
of
that
kind
of
person.
I
If
you're
I
read
somewhere,
where
one
of
the
one
of
my
colleagues
indicated,
you
know
immediately
upon
retirement
your
poorer
than
you've
ever
been
because
by
definition,
you
make
less
money.
Well
that
that's
really
not
the
case,
because
you
have
much
more
disposable
income
than
you've
ever
had.
Ten
years
ago,
I
had
kids
in
university
I
had
car
payments
I
had
a
mortgage
I,
don't
have
any
of
those
things
down
again.
I've
had
a
very
blast.
Life
I
feel
very
fortunate
to
be
able
to
say
that,
but
I
don't
need
a
discount.
I
I
We
need
to
make
sure
that
that
kids
and
young
families
have
access
to
the
services
that
this
community
can
provide
and
if,
if
I
redirecting
some
of
the
resources
that
go
to
folks
like
me,
who
don't
need
them
to
folks
who
do
need
them
is
a
very
good
allocation
of
resources.
It's
responsible.
It
makes
sense
for
our
community.
I
It
addresses
a
really
obvious
in
particular
need,
and
it's
not
at
the
expense
of
sort
of
a
marginal
income
for
many
of
our
seniors,
because
many
of
our
seniors
are
doing
very
well
and
and
I
think
they
would
acknowledge
that
too,
and
it's
one
of
the
reasons
why
our
seniors
give
back
to
their
community
so
much
they
volunteer.
I.
Also,
you
know
read
that
this
is
sort
of
in
recognition
for
the
level
of
volunteer
work
that
senior
citizens
do
in
our
community.
I
Well,
they
do
that
I
think
as
I
do,
for
lots
of
different
reasons
and,
and
mostly
it's
because
they
want
to
give
back
because
they've
experienced
a
pretty
fortunate
opportunity
to
to
grow
their
families
and
their
and
their
their
own.
Their
own
life
here
in
this
community,
so
I
I
agree
with
the
option,
see
and
that's
I
hope
what
Council
will
vote
for.
Thank.
M
Thank
you,
and
through
you
shortly
after
being
elected,
I
received
a
phone
call
from
a
woman
who
has
an
income
of
seventeen
thousand
four
hundred
and
she
was
not.
She
couldn't
get
a
discount
on
the
bus,
so
this
bus
pass
discount
that
really
could
have
helped
her
helped
her
put
more
food
on
the
table
or
helped
her
pay.
Her
rent
or
utilities
was
not.
M
J
Thank
you
so
I,
remember,
I,
said
at
the
very
beginning,
as
I
just
in
insert
the
nuance.
I
said:
there's
gonna
be
nuance
on
this,
so
there's
two
very
different
things
in
in
this
recommendation
and
recommend.
Just
if
you
turn
to
page
251
of
your
package,
you'll
see
the
table
with
options,
ABCD
efg
on
it
and
it's
useful
because
it
actually
shows
you
a
bunch
of
different
combinations
of
the
two
different
things.
It's
apples
and
oranges.
J
But
the
point
is
it's
two
different
things,
so
you
have
to
decide
in
your
mind
about
the
seniors
discount
and
then
you
have
to
separately
decide
in
your
mind
about
increasing
the
threshold
for
the
discount
discounted
services
and
there's
a
menu
there
right.
So
you
could
leave
it
as
is
at
the
like.
Oh
you
could
go
to
the
intermediate
threshold,
which
is
the
lim
80.
You
could
go
to
the
higher
threshold,
which
is
ret
the
recommended
option,
C,
which
is
the
Lim
15,
and
then
you,
as
you
see
as
you
go
down
the
list.
J
There's
the
next
four
options
retain
some
or
all
of
the
seniors
discount,
so
option.
D
reduce
the
H
basis,
count
fifteen
percent
and
go
to
the
intermediate
limit
E
or
reduce
it
fifty
percent
and
go
up
to
the
Lim
15,
so
that's
D
and
E,
and
then
F
would
be
keep
the
H
basis
count
exactly
the
same,
go
to
the
intermediate
threshold
and
m80
or
G
the
keep
the
seniors
discounts
and
go
to
the
Lim
15.
So
I
would
suggest
that
option.
J
G
actually
is,
does
also
exactly
the
same
thing
for
the
threshold,
the
limb
15,
the
the
problem
being
that
it
continues
HBase
discounts.
So
then
you
go
over
to
the
projections
and
those
numbers
down
that
column.
That's
what
they
are.
The
projections:
okay,
they're,
not
real
numbers
they're,
not
none
of
them
are
measured
numbers
and
that's
where
this
report
lost
me.
This
report
from
staff
lost
me
on
those
projected
numbers.
I
did
not
agree
with
the
with
some
of
the
assumptions
and
I
do
not
agree
with
the
outcome
of
their
projections.
J
I
did
not
agree
that
the
sat
960
2000s
would
be
a
real
cost
as
compared
to
the
current.
So,
according
to
the
report,
there
would
be
an
extra
two
hundred
and
nine
thousand
dollars
in
2021
between
option
a
and
option:
G
okay
and
that's
what
the
status
quo,
but
without
changing
anything.
Okay,
so
that
209
thousand
dollar
to
me,
it's
not
worth
it.
It's
not
that
some
seniors
might
be
able
to
live
without
a
discount.
J
The
fact
is,
as
councillor
Neil
said,
we
they
will
be
shocked
if
we
remove
it
and
I,
don't
think
it's
right
to
remove
it
and
I.
Don't
think
that
the
the
amount
of
money
we
might
save
according
to
an
estimate,
is
anywhere
near
correct
justification
for
removing
it.
What
we
need
to
do
is
separate
the
two
items
discuss
what
threshold
is
appropriate
and
I'm
I.
Think
NIM.
15
is
probably
a
good
threshold.
J
G
You,
your
worship,
I'll,
be
supporting
the
motion
as
we
have
it,
which
is
not
to
approve
it,
because
I
want
the
seniors
discounts
to
stay,
as
is
when
this
came
up
in
2017
I
think
it
came
to
admin
policy
twice
and
2017
and
I
received
so
many
emails
from
my
constituents
who
are
seniors.
Asking
pleading
please
do
not
touch.
G
Don't
want
to
make
that
same.
Mistake
I
understand
that
what
we're
deciding
tonight
like
for
me
saying
this.
It
is
a
political
decision.
I
understand,
you
know
the
policy
that
other
councillors
were
conveying
and
I
get.
That
and
I
also
want
to
thank
staff
for
trying
to
put
all
the
numbers.
You
know
the
data,
the
numbers
that
they've
crunched
since
2017
I,
understand
that
and
thank
you
for
doing
all
that
work,
but
it
is
a
political
decision
whether
to
remove
the
seniors
discounts
or
not
and
I.
Don't
to
do
that.
G
Another
thing
that
happened
in
the
West
End
was
that,
as
we've
heard,
the
YMCA
swimming
pool
an
entire
fitness
facility
in
the
West
End.
You
know
it's
no
longer
available
and
fitness
is
so
important
to
seniors
and
that's
what
I
was
hearing
a
lot
from
too
now
the
seniors
in
the
West
End.
If
they
do
want
to
go
swimming
they're
gonna
have
to
go
down
to
artillery
part.
You
know
it's
an
opportunity
for
them
has
been
removed
and
if
we
can
still
provide
them
at
discount,
you
know
when
they
get
to
artillery
Park.
G
T
Thank
you
worshiping
through
you,
I
know,
there's
been
a
lot
of
talk
about
this
in
the
public
and
I.
Think,
as
was
pointed
out
before,
is
these
should
very
much
so
be
treated
as
two
distinct
issues.
One
is
basically
the
age-based
discount
and
the
other
one
would
be
the
limb
and
the
15
and
kind
of
what
the
right
number
is
there
and
what
should
be
provided
there.
So
I
think
you've,
probably
heard
around
the
table.
T
I
think
there's
some
appetite
to
explore
the
limb
number
a
little
bit
more
in
the
future
to
see
be
to
see
what
can
be
done
there,
but
I
think
that
in
pairing
this
with
taking
away
the
age
based
discount
is
is
basically
what's
made.
This
not
palatable
the
vast
majority,
the
public.
If
I
read
right
here,
it
says
if
the
age
base
discounts
are
discontinued,
those
aged
18
to
24
and
65,
plus
with
household
incomes
over
the
recommended
limit
15
threshold
would
no
longer
have
access
to
discounts
for
area
adults
18
to
24
years
old.
T
This
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
nine
thousand
individuals
based
on
the
statistics.
Canada
data
for
15
to
24
year
olds,
shown
in
Figure
six
for
seniors.
This
would
be
approximately
twenty
thousand
six
hundred
and
forty-five
individuals.
So
no
matter
how
you
slice
or
dices,
there's
going
to
be
about
20
thousand
six
hundred
forty-five
seniors
that
will
no
longer
be
eligible
for
an
age-based
discount
that
have
lived
their
entire
life,
knowing
that
once
they
got
to
eight
that
to
that
age
that
they
would
be
eligible
for
these
discounts.
T
I,
don't
think
that's
something
that
is
really
gonna
go
over
too
well
in
the
community
and
and
if
we
haven't
heard
very
much
uproar
about
this.
Yet
if
this
passes
and
rubes
the
dis
can't
wait
until
tomorrow.
The
other
thing
to
factor
in
here
is
that
it
already
says
that
85%
or
more
of
those
individuals
who
are
eligible
for
the
h
bjh
base
discount
are
not
currently
utilizing
them
so
to
councillor
Stroud's
points
a
lot
of
the
costs
that
we're
portraying
to
that
age
group
are
not
even
being
realized.
T
Only
15%
of
them
are
accessing
it.
If
their
circumstances
were
to
change,
then
they
could
take
more
quickly
advantage
of
that
discount
if
they
need
to,
when
speaking
to
the
fact
that
if
they
have
a
greater
ability
to
pay
than
they
should
pay,
part
of
the
problem
was
when
I
read
this
report.
Is
there
were
some
justifications
that
kind
of
lean
one
way
in
some
justifications,
that
kind
of
leaned
another
way
some
of
the
numbers
didn't
really
add
up,
and
then,
in
the
end
you
just
get
this.
T
T
So
I
mean
I,
don't
know
how
you
could
really
spin
that
any
differently,
but
in
most
of
their
minds
they
live
most
of
their
lives
paying
into
the
system,
and
this
is
kind
of
just
a
little
bit
of
a
reward
when
they
finally
get
there
so
to
take
that
away
to
simply
provide
a
little
bit
more
funding
somewhere
else.
I
think
the
better
discussion
would
be
keep
the
age
based
discounts
have
the
disgust,
but
the
limb
15
separately
separate
those
two
things
that
I
think
you
might
have
a
different
result.
Thank
you.
H
Yes,
three,
your
worship
I
actually
canvassed
my
neighborhood
after
the
last
seven
policy
committee
meeting
where
this
was
discussed
and
I
I
feel
that
there
is
a
a
real
problem.
The
way
this
was
can
that
can
encapsulated
it
as
the
two
items.
Basically,
let's
get
rid
of
age
base
discounts
for
seniors,
but
hey
will
will
raise
a
threshold,
not
one
step
but
two
steps
to
the
highest
possible,
and
this
is
where
I
had
the
problem
with
with
the
proposal,
because
age
base
discounts
in
some
sense
is
a
rite
of
passage,
and
it's
it's.
H
You
know
you
survived
having
children.
If
you
had
children,
you
survive
putting
them
through
school.
You
survive
paying
off
your
mortgage.
You've
done
all
these
things
to
get
where
you
are,
and
certainly
there
are
some
citizens
that
may
be
having
public
sector
fully
indexed
2%
increase
in
their
pension
every
year
great
for
them,
they
made
a
great
career
choice.
Wonderful,
but
those
that
have
not-
and
those
that
will
take
advantage
of
this
are
a
limited
number
at
this
point.
H
According
to
the
staff
report,
about
15
percent
of
the
potentially
eligible
seniors,
I
think
it's
more
of
a
virtuous
signaling
exercise
that
we're
basically
saying
you
seniors,
who
work
so
hard
to
get
where
you
are
make
great
choices
you
make
more
money
now
than
you
ever
did,
because
you
planned
accordingly.
So
let's
penalize
you
and
let's
redistribute
your
wealth.
Let's
point.
A
H
R
Was
certainly
an
important
policy
and
I'd
been
back
and
forth
myself
to
some
degree,
this
got
started.
Yes,
I
got
a
heart
started
with
the
mayor's
Task
Force
on
poverty
reduction.
I
was
on
that.
So
there
were
general
suggestions,
but
really
the
my
Kingston
initiatives
started
with
the
two
people
over
here.
R
Ms
hurtle,
who
was
not
the
acting
interim
CEO,
can't
keep
up
with
your
titles
and
the
now
Commissioner
the
CEO
kid
who
brought
us
at
our
request
to
the
art
committee
counselor
of
sanik.
Remember
that
maybe
there
was
somebody
else.
The
the
suggestion
that
we
put
the
transit
and
the
and
recreation
together
which
was
we
took
is
just
brilliant.
R
Okay.
He
addressed
a
huge
number
of
issues
for
people,
including
seniors,
so
we've
always
been
pressing
for
a
better
number.
Okay,
because
we
realized
thousands
of
people
who
were
economically
pressed
or
even
by
definition,
poor
did
not
qualify.
Okay,
they
brought
us
the
numbers
on
that
and
we
just
went
I
could
just
remember
the
committee.
Like
everybody
sat
back,
it's,
oh,
my
god.
The
cost
of
this
right
so
just
to
me,
I
appreciate
what
this
is.
R
We
deferred
the
first
time
because
of
the
issues
have
been
brought
up:
okay
tonight
yet
again
and
I
appreciate
the
counselors
that
are
supporting
it
option,
C,
because
it's
a
better
good
there's.
No
doubt
about
that.
But
it
is
it
the
best
good
and
should
we
be
going
to
the
best
good
and
that's
what
bothered
me
because
I'm
concerned
about
what
we
call
middle-income
person
but
really
isn't?
R
R
That
means
that
that
the
sixty
percent
results
that
they
could
afford.
Twelve
hundred
and
twenty
based
on
the
income
that
in
the
SEPA
for
renters,
okay,
they
separated
out
owners
from
those
renters,
though
people
that
are
50
percent,
basically
the
median
for
households
and
down
those
are
the
people
I'm
concerned
about
they're
getting
cut
off
here.
R
Part
of
the
problem
with
the
report
and
I
said
this
before
and
I
asked
for
this,
but
it
didn't
come
back
in
that
form
asked
for
it
in
2017.
Is
it's
after-tax
income
now
that
works
for
some
of
the
analysis?
So
you
know
it's
it's
a
mixed
bag,
but
without
the
gross
income
for
those
folks,
you
cannot
tell
whether
they
make
the
30
percent
income
issue
for
those
on
what
they
can
afford
for
a
household
rent,
which
is
the
one
of
the
main
ways
in
which
we
determine
who's
poor
and
who
isn't?
R
Okay.
So,
who
gets
left
out
here?
Well
the
people
between
those
who
have
enough
which
has
been
described-
and
it
quite
rightly
exists
but
they're
pulling
up
the
average.
It's
the
people
that
I
remember
who
said
to
me:
don't
don't
take
it
away
because
it
means
something
to
Nepal.
In
my
life,
they'll.
R
I
ran
on
this.
It's
in
my
literature.
You
can
go,
read
it.
They
said
I
wouldn't
take
away
the
seniors
discount.
So
for
those
two
reasons,
the
analytical
side
and
the
fact
I
made
a
promise.
I
won't
vote
for
C
I
might
vote
for
G.
If
we
raise
the
rubble
which
remember
another
counselor
won't
point
to
them,
but
they're
here
who
said:
oh,
maybe
even
a
2070
if
they
raised
the
level.
Yes.
A
F
Off
Thank,
You,
mayor,
Paterson
and
I
do
want
to
speak
to
it
as
well.
I
really
really
appreciate
everyone's
comments,
because,
like
councillor,
Hutchison
I
I
can
see
both
sides
of
this.
One
and
I
have
not
received
a
lot
of
phone
calls,
but
I
have
received
some
and
they
asked
me
not
to
support
this
one.
So,
but
most
of
the
comments
I
have
from
seniors.
F
That
I've
asked
is
that
they
that
we
would
continue
some
age
based
discounts,
but
whatever
level,
but
I
really
do
really
hear
councillor
Kylie
and
and
his
thoughts
on
it
I
appreciate
them.
I,
just
don't
think
it's
going
to
be
the
right
thing
to
completely
cut
off
the
age
base.
There
discounts
people
are
looking
for
it,
expecting
it
and
feel
that
they
deserve
it
and
it
might
be,
it
might
be,
feel
disrespectful
to
them.
F
So
I
hear
that
III
do
acknowledge
that
many
many
of
our
and
it's,
thankfully,
we
have
a
community
of
that
senior
sick,
I,
don't
think
seniors
will
take
the
discount
if
they
don't
need
it.
So
so
I
I
will
not
be
supporting
option
C
as
well,
but
I
look
forward
to
something
like
G
and
making
maybe
adjusting
those
numbers
of
that.
Thank
you.
A
You
so
I
think
it's
pretty
clear
that
we
have
a
collision
between
good
policy
and
good
politics.
I
think
we
all
recognize
that,
so
there
been
some
comments
about
how
well
this
is
two
separate
issues:
there's
the
age
based
and
the
needs
based,
and
maybe
we
should
look
at
option
G,
because
it's
just
a
little
bit
more
expensive,
but
let's
be
real.
If
we're
gonna
expand,
needs
based
discounts
and
not
do
anything
with
age
base
kiss
counts,
that's
simply
not
affordable.
It's
not
affordable.
There's
simply
no
way
to
make
that
work.
A
Unless
we
want
to
start
to
raise
the
tax
rates,
there's
no
way
it's
unaffordable.
Now
it's
only
going
to
increase
the
level
of
unaffordability
in
the
years
ahead,
so
I
think
we
need
to
recognize
that
right
up
front.
So
what
we're
grappling
with
is
is
there
a
way
that
we
can
somehow
expand
needs-based
discounts
so
that
we
can
do
more
for
low-income
seniors
at
the
same
time?
Is
there
a
way
where
we
don't
have
to
take
something
away
that
people
currently
enjoy?
That's
basically
the
issue.
This
is
what
we're
all
grappling
with.
A
So
I
am
intending
if
option
C
does
not
pass
and
by
the
math
it's
not
going
to
pass.
So
my
intention
is
to
put
forward
a
compromise
option
that
will
grandfather
existing
age
based
discounts.
In
other
words,
nobody
that
has
their
age
based
discount
today
will
lose
it.
It's
only
looking
forward
that
we
will
phase
it
out
and
that
will
give
us
enough
room
to
at
least
raise
the
threshold
on
needs,
based
from
like
Oh
to
limb.
A
Now,
I
fully
recognize
that
maybe
a
compromise
that
doesn't
satisfy
either
side,
but
at
least
in
my
view,
that's
a
potential
common
ground
is
how
do
you
find
that
balance
between
good
policy
and
good
politics?
Now
I
recognize
I'm,
probably
bending
the
rules,
a
little
bit
deputy
mayor,
because
I'm
sort
of
speaking
to
another
option?
A
That's
not
actually
option
C,
but
that
is
why
I'm
gonna
put
that
forward
that,
ultimately,
if
option
C
is
going
to
fail,
then
if
there's
another
option
which
forward
something
that
is
financially
doable,
that
doesn't
take
anybody's
existing
discount
away
and
can
actually
expand
needs
base
discounts
so
that
we
could
do
more
for
low-income
seniors.
That,
in
my
view,
is
the
way
to
hit
all
three.
So
thank
you
very
much.
I
yield
the
charity.
Okay,
so
is
there
anybody
else
that
has
not
spoken
to
this?
That
would
liked
councillor
McClaren.
You
have
the
floor.
W
Okay,
I'm
not
going
to
take
too
much
time,
because
there's
only
two
comments
that
have
been
made:
that
I
felt
need
to
be
addressed
and
haven't
so
the
first
one
is
about
disposable
income,
while
you're
healthy,
your
disposable
income
might
actually
be
higher
after
you
retire,
but
you're
not
going
to
be
healthy
forever
and
there
are
costs
to
that,
including
the
costs
of
your
house
and
the
idea
that
this
is
not
affordable.
We
just
spent
180
million
on
a
bridge
I
think
that
we
can
afford
200,000.
We
also
spent.
W
We
are
committed
to
another
1.5
million
on
upkeep
for
that
bridge.
We
can
afford
this.
That's
not
a
problem,
but
going
forward.
I
also
promised
like
councillor
Hutchison,
not
to
take
away
or
touch
the
seniors
discounts.
So
it's
a
promise
that
I
made.
However,
I
am
willing
to
go
with
consensus
on
what
proper
limb
level
we
should
be
at
so.
For
that
reason,
I
cannot
support
C,
but
I
can
certainly
support
FRG.
Thank
you.
A
N
N
N
A
Yeah,
so
I
don't
I.
Don't
think
that
I
can
do
that.
I
think
that
that's
that's
not
really
a
point
of
order,
so
I
think
we'll
just
have
to
just
go.
Go
with
your
gut
on
that.
So
we
are
really
just
two
procedural
questions
right
now,
so
just
to
remind
Council.
So
we're
going
to
do
the
vote
on
this,
so
a
vote
of
yes
is
confirming
the
decision
of
the
administrative
policies
committee
to
say
no.
So
if
you
do
not
want
option
C,
you
will
vote
yes.
A
A
A
K
This
this
seems
to
be
compromise
that
touches
on
the
conflict
that
you've
indicated
is
apparent
between
policy
and
politics,
where
we
see
a
way
to
make
dis
discounts
more
sustainable,
financially,
while
still
recognizing
that
the
age-based
income,
the
aged
base
discounts,
are
valuable
and
that
we
are
concerned
about
taking
something
away.
This
the
some
of
the
plan,
I'm
sure
the
questions
are
around
what
the
discount
come
levels
are
at
and
I'll
wait
for
staff
to
comment
on
that,
but
they
are
approximately
twenty
twenty
five
percent.
K
N
My
concern
and
I
should
have
brought
this
up
when
we
were
debating
about
option
C,
but
my
concern
is
if
we're
talking
about
age
based
both
our
youth
and
our
children's
free
passes
are
indeed
age
based
and
their
age
based
discounts.
So
is
this
a
slippery
slope
where
we're
putting
in
jeopardy
a
really
popular
program
whereby
students
and
children
get
free
bus
passes?
Okay?
So,
yes,.
A
N
AA
Thank
you
through
you
mayor.
This
will
not
impact
the
programs
that
you
mentioned.
Children
are
excluded
from
this
conversation.
The
second
Clause
up
there
is
about
standardizing
the
ages
because
between
recreation,
culture
and
transit,
there
are
different
age
categories.
So,
as
part
of
this
process,
we
want
to
standardize
those
definitions
so
child
as
a
child
as
a
child,
but
the
programs
with
the
post-secondary
institutions,
the
recreation
program
and
the
public
school
system.
All
of
those
programs
are
not
impacted
by
this,
so
this
changed
that's
up
there.
An
option.
N
Thank
you,
yeah
I
wish
the
wording
was
more
clear
in
there
or
that
it.
It
said
specifically
that
but
I
I
won't
be
supporting
this,
because
I
still
think
our
best
option,
as
pre
some
previous
speakers
have
have
pointed
out,
is
option.
G
and
I
think
the
opportunity
to
end
it.
Quite
frankly,
I
mean
people
spoke
about
how
progressive
option
C
was
the
most
progressive
option
presented
to
us
is
option
G
and
therefore,
if
we
can
defeat
this,
perhaps
we
can
put
the
most
progressive
option
on
the
floor.
J
Simply
to
say
that
I
understand
the
rationale
for
the
compromise,
but
we'll
get
the
we'll
get
the
same
reaction
from
the
public
with
the
reduction
as
we
would
with
a
flat-out
elimination,
I
think
it
doesn't.
The
nuance
of
the
compromise
will
get
lost
in
the
in
in.
In
this
whole
thing,
I'm
afraid
I
do
agree
with
councillor
Neill,
but
often
option.
G
I
have
an
unresolved
problem,
though,
and
that
is
the
estimates
used
for
the
table.
The
cost
estimates
we
heard
about
the
15
percent
of
eligible
seniors
are
actually
using
the
discount.
J
A
K
K
It's
it's
disgraceful
to
think
that
someone
that's
earning
seventeen
thousand
four
hundred
dollars
a
year
is
not
getting
a
discount
and
that
someone
who
is
is
retired
or
or
in
whatever
circumstance,
regardless
that
their
income
is
significantly
higher
and
they've
received
no
discount.
However,
you
want
to
justify
that.
That
is
wrong.
K
The
and,
if
we
don't
change
it
tonight,
it
will
not
change.
We
will
continue
with
a
like.oh
system,
which
is
a
cut-off
of
seventeen
thousand
dollars.
Approximately
the
I
certainly
acknowledge
that
individuals
living
on
fixed
income
seniors,
who
are
retired,
have
difficulties.
They
have
health
care
costs
that
that
others
don't
have.
They
have
limited
income
I,
certainly
get
that
the
rationale
my
parents
work
their
whole
lives.
They
can't
afford
home
care.
This
is
not
you
know,
but
that
is
not
what
this
program
is
meant
to
be
doing.
K
It's
not
meant
to
be
a
retirement
benefit
for
someone,
it's
meant
to
be
a
needs-based
program.
That
is
how
it
was
initiated
and
I
would
simply
like
to
have
us
reflect
on
the
intention
of
it.
It's
not
like
it's
easy
to
to
say
the
things
I've
been
saying,
I
get
contacted
by
people
who
tell
me
that
they'll
never
elect
me.
K
I
will
never
be
electable
ever
again,
because
this
decision,
if
you
are
not
hearing
from
a
resident
who's
earning
$17,400
I,
can
tell
you
why
you're
not
hearing
from
them
you're
not
hearing
from
them,
because
they're
busy
trying
to
do
what
they
need
to
do
to
survive
and
we're
here
to
represent
them
just
as
much
as
we're
here
to
represent
any
other
age
group
or
any
other
demographic.
That's
it
for
me.
K
A
A
A
AA
Through
your
worship,
I
just
noticed,
there's
an
error
in
the
second
clause
that
I
thought
I'd
better
correct
before
you
vote
on
it.
The
adult
age
group
for
this
particular
option
should
be
25
to
64,
not
18,
to
64,
because
we're
maintaining
the
youth
discounts
for
the
15
to
24
year
olds.
So
adults
should
start
at
25.
Okay,.
A
AA
A
I'm
just
gonna
come
back
and
circle
back
to
my
earlier
comments
and
I
understand
what
we're
grappling
with
that.
There's
three
things
that
we're
looking
for
number
one:
to
try:
not
to
take
something
away:
that
people
currently
enjoy
number
two
to
expand
the
standard
of
assistance
to
those
that
need
it
and
number
three
something.
J
X
E
S
A
S
A
You
so
I
will
try
not
to
throw
random
letters
it's
getting
late.
Yes,
so
I
I,
just
come
back
to
the
three
things.
I
think
we're
grappling
with
number
one
is
not
taking
away
something
that
already
exists,
that
people
enjoy
number
two,
something
that
it
can
expand:
assistance
of
people
that
need
it
and
number
three
something
that
is
financially
manageable.
Now
there
been
some
comments
earlier
to
dismiss
it
that
oh,
it's
no
big
deal.
These
are
operating
dollars
that
ultimately
are
going
to
increase
year
after
year
after
year.
A
So
just
to
be
clear,
some
of
the
other
options
that
have
been
suggested
are
actually
more
expensive.
Then
what
we
already
have
so
I'm
looking
for
something
that
can
at
least
hold
the
line.
This
is
something
that
ultimately
can
at
least
keep
the
cost
more.
That's
the
same,
but
provides
a
shift
that,
in
my
view,
is
more
palatable.
A
So
that's
why
I
put
this
forward
I
understand
it's
a
compromise,
so
I
guess
the
question
that
I
would
ask
if
every
councillor
is
right,
do
you
want
to
compromise,
or
do
you
want
to
risk
getting
something
very
different
from
what
you
really
want?
That,
ultimately,
is
what
every
compromise
is
about.
If
this
is
something
you
can
live
with,
in
my
view,
you
should
vote
for
this.
A
In
my
view,
this
at
least
tries
to
hit
everything
it
doesn't
satisfy
everybody
around
this
table,
but
I
think
that
this
is
something
that
we
can
argue
is
a
reasonable
move.
It
addresses
the
issue
that
the
current
system
will
become
increasing
unaffordable,
but
the
same
time
is
something
that
will
not
take
away
anything
from
a
resident.
This
geeks
anybody
that
has
a
seniors
discount
today
will
continue
to
enjoy
that
seniors
discount.
So
with
that,
I
reserve
the
right
to
speak
glass
but
I
offer
it
for
councils
consideration.
Thank
you.
I
yield.
E
R
A
E
R
R
A
N
E
B
E
E
E
R
E
J
J
E
W
S
S
T
The
first
mr.
deputy
mayor
and
through
you
to
time
would
deferring
to
the
next
admitting
give
enough
time
for
stop
to
gather
the
required
data
and
provide
notice
to
the
public
who
may
want
to
provide
input
on
this
or
would
have
the
meeting
after
that
be
more
appropriate.
There's
a
question
is
staff
I,
guess.
AA
I
can't
speak
to
the
public
consultation
component
because
I'm
not
sure
what
we're
asking
the
public,
but
in
terms
of
this
particular
option,
costing
out
the
option
which
I
think
is
what
you're
looking
for
as
compared
to
the
other
option.
That
could
definitely
come
to
the
next
admit
policy.
Meeting
I
can.
P
O
E
E
A
A
A
Okay,
so
there
are
two
clauses
we
can
vote
on
them
together
unless
anyone
has
any
questions
or
resist
to
speak
to
them
individually.
Okay,
seeing
none
then
number:
oh
I'm,
sorry,
yes,
counselor!
Also,
if
you
want
to
speak
to
one
of
them,
okay,
so
then
we'll
separate
them
so
first
number
one
is
the
City
of
Kingston
Road
Safety
plan
councillor
off
I.
F
Just
thought
there
would
be
more
discussion,
so
I
I'll
come
up
with
something
hopefully
give
you
guys
a
chance
to
think
about
y'all
wore
out
from
the
last
one:
okay,
I
honestly,
the
the
road
safety
plan.
We've
had
good
discussion
in
committee,
I
I
guess:
I
did
phone
today
for
some
questions.
I
just
thought
there'd
be
clarification
on
the.
F
A
A
AB
AB
Some
of
the
countermeasures
that
are
included
speak
to
automated
enforcement
for
the
automated
enforcement
components
that
are
available
to
the
city
in
the
short
term
are
centered
around
red-light
camera
systems,
and
then
there
are
options
in
the
future
pending
sort
of
provincial
regulatory
changes
that
would
relate
to
automated
speed
or
photo
radar
enforcement,
and
the
in
the
intent
is
that
there
would
be
a
follow-up
report
specific
to
the
red-light
camera
implementation
that
would
be
brought
to
council
prior
to
the
end
of
year.
Alright,.
AB
I
think,
with
respect
to
with
respect
to
the
red
light
camera
program,
I
think
those
locations
would
be
part
of
what
we
would
be
bringing
forward
for
discussion
with
with
counsel
in
the
future.
But
the
intent
is
that
all
of
these
countermeasures
are
our
citywide
countermeasures
that
would
be
deployed
based
on
sort
of
data
that
suggests
there
that
they
would
be
appropriate
at
certain
locations
and.
F
AB
G
You
your
worship
on
just
to
keep
counselor
Rosa
Hoffa
company.
There
was
a
timely
article
in
the
Toronto
Star
on
Saturday
and
I
just
wondered:
if
staff
saw
it,
it
was
the
city
of
Toronto's
vision,
zero
and
in
the
article
it
talked
about
the
most
important
thing
that
they've
taken
like
they.
They
initiated
vision,
zero
in
2016
and
the
most
important
takeaway
on
the
you
know
three
years
later
is
on
road
design.
G
That's
the
heart
of
where
they
can
try
to
make
it
differences
in
road
design,
because
focusing
on
public
education
or
other
things
doesn't
seem
to
be
working.
It
has
to
be
a
design
like
a
change
in
the
design
of
the
road
and
I
just
wondered.
If
staff
saw
that
article,
it
says
all
over
this
article
in
the
Toronto
start,
the
physical
redesign
of
the
road
is
what's
needed
and
in
the
recommendations
of
our
Road
Safety
plan,
I
think
that
isn't
emphasis
and
that's
my
question
I
think
I.
Remember
that
being
an
emphasis
and
is
it.
AB
Three
year,
worship,
so,
yes,
I
think
that
the
information
that
you're,
referring
to
from
from
that
article,
that
is
that,
was
part
of
the
work
that
was
done
for
Kingston's
Road
Safety
plan
work
in
that
the
the
countermeasures
that
are
that
are
prescribed
as
part
of
the
plan
in
the
emphasis
areas.
That
sort
of
look
it
at
where
the
city
would
be
focusing.
It's
all
based
around
for
ease,
so
engineering,
education
enforcement
and
engagement,
the
road
design
aspect
of
it
or
the
engineering
aspect
of
it
is
a
very
important
piece
of
it
in
that.
AB
In
that
the
overall
design
of
the
road
is
the
best
way
to
encourage
the
behaviors
of
all
of
the
users
on
that
road,
but
particularly
the
vehicle
users
and
the
speeds
at
which
they're
traveling
and
those
those
components,
I
think
that's
reflected
in
the
plan.
It's
it's
understood
within
the
plan,
however,
I
think
it's
also.
It's
also
understood
within
within
the
work
we're
doing
that.
The
that
the
changes
to
the
design
of
the
overall
transportation
network
of
the
city
will
take
time,
and
there
are
a
number
of
other
countermeasures
or
programs
that
are
proposed.
A
G
You
your
worship,
just
looking
for
my
notes.
I
did
have
a
couple
of
questions,
then
just
see
right,
okay,
so
the
new
requirements
that
the
city
has
as
of
September
1st
do
we
think
that
that
will
be
enough
or
are
we
going
to
try
out
those
measure,
those
requirements
for
a
shirt
for
a
short
time
and
then
somehow
assess
to
see
if
we
have
to
go
any
further
steps?
G
Are
there
further
steps
to
go
so
right
now
we're
saying
it
has
to
be
ventilated
outside
and
I,
can't
remember
what
the
other
one
was,
but
we're
not
saying
that
it
needs
waterproofing,
underneath
the
foundation
to
create
like
an
impermeable
membrane.
So
are
we
saying
that
the
two
recommends
two
requirements
that
we
have
has
a
September
1st?
Is
that
far
enough,
and
would
we
assess
to
see
if
there's
a
difference
at
some
point
down
to
see
if
we
have
to
go
even
further?
G
X
3,
mr.
mayor,
the
Building
Code
prescribes
those
three
options
that
are
in
the
strategy,
so
the
one
option
is
to
seal
the
floor
wall
and
any
penetrations.
The
other
is
to
put
a
rough
in
under
the
slab
and
then
the
third
is
to
do
a
full
remedial
mitigation
mitigation
system.
That's
not
the
three
options
the
customers
have.
X
There
is
no
remediation
measures
under
the
code,
so
those
are
just
so
L
gas
measures
to
put
in
place
the
remediation
is
done
by
others,
so
there
there
wouldn't
be
any
other
any
other
requirements
under
the
code
unless
the
province
were
to
put
something
else
in
place.
So
the
province
is
looking
at
harmonizing
with
the
National
Building
Code
and
the
National
Building
Code
has
the
rough-in
under
the
slab
as
mandatory
requirement.
So
if
we
do
move
with
the
harmonization,
then
that
will
be
put
in
every
dwelling.
X
A
Thank
you
number
two.
Your
stories
are
histories,
Sir
John,
a
360
engagement,
events,
update
okay.
We
have
no
information
reports,
members
of
council
miscellaneous
business
that
the
resignation
of
Ashley
Johnson
for
Meritage
Kingston
be
received.
With
regret,
can
I
have
a
mover
police
moved
by
Councillor
Doherty
seconded
by
councillor
Neill.
A
E
A
You
I
think
that
the
motion
is
self-explanatory.
Obviously
this
is
a
key
piece
in
our
recruitment
for
a
new
CEO
I
think
that
the
only
thing
that
I
will
say
is
having
spoken
with
council
that
my
goal
was
to
create
a
committee
that
is
diverse
on
several
different
fronts:
there's
a
diversity
of
political
leanings.
There
is
a
diversity
of
tenure
from
veterans
to
to
new
counselors
and
then
also
on
gender
as
well.