Owen Sound Committee - Operations Meeting Transcript — November 20, 2025

00:00:16 Speaker 01: So at this time, I'll call the meeting of the Operations Committee to order.

00:00:20 Speaker 01: And first item of business before us is any items of additional business.

00:00:24 Speaker 01: I'm looking to my left.

00:00:26 Speaker 01: First, I'll go to staff first.

00:00:30 Speaker 02: Thank you, Deputy Mayor Greig.

00:00:31 Speaker 02: We do have one additional item.

00:00:33 Speaker 02: It is a late addition of correspondence from Town of Blue Mountain to Grey County.

00:00:39 Speaker 02: I just wanted to raise that as an additional item; it's not really additional business, but additional items, so it makes it into the minutes of this agenda.

00:00:47 Speaker 02: Okay.

00:00:48 Speaker 01: Thank you.

00:00:48 Speaker 01: And further to my left, Councillor Merton.

00:00:52 Speaker 03: Through you, Chair.

00:00:53 Speaker 03: I have two items for additional business.

00:00:56 Speaker 03: I would like to speak to non-profits regarding recyclable cardboard, and I have an intent to bring forward a motion based on the conversation operations tonight,

00:01:06 Speaker 03: and also I would like to speak to the role of the Joint Municipal Services Committee for Grey County, with the possibility of looking at Blue Box Recycling for industrial, commercial, and institutional locations.

00:01:21 Speaker 03: Thank you.

00:01:23 Speaker 01: Okay, and one of those items we might be able to entertain as part of the broader discussion in the report coming up.

00:01:29 Speaker 01: Anybody to my right?

00:01:31 Speaker 01: Not seeing anything noted.

00:01:32 Speaker 01: And I have one question for staff regarding sidewalk winter maintenance.

00:01:37 Speaker 01: So we've got the minutes under item four a of the Operations Committee meeting held on October sixteen, two thousand and twenty-five.

00:01:45 Speaker 01: These were approved by Council without any question other than a question to Waste Management which wasn't really related to the report that had been in front of us,

00:01:56 Speaker 01: so I'm just looking for a mover for receipt, and Member Anderson has moved.

00:02:01 Speaker 01: All those in favour?

00:02:03 Speaker 01: That's carried unanimously.

00:02:04 Speaker 01: Thank you.

00:02:06 Speaker 01: We do no longer have a deputation as scheduled at this time for this evening.

00:02:13 Speaker 01: So first item then is Item Six, Public Forum, and we do have almost an overflow crowd gathered here tonight to take part in this Operations Committee meeting.

00:02:23 Speaker 01: So if you wish to provide any comments during the public forum,

00:02:28 Speaker 01: I certainly encourage you to come up to the podium and introduce yourself and place a residency card and engage with the committee on any concerns.

00:02:41 Speaker 01: And anyone?

00:02:44 Speaker 01: Yeah, yeah, okay, yeah, yeah, you're welcome.

00:02:48 Speaker 01: Yep, yep.

00:02:51 Speaker 01: Yeah.

00:02:56 Speaker 01: Right.

00:02:57 Speaker 01: So hi, for the record, I'm Francesca Daben.

00:03:00 Speaker 01: I am the Executive Director of United Way of Bruce Grey.

00:03:03 Speaker 04: Joining us is Annette from Safe and Sound and Lee from the Harmony Centre.

00:03:07 Speaker 04: We sent out an email to a bunch of charities that have locations in the River District regarding just around recycling and the impact on the charitable sector of having to find private disposal options,

00:03:21 Speaker 04: and start paying for this with our Backpack programmemememe at United Way and all the supports we provide through our S.W.S. programmemememe; you know, cardboard is a huge piece for us.

00:03:32 Speaker 04: You know, I could probably manage the Diet Coke cans and just take them home, but cardboard is a huge challenge for us.

00:03:39 Speaker 04: We don't have any extra land to put a dumpster in because we have community gardens on all our land, so we're really challenged.

00:03:45 Speaker 04: We just... you know, we know this is a provincial decision.

00:03:47 Speaker 04: We just want to think about the not-for-profit charitable sector that's providing very valuable support to your community when looking at these changes and what are we going to do, and how can we work together?

00:03:59 Speaker 04: Because we just cannot take any more burdens onto the charitable sector of "just you guys go fix this."

00:04:05 Speaker 04: You know, OSHaRE is not here; Colleen...

00:04:07 Speaker 04: I'll let her know we were coming tonight, and it was all depending on whether she could get here or not.

00:04:12 Speaker 04: But OSHaRE did thirty-three thousand meals in October.

00:04:16 Speaker 04: We're feeding this community; we're keeping the heat on, and to add another four or five hundred dollars a month in waste management just to recycle is going to be a real challenge.

00:04:26 Speaker 04: So I just wanted to come up and offer that opportunity.

00:04:30 Speaker 04: If you want to ask us any questions at that time for that conversation, we're here to help you understand what we're dealing with as charities and not-for-profits.

00:04:39 Speaker 04: Okay, thanks, Francesca.

00:04:43 Speaker 04: Anyone further?

00:04:46 Speaker 04: Welcome.

00:04:47 Speaker 04: Hi, I'm Lee Graves.

00:04:49 Speaker 04: I live in Owen Sound, and I'm here representing Harmony Centre, which is a charity in downtown.

00:04:54 Speaker 05: I look at this legislation, and to me, it seems spectacularly flawed.

00:05:00 Speaker 05: So I'm hoping that there's an opportunity for pushback with regards to implementation.

00:05:11 Speaker 05: As Francesca said, the notion of having private dumpsters on all of the properties—private dumpsters on all of the properties in downtown.

00:05:17 Speaker 05: Where will we put all this stuff?

00:05:19 Speaker 05: Not to mention the fact that it just is yet another cash grab.

00:05:25 Speaker 05: So I think the intent of the legislation probably was good, but the unintended consequences I think could be huge.

00:05:32 Speaker 05: So I hope you'll be able to help with that.

00:05:35 Speaker 05: That's why I'm here.

00:05:35 Speaker 06: Thank you.

00:05:37 Speaker 06: Thank you, and I couldn't agree any more with the intent of the legislation and the unintended consequences.

00:05:56 Speaker 06: I'm not usually on this end of things.

00:05:58 Speaker 06: Good evening.

00:05:59 Speaker 06: My name is David Parsons.

00:06:01 Speaker 06: I am chair of the River District.

00:06:03 Speaker 06: I'm here mostly to listen.

00:06:05 Speaker 07: And you may know we have a board meeting next week, so I'm here just to see whether or not I need to take anything back to our meeting.

00:06:14 Speaker 07: So, thank you for that.

00:06:22 Speaker 07: And anyone further?

00:06:24 Speaker 01: No pressure.

00:06:25 Speaker 01: You're welcome.

00:06:26 Speaker 01: Okay.

00:06:27 Speaker 01: All right.

00:06:28 Speaker 01: Thank you very much for attending this evening and your interest in the report before committee.

00:06:34 Speaker 01: So we've got no further items in public forum.

00:06:39 Speaker 01: We have no correspondence received for which direction is required under item seven.

00:06:44 Speaker 01: So at this time, we're moving to reports from staff.

00:06:47 Speaker 01: We have one this evening, and it is a fairly lengthy one.

00:06:51 Speaker 01: So at this time, I will pass it over to Heidi to introduce this report on unintended consequences of the legislation across municipalities in the province.

00:07:05 Speaker 08: Thank you through you, Mr. Chair.

00:07:07 Speaker 08: So last committee meeting, I brought forward a report regarding legislative changes for non-eligible sources.

00:07:17 Speaker 08: So, I was told to bring back another report outlining some different options that we would have in Owen Sound.

00:07:25 Speaker 08: Just some very brief background: but the eligible sources covered by the provincial programmemememe are any residential homes, residential units, and mixed-use buildings; public spaces, community parks and sidewalks;

00:07:41 Speaker 08: permanent or seasonal households in campgrounds and trailer parks.

00:07:47 Speaker 08: But what's not included in the legislation are industrial and commercial properties, not-for-profit organisations, municipal buildings or facilities, daycares, places of worship, campgrounds, and commercial farms.

00:08:02 Speaker 08: So my report brought forward several different options that I looked at in the brief time that I had available,

00:08:11 Speaker 08: but I am recommending to committee that they recommend that council approve one of the three options that I provided.

00:08:23 Speaker 08: One is to fund all non-eligible recycling pickup for a cost between $120,000 and $140,000 a year.

00:08:45 Speaker 08: I should note that this amount includes the weekly pickup cost as well as tonnage charges.

00:08:55 Speaker 08: Staff and Miller Waste are suggesting a tonnage of one to two tons a week for collection, which would just include blue box materials such as tin, plastic, and glass.

00:09:15 Speaker 08: Sorry, but because we've been commingling our recycling with the eligible sources for so long, we don't have the exact amount.

00:09:27 Speaker 08: It could be five tons a week, but it could also be one; or half a ton a week.

00:09:32 Speaker 08: We don't know how much recycling we would get from all of the non-eligible sources.

00:09:38 Speaker 08: So the first option is to leave it basically status quo.

00:09:42 Speaker 08: The second option is to continue collecting all the non-eligible materials for up to six months.

00:09:47 Speaker 08: And the last option that I was recommending, or that staff was recommending, was use of the Miller Waste Transfer Station Recycling Depot.

00:10:00 Speaker 08: Thanks.

00:10:04 Speaker 06: I should actually maybe pass it back to you just because you do have more options in the report.

00:10:10 Speaker 06: If you could just introduce and speak to each of those options, Heidi, just because it is in the report.

00:10:16 Speaker 06: And for anyone watching or viewing the meeting who may not have the actual report in front of them,

00:10:23 Speaker 06: it would be good to still provide an overview of some of the material that you've got contained within.

00:10:30 Speaker 08: Okay through you, Mr. Chair.

00:10:32 Speaker 08: One of the options that I looked into was a special charge or user fee.

00:10:38 Speaker 08: So under the Municipal Act, we do have the right to do this.

00:10:43 Speaker 08: But so it could be a flat fee, tiered based on a number of businesses or the containers collected.

00:10:52 Speaker 08: But these pros with this would be: the charges would only be for those receiving the service, and it would allow adjustments based on usage levels or property types.

00:11:06 Speaker 08: It would provide a sustainable, transparent, long-term funding model.

00:11:10 Speaker 08: But the cons with this is that it would take longer; we could never implement it in just a few months.

00:11:16 Speaker 08: It would require detailed cost tracking, coordination with the contractor.

00:11:21 Speaker 08: We would have to get legal review.

00:11:24 Speaker 08: There'd be separate billing, so there'd be a lot of administrative and staff time.

00:11:31 Speaker 08: Another option would be like a special levy just for the River District.

00:11:36 Speaker 08: So under the Municipal Act, municipalities can do that.

00:11:40 Speaker 08: So all we would need is clearly define the area and identify the geographical area.

00:11:48 Speaker 08: So this special levy is based on property values in the service area rather than a flat fee.

00:11:55 Speaker 08: The difference between the special levy and the DIA levy is that it's based on all units in downtown, not just businesses.

00:12:06 Speaker 08: The only issue with that when we were pulling numbers for tax purposes: it would roughly be maybe $250 a month, and that would just be based on basic information that we have.

00:12:20 Speaker 08: We don't know the true tonnage but it also could include one of the larger properties—would be about $1,500 annually—and that company already has their own private recycling so they could bring them on board which

00:12:43 Speaker 08: could be additional costs.

00:12:48 Speaker 08: And then another option was to include it in the River District, and as spoken earlier, that budget will come forward, and there is a public meeting next week for that.

00:13:00 Speaker 08: The only issue with that is again: it could apply to some of the businesses that have private contractors already picking up recycling, so once they add theirs, there would be an additional charge.

00:13:17 Speaker 08: And then another option we brought forward—this option was noted by the chair as just cardboard collection in the River District.

00:13:27 Speaker 08: So that was another option that we were looking at.

00:13:31 Speaker 08: Another option we had was some type of garbage bag tag or a coloured bag.

00:13:38 Speaker 08: Unfortunately, the compliance rate in downtown with garbage is very low.

00:13:45 Speaker 08: And the cost for a tag or for a coloured bag would exceed the cost of a garbage bag to make it work financially for us.

00:13:59 Speaker 08: So that would likely not be a good option.

00:14:05 Speaker 08: And then the final option was to discontinue non-eligible recycling fully, which could cause a lot of issues including illegal dumping, which would lead to increased cleanup and disposal costs for staff;

00:14:25 Speaker 08: higher landfill tonnage and tipping fees; and it would reduce compliance with recycling regulations like provincial regulations and bylaws with the city.

00:14:35 Speaker 08: It would increase workload for city staff, and undermines the city's waste diversion and environmental goals as well.

00:14:43 Speaker 08: Thank you.

00:14:45 Speaker 01: Okay thanks Heidi.

00:14:49 Speaker 01: There may be a lot of questions this evening.

00:14:52 Speaker 01: I might just look even to my right and go around the table.

00:14:57 Speaker 01: I don't know if you've got questions Member Indo.

00:15:00 Speaker 01: If you would like to lead off, just kind of proceed before I entertain a motion.

00:15:12 Speaker 09: I'm not real comfortable right now—there's going to be conversation about putting cost on all residents when it doesn't affect them.

00:15:26 Speaker 09: Now $11 a month doesn't seem much but how many more $11s or—I mean—is that added annually?

00:15:35 Speaker 09: That's all I know.

00:15:37 Speaker 09: It's not an easy one.

00:15:38 Speaker 09: None of these solutions are probably ideal, but I just sort of feel that who it affects and the charities is a problem.

00:15:51 Speaker 09: Yes of course should pay bulk of it.

00:15:56 Speaker 09: Keep adding to general levy then you know how many more things are going to be added.

00:16:02 Speaker 09: That's all I'm thinking right now.

00:16:04 Speaker 09: But thank you.

00:16:07 Speaker 01: Okay thanks for sharing those thoughts because actually option one isn't even something that I would want to introduce in front of council.

00:16:14 Speaker 01: To be honest with you, do you have any questions?

00:16:17 Speaker 01: Any further insights you'd like to seek out?

00:16:23 Speaker 10: Right no Member Hawkins through you Mr Chair.

00:16:28 Speaker 10: I too have some great reservations about the suggestions and recommendations.

00:16:36 Speaker 10: I voiced my concerns at last meeting about passing along added costs to our downtown district when we're trying to attract new businesses there,

00:16:53 Speaker 10: and then landlords or people that own buildings are incurring costs even though they have empty buildings there.

00:17:01 Speaker 10: So I think my observation at this time is: there needs to be a deeper dive into finding out maybe a better solution from municipalities outlining those that do it well.

00:17:18 Speaker 10: There are lots of municipalities with mixed-use areas able to carry those costs within regular property tax amounts.

00:17:32 Speaker 10: I just believe if we say to regular Owen Sound residents everybody is incurring cost of these changes, that's not appropriate.

00:17:46 Speaker 10: Nor do I believe charity should have to carry this when it hasn't been well thought out—this change within provincial mandate.

00:17:58 Speaker 10: So that's my thoughts.

00:18:01 Speaker 10: Okay thank you Member Krohn.

00:18:03 Speaker 10: Anything to comment here?

00:18:05 Speaker 11: Yeah thank you Mr Chair through you I just have one question about cost: $165,000 or something a year is what quoted in report—is that net of revenue?

00:18:23 Speaker 11: That's my first question because at one time aluminium and cardboard were money makers for city recycling programmemememe and I heard from people in audience that cardboard is an issue.

00:18:35 Speaker 11: So even though there's cost to pick it up it is potential revenue stream.

00:18:39 Speaker 11: It might not offset entire cost for pickup but it is revenue stream.

00:18:44 Speaker 11: I believe it is—perhaps that changed.

00:18:47 Speaker 11: So first thing: netted revenue.

00:18:49 Speaker 11: My next one is comment having somewhat history with city and emphasis in report is River District.

00:18:59 Speaker 11: The River District has always been problem with garbage pickup, waste pickup—it's been problem since bag tags introduced—and I really wish there be little bit more ownership in River District to address problems from property owners.

00:19:22 Speaker 11: Essentially I see same buildings residents put out garbage whenever they feel like it then city goes around cleans up multiple times a week so that itself is cost.

00:19:34 Speaker 11: I heard also flawed legislation.

00:19:38 Speaker 11: Somebody mentioned flawed legislation—this issue has come to committee and council since 2021, comments have been about flawed legislation.

00:19:54 Speaker 11: Province didn't listen—we received letter sent to mayor this week I believe from Minister of Energy and Climate Protection essentially: yeah it's flawed but you know what?

00:20:08 Speaker 11: We'll look at it—but I don't believe province going to look at it—it's flawed from get-go.

00:20:13 Speaker 11: I just don't understand philosophically how recycling programmemememe can parse it—good for these customers but not those others.

00:20:24 Speaker 11: It goes in line with Green Bin programmemememe and people most need are people multi-residential units apartment buildings guess what?

00:20:37 Speaker 11: They don't get because it's not part provincial programmemememe—that itself another failure from waste management perspective province.

00:20:46 Speaker 11: When I drove down here today Luke Charbonneau from Soggy Shores on news at five o'clock about problems they going to have in Port Algonquin—in Port Algon there just needs huge effort and I know AMO

00:21:01 Speaker 11: has tried but it should be global programmemememe for everyone.

00:21:07 Speaker 11: When managed by municipality yeah there were gaps but weren't these types of gaps so anyways I'm done—I just need question answered revenue thank you patience.

00:21:23 Speaker 08: Through you Member Krohn: So at one time when municipality Owen Sound had Miller Waste as contractor there was MRF on site—they collect sort then market material.

00:21:41 Speaker 08: On July 1,

00:21:43 Speaker 08: 2023 MRF closed and we no longer have that revenue stream from recycling because they no longer market material—then we don't get anything through revenue but for paper boxboard cardboard there's no tonnage charge—they just charging

00:22:10 Speaker 08: us to pick up material—it rest of recycling material will be tonnage charge.

00:22:21 Speaker 01: Okay thank you—and you referenced Soggy Shores or Luke Charbonneau maybe if I could have Heidi expand?

00:22:31 Speaker 01: You've probably looked at municipal cost comparators some degree—I should note Soggy Shores has own landfill which puts them different plane than Owen Sound—is there anything add because been doing lot research subject Heidi through Mr

00:22:50 Speaker 08: Chair so one of luxuries would say Sogin Chords is they have lots like compost bins where can take cardboard paper but as January 1st all that leaving—yeah it will all gone—not just Owensound impacted—all municipalities

00:23:20 Speaker 08: around us with change—and I don't believe picking up non-eligs—they controlling what comes into landfill through recycling thanks Heidi.

00:23:32 Speaker 08: I'll go Tim before Councillor Merton next thank you Deputy Mayor Greig yeah just build off Heidi comments about Portland materials going away etc and it provincial wide—it's real shame actually Staff think rollback planned expansions

00:23:58 Speaker 02: exclusion non-eligible sectors represent significant step backward achieving truly circular economy—but in our review whether York Region Durham Region Halton Region all municipalities sit those communities come January 1st Simcoe County included—all past sixty days dealing

00:24:18 Speaker 02: same question we're dealing tonight—and all rolling back to say after Jan 1st:

00:24:26 Speaker 02: not for profit sector sorry ICI sorry non-eligible sources but province put us position not collect costs exorbitant as opposed able deal any other way—so think opportunities committee recommend city respectfully recommend province alongside pros and

00:24:54 Speaker 02: CMOs continue advocate look again.

00:24:56 Speaker 02: But until then, I think the costs are pretty prohibitive, and our municipal partners across the province are all seeing the same thing.

00:25:05 Speaker 01: Okay.

00:25:06 Speaker 01: Thanks.

00:25:06 Speaker 01: So we'll get in line for Roma delegation, Councillor Merton.

00:25:12 Speaker 03: Through you, Chair, there's no doubt that we're seeking desperately to make lemonade out of a lemon, and it's not an easy task.

00:25:24 Speaker 03: How do we approach this in a reasonable manner?

00:25:26 Speaker 03: How do we approach it for equity and fairness for all of our community?

00:25:31 Speaker 03: How is it going to be affordable, and how do we prioritize?

00:25:35 Speaker 03: Those are the questions that have come to my mind as I've gone over and over and over this report.

00:25:43 Speaker 03: I did look at Grey County at the municipal level, specifically the Joint Municipal Services Committee.

00:25:50 Speaker 03: I did ask: should the Chair agree to have the terms of reference available for the committee to even look at them?

00:25:58 Speaker 03: Because although I was going to bring this up under additional business, it might fit more appropriately here.

00:26:05 Speaker 03: But that is a committee comprised of a variety of municipalities in Grey County that we're all facing the same thing;

00:26:12 Speaker 03: perhaps this Committee could consider recommending the issue be brought to the Joint Municipal Services Committee for review, for recommendations, for advocacy, and for joint municipal action.

00:26:31 Speaker 03: We're all working together.

00:26:32 Speaker 03: If we need to go forward, is there an opportunity?

00:26:35 Speaker 03: Is the opportunity for affordability as a larger group to negotiate services?

00:26:42 Speaker 03: But let's have the conversation so that is an avenue rather than one by one; each of us may amplify a voice or at least sit down at the table and say, "What are the options?"

00:26:56 Speaker 03: Considering our municipalities, my concern in the short term: we can't say that one district has priority over another or one service because how do you prioritize when all this is important to everyone?

00:27:17 Speaker 03: I have a concern about the impact on nonprofits, especially those nonprofits that deal directly with individuals who need food, who need their utilities kept on, and who need the backpacks.

00:27:35 Speaker 03: My concern—and what I might ask—is: Is there an opportunity for this Committee to consider allowing nonprofits to be reinstated for cardboard collection, even for a period of time while we figure this out?

00:27:52 Speaker 03: Because we know where we are with those people who are going hungry in our community.

00:27:58 Speaker 03: We know about the meals that are being shared through a variety of agencies.

00:28:03 Speaker 03: And at the very least, while we, as a Committee, figure it out or get input or have an additional regional approach to this situation,

00:28:13 Speaker 03: is there an opportunity to say for a period of time that our nonprofits, particularly in food programmemememes and social programmemememes, have the ability to have cardboard collection specifically reinstated?

00:28:30 Speaker 03: Those were my comments and questions.

00:28:34 Speaker 03: Okay.

00:28:35 Speaker 01: I can speak to the Joint Municipal Services Committee of the County to some degree.

00:28:40 Speaker 01: Mayor Boddy is chairing it.

00:28:43 Speaker 01: It's at this point for budget consideration in 2026 to allocate $250,000 for a comprehensive waste management study; but that would not be inclusive of the conversation we're having tonight or the immediacy of it.

00:29:06 Speaker 01: You referenced—and it was spoken to by the City Manager—a letter which came in relatively late providing some advocacy to the County.

00:29:19 Speaker 01: Is this an opportune time for you just to introduce that or speak to that letter further, Tim?

00:29:26 Speaker 01: And if so, can you verbally read it so Member Anderson, who hasn't had an opportunity to see it, is able to be up to speed?

00:29:35 Speaker 01: I'll pass it over to you at this time.

00:29:38 Speaker 01: Sure.

00:29:38 Speaker 02: Thank you, Deputy Mayor Greig.

00:29:40 Speaker 02: Yeah, certainly.

00:29:41 Speaker 02: I'll read it.

00:29:42 Speaker 02: It's not too long, so bear with me a moment.

00:29:45 Speaker 02: So this is from a motion from the Town of Blue Mountains from their Council meeting on Monday, November 10th,

00:29:52 Speaker 02: and it has been circulated per the request of the motion to the lower-tier municipalities in the County.

00:29:59 Speaker 02: And it reads:

00:30:00 Speaker 02: "Whereas blue box recycling in the Blue Mountains will change on January 1st, 2026;

00:30:05 Speaker 02: a new province-wide extended producer responsibility will take over Ontario's blue box residential recycling collection and shifting responsibility from municipalities to the producers of plastic and packaging; therefore,

00:30:19 Speaker 02: the Town of Blue Mountains needs to focus on hiring the not-for-profit group called Circular Materials Ontario that will take over the handling of our blue bin recycling.

00:30:30 Speaker 02: Therefore, whereas the County of Simcoe has engaged the not-for-profit group called Circular Materials Ontario who run the programmemememe with Emterra handling pickup;

00:30:38 Speaker 02: and whereas Council should be involved in discussions now on how these changes will affect small businesses, not-for-profit businesses, and institutions such as our churches;

00:30:49 Speaker 02: and whereas Grey County should involve all nine municipalities to speak about the broader picture in waste management and look towards consolidating waste involving all nine municipalities in Grey County.

00:31:03 Speaker 02: Therefore,

00:31:04 Speaker 02: be it resolved that the Council of the Town of Blue Mountains directs staff to forward this resolution to the eight other municipalities in Grey County and encourages the other eight municipalities with vested interests in

00:31:15 Speaker 02: blue box recycling to consider working together with all Grey County municipalities for their blue box materials from industrial,

00:31:23 Speaker 02: commercial, and institutional locations."

00:31:28 Speaker 06: Thanks.

00:31:28 Speaker 06: So we will get that correspondence at the County level; it may be sent to that Committee.

00:31:34 Speaker 06: I'm just uncertain as to how responsive the County can be in the short term when we're talking January 1st and the actual cost of pickup because that's what we're heading towards.

00:31:50 Speaker 06: We had engaged with Circular Materials for about two-and-a-half years; they took this over and were essentially an agent for the City.

00:31:59 Speaker 06: But if we're going to decide to pick up a church on 19th Street, then there is a cost for that, and that's the hurdle I think we're trying to stumble over here.

00:32:13 Speaker 06: I'll go back to you before the second component.

00:32:21 Speaker 03: Through your Chair, it's really easy to try and think of the exceptions, variances, and challenges.

00:32:33 Speaker 03: I recommend that our Committee write a letter of support endorsing the motion and requesting that Grey County expedite looking at the blue box recycling programmemememe from a regional perspective involving all of our municipalities.

00:32:51 Speaker 01: Okay, I will certainly entertain that at an opportune time, Councillor.

00:32:56 Speaker 01: Your second?

00:32:58 Speaker 01: I think I want to go to staff: should they wish to comment on what you've made comments about—is there an opportunity for cardboard collection for the non-profit sector?

00:33:10 Speaker 01: You had wanted to perhaps look into parsing out certain components; but do staff wish to comment on what that could look like to undertake such an action?

00:33:23 Speaker 01: I'll go back to you, Councillor Merton, just so I have that right: is it for staff to respond?

00:33:29 Speaker 01: Through you, Chair.

00:33:30 Speaker 03: Just to clarify, it would be helpful if this Committee would consider asking Council to send a letter advocating for the reinstatement of cardboard collection—specifically statement on cardboard collection—for nonprofit organisations including our local food banks,

00:33:51 Speaker 03: service support agencies, and those who are providing additional United Way programmemememes like backpacks.

00:33:59 Speaker 03: So that the request is: we recommend that One Sound Council send a letter strongly urging the Province to reinstate eligibility for curbside blue box collection by January 1st.

00:34:13 Speaker 03: Two thousand and twenty-six, for non-profit organisations, and that, in addition, that letter be forwarded to Premier Doug Ford, the Minister of Environment, Conservation, and Parks Todd MacArthur, our MPP Paul Vickers,

00:34:30 Speaker 03: and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for support.

00:34:36 Speaker 01: Okay, can you park that one so I can circle back to it again, Councillor, at the end?

00:34:42 Speaker 01: After we arrange the proper options for staff, and then we can move forward to the advocacy.

00:34:50 Speaker 01: Member Doyne, did you have any comments and questions?

00:34:54 Speaker 01: Yes, I did.

00:34:54 Speaker 01: Thank you.

00:34:58 Speaker 12: It was an arbitrary decision by Circular Waste Organisation, agreed to by the province, to exclude certain residences, businesses, other organisations from waste.

00:35:08 Speaker 12: Organisations are excluded from what they pay for, and their decision was primarily just to reduce their cost, and it could have been just as arbitrary;

00:35:18 Speaker 12: they could have excluded cardboard to get an X percent reduction in their costs that they were assuming.

00:35:27 Speaker 12: So instead, they made one [decision] that made it difficult and wasn't equally distributed amongst the residents and businesses.

00:35:37 Speaker 12: And so what I looked at: there were all the costs before Circular Waste Regulation came in assumed by the municipality, and they covered all of the ones that are excluded now.

00:35:53 Speaker 12: Right?

00:35:54 Speaker 12: So it's like I said; it's just an arbitrary percentage reduction in their costs expressed in a certain way that creates problems for us.

00:36:07 Speaker 12: And what I looked at is absorbing those costs.

00:36:12 Speaker 12: Is it fair to have them coming at the general tax base,

00:36:15 Speaker 12: and have all residences and commercial taxpayers and all the different classes pick up all of the costs that otherwise just certain segments would have to bear?

00:36:31 Speaker 12: And I looked at it in terms of other things our taxes pay for through general tax collection that aren't equally used by all residents or all businesses.

00:36:44 Speaker 12: And I think of things like parks, arenas, baseball diamonds, the Art Gallery—things everybody pays for; only some people use them—and yet everyone pays for it because it's communal.

00:36:58 Speaker 12: It's been a communal responsibility to pick that up.

00:37:01 Speaker 12: You can go on to free parking lots: who benefits?

00:37:05 Speaker 12: Who uses them?

00:37:06 Speaker 12: Who doesn't but has to cover those costs?

00:37:10 Speaker 12: Leaf and yard waste—not everyone in the city uses that equally.

00:37:15 Speaker 12: Animal control, tourism is another one; I would say not very little benefit, but hard to express benefit to individual residents as to what the tourism dollars accomplish for them.

00:37:30 Speaker 12: And even things like the cemetrey: people can say, "I'm just moved here.

00:37:36 Speaker 12: Why am I paying these massive dollars for the cemetrey when I have no relatives in there, no ancestors, and I don't intend to be buried there?

00:37:46 Speaker 12: So why am I picking up the cost for that?"

00:37:48 Speaker 12: So what I'm expressing is there's a lot of benefits our taxes pay for;

00:37:55 Speaker 12: sharing them among the whole community instead of just a small segment or trying to allot them to individual properties or individual segments of the population with a surcharge—is this something we have precedents for doing

00:38:13 Speaker 12: differently and having the whole community absorb those costs?

00:38:17 Speaker 12: So it's just an idea, another aspect to consider.

00:38:23 Speaker 12: And one of the things that is excluded: municipal buildings are part of the exclusion, right?

00:38:32 Speaker 12: And that definitely the whole community should be picking up because it is a communal responsibility; you can't—I don't think you can exclude anyone's taxes from picking up part of that cost.

00:38:44 Speaker 12: So those are my comments on it.

00:38:47 Speaker 12: Some of them are facetious, but it's the idea to consider them as communal responsibilities because of the arbitrary decision Circular Waste made.

00:39:02 Speaker 01: Thanks, Bob.

00:39:03 Speaker 01: Good dialogueueueue, Councillor Hamley.

00:39:07 Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

00:39:08 Speaker 13: You know, I think this one is—I mean, I even heard about in another municipality: there are issues with the size of the carts that are going to be used.

00:39:20 Speaker 13: I think this issue is evolving very rapidly, and I don't want to see us tie ourselves down in any way.

00:39:31 Speaker 13: So I think the best option to keep flexibility is probably Option Two, which is continuing collection for up to six months.

00:39:38 Speaker 13: So I'd move the recommendation with Option Two.

00:39:47 Speaker 13: Okay?

00:39:48 Speaker 01: I was going to hold off on motions yet; but if you're comfortable with that, I'll go to Member Anderson next for comments and questions through you, Mr. Chair.

00:39:59 Speaker 01: Thank you.

00:40:00 Speaker 14: As a person who benefits from not-for-profits, who volunteers with them, who sees those programmemememes as vital to our community—whether we pay $11 for the extra cost of caring [for] the programmemememe to succeed in that:

00:40:20 Speaker 14: those not-for-profits and other services continue to be able to function without paying fees, without having a bin parked in their back forty to dump all their stuff into cardboard.

00:40:35 Speaker 14: Especially this concerns me greatly.

00:40:39 Speaker 14: Many of our taxpayers in this community—residential—in one way or another at some time in their lives benefit from our not-for-profits in whatever form they receive that service.

00:40:53 Speaker 14: Having the not-for-profits take an added burden on disposing of their waste, their cardboard, etc., I don't think it's really functional; it won't serve our community.

00:41:04 Speaker 14: And as Councillor Hamlin said: Option Two.

00:41:08 Speaker 14: I would also be in support of that when we come to a motion.

00:41:15 Speaker 14: Okay?

00:41:15 Speaker 01: Thanks for those comments.

00:41:17 Speaker 01: I'll circle back to Councillor Hamley.

00:41:20 Speaker 01: You have made a motion, but there are two little components at the end of that motion; it speaks to River District only or all non-eligible properties, and there's significant variance in cost.

00:41:36 Speaker 01: I'll pass it back to you for further thoughts.

00:41:41 Speaker 01: It's your motion through you—sorry?

00:41:49 Speaker 01: Because I think I have a motion on the floor, I'd better clarify the motion, and then I'll go back to you, Member Indo.

00:41:57 Speaker 01: It would be for all non-eligible properties.

00:42:01 Speaker 01: Okay; so we've got that on the books then: Option Two for all non-eligible properties, Member Indo, go ahead?

00:42:09 Speaker 09: I just wanted to clarify through you, Chair: this would be for all River District and non-eligible properties—not just not-for-profits.

00:42:25 Speaker 09: So we're talking about business people who own apartment buildings etc., in the downtown area; so are they included in this?

00:42:33 Speaker 09: I just wanted to clarify that.

00:42:37 Speaker 01: I think this is where the conversation gets difficult because that's one of the problems with this legislation: River and Downtowns are perfect examples where if you live on the second floor in an apartment,

00:42:49 Speaker 01: you qualify as an eligible source; the business below you does not qualify as an eligible source.

00:42:57 Speaker 01: The vehicle is already driving past that property to pick up residents above, but the commodity—the blue box material—is no longer eligible if it's commercial, industrial or municipal building.

00:43:15 Speaker 01: So if it's a church for instance on the outskirts, they're no longer eligible.

00:43:21 Speaker 01: The motion then would ensure their recycling at this time will be picked up as long as they are one of those non-eligible sources.

00:43:33 Speaker 01: Does that help?

00:43:34 Speaker 01: Is that okay?

00:43:37 Speaker 01: Are there further questions, Member Kron?

00:43:41 Speaker 11: Go ahead through your Chair; and I don't—I don't know who to direct this question to.

00:43:46 Speaker 11: I guess I look at the options: for me, service in this municipality—no offence to not-for-profits—it should be seamless in the city as far as I'm concerned.

00:43:57 Speaker 11: So that would go back to Option One.

00:44:00 Speaker 11: My problem with Option Two is when I look at it from a realistic perspective: what's going to change in six months?

00:44:12 Speaker 11: And then in six months, are the not-for-profits and businesses going to be scrambling to find someone to service them for this?

00:44:21 Speaker 11: To me, it might be more practical from a budgeting perspective to focus on Option One—suck it up for the year—and hopefully a year will give the province perhaps enough time to amend their legislation.

00:44:34 Speaker 11: I think it might be more realistic; and from a budgeting perspective, and I look forward—it might be better for those involved as well.

00:44:42 Speaker 11: Just my thoughts?

00:44:47 Speaker 01: I'll go to the Director first, and then Member Hawkins.

00:44:52 Speaker 15: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

00:44:53 Speaker 15: Just to respond to Member Krohn's suggestion, if I could only offer a piece of advice: if the committee is interested in going in that direction,

00:45:03 Speaker 15: in order not to send the message to the province that the City of Owen Sound is willing to just accept this as the new status quo.

00:45:11 Speaker 15: I would suggest that you word the resolution in a way that is clear that it's only for an interim basis.

00:45:19 Speaker 15: That we have some kind of expectation that the Province is going to change their position at some point.

00:45:28 Speaker 01: Thanks.

00:45:28 Speaker 01: I'll go to Member Hawkins, then Member Merton.

00:45:32 Speaker 10: Three, Mr. Chair.

00:45:33 Speaker 10: Sorry, I was just going back to option one; the total price on that is quite substantial, I believe.

00:45:44 Speaker 10: So, would it be up to $145,000?

00:45:50 Speaker 10: And then also the City is paying for a consultant fee of $250,000?

00:45:56 Speaker 10: So we're looking at a combined amount in next year's budget.

00:46:07 Speaker 10: Something where we are not just looking at $145,000; we're now looking at $145,000 and $250,000 for a consultant to look at our waste management.

00:46:19 Speaker 10: Just want to clarify that.

00:46:22 Speaker 06: Okay, sorry, and I can clarify that the $250,000 is a cost before County consideration, not City.

00:46:30 Speaker 06: That part.

00:46:31 Speaker 06: So option one is on the screen, and it's approximately $120,000 to $145,000 per year.

00:46:39 Speaker 06: I'll go to Heidi before Councillor Merton next.

00:46:43 Speaker 08: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

00:46:45 Speaker 08: And that $145,000—that's based just on estimates.

00:46:50 Speaker 08: We don't have the actual tonnage.

00:46:53 Speaker 08: What it could be—it could be five tons instead of two, but it could also be like half a ton.

00:47:01 Speaker 08: We're not sure.

00:47:05 Speaker 08: Okay, I'll go to Councillor Merton, then Member Cronin.

00:47:10 Speaker 08: Did you?

00:47:11 Speaker 01: Councillor Merton will give you the floor.

00:47:12 Speaker 01: Okay, go ahead, Member Cronin.

00:47:18 Speaker 11: Just one other question; and I think I was maybe confused in my rant previously.

00:47:26 Speaker 11: So, the contractor goes around and picks up the cardboard and recyclables, so there is revenue.

00:47:36 Speaker 11: There's a revenue in that.

00:47:38 Speaker 11: They are providing a service.

00:47:40 Speaker 11: I guess what my question is: where does the contractor dispose of that?

00:47:48 Speaker 11: Does he dispose of it through a recycling facility where the contractor gets revenue for that?

00:47:54 Speaker 11: Or does it simply go to landfill?

00:48:01 Speaker 08: Through you, Mr. Chair, it's my understanding that the contractor would be taking it to a facility.

00:48:06 Speaker 08: Unfortunately, they don't have a facility in this area, but they would.

00:48:14 Speaker 08: That would be something I'd have to confirm with them.

00:48:17 Speaker 08: But it's my understanding that they would be recycling it.

00:48:28 Speaker 08: Go ahead, Mike.

00:48:33 Speaker 08: I guess we're doing it?

00:48:34 Speaker 11: Answer: So there is revenue.

00:48:37 Speaker 11: Well, if they are hauling it to a recycling facility—if it's aluminum or cardboard—the contractor should be getting revenue for that.

00:48:45 Speaker 11: Should that?

00:48:48 Speaker 11: Or am I in left field here?

00:48:50 Speaker 11: So maybe I could get some clarity on this.

00:48:53 Speaker 16: Okay.

00:48:53 Speaker 16: Thanks.

00:48:54 Speaker 16: I'll go to Director Widdifield for response.

00:48:57 Speaker 15: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

00:48:59 Speaker 15: No, Member Krohn; you're not way off.

00:49:01 Speaker 15: It's just that's not how it's really structured.

00:49:04 Speaker 15: The contractor doesn't give the City back the revenue; they take that off of the price that they are charging us.

00:49:14 Speaker 03: Councillor Martin, through you, Chair, I wanted to respond to the concept raised about going through the general levy.

00:49:24 Speaker 03: And to me, what that does is create a circular problem again around nonprofits.

00:49:30 Speaker 03: It may not sound like much,

00:49:33 Speaker 03: but when we're having more and more people who have to access food programmemememes because they don't have the money for rent—even by adding a small amount to a levy—simply continues to push more and more

00:49:47 Speaker 03: of those marginalized,

00:49:48 Speaker 03: vulnerable people or those precariously in their incomes to go over and need services.

00:49:59 Speaker 03: So from a perspective of fairness, having all pay through a levy meets that requirement.

00:50:08 Speaker 03: But the demand on nonprofits increases.

00:50:14 Speaker 03: So as a Councillor, I hear so often "no more taxes."

00:50:23 Speaker 03: We just keep hearing it.

00:50:26 Speaker 03: Our role—and certainly through the Strong Mayor's budget this year—is to really look at what we need to do regarding taxes on a go-forward basis.

00:50:35 Speaker 03: So to entertain that now when there is so much uncertainty and we haven't drawn together our regional approach: municipalities haven't sat at the table and said, "What can we do together collectively?"

00:50:49 Speaker 03: Might be a bit soon.

00:50:53 Speaker 03: I'm not saying ultimately we don't need to revisit that; but I'm wondering about timing.

00:51:02 Speaker 03: The unanswered question in response to the motion on the floor is how would Option C fit into priorities?

00:51:14 Speaker 03: I know we're considering the second option, but I'm wondering if you could elabourate a little bit on whether there's the principle of reasonableness, equity, affordability and priority if we considered the Miller Waste Depot solution.

00:51:34 Speaker 03: Could you fill me in a little bit more on that, please?

00:51:41 Speaker 01: I'll go to Heidi for response.

00:51:49 Speaker 08: Through you, Mr. Chair: so the waste depot would work.

00:51:53 Speaker 08: There'd be a separate container that Owen Sound businesses would use to drop off their cardboard, glass and plastics.

00:52:06 Speaker 08: The cardboard, paper, and boxboard would be in a separate area because there'd be no charge to drop them off.

00:52:13 Speaker 08: And in order for them to qualify to go to the transfer station for no cost, they would have to register through the city,

00:52:23 Speaker 08: and we would have to have some type of disclaimer and registration form that would be vetted through the lawyers.

00:52:34 Speaker 08: Businesses would not be able to bring garbage as well; it would only be recyclables that they would be able to bring.

00:52:43 Speaker 08: And so the cost—it's just over $600 a ton for the dumpster.

00:52:51 Speaker 08: So the cost again would just be towards the glass, plastic, and tin.

00:53:01 Speaker 08: Thanks.

00:53:01 Speaker 01: I'm glad you brought that up because if I can add my own two cents, that's where I would have liked to see us go.

00:53:11 Speaker 01: Like to have seen us go: the three-month trial.

00:53:16 Speaker 01: I think fundamentally, fundamentally, the reason our taxes are so high, and Member Doyne did a great job of outlining all the different services that the community has.

00:53:27 Speaker 01: But every time you have a service for three or five or ten percent of the population, you're asking 100% of the population to pay for it, and that's the problem with government now,

00:53:37 Speaker 01: as I see it; that's why we get high taxes because we layer one service after another, after another, after another,

00:53:46 Speaker 01: and we use 100% of the population to pay for every one of these services that might benefit ten or fifteen percent of the population.

00:53:54 Speaker 01: So we walk ourselves into these challenges.

00:53:58 Speaker 01: The flip side is: everyone hates the download.

00:54:02 Speaker 01: I think once you decide to take it on, then you've accepted it, and you have foregone the ability—the province is going to walk back on the decision-making.

00:54:13 Speaker 01: The only leverage you have in the negotiation is putting some terms in, which is why I liked option A, the three months;

00:54:23 Speaker 01: then the province can hear from the municipalities that are outraged across Ontario at this discrepancy between eligible and non-eligible.

00:54:32 Speaker 01: But I think once you entertain it for a longer term, you've said that's fine with the download.

00:54:39 Speaker 01: We've just accepted it and we've put it onto our property tax base.

00:54:43 Speaker 01: So I just think fundamentally accepting anything longer than three months has lost your leverage in terms of advocacy and pushback to the province.

00:54:52 Speaker 01: You just told the province: "Yeah, you're willing to accept that," and we are a community that doesn't sit very low in terms of comparability and tax rates; we are set quite high.

00:55:11 Speaker 01: I read the paper.

00:55:13 Speaker 01: I don't know why they're complaining about their taxes in Toronto.

00:55:15 Speaker 01: They're complaining about their tax rates in Toronto.

00:55:19 Speaker 01: Give me a call—I'll show you some high tax rates.

00:55:22 Speaker 01: Your problem is your assessed values in Toronto, not your tax rate.

00:55:25 Speaker 01: I'll go to Councillor Hamley.

00:55:29 Speaker 13: Just maybe reading the room, Mr. Chair.

00:55:31 Speaker 13: Question for staff: Could option two be scaled down to three months as opposed to six?

00:55:39 Speaker 13: Through you, Mr. Chair.

00:55:40 Speaker 13: Yes; that option is available too.

00:55:48 Speaker 13: It's your motion—I'll go back to you.

00:55:53 Speaker 13: Okay, I would maybe amend my motion to be Option Two B for three months as opposed to six.

00:56:05 Speaker 13: I'll go to Member Indo.

00:56:07 Speaker 13: Go ahead.

00:56:09 Speaker 09: Just wondering if something could be put in there through you, Chair?

00:56:13 Speaker 09: Something could be put in there now; Carol was going to sort of bring this up where staff or council or someone sends letters to the province and/or etc., whoever else.

00:56:30 Speaker 06: I will entertain a motion afterwards from Councillor Merton to speak to that.

00:56:35 Speaker 06: Yes; any further questions on the motion that's on the floor?

00:56:40 Speaker 06: So I'll call the vote on that motion: all in favour, and it is for three months.

00:56:51 Speaker 06: All those in favour—carried unanimously.

00:56:57 Speaker 06: And this time I will go back to Councillor Merton for follow-up comments and any motions arising from it.

00:57:08 Speaker 03: Through you, Chair; before I get to the proposed motion for this committee to consider, just want to clarify:

00:57:15 Speaker 03: so my understanding is the request for a regional approach or table will go back to Grey County through representation through yourself.

00:57:27 Speaker 03: Did I understand that correctly?

00:57:29 Speaker 03: To be able to start these conversations if we have three months and council agrees with the direction of operations—so did I understand that correctly that you would be taking that back to Grey County and

00:57:43 Speaker 03: supporting the letter that came from,

00:57:45 Speaker 03: or the motion from, Town of Blue Mountains?

00:57:50 Speaker 01: Yeah; I think now the letter was on our screen.

00:57:54 Speaker 01: I believe that will be going to the county as correspondence automatically.

00:57:59 Speaker 01: I'll just look to Tim to confirm that.

00:58:03 Speaker 02: Through you, Chair: yes, that letter is addressed to although it's addressed to lower tiers, it will be going to Grey County.

00:58:09 Speaker 02: So I think what I'm hearing, Member Merton—Councillor Merton say—is can committee bring a motion that we write a letter in support of the Town of Blue Mountains motion?

00:58:24 Speaker 01: And now when it gets muddy: I think just to be safe, I will ask for us to waive notice of motion because this is correspondence which hasn't been presented on the agenda with advance notice.

00:58:45 Speaker 01: So to entertain—we have this on screen; it has been read—but formally I think I will ask the committee to waive the notice-of-motion provisions.

00:58:54 Speaker 01: Are there any questions?

00:58:57 Speaker 01: Not seeing any.

00:58:58 Speaker 01: All those in favour of waiving notice-of-motion provision—carried unanimously.

00:59:04 Speaker 01: And back to Councillor Merton then to speak to that motion.

00:59:09 Speaker 03: So through your Chair, I would like this committee to send a letter of support for the motion provided by Town of Blue Mountains; it be addressed to Grey County and also advise our council accordingly.

00:59:30 Speaker 01: Kate: I think we're still on the right track because Christina hasn't waved me down yet to say I'm doing everything wrong here.

00:59:36 Speaker 01: And are there any questions on that motion?

00:59:42 Speaker 01: Not seeing any—all those in favour—carried unanimously.

00:59:46 Speaker 01: Thank you.

00:59:47 Speaker 01: And did you have a follow-up motion, Councillor Merton?

00:59:52 Speaker 03: Through: yes; Chair, I would like to make a motion this evening for this committee regarding reinstating eligibility for curbside blue box collection for non-profit organisations.

01:00:09 Speaker 03: Whereas the Province of Ontario designated producers are responsible to collect recycling in the province,

01:00:15 Speaker 03: and whereas non-profit organisations—including our local food banks and social service support agencies—have been deemed ineligible for producer blue-box collection effective January 1, 2026; and whereas food and income insecurity is a local,

01:00:33 Speaker 03: provincial and federal issue; and whereas local food banks, local food-support programmemememes, and additional support agencies like the United Way Backpack Programmemememe need to receive items delivered in cardboard boxes and cartons.

01:00:49 Speaker 03: which generate copious amounts of recyclable material; and whereas these programmemememes and services support the most vulnerable in our communities, are volunteer- and donation-based,

01:01:02 Speaker 03: with no revenue collected to pay for services such as the removal of recyclable materials.

01:01:09 Speaker 03: Therefore, be it resolved that the Operations Committee recommends that Owen Sound Council sends a letter strongly urging the Province to reinstate eligibility for curbside Blue Box collection on January 1st, 2026,

01:01:25 Speaker 03: for non-profit organisations such as food banks, local food support services, and United Way programmemememes; and that this motion be forwarded to Premier Doug Ford, Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks Todd MacArthur McCarthy,

01:01:42 Speaker 03: MPP Paul Vickers, and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMTO) for support.

01:01:50 Speaker 03: Perfectly presented.

01:01:51 Speaker 01: Are there any questions on that motion, Member Hawkins?

01:01:55 Speaker 01: Go ahead.

01:01:57 Speaker 10: Just a quick question: are there any churches that provide food services that should be included in this proposal?

01:02:07 Speaker 01: The quick response is yes; there are.

01:02:15 Speaker 01: Are you comfortable with your motion as-is, or would you like to consider wording changes?

01:02:30 Speaker 03: I have had a recommendation to say "charities," so I ask that the motion reframe to mention charities, which would encompass all of those who meet the needs identified in the motion.

01:02:51 Speaker 03: Okay, you're good.

01:02:53 Speaker 03: And Councillor Hamley, go ahead.

01:02:55 Speaker 13: Just having not been able to clear this with the Integrity Commissioner first, I am just going to declare a pecuniary interest as I work for the Government of Ontario, and I'm going to step out.

01:03:07 Speaker 01: Okay; so noted.

01:03:08 Speaker 01: Are there any further questions?

01:03:11 Speaker 01: Not seeing any.

01:03:12 Speaker 01: All those in favour, and that is carried unanimously.

01:03:17 Speaker 01: Noting Councillor Hamley's absence.

01:03:20 Speaker 01: Okay, I think we have done it.

01:03:23 Speaker 01: We knew this subject was going to—you know—thanks to staff.

01:03:28 Speaker 01: It was noted.

01:03:28 Speaker 01: I think this started in 2021; at least reporting has been on it since then.

01:03:33 Speaker 01: But I think this goes back to 2018, when we started hearing about the origins of producer responsibility, and it is provincial.

01:03:43 Speaker 01: However, I think there's actually a federal lens being put on it too.

01:03:48 Speaker 01: So thanks to staff for your work continuing down this road here, and having to pivot at the start of October when we were hopeful that non-eligible sources would be included,

01:04:01 Speaker 01: but then learning they wouldn't be; so sorry—too bad, too sad.

01:04:07 Speaker 01: You can deal with it at the local level.

01:04:07 Speaker 01: With it in the local level, and having three months to try to pivot and respond to that: thanks to staff, and thanks to members in the audience for attending this evening.

01:04:21 Speaker 01: You're welcome to stay if you wish, but I suspect that may have been the more important part.

01:04:27 Speaker 01: We have no further formal reports before Committee this evening; so we are at Item 9, which is Matters Postponed, for which there are none.

01:04:35 Speaker 01: Notices of motion for which notice was previously given under Item 10: there are no motions this evening.

01:04:42 Speaker 01: No correspondence items being presented for information, or should we formally introduce that TBM as correspondence?

01:04:54 Speaker 01: Or have we dealt with it?

01:05:05 Speaker 01: Okay; so it'll be covered in republishing the agenda.

01:05:08 Speaker 01: Thank you.

01:05:10 Speaker 01: We are down to Items of Additional Business, and I think first over to you.

01:05:18 Speaker 01: Don't want to cover yours—it's already been covered, Tim.

01:05:21 Speaker 01: Yeah.

01:05:22 Speaker 01: Okay, Councillor Merton.

01:05:25 Speaker 01: Thank you.

01:05:28 Speaker 01: And both of those are covered; so now we're really speeding along.

01:05:30 Speaker 01: I do have a question for staff regarding an email this week from a resident concerning no winter maintenance on sidewalks.

01:05:42 Speaker 01: It referenced a specific sidewalk on Seventh Street East in the 200 block.

01:05:50 Speaker 01: Is this the only section of sidewalk deemed not maintained within city boundaries?

01:05:55 Speaker 01: And I wonder if staff can explain further: is that not the only one, and what is the rationale and decision-making process behind why some sidewalks are formally closed and signed at this time of year?

01:06:11 Speaker 15: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

01:06:11 Speaker 15: Yeah; in general, we cover most sidewalks.

01:06:16 Speaker 15: So this is the current situation, I guess.

01:06:18 Speaker 15: And then I'll talk about where we're going to go at some point in the future.

01:06:23 Speaker 15: Currently, we cover most sidewalks.

01:06:27 Speaker 15: There are certain areas where we can't clear them with the sidewalk plow—either because they are discontinuous segments.

01:06:36 Speaker 15: Like if there's continuous sidewalk on the north side of the road but not on the south: this block has a sidewalk, this one doesn't; that one does.

01:06:44 Speaker 15: We might not do that side because it isn't necessary if it is a fairly local road.

01:06:52 Speaker 15: Width is also a problem in many areas where we have older sidewalks.

01:07:00 Speaker 15: We need roughly 4.5 metres for the plow to operate safely—roughly two decimal places of precision required—but a lot of our sidewalks are still only one or two metres wide.

01:07:10 Speaker 15: So, in order not to gouge up all of the grass on the sides of the sidewalk, we may skip those areas.

01:07:17 Speaker 15: Lastly, another location where we may not do plowing is in areas with very shallow water mains that have a high break rate when the weather gets cold;

01:07:30 Speaker 15: we'll leave the snow cover because it helps insulate the water main.

01:07:34 Speaker 15: So these are the main reasons why we may not clear certain sidewalks currently.

01:07:39 Speaker 15: Obviously, we plow in order of priority—I think I've covered that with Committee before—where we will probably end up fairly soon as we develop and retool our winter maintenance strategies.

01:07:58 Speaker 15: We'll probably look at the feasibility of going down to only one side in most areas, except for commuter routes—for example, routes to schools,

01:08:12 Speaker 15: or along medical clinics—and commercial areas where you have larger numbers of pedestrian traffic.

01:08:19 Speaker 15: But these are all things we're just sort of looking into in order to reduce the burden and cost of our winter response; but as of right now,

01:08:31 Speaker 15: we typically do all of them unless they don't go anywhere, or they're too narrow, or there's some reason we need to keep the snow cover.

01:08:41 Speaker 01: Okay; thank you very much for those insights.

01:08:44 Speaker 01: Any questions?

01:08:46 Speaker 01: Not seeing any; so that concludes our Additional Business.

01:08:51 Speaker 01: Item 13 is known as a motion: are there any notices of motion this evening?

01:08:55 Speaker 01: There are no surprises.

01:08:58 Speaker 01: Okay; Item 14 is to announce that at six-thirty-nine, we are adjourned.

01:09:04 Speaker 01: Thank you very much, everyone, for what we knew was a lengthy report today.