Welcome everyone. If Cadavern take their seats, we'll get this meeting on the go here before we fish started. I would remind everyone, if you have any cell phones, if you put them in silence. Or turn them on. And I'm actually looking at you directly right now. Yes. So Madam Clark, do we have quorum. We do. Thank you. Time being. Six o'clock. I will call the meeting order. Can we move her in circumfer approval of the agenda. Councillor Ridge, Councillor Steven, all those in favor. Unanimously passed. Thank you very much. Now we want the confirmation of minutes. Could I have a mover in a secondary place. Councillor Ramos. Yes, there are only four here. So. Councillor Steven, all those in favor. Thank you, the Bastor University as well. Any disclosure interest. See you then, we move forward. There are no delegations. Which brings us, we have two briefings. So the first briefing is regards to the multi - site visioning of the recreational capital planning and engagement report. Ms. Elbert, please, thank you. And just a reminder, you have 10 minutes. Give or take. Thank you very much. Chair and members of committee. I'd like to introduce John Hack of Sierra Management and Planning who will deliver presentation this evening on the findings of the engagement and report for the recreation visioning and capital planning project that the city is currently undertaking. Welcome, John. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Mr. Chair and members of committee, I'll get straight into it given the time constraints. Okay. I'll just add in here that I've paused your clock, so no worries about your time. Okay. Sure, okay. It's okay. Would five minutes be enough there. Okay, we're going to take a five - man recess and we'll restart the clock from the beginning. Thank you. So we will restart in, what's the time right now? Six, ten. We'll come back in seven minutes. We're rounding. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll restart. As I mentioned in seven minutes, it's 6. 10. And the floor is yours. Right, thank you very much. Mr. Chair, members of committee, members of staff and public. We'll get straight into it. So this is an end of phase one review and findings briefing. We'll speak to who and how we performed our engagement. High - level summary of what came out of it, looking forward to a prospective phase two to continue with the work. So on the project overview, as you know from previous briefings, the intent here is to address three facilities that are connected and integrated and relevant to dealing with the issue of aging. Facilities, the need for more modern opportunities and space program to be put in place. With some level of urgency in some cases. And from a policy perspective, the intent here is to create, as I said, an Integrated approach to infrastructure planning. And so moving away from a single focus to multi - use as a concept. And the development of hubs and ensuring year - round use as well. So to meet a number of different city mandates that we'll get into. So the process, we are in phase one. We're not in phase two, just for everyone's benefit. And we've gone through, I won't go through it in detail, but we've gone through an array of background assessment of the three sites. And those three sites, just to remind everyone, are the Kingston Memorial Centre. And the entire park within which it sits. Centre 70 and the site that it sits on for the arena in the West End. And then of course Paul Smith Olympic Harbour, both the building and the entirety of the site. And the waterlot area as well for it. Having gone through quite a bit of sight review and assessment, we really placed a lot of emphasis on continuing to listen to those who are relevant. And there are range of different groups that are relevant as well as the public at large. Around this, we've also been looking at the overall need for ICE in the city over a much longer period. So although it's very relevant to look at what happens with the two arenas and the possibility of expanding Kingston Memorial, there is a further assessment that's required to look at what the overall needs are for the city for ICE supply over a longer period going as far as 2051. So into the engagement process and who we spoke to, we had a very busy couple of months in preparation for that. So really from February to the end of April, we've been quite busy as a team. And I should just indicate the team is led by Sierra Planning, but we're also assisted by MJMA architects. And then in phase two, the cost consultant providing their expertise on some of the capital costs. As it relates to engagement, you see the categories there. Community groups. We had four very, I think, very well attended public information centres. And I should just also say none of this. That you see on screen there in terms of all the hits that we had in terms of consultation would have been possible were not for the very collaborative and highly helpful and advisory role that the city and city staff played in this as well. So I consider this to be in many ways a best practice approach to consultation because we undertook a number of different methods to consult with people. And this is just in phase one, and of course we attempted to reach a number of people. Did we meet everyone's goals? Have we, have we talked to absolutely everyone? I can probably tell you that there are people that would still want to reach out to us. We have one that I can think of straight away. But that is a process that we would follow through to the end of the project. So user groups, we had IS group meetings, field group, field user group meetings as it relates to the open space involved in the areas that we're concerned with. Um, and then a number of external discussions with those that hold leases and other commercial representations for these sites. And then of course, uh, as members of Council here, we'll know we did reach out to a number of councillors relevant in terms of ward, responsibilities, uh, furthest. And then staff as well up to and including the Director level. So the results of it, when you put it on the page, it's, I think again, it's significant, you know, in terms of the use of the cities website, um, and its engagement platform about 3, 000 page views, which is always good. It means people are paying attention. No doubt they're waiting for something more concrete in terms of plans coming out of phase two in order to weigh in. A pretty typical response to an online survey. About 170, 180 people. User groups, very good turnout, uh, in terms of the focus group sessions that we had, um, and, uh, then we also had a marina survey. That's for the commercial clients of both the marinas, both Confederation Basin and Paul Smith Olympic Harbour, which is slightly separate, but relevant to future planning. And that will be reported a little later. And then in terms of externals, again, good numbers there as well. And then internally as well, I think we have done a good job and it will be a continuing job to reach out to decision makers across the departments and across council. So what matters most. We heard from people again, I'm not going to stray into too much detail, but you see this primary themes. And I'll just go through it. In no particular order. For me, I think the notion of year - round use, uh, getting beyond just, uh, seasonality that goes with isarinas, for example, but be able to make these facilities truly useful to the widest range of people. That's where the value for money, um, uh, equation will, I think, have most resonance. Clearly, I think people bought into the idea of community hubs, which also related to multi - use and doing more on a site than is currently the case. The whole notion of effective services in terms of programming, uh, and making sure that there is a balance between local community use recognising the important role that Kingston plays in the sport tourism environment. And then beyond that, working with, um, at certain levels, very significant opportunities. It doesn't come along very often, such as Pautsmouth Olympic Harbour and the opportunity to reinvest in what Kingston offers for, uh, its sailors at an elite level as well as at a community level. Getting specific to centre 70s. So on this one, um, in the conversations that we've had, really there was a recognition of the importance of the site itself. A recognition also that modernization and relocation of the ICE function should happen. And then the question is, what is the appropriate range of uses that we should consider for that site? So phase two will start to look at that. Um, certainly we recognise that the strategic nature of the site itself from an analysis point of view leads us to really have a need to have a broad discussion of the best practices for that site. Um, there was some sensitivity to the existing disruption that happened this year. But a recognition in the long term, you know, that arena is like, well, we'll be decommissioned and alternatives put forward. As to the Kingston Memorial Centre, so this one elicited a lot of interest, obviously, as it should, I think as a consulting team, we took a lot from the consultations that we had, not just for our own analysis and looking at the history of work that's been done. Some of it by the local residents association and others. We've tried to take all of that on board in positioning back what the opportunities are. And I'll just say this as it relates to this. I'm sure it'll come up in question and answers. Um, this is not a solution just for the building. This is a solution that whatever comes out of phase two has to be for the entirety of the site. And there are some very important constituents. The open space itself is pretty sacrosanct in terms of, uh, usability by a local resident, you know, that has no interest in recreational activities in an organised manner, but wants to take their kids out and throw a frisbee or just walk the dog. So all of that is going to be in the mix. It will create some really healthy opportunities for us to be creative. But what was recognised, I think, very clearly to me was that the need for reinvesting through two new ISurfaces in that location. Was, was recognised. And obviously the full fair, uh, as well as a farmer's market, our opportunities to, to make sure they have life breathed back into their operations from a facility's perspective as well. Uh, probably leaving the most intriguing one to last. The Pautsmouth Olympic harbour this offers a great deal of opportunities, um, but just to focus on what we heard. The importance of this as a world - class sailing destination, the particular nature of the thermals and the constant wind just off the Kingston shoreline is something that, um, we were made very clearly aware of. And then also the potential to 50 years on to make this again a sailing sensor of real significance on a national and international level. But I would say above and beyond that, we heard very strongly of the desire from a range of people. Uh, should I just wrap up. Okay. Um, so this one again, as I said, there's lots of opportunity there. Looking forward. We are going to be undertaking an evaluation framework that structured. So we can defend it. Uh, and then in terms of what comes next at the end of phase two, there will be a vision for each site. There will be a series of concepts and then a preferred capital concept. There will be costs. There will be a funding plan under the how to item here and then an implementation plan as well. So I'll hand it back to you, Mr Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from the committee? Council Ridge. Thank you Mr. Chairman through you. Um, so there's, there's both from the report and the presentation. So thank you so much for your presentation. Uh, one of the things that I just wanted to touch on is, and my question is going to be about the Memorial Centre. Their Council representatives here that we'll ask about our other facilities. Can you go into just a bit more detail about what the methodologies were in terms of like the different, uh, methods that were used to catch people, whether it be online or, or otherwise. Yeah. Certainly. So just bring up the slide. It may be helpful. So if I just look at this, for example, so aside from sort of doing our homework on both the recent history of public discussions on the side and then going back and looking at prior work that had been done, um, including that which has done by the Williamsville, um, residents association. The public information centres were set up to allow walkthrough format. We were there for three hours. Um, there was one meeting specific to KMC. And then there was, uh, catch all meeting for all of the sites together. So that was one. On the user groups, um, obviously looking at ICE and that cuts across. So we were talking about a number of things. But KMC was in the mix there. Um, and then field user groups as well as it shows there. Those are those are group meetings that we facilitated and results brought forward. Online survey obviously as well. Um, but I think it was the individual group meetings, um, that you see there under the sort of sea foam colour. That gave us the most interaction. Um, talking to leaseholders, those that have a commercial interest, those that are nonprofits or community rec groups that are in some of the facilities, whether it be cork at POH or, you know, the church athletic league, uh, farmers market, um, fair, et cetera, CMC, the residents association, uh, associations plural. And so those were one - on - one meetings. And then the interviews with staff and so forth were to perhaps put more of a policy spin on it. So that's the lens. And all of that happens without us having put pen to paper in terms of concepts. So we were really trying to test the pulse and make sure that we were not seen as coming up with solutions before they're appropriately developed. Thank you so much. That sounds like a very, uh, thorough and robust methodology in terms of consultation and collecting information from, uh, groups and individuals. Uh, so the next question is around the consultation for the Memorial Centre in particular. There's the mentioning of, well, in the, in the survey results, the second ice pad or additional Ace space. Would you please speak to, uh, what you heard from these groups or individuals and why it is that, uh, the ICE space, what seems to have been prioritized in the presentation of the report. Thank you. Um, through you, Mr Chat. Yeah. If it was prioritized, it wasn't by intent. What we heard from the ICUs are groups was really interesting in that they, I mean, as you'd expect, a lot of them said they don't have enough ice time. Um, whether that's true or not, obviously you take it at face value, but we're doing data analysis to verify all of that. And then come up with solutions as well. I think the, um, the two eye surfaces at KMC was recognised by, by the ice users as being the appropriate way to plan as opposed to doing a single pad and the inefficiencies that come with a single pad. It was also recognised that it has to be more than just quote unquote an ice barn. You have to have this as a facility that could be used year round for ISA, non - ICE activities. So it wouldn't look like the, you know, half of the investor centre, for example, it would be a different animal, I think. And that relates to its location, the possibility of Queens being, uh, you know, at least holder in the facility as well. But what we also found was those that were not ICE users also recognise the value of reinvesting in that site. Without any pushing, anyone that you must have two pads from an economics perspective, they seem to think that two paths could be supported. Probably held people will hold their views as to whether the parking and the whole organisation of the site was going to work. And we'll see how that transpires. But a commitment to two as a principle, recognising again, Centre 70 closure. But then the other aspect is with the enclosure of the Cullogan in discussing with people, it was recognised that really the city is moving towards that being a multi - use recreational hub because it's, it's now an aquatic centre. Plus, you know, a, uh, an arena that needs to be, uh, reinvested in replaced heritage maintained, but replaced. And then the second pad, uh, is the appropriate additions. Thank you so much. And through you, Mr. Chair. Okay. So that's, that's great. The last piece I wanted to touch on for the Memorial Centre is that, uh, in the report, aside from the ice pad piece, there was overwhelming support in terms of farmer market, including former market space potentially indoor space. Would you just please speak a bit more about that piece? Thank you. Yes. Uh, thank you through you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, we were really converts to the benefits of that in our discussions by which we mean, uh, the idea of, of creating the ability for this site to be, don't think of it as a, as an arena side in part, but this multi - use hub. And I think the opportunity exists to create, um, new spaces, new program opportunities for the, uh, forfare. And as it relates to the farmer's market, one question I think we're going to look at from a design perspective is whether or not there can be an indoor outdoor type space that's created, perhaps along one axis of the, uh, of the arena, depending on the configuration of that building itself. So pretty strong commitment, I think, to coming up with solutions for those two particular groups. And then it would follow that issues around other events in the open space, unstructured use of the park, all of that follows from there as well. Thank you very much. Councillor Saddik. Thank you. Um, Mr. Chair, through you and thank you, Mr. Heck, for the presentation. So my questions right now are about the Memorial Centre as well. Um, let's see where to start. For the fall fare, the agricultural fallfare. As we go into the concept plan and this like design perspective, are we still going to be doing the design that the fallfare will be there every September. The, yeah, the plan is not to remove the fare from those grounds. Um, there is obviously the issue of the buildings and say planning as a whole. Um, but in the meetings, we've, we had with the full fair, you know, we had the 2026 program out in front of us. We could see how they're planning. So I think the commitment is obviously to, to work that into the design. And at some point we're going to need to come back with the ideas, the options for how future years can be programmed. You know, we heard, just to give you a quick example, there's the use of the arena for Dirt events, as we call them, which is putting in the livestock in or the horses. I think it is that come in every year. So, you know, in a new facility, you know, you'd want that to continue. The alternative of putting an outside ring in place is actually really space extensive, not easy to do. So those are the things we'll have to balance. But I can just tell you, um, that we have a full commitment to working with all of those groups to see what we can achieve on that site. As I said, we were converts from the beginning. We know that a solution has to be a solution for all the users on the site. Great. That gives me reassurance. Thank you. Um, I know some of my questions too, I might say for when we have discussion and we can bring staff in. But when we had the stadium, the soccer stadium, uh, debate with Memorial Centre. It became really clear that the green space that is there, the open space at the back, um, is really important to all the residents. And so for the twinning of the, um, ice pads, are we really thinking about going into that green space or putting up more towards where the barns are. Through you, Mr. Chat. Just in recognition of the question, I think going into it, what are our principles to apply to a design perspective on the site? And it's to maintain maximize the green space as we can in terms of, you know, daily use seasonal use, winter use. Are we going to tread on that footprint that's currently there where say the dog parks are. We know we have a commitment to maintain dog parks. The question is, yeah, are we going to ET a little bit? I don't know. Um, we may have to, but what I do know is again, it's not my discipline. It's my colleagues discipline at the architecture firm. The idea of being able to redesign, to still maintain maximum use of the green space, not to harve it or to reduce it dramatically. But just to make sure it works effectively whilst keeping those footprints in. And what we heard as well, just to give you an indication is we know that cricket, for example, is a longstanding user of the site as is some level of recreational softball use. In the discussions we had with those groups, for example. Is there an opportunity long term to move those uses offside. And so we can better use the green space for other activities. So we still have to look at those things as we go forward. Um, again, I would just say, well, we came away from this phase one in terms of our instructions is we have to have a solution that meets everyone's needs here. So it's green space. Currently use pretty well used, but it could certainly do with a refresh. I think we'd all agree with that in terms of the green space that's there now. And so that's, that's our goal going forward. Thank you. Three, Mr. Chair. Oh, so for Memorial Centre parking is so important. So I know we're asking for a lot for this site with like confined amount of space. But especially with our enclosed aquatic centre, the aquatic centre should hopefully get a lot of use from all across the city, not just people that are able to walk there. But from the West End, that doesn't have a pool. Right. They'll be going there too. And, um, it's a tough one, but we need parking as well. So through you, Mr. Chair, I can say that we've again, we've got the blinkers on. We know that's an issue. But I think we'll have some solutions. I think we really will. Um, parking is always a bit of a challenge, but if you put your, uh, your innovative hat on, there are ways to achieve it. We know it's a bit of a Park and ride location as well in terms of getting access to downtown. So there may be a bit of a sort of a, uh, a wider look around the area as well just to just to look at exactly see how the dynamics are and what might happen. But it's also an event grounds. So we need to make sure we do have enough hardscape in there to be able to work on those requirements. Too. Great. Thank you. Three of you, Mr. Chair. No swinging over to centre 70. Yep. So with the redesign of Centre 70, we right now it's a bus park and ride for Kingston Transit. Is that going to still be worked into the plan for the future for centre 70. Yeah. At this day through you, Mr. Chair again, um, you know, we've, we've, we know that in looking at the site conditions, we're not, we haven't considered any of the future like that in terms of removing anything. We know it's an existing use. And so to be honest, we would go into phase two. With that being as an active ongoing use. And we have to work around that. I mean, if, if through the course of the work, other departments came into play to, to look at solutions maybe, but I don't, you know, we're not under any instruction. It's not part of our scope to weigh in on transportation planning per se for, uh, for the city. Thank you. And my last question for you, Mr. Chair is just about the Lakeside community garden that will stay. Yeah. Okay. Through you. Yes. And we had a great conversation with them as we did with the neighbourhood sharing centre as well. Uh, so we're again, as a result of this phase of work, we're very clear on some of the particular needs of those groups that are active and doing good work in the area. Super. Thank you. Thank you. Any other committee members? I'm just going to ask you before move on. I'm going to state that there are unlimited questions from committee members to the presenter. That way if you have a number of questions during the actual business portion, you may want to get something out now. And I'm going to take this opportunity also to mention that during the briefing, visiting councillors and the public don't have an opportunity to ask questions. That will come during the business portion. So Councillor Saddak asked, do you have any further questions? Okay. Councillor Annals. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. I'm not sure if that. Montoulage was meant for me or not, but we'll carry on. Um, Mr. Hack, thank you for the presentation. Appreciate it. Uh, I appreciated spending the time with you during the, uh, public consultation at POH. And I think you recognise the importance of sailing for our area. Um. In the report, you've indicated a costing centre over 10 years for each of the facilities to maintain them. Uh, roughly. With Senator Severny at 11 million, the M centre at 25 million and POH in 19 million, was that in consultation with our staff, uh, to draw those numbers into the report? Through you, Mr. Chair. I'll, I'll defer to, just, to staff on more specifics, but we, that's part of our due diligence reporting of information that's sort of published to us. Um, and just the reason it's important is if you look at 25 million dollar costs, for example for KMC, you know, we, in our simple way of looking at things, that's, if you can avoid that, that's cost avoidance. That's funding for a project. And so we put it down as to that. As to the, uh, you know, over a particular time period that comes from these building condition assessments, that is a judgment call, um, for, uh, the administration in terms of if and when and how you spend that. Uh, Councillor Ridge kind of hinted or worked his way around this question. And I just wanted to clarify the engagement that you got at all three sites and the fourth site, um, and then the online, roughly comes to, I think your number said 479 people for engagement. What you consider that a good rating for engagement for this type of initiative? As it relates to the open houses. Yes. Yeah. These are, uh, these are three hour walkthrough meetings at the beginning of a project where, you know, we are as much as we're providing good information and asking, I think the right questions. It is still a gathering exercise of information. You know, we don't come with answers of these meetings. So we're certainly very thankful. The people that did come, um, so yeah, 400 people is, I think it's tremendous. I think it was good actually to have the fourth meeting as well because it allowed some people to come back again and have a second bite at the cherry, which is great because we could then have more discussion with them as well. So it was good. In the report. It indicates very clearly that centre 70 is going to be stood down as a rank. And ideally twinning of the M centre. However. In phase two, will you also be looking at IS allocation up to 2050. And our population growth and what you're in a recommendation with that? Yes. And through Mr. Chair, absolutely. So there is a separate piece of work that is ongoing. So, uh, if we just look at the closure of centre 70 and the factory, the twinning of the KMC at that site, there is going to be a net gain because of a facility in that central location is going to be more effectively used than the centre 70 site. During daytime, um, perhaps not so much in the evening. When primetime is very heavily subscribed, as you know, but that isn't going to be enough for the city. And even if other municipalities around, uh, possibly building ones and twos over the future, we're coming back with a multidimensional sort of assessment of how many IS surfaces are likely needed by when. So sort of five year cohorts from now out to the tail end of the existing current projections. Including both city, residents and projected university residents that are relevant to this as well. So that report will come at an appropriate time for Council and Committee here to be able to pass judgment on the merits of these three sides, but have the context of the larger ice needs that are required. Any further questions from the committee. Mr. Hack, thank you for your presentation and your briefe. This will bring us to our second briefing in regards to the playground accessibility plan Director Gillsborough, please. Okay, good evening. Uh, chair and members of committee. I would like to welcome, um, Mike Tucker today. And he is with Think Design. And he will be sharing a presentation tonight on the playground accessibility plan. A lot of great work has gone into that, uh, to that plan. I've also got Mitch Wiskaley, manager of Parks and Outdoor Recreation and Sarah Miller as well. Um, who played a big part in the development of the plan. Thank you and welcome John Mike, sorry. Thank you, Amy. Okay. Um. So thank you for the opportunity to present to this evening. Um, The Playground Accessibility Plan. Uh, this plan outlines a strategy to build an active and connected community through accessible play. So this presentation will review the project background and definitions. Our research and engagement process. And the project's key deliverables, which include a new playground classification system. Service levels and a financial strategy. The project fulfills Council Strategic Priority to identify the city's existing inventory, a playgrounds and develop a citywide plan. Our primary goal was to sustainably increase accessibility and ensure equitable and distribution. Of inclusive playgrounds. Over the next decade. So it's important to understand the difference between an accessible and inclusive. So accessible play focuses on removing physical barriers for mobility. While inclusive play goes further by designing for diversibilities, ages, and sensory needs so everyone can participate. Uh, to create this plan, we combine best practice research, extensive community engagement, and a comprehensive playground auditing tool. This led to a user - focused accessibility framework centred on three questions. Can I get there? Can I play. And can I stay? So our best practice research was rooted in provincial legislation like AODA. National Safety Standards from the CSA and Kingston's own facility accessibility design standards. The research reinforced a crucial concept that had technically accessible playground can still be functionally inaccessible or exclusionary for many users. So our three guiding questions of can I get there? Can I play? And can I stay? And sure we evaluate the entire user experience. From arrival to play elements and other associated amenities. We engage heavily with the community through open houses, school visits, activity sheets, and focus groups, specifically prioritizing people with lived experience of disability, their caregivers, and support professionals. We also consulted internally with groups like public works, transit, forestry, and engineering. A key learning was an improving playground accessibility requires increased service levels, which demands cross - departmental coordination and resources. A major part of our work was developing an up - to - date inventory of Kingston's 117 non - seasonal city on playgrounds. Our inventory data revealed that the vast majority are suburban neighbourhood playgrounds while their conditions are in sizes vary. They all comply with the specific accessibility standards. There were in place at the time they were built. Because AODA legislation does not require older playgrounds to be retrofitted to current standards. Sites across the city offer very different levels of accessibility. Playgrounds built in the 1990s often lack modern inclusive features. Tefarily assess these differences we developed. The city of Kingston Playground Accessibility Audit Tuo. So this provides a consistent objective and transparent method to evaluate and score every site. The tool evaluates playgrounds across four distinct categories, accessibility, play, inclusivity, site suitability, and other considerations. Sections one through three of the audit focus on pure physical accessibility, scoring out of 155 points. This assesses elements like barrier - free pathways, surfacing clear sight lines and adequate space for mobility devices. Section four evaluates play inclusivity and play value out of 50 points. It looks for a meaningful variety of physical sensory, social, and cognitive play options, giving us a combined overall audit score out of 205. Section five scored separately out of 30. This evaluates site suitability for highly accessible playgrounds, helping identify which parks are best positioned for major destination level upgrades. The suitability scores examines existing infrastructure, specifically looking at proximity, transit stops, dedicated accessible parking, universal washrooms, and accessible drinking water. And finally, section six through eight offer up to nine bonus points by documenting less common accessibility features in the city's current inventory. So sets things as multi - sensory wave finding. Bike racks, and communication boards. We tested and refined this tool by conducting in - person audits of 25 representative sites and then evaluated the remaining 92 playgrounds using a thorough desktop analysis. The audit revealed clear patterns, the top 20 playgrounds were all built in the last decade and feature accessible rubber or wood fibre surfacing. Conversely, the lower 20, our aging sites built between 1990 and 2005 and still using inaccessible sand or peacetone. So it's important to note that a lower audit score does not necessarily indicate noncompliance. And a playground may score modestly in the audit while still meeting all AOD requirements. Lake Ontario Park, south, achieves a top score. It is important to remember that the audit is not a pass fail. Rather, lower scores help us identify exact gaps and prioritize future retrofits. Moving forward, we recommend the city - staff audit all sites in person, reassess them every two years, and permanently adopt this tool during the design phase of any new playground constructions. Now we will transition to the specific deliverables created from this data. The playground classification system defined service levels and targeted recommendations. These deliverables from the core strategy of the playground and accessibility plan guide how the city should be built should build and upgrade sites moving forward. We are recommending a three - tier playground classification system, tier one represents highly accessible destination playgrounds. Tier two covers larger city - wide playgrounds and tier three covers local neighbourhood playgrounds. Each tier has specific service - level criteria, for example, tier one, site requires sites require unitary rubber surfacing, all four types of play, universal washens, and transit access, whereas tier three requires the engineered wood fibre and standard accessibil routes. We have identified four locations for tier one playgrounds, including grenadier park, and the upcoming jumpstart inclusive playground at Shannon Park. We have also identified six tier two playgrounds locations to ensure that equitable geographic coverage. Now by applying the audit scores to these new classifications, we categorize playgrounds into good, fair, or poor conditioned ranges. This clearly shows which tier one and tier two sites need small enhancements versus complete renovations. The Valves majority of the city's inventory of 117 playgrounds fall into tier three. These are designed to serve local neighbourhoods within an 800 metre walking radius and meet standard accessibility legislation. Mapping the audit scores for all our tier three sites gives us a clear picture of where improvements are needed. Playgrounds in the poor category will be prioritized for the full replacement while those in the fair condition will receive targeted accessibility upgrades. Simply about this plan, we develop a costing strategy. Using typical layo models we estimate the total replacement value for the city's entire playground assets to be just over 51 million. Assuming a standard 20 - year life cycle for equipment. We estimate the total annual capital requirement for playground renewals and equipment failure to be approximately 2. 89 million. The final plan delivers over 60 actionable recommendations categorized into playground planning, communications, and our core framework. Can I get there? Can I play? And can I stay. The 19 playground planning 19 playground planning recommendations focused on a new classification system, introducing a highly accessible tier 1 playgrounds into the city's inventory, internal coordination, implementation and new builds and upgrades. Second one, communications focuses on the city's website communication initiatives at the playground and internal communications. Can I get there? Focuses on parking, accessible routes. At and to the playground. And access to the public transit. Can I play focuses on programming, partnerships, playground surfacing, play equipment, selection, and ground level play value, playground design and distribution, play zones and perimeter containment. And the last one, can I stay focuses on seating, shade, waste receptacles, washrooms, drinking water, and bike and mobility device parking. To realise this plan, the city must adopt the audit pool, implement the tier system, execute the 60 plus recommendations. Undertake regular monitoring and heavily foster cross departmental collaboration. So long - term upgrades aligned with the city operating budgets and maintenance capabilities. So thank you very much. I'm happy to answer any questions at this point. Just about perfect 10 minutes around the dose. Councillor Ridge. Thank you Mr. Sharon for you. Excuse me. Um, so thank you very much for your presentation. I think this is a very exciting initiative. Uh, I just, I just want to go to the 2. 89 million dollars estimate in terms of capital upkeep per year. I'm going to ask what feels like a little strange question. It's a bit aside from this. Would you consider this project not only enhancing the accessibility of the playgrounds, but also one that focuses on rejuvenation from a capital perspective as well? Three, Mr. Chair. Um, yeah, I think both can be done at the same time for sure. Um, you know, playground upgrades or something that happened automatically. And with that, it's not just what the playground too. We talk, you know, about getting to the playground, you know, doing those things to, you know, when you're there, the other park, uh, things. So we did look, you know, this is Bomber Bo Playgrounds, but there are other capital projects that would happen as well for, for park. So it's kind of, they go hand in hand. Excellent. Thank you. So yes, that's, that's part of the reason that I ask is, if for someone, for one person were to see this and to object to the cost, I could say to them that this is not just about improving accessibility, inclusivity, which I personally believe is a goal within in and of itself, but also rejuvenation of the park space. So that, that's excellent. Um, what do you foresee is amongst the tier three playgrounds. What you've ever see is the largest challenge in terms of implementation. They've been categorized. They've been audited to determine, but what one thing do you think would be the largest challenge in terms of moving forward with this project. Through you, Mr. Chair. Staff might be able to better answer this in terms of Kingston, but I'll tell you just in general from working on playground approvement projects like this, um, oftentimes it's just a matter of, you know, which playground to do first. You know, this isn't, you know, this isn't new. I mean, you already do this. It's just a matter of how you do it now. That might be a little different. But there are a lot of them, but you're not, you're not alone. Like, you know, we have a lot of experience in the city of Toronto, which of course has a lot of playgrounds. And they just, they roll out dozens of these every year. Obviously city Toronto is a lot larger than Kingston, but, um, it's just a matter of, you know, it's capital upgrades and improvements that need to happen because things wear out over time. So. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And, and that, that further logistical feasibility in terms of the sheer volume and the timeline that's put forward, I'll have that question for staff later. But thank you very much. I think, I think, uh, through you, Mr. Chair, that's actually, that's all I have at this moment. So thank you very much. Councillor Ramos. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. Um, the classification system that you're introducing tonight to us and through the report, um, is this a standard classification that is being used across the province? Or are you slowly or introducing this as you're being consulted with other cities? I want to know where is Kingston, the guinea pig, or is this already being used and we're being adopted in? The tier one, tier two, tier three. Um, yeah, it's my knowledge. It's not common. Um, I mean, I think Kingston is, you know, with this plan, we'd be at the forefront of accessibility for playgrounds. So I don't know. There wasn't a lot of precedent for us to look at for this project. Um, but there is, you know, there are some municipalities that are, they definitely look at it and they talk about accessibility. Um, but every municipality seemed to have a different way that they would categorize and organise their, their, um, their parks and playgrounds. Um, so, um, from my experience, not a lot of it's out there, but, um. Okay. The next, my next question could then be, um, difficult to answer. In that. We're proposing four tier ones, six tier twos and 104 tier threes. Is that a standard ratio that a city should be adopting moving forward? Is there a ratio in there that we should be capturing. In this? Yeah. I don't, through you, Mr. Chair, I don't know, um, again, cause I, I haven't looked at this specifically. When we do Parks and rec plans, I will tell you that we often look at, you know, regional parks, neighbourhood parks, uh, not necessary applying it to accessibility, but just to parks in general. Um, intuitively I would say the ratio is about, is about right, you know, obviously, but, um, you're not going to have obviously, you know, you're only going to have a few of the largest ones. Um, that would make sense. So, um, but a lot of, a lot of municipalities, of course, have legacy that they're dealing with, no different than Kingston. So, and when you're talking about urban areas too, you can only squeeze in so many. So I think a newer, newer municipalities probably would have more of these larger parks. Um, but a lot of our experience comes from more established communities. So, um, you kind of, you have to work with what you have, um, you know, for land. You'd indicate in your report that the neighbourhood perks are roughly 800 metre walk for people to go to. Is that the typical neighbourhood park ratio or should we, are we short on parks? Like should we have a 500 metre accessibility standard for our city so that people can get to it easier faster and enjoy the green space. Through you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure, I'd say, you know, again, it probably goes back to it and said about you kind of deal with, you know, you can't put parks in where the space. So, um, but the 800 is definitely a common approach. You know, so if you can achieve that in your community, I think you're doing quite well. Um, you know, there's also movement towards less, you know, doing fewer small parks and more larger ones. But again, that's something that it's hard to implement when you don't have the space to do it. Councillor Sanek. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. I just have two questions. And one question is about the, um, playground surface. So I have a lot of people that ask for rupper, you know, can our park be upgraded to rubber. And it's wood fibre. So rubber is what's our tier ones. And that's because it's so expensive. Like what do I tell people? Is rubber five times more expensive than wood fibre or 10 times more or twice? Like how does that price comparison work out? Yeah. I think I'm not sure what price is Kingston gets. Um, but I would say on average, it's at least four, four times the price, I think. There's also, you know, the repair and maintenance inside of it. So, um, rubber does, it does not take well to vandalism. So not that Kingston, the story has evangelism problem, but when you damage rubber, it's more expensive to replace. And it is to bring in a truckload of wood fibre if, you know, when it shifts around or moves. I mean, wood driver doesn't get damaged. It might compact. It might shift and disappear. But that's standard. You would, you would operate that. But yeah, rubber's expensive. It's, you know, it's, um, it's, um, it's not just the installation, but also just the maintenance and upkeep. Thanks for answering that. And my second question is, um, The Park ranking list that we have of like the maps. It has all the parks. Um, for the overall accessibility score, like we see Lake Ontario park is number one. And then The Close second, um, is like Raple. Where is it? Lake Ontario park. I guess it's MacBony park. Yeah. So are there some parks in Toronto that are like close to 100? What would it take to get a score closer to 100? Like Lake Ontario Park is our premier park. So it scored 84 percent. What would it take to get it even closer to a hundred percent? Or how does the scoring work? Yeah. Three, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I couldn't tell you we haven't audited used this tool on any other municipality. Uh, we've used auditing tools for different things, but not this exact one, um, for anywhere else. Um, you know, for to get a hundred, you probably would have to be very connected with transit, have lots of parking, you know, water. You need all those big ticket items, you know, bathrooms. And then you'd probably, you'd need to be a very new park, very progressive and have all those, um, other inclusivity items as well. So, you know, Toronto might have some of those things just because of, um, the money and the location, um, for all those things that I just mentioned. But, um, I mean, Kingston's doing pretty well with Lake Ontario Park. So, you know, to getting it up there and, you know, we take a bit. But it's not really feasible, I don't think, to expect that the community's going to have, you know, really any that are a hundred or, you know, more than one if you do. All right. Thanks so much. Councillor Stephen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hi, thanks for being here tonight. Um, I just want to talk about appendix exhibit A, one of the appendices. And it's around types of playgrounds. And so I am a mom of three very active girls and we have visited many playgrounds in the city. And I found it really validating, to be honest, to see that currently the city playground inventory consists of primarily one type of playground, the traditional playground. I completely agree. Um, so I was wondering if you could speak to us a little bit about other kinds of playgrounds that the city could consider as we move forward. How can we make play more interesting and exciting and engaging and have different kinds of destinations for kids. Yeah. It's a great question. Um, you know, not being, I'm not going to say that I'm a playground expert, you know, like we do a lot of playground work, but, um, you know, I think to do something more innovative is going to, obviously it takes a lot of, a lot of money. Probably quite a bit of space. Um, and, uh, but it, but to get away from the, you know, the traditional structure, um, swings. I mean, a lot of that is, is really loved. And if you don't have those things, I think it's going to be missed. So it's really, I think it's adding to that as much as you can. But you see things like, you know, loose parts, you know, but that, that often takes, uh, you know, when you've got building materials in that for kids, but then that takes staff to management, a place to store it and that sort of thing. But you will see that in communities that would, um, take it to the next level. Um, it's also just having those quiet refuge places and things like that, which Kingston does have some of those, but it's, I think what it's going to come down to is, you know, decisions always have, the trade - offs. You know, realistically, um, what needs to be made for the design process. And so I think, you know, it's going to take some of those outside the box, you know, things that have done that elsewhere. But I think the challenge is probably going to be the funds and staffing and the, you know, to do that because some of those things aren't going to take people on the ground. You know, it's, it's, it's incorporating all those different elements. So in the space, probably the main one. Three, Mr. Chair, the rotary park in Naponee. That's an excellent example of a big mix of different things. And again, we live in Kingston and our family derives to happen to go to this park. Um, another question I wanted to ask you about was with the traditional playgrounds we have, often what we see is a clustering of equipment in one area. And again, knowing kids, they like to zip, you know, go back and forth to different places. So again, if, if our parks of traditionally been clumped, I don't know what the technical term is. Is there anything in here that would help us with considering, again, spreading out equipment? I'm sure it's condensed because of the wood fibre or whatever on the bottom, the base needs to be considered in cost. But is there anything around spreading equipment out. Through you, Mr. Chair, I mean, part of the challenge in that area would be the fact that, um, a lot of caregivers for, they're looking after kids on the spectrum, whatever. Have a tendency to wander to, you know, get out of sight. And so there is a concern with, you know, spreading things out too much because you're going to lose track of kids. And that sort of thing. So, you know, a lot of it is about sight lines. So you could, if you spread it out, I can see, you know, it's getting stressful for the caregiver to, to like after. And then you have a hard time. You know, corralling kids into one area. And that's why, you know, part of it is for these larger ones to have fencing. And that sort of thing. So it's something that certainly be looked at on a case by case basis, I guess, but you'd have to, I think, do that carefully to not, you know, put people in a situation where they're not going to be comfortable going there and afraid that they're going to lose their kids in the park. But, but to your point, I totally agree that, you know, there's opportunities for that. Again, it's just, it's a space thing, right? And the competing uses and requests in parks for different uses. Thank you for the presentation. And with that, we'll move on to our next agenda item, which is our business items. Springs us to the multi - site visioning and recreation couple planning, engagement report. Director. Do you have anything to add. Well, thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chair. Um, no, just, it's been a, just quickly, it's just been a, um, really great hearing from all of the community members and everyone who participated in the engagement. So we're really grateful for all of the input to help us, uh, work through the project and just really looking forward to moving into, into phase two and coming back to committee and council with some concrete plans. Thank you. Uh, members of committee, any further questions. Members of a committee. Councillor Sannick. Uh, thank you through you, Mr. Chair to Steph. So about the Memorial Centre and The Queens Partnership for the Twin pads and then the side of the twin pads that Queens will be using. Are we going to be church, like it's going to be a Lisa agreement. Like we're not just giving them, you know, the use of the pad that will be charging them rent. Director. Thank you. Through you, Chair. Yes. Great question. So, um, I think that's the, that's the next opportunity is working with Queens, um, to come up with an arrangement, uh, we expect that there will need to be some, uh, capital lease arrangement as well as on operating, uh, lease arrangement included in the facility, um, of course, Queens will have other needs that are beyond the needs of just a community rink such as dressing rooms and other training rooms and so on. And, uh, those things would all need to be considered within the lease structure, uh, so those are the things that we've started to discuss with them. And, uh, and that would be an except. Great. Thanks very much for that reassurance. Uh, let's see. For the cricket field, like I know we just heard that maybe we can relocate the softball or whatnot. But for the cricket field, didn't we just put some money into it? Like we gave them new grass or how much have we infested in the cricket field recently. Director. Yes. Thank you for the question. Uh, so the cost of the new cricket pitch was, I think Michi's going to let me know in a second. I think it was 20, 000. 80, 000, sorry, 80, 000 dollars to replace the Cricut pitch. So there is an investment that was made there, um, absolutely. I think what John was speaking about was, uh, longer term plan, um, the current cricket field, the cricket pitch is actually undersized for competitive play. And the cricket is really growing here in Kingston. And the, uh, the cricket groups are, are really, um, are growing and they're coming up with a lot of great programming and activities. So, uh, we know that down the road, we need to start thinking about an expansion for them. And that wouldn't be possible on the Memorial Centre site down the road. But in the short term, in the medium term, at this point, there would be no plans on relocating cricket in a short term. All right. Thank you. And let's see. Miss. Design. Um, yeah, OC, if I can find one of my other questions that I had for stuff, but thank you. Yes, Ramos. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. Uh, in regards to the report about POH, it recommends or in phase two, start the exploration of the waterfront usage. And right now it's owned by the federal government. We pay a lease. Agreement based on our revenues generated from POH. Do we have an idea of how much that waterfront will cost? If we are to purchase it, do we know if it's for sale? And then how much are we currently sending to the federal government for our revenues. Sorry, three questions and one there. Sorry about that Director, but, uh, could you answer those. Thank you for the questions. Uh, so the, the water lot that the Portsmouth Olympic Harbour currently sits on, or the marina section primarily sits on, um, is, is a federally owned lot that we do, uh, we do pay a portion of our revenues towards, uh, from the site. We don't know, uh, what the cost may be. We don't know what a transfer agreement might look like at this time. Um, so currently under the lease, um, the government is responsible for some capital improvements in some of those aspects. So we would need to consider all of those things, um, before working through proposal. And we would come back to, uh, council with those, uh, with a proposal should it be feasible. Commissioner Campbell. Thank you. And through you, I just wanted to add to Director Elgar's most response. The city did work in Confederation base and Marina to acquire transfer of the water lot from the federal government. It was an essential element of us being able to realise profit out of that marina because a percent revenue is what is paid as Director El Grisma has shared. And I'm sorry, I don't trying to pull the Confed Basin agreement in front of us today. But as Director Eller Grisman, I was sharing as well. That's part of what we need to explore is what is the cost benefit of getting control. But I would suggest that based on past experience, having the ability to not be paying out of that revenue on locks any other number of uses for the site to either turn a profit or potentially have an alternate governance or operating model that would depend on revenue. I think the last I'd heard about the generous word profit sharing with the federal government is we were the high tens of thousands or the hundreds of thousands of dollars every year where you're funneling over the last time I had had a brief conversation with CFO Kennedy about this. So I think long - term, this is a, uh, light confederation basin. This would be a very good move for us to consider, uh, in that aspect. I had another question and it is. Gone. My apologies. I will stop there. Still have three and a half minutes. And I can't think of next question. So I will move on. Thank you. Any other Gals, sir, Steven. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. Um, just on to centre 70 for a moment. So we, we know it's nearing end of life. Um, I notice in the staff report, I didn't notice any timelines associated with decommissioning and the twinning advice at the M Centre. Understanding that there are a lot of variables, but do we have a ballpark amount of time that we're thinking. Director Gelsman. Thank you for the question. Uh, through you, Mr. Chair. So yeah, that's a great question. And of course, I mean, I'm going to say that we're going to work through that in phase two as part of the phase two work. Um, what I've, what I think we can offer as reassurance is that we would want to continue to operate Centre 70 until we had, um, new ice at the Memorial Centre. Um, you know, we've, we've kind of said we think five years could be a timeline before we completely phase at the Memorial, or sorry, uh, Centre 70 Arena. Um, however, with the, um, with the commitment from Queens to work with us on a partnership and on the leasing arrangement, um, it may be possible to advance those things should the funding come into place. Thank you. And three, Mr. Chair, the staff report also mentioned strategic partnerships when it's talking about the C70 site. And I don't know if you're able to share anything, but you've peaked my curiosity. Are we able to find out any information about that yet or is that coming in phase two. Director. Through you. Thanks for the question. Yeah. So the Centre 70 is a bit of, is an interesting site. Of course, all each site is unique. Um, but for centre 70, um, there could be some other strategic uses, um, for that site coming, coming up. Um, and, and, and I'm not, you know, able to really articulate what is going to happen at that site at this time or what we're proposing might happen at this time. Um, but through the work in phase two, we'll have a better picture and be able to come back with options for you. Mr. Campbell. Sorry. Thank you and through you. I just wanted to make sure that that didn't sound cryptic. So there are, there are no secret partnerships currently being negotiated or discussed. I think the report is really just acknowledging that in all the work the city is doing right now because of fiscal constraint and the opportunities that can be unlocked through partnership, that those have to be considered as we move forward depending on what the outcome for the site is. I just again didn't want council or anyone present to be confused about that. Um, and if I may just take a point of privilege and a loop back because I found some information that may assist an earlier question from the councillor, um, so thank you Councillor Stephen Director El Grisma was able to pull, it's about 90, 000 dollars in revenue transfer currently at POH. The Confederation based in marina before acquisition was topping out at just over 100, 000 dollars when we took on Confed Basin Arena from the federal government as a transfer. We paid two dollars for that transfer agreement. We made a commitment over a five year term to continue to operate it under certain conditions. And we took it as an as is where is condition. So all liability was then assigned to the city. Thank you for the extra patient. Any other questions from committee. Council Ridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, through you. So I just, I understanding that we are currently in phase one. Of a multi - phase project. I just have a couple of questions for Steph. Um, there have been a number of priorities that have been identified with the Memorial Centre through this consultation process and the idea of a second ice rink continues to emerge. Um, and I understand that we're still nearly stages here. But considering the, uh, objections that were raised at a previous topic around the soccer stadium and the effects that it has on the outdoor space and the footprint of the space, how is it reasonable to expect that a second IcePad would be installed while also having it be a multi - use community centre? Director. Who would like to take this one. Thank you. Okay. So great question. Um, I think that, uh, some of the things that have been discussed through engagement include, and some of the things that we're actually, um, provided to us as mandate as council direction, um, before moving into the visioning project included, the twinning of the ice included things like an indoor and outdoor farmers market, um, and those types of spaces. Um, so we've heard a lot of great ideas from different community groups and individuals about what could happen at the Memorial Centre site in terms of programming, in terms of additional space, uh, so the Memorial Centre as a hub, um, would be a hub that would encompass the indoors as well as the outdoors. Um, working with the market and having an indoor and outdoor space, as I mentioned, would be a really great, a great thing to do. And that's something that, you know, is part of the Council Direction. Um, there are other amenities that residents have asked for that could be included in the site. And those things will all be explored to kind of make sure that it is this community hub. And it's already starting to become a community hub with the addition of the indoor Collegan water park, um, as well. And I think that's all part of the kind of broader vision that would be brought forward for the site. Thank you. Um, and so my, my next question then is there's been, uh, there's been a lot of mentions in the report of both community consultation and strategic partnerships with the Memorial Centre in particular with Queens University. Um, some of the feedback that I've heard from constituents and people who live nearby are, you know, there's concerns about which one is being prioritized or are both being prioritized. Is it that the strategic partnership is helping to shape, um, part of divisioning process? Or is it that community feedback is helping to do that? How do they feed into each other? And what assurance can we give, uh, constituents that this, this process is an entirely shaped by strategic partnerships. But in fact, what they're providing us. Director. Thank you and through you. And so I think what's important to note here is that if you look, um, look in the survey results that we've seen for the Memorial Centre site, um, I believe that the, uh, attending sports events was maybe number three there, which would of course include, um, events at Queens events at the, at the facility. Um, but what we did here from residents is overall support for, for twin pad, the Memorial Centre, not just, you know, we've been approached by Queens and now we'd like to build the rink there. Um, we have heard from, from residents in the area, from groups that already use the arena, ice user groups and so on. And it's been rather supportive of the, of twinning the ice. Um, but in terms of the prioritization, um, John showed a slide earlier that mentioned, um, an evaluation framework that the team will be working through to help, uh, really prioritize what will happen at each site and what will be included. And, um, resident input and all of the feedback that we've heard is of course, uh, very important to the project. And we've shared a lot of that here today. Um, strategic partnerships can help advance those projects. They can help, um, advance those priorities. Um, because without them, uh, some things may not be possible without the strategic partnerships. The assurance that a long - term leas brings and capital contributions bring, uh, really helps get a project off the ground. Thank you. Um, that's all of our sitting. I wanted to ask one more question if that's okay. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I thought you indicated that you were done. No, in fact, I put my hand up as in as if I was task and other question. Well, you have five minutes. So it's unlimited questions within that period of time. Sorry. You may continue. Thank you so much, Mr. Cherry. I appreciate your indulgence. Um, so, uh, my final question is, uh, in terms of the consultation that's been done with community groups, right? One of the primary barriers, as I had mentioned earlier, with regards to the footprint and the space was the input from the agricultural society. So presumably, have they been consulted on, uh, on this process. And if so, was there any indication that there would be any consideration about changing up the footprint of the space. Director. Thank you for the question. So yes, the agriculture society was, was consulted and our team met with them. Unfortunately, I personally wasn't able to be there. I think was at a Council meeting. Um, however, yes, they were consulted and, uh, and what I do know is that, uh, that they were actually quite willing to, um, be flexible in some of the space. Uh, utilising pens in some cases rather than built infrastructure, um, so there was some ability to be able to be flexible and to kind of work within the site. Um, so it was really great that our team had some really good conversations. I could turn it over to, to John for some more information, Mr. Chair. Would you, uh, would you permit that. I could allow that. Thank you. Thank you Director Guzma. Yeah. Just to, just to clarify on those conversations. We, you know, we recognise the Barns were there. And, you know, the removal of those bonds and the long - term, what's going to happen. There was obviously a concern. They explained how they operate and bringing different kinds of activity in, be it the large livestock versus a small. And we got into discussions with the group around the innovations that you see around the country actually in terms of, you know, you get often these facilities that happen at event centres. So imagine the slush puppy centre not being in its urban format there. But one that has more space around it. You'd put in programming and temporary pens, but also, uh, you know, undercover. So the public can still come through. Actually have the expositions with the, uh, with the animals. And then as I mentioned earlier, the whole discussion around maintaining the horse show, uh, how you do that in the context of a new building. So, um, we took it from that meeting, we, we, I think we left that meeting with a clear indication that there are things that we need to do. But I think everyone was very, uh, upbeat and positive about the outcome. The test will be, we need to come back with the plans and then have the discussion. Et let's look at anything before I move on. Para Mr. Council Ridge has once it continue. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, that's, that's fine. Thank you so much for the answers. Barring doesn't want to continue. So we move on to visiting Councillors. Just a reminder, you do have five minutes. Till. Councillor Cidani. Okay. All right. So I was looking, I was reading through this and I noticed some wording in here because there's pursue partnership and there's retain and activate like the splash pad. Um, but then it said consider, uh, for farmers market, the ag society and open space. So why was the word consider used when, especially like I think when the direction was set that, you know, those things needed to be there. So I was just wondering, does that conflict with anything or why was that. Wording used. Director. Through you. Sorry. I don't quite follow. Oh, it was one on the page. I don't have the page number. It's like when I had like the three, three panels for each. It was like one of the bubbles. Like, um, it said like pursue partnerships for a modern twin ice pad. And I had like listed some things. And it said consider site uses that support year round indoor outdoor farmers market annual agricultural events and preserving open space. I can try to find the page number. I'm not like. Sure if everyone heard that page 29, 319. The report of the PowerPoint. Yeah. In the report, yeah. I didn't bring my laptop. I see. Just give us one moment, please. Might have to take another recess. Okay. So I think the question is around, um, the wording. Consider site uses that support those things. Okay. Okay. So I think the idea is, is how, how can we support these things? Because those items, uh, were part of the, uh, criteria, the Council approved criteria. Um, so I think perhaps there could be some better wording that said, you know, how could the site support these things? But it wasn't, uh, meant to be anything different than that. Mr. Campbell. Yeah. I would just add an addition. When we look back to report 25, 164, where Council approved the criteria for the site, Council endorsed, um, cause clauses that said, consider as well as clauses that said you shall or will, um, and in this statement, you're actually seeing the combination of a number of those elements. So I think the use of the term consider perhaps might have been chosen differently, but it's capturing a collection of bullets. So, um, so by way of example, you know, there was a direction of council to activate and retain the play structure splash pad Memorial wall and associated areas to incorporate the removal of the Barnes into the overall site design, um, an endorsement of Council to do a number of other things. But then there were also directions like, uh, determine the feasibility of continuing to support a neural agricultural events on the site. So I think this is perhaps some clumsy language, but not meant by any way to indicate a lack of commitment to the criteria that we're endorsed by Council. Okay. Thank you. And, um, so talk about the market location in the presentation that was mentioned that maybe having like, well, they have the indoor outdoor space, but then having them moved somewhere else. But, um. Like on the site, but I think it would be very important to keep them in the front lawn. I think that that's what they would really want. And then they would lose a lot of it's kind of charm that way if it were to move from the front lawn. And I think that that was something that was really important to them. Is that still a possibility where they could stay where they are. Director. Yes. Thank you for the question. Yes. We, we heard that from them as well. And they made their, you know, kind of wants and needs known. And they also, you know, came up with some other, uh, ideas around the indoor space use and so on, but they made, they made their wishes known that they would like to keep the, uh, the green space, the park space. And that would be all considered within the, within the planning process in phase two. Thank you. And, um, about the cricket, uh, pitch. Um, so it's nice to hear that in short and medium term, the investment there would stay. And then, but I was wondering, so say if they find a new location is found where you can have a real, um, tournament style cricket pitch. Would the possibility of this one staying here since the sport is growing? That way you could have two location when it was like more for casual play, um, and pick up. And then the other one be more for a tournament. Would that be something possible. Uh, so this, you know, this, I think that would be part of a broader planning exercise around recreation master planning on how many cricket pitches or even partial or smaller pitches would be needed. So, you know, could it be used as a, as a smaller space or a practice space, yes, it could be. But again, that would probably be, if we're looking at a larger cricket, um, kind of tournament location, then I think we would need to consider everything as part of that planning exercise. Thank you. And through Mr. Chair. So kind of going to talk shift a bit about, um, how the YMCA is looking to close eventually. So would there be any opportunity to have any programming or fitness, some of the fitness things that are at the Y, would they have like an opportunity to be thought of about maybe being at the Memorial Centres for wellness? Like a kind of like a wellness centre or maybe like a track, like a racetrack above something or workout equipment, you know, things like that. Director. Thank you and through you. Uh, so the things that you've mentioned, some of those things we definitely heard through consultation from community, um, so those, those things will all be taken into consideration multipurpose space, you know, potential for foreign injure walking track and fitness equipment. Those are things that we heard throughout the consultation. So again, yeah, we'll take those, uh, take those away and see what, what we're able to come up with in terms of a plan. Mr. Campbell. Uh, thank you. And through you. I just also wanted to be clear that we currently have not explored a partnership with the YMCA to see the relocation of YMCA activation at this location. That's not to suggest they might not have interest down the line. But as Council knows, we are currently in heavy conversation with the YMCA regarding the new pool. Um, so I don't want to say that that isn't a future, but I also don't want there to be a misunderstanding to think that we would only be looking to work with the why on any of the potential future community uses at this location. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um, so I think this kind of was answered from one of Councillor Ridge's questions, but, um, in the phase two, is there going to be, um, an order, a priority order from one site to the other. Or is it going to be all at once? All of them all at once. Um, or is there one that needs to be addressed. Before the others? I was just curious. Director. Thank you. And through you. So as part of the phase two work, uh, the implementation plan will be included, which would include phasing approaches. Um, it would be, it wouldn't be possible to build everything at once. Uh, so of course phasing will need to happen and financing that ties, uh, to those phases. We'll also need to be considered, of course, in terms of timing, uh, which would be driven by things like available, available funds, uh, urgency, uh, the need for the facility and other things such as, um, as partnerships. And so on. So yes, there will need to be phasing and prioritization, um, as we move through phase two that will all come out of that, uh, that work. Commissioner Campbell. I'm sorry, the Councillor. Councillor is holding up his POH first sign. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair. I do just feel it's necessary to put officially on record that the aging infrastructure of these properties cannot be understated the risk that the city is increasingly taking on. We saw what happens when we lost centre seventies ice, not for reasons of the facilities condition, but actually through a water break. Um, and, you know, if we were to lose the Memorial Centre and Centre 70, we would be sufficiently depleted in ICE in our community. Um, and I raised that because Council Consideration has to think through, you know, the investment and the phasing will need to consider what would be the greater impact if we were to lose, uh, the Memorial Center's ice, for example. I'll just throw in there considering we'll recently, we also lost the ISA, a visceral centre for a period of time as well. So. I'm sure that, uh, hurts a lot of our, um, participants. Cancer Stanney. Thank you. And, um, I guess I'll move away to something else. Um, so for Centre 70, um, so if it were to be torn down, um, would he be kept as a municipal asset? Is that something that we're wanting to do because I heard the rumour that some people think that it might get sold, um, but I just wonder if you can touch on that. Director. Yeah. So through the consultation, uh, you know, we were looking at the Centre 70 site, but also, um, Lakeside as a whole in the Western recreation needs. So I think there's some broader kind of planning exercises to do here in terms of the needs for the West End along with the upcoming growth that we're seeing in that, in that area. Um, so right now the, um, you know, we, of course, heard from residents who had ideas and things for the site. And that was our exercise. Um, but we will continue to look at that site. And through the phase two work and through the feasibility work that we do, um, will come back with, um, concrete, uh, options for the centre 70 site. So, um, so for that site, you know, there's still an opportunity to, um, to really do some additional work to come up with the next, uh, round of plans for that site. So it's not something I can answer directly right now is what's actually going to happen at the end of the day with that site. Mr. Campbell. Thank you. And through you, um, ultimately the recommendations that come forward for the potential development of recreation, opportunity, um, in the neighbourhood in Lakeside District, um, will consider a number of different site activations and community enhancement opportunities. It will ultimately be to council through a series of recommendations to contemplate what the best use of the land at Centre 70 would be following a decommissioning exercise. And I think Director Elgersman, the team, really want to bring forward not only what the opportunity, but quite frankly, what the cost associated with those opportunities are against the need and a broader landscaped approach to looking at the needs in the West End of Kingston and in considering that site's activation. It is an incredibly, um, important property locationally, um, and I don't say that by any means to suggest a predetermined outcome here. But I think that Council would want, uh, to see what the options really are and to understand the costing and the impact to that area. Thank you. That's all the questions I have. Gastor Tozo. Said with the enthusiasm might come to expect Councillor Shaves. Thank you very much. Uh, through you. Um, reminder you only have five minutes. I'll use every second of that. Um, thank you. Uh, and it's nice to see everybody. I'll most many questions have been answered, but I do have a few, one, this, what am I main ones is sort of about the letter that we have with Queens University. This is about the Memorial Centre. Um, that didn't spell a ton of details. Just like we're going to continue to talk. Is that sort of the normal start to this process is just like a letter between us and like an organisation without any firm commitments because it seems the council direction is that we're directing you to work with it, but there's really no, no firm, no firm commitment from Queensy at for any capital or any funding. Um, do we have any sense of where Queens is at? Cause I know financially, apparently they're, they don't seem to have a ton of extra money. So have there been any more behind the scenes or meetings that we've had with Staff from Queens because this I'm just curious if there's anything you can more elaborate on rather than just this kind of bare bone slider. Commissioner Campbell. Thank you and through you. Um. What I can comment on is this is the usual process by which we negotiate and advance negotiations on potential agreements or partnerships with agencies or entities, um, we can't advance more formal discussion or discussions of the details on what the agreement could look like, what, what the funding amounts are, um, without the direction of council. So that's why we're seeking that direction, um, maybe an inelegant description here, but we're sort of, they, they put an offer forward to us to agree to partner. And we then say yes and request council direction to continue that dialogue. We will then return to Council with more information. As we move forward in increasingly, um, formalized agreements to the terms, et cetera. At this point, what director Elgisma has been working with Queens on is really about the next phase requires design considerations that requires a commitment from Queens to advance those design contemplation. So that's really what we were looking for at this stage was a document that demonstrated and invested interest in this partnership. And that's what the letter is meant to represent so that we can then move forward figuring out the costing and then figuring out what the details of those agreements will look like. Um, again, to draw the comparison to the agreement with The YMCA. This is a very similar process to what was undertaken there where we entered into a letter of understanding and then proceeded from there to work on terms. Okay. So yeah, still early days, but we need direction to move forward. So there was some sort of rough figures that were given, uh, between the three sites of the cost of it. So we're looking, if I'm understanding between the three sets of about 55 million dollars between the three of them. Is that about right? Director. Thanks for the question. So the details of the costing have not yet been developed. Um, some high level numbers have been shared as sort of placeholders to be able to plan with the city financially, um, from a financial perspective. We need to be able to plan out on what we think some of those costs will be, um, but there, because we don't have detailed concepts yet for each site. And we haven't narrowed down all the amenities on each site and what those will look like yet. We don't have detailed costing yet, but that will be part of phase two. And then those numbers, um, would then be updated to reflect, um, any new costing considerations for the redevelopment of those sites. Mr. Campbell. Uh, thank you and through you. I also just wanted to draw the committee's attention. There was a water wastewater or master plan report that was brought to council that contained within it financial modelling that took us out to some of the outer years on Capitol, um, commitments that may be required of the city in that modelling. We included 150 million dollars in contemplation of the development of these three sites. I raised that because the cost that you see in the report are really about what if we were to repair the infrastructure on these properties today and continue their operations. I think it was shared earlier with our consulting group that that is money that could be directed towards larger site improvements. Um, as opposed to investing now and then still finding the site's deficient down the line. Um, so we are estimating, you know, upwards of 150 million dollars. That is a high level estimate for the purposes of financial modelling. Um, but, uh, you know, certainly our consulting team and the recreation staff can correct me if I'm wrong. But I know I asked a question over the course of this and was, um, was told that at minimum a sort of tin can style arena, if you will, um, is, is sort of north of 40 million right now. So when we think about that just as an example cost, uh, you can start to understand why we're, we're modelling out 150 million over the water wastewater conversation of capital investment. Yeah. Thank you. Cause the numbers in the report at least seem to very low ball. And I thought, is that just for capital, uh, to maintain the current site. So we are looking between those three sites at about 150 million. Um, okay. Thank you. So it at least it gives me an idea of the kind of strategic partnerships that we'll need to be able to do that. Um, I think Councillor Cianani, mostly other councillors answered my questions. That's really all I've got for you guys. Great report. Thank you. Thank you. This will take us to our public engagement portion of the meeting. Uh, the members of public here physically that would like to speak. KWC2, Adam Chair, our Madam Clark, do we have any members in the virtual world. Currently. Through you, Mr. Chair, we do have members of the public joining us online. I will ask if those online would like to speak to this business item that you raise your hand virtually. It should be the button on the, um, bottom right hand corner of your screen. Thank you. And as a reminder, everyone will need to state your name. And you have five minutes to answer, ask all your questions and make all your comments all at once. We'll take four or five to many ME speakers we have. And then we'll have members of either the team or the staff to answer all your questions at once. So we'll start on the right on the left hand side here. And as a reminder, please state your name. And yeah, I'm. Miss John Grenville. I live at 24 Jenkins Street, a block from the Memorial Centre. In wonderful Williamsville. My focus tonight is on, obviously on the Memorial Centre. It's tremendously important to us as neighbours, but, uh, also to residents of Williamsville and the adjoining districts. In our district, uh, Williamsville has the lowest per capita park landing Kingston and with the rapidly increasing population, especially along Princess Street. We have a little hope of increasing our parkland. As a result, the increased population, the per capita park lens getting even lower. And the existing open space is getting even more critical and important. As a Williamsville resident, I've been involved for more than 20 years with ensuring that the Memorial Centre remains in public ownership. And provides programs and services that meet the needs of the community. And at times a number of times it's not been easy. I'm going to go back to 2004. When the sale of the open space at the Memorial Centre was proposed to be sold for high density residential. With revenue from the land sale used to fund the construction of what was known at the time as the large venue entertainment centre. Today, no one has the slush puppy place. This was one of the mayor's priorities at the time. I don't think he had the priority to sell the selling memorial centre property. But this in fact is what precipitated it was the, um, Large venue entertainment centre. This resulted in one of the largest, if not the largest petition to the city, um, with efforts to protect the open space. In large part, this was the impetus for the formation of the community association for Williamsville. For an extended period in 2012 and 2013, there was much discussion about the closure of KCVI and QECVI in the construction of a new high school. Where would this high school go on the grounds of the Memorial Centre, of course. Despite the difficulty of not cooperating with the limestone school board with respect to young people and their education, ultimately council, who was under tremendous pressure from residents from all parts of the city, decided the Memorial Centre grounds were not for sale to build the new high school. More recently, as has been mentioned already, and you all know in 2024, the city received an unsolicited proposal for the construction of a soccer stadium on the Memorial Centre property. For many reasons, the residents felt that a soccer stadium was not inappropriate use. On the limited open space in Williamsville. It's a planning department, on the other hand, communicated with that the stadium was a permitted use and consistent with both the official plan and the zoning bylaw. Most of us who have been involved with protecting Memorial Centre Open Space did not want to see that happen again. It's tiring, it's time consuming. It's negative work. And then the end all we get in return for the hard work is the status quo. Parkland, that is ours in the first place. For which we should not have to fight. So what does this have to do with tonight's discussion on vision and plan for the Memorial Centre property. Unless there's strong language in the official plan providing protection for the area comprising the Memorial Centre. It won't matter what design is ultimately approved by Council. And how many million are spent and implementing the design. Another unsolicited stadium proposal could come along at any time. And more energy expended in protecting the space and the new design. Whatever societed in terms of the design of the M Centre property, you need to ensure that there is appropriate and strong protection in the OP. That's not to say the change cannot take place. But it should not be at the whim of the mayor or an entrepreneur who needs to be, who rides into town and decides that he would like to build a stadium. Needs to be carefully considered. And if necessary, protected by the processes and the planning act, the proxy recreation master plan. And hopefully in the design brief. The Memorial Centre property is not the space to be sold off to fund another of the mayor's projects. It's not space for some of the public body like the Board of Education. To acquire. It's not space for an entrepreneur. Um, to promise to provide a stadium in three soccer teams. His parkland belongs to and is needed by this people of Kingston. Especially the residents of Williamsville. So I have one question. And that is, what is in place. In the draft OP to ensure the M Centre property is protected. So it can continue to be used as intended and designed. Thank you. That's your time. And answer tonight, but I think that this is a question that you, as councillors, need to ask and obtain an answer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you. Um, thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight to briefing one. State your name. And again, you have five minutes. Uh, multi - site visioning and recreation capital planning engagement report. My name is Annette Burefoot, my residence is at 74 Regent Street in Kingston. I appear tonight as a co - chair of the Williams Yale Community Association, and I'm grateful to the city staff for consulting with us. And we shared the results of our town hall meeting held late in the fall last year on this very matter visioning for the Memorial Centre and its grounds. And we had a pretty good response and we were happy to share the information. The consultants report on their public consultations, um, on the future of the MC almost reflect entirely what we found. And that was heartening to see except for one important thing. And it represents some of the issues I have in naming this briefing that there's many things going on here. And the gap between what the public, what I've been hearing for years about the Memorial syndrome, what the people that I have been talking with want, um, want to see happen there. And what's in the report. So the significance is, in the twinning of the rinks, which was never a priority. I have never heard anybody state that as a priority from all the consultations, casual conversations that I've heard, nor do I see it. In the consultants report as a priority coming from local residents and even beyond. Nobody in our consultations were against the twinning. And some, I think two spoke in favor of it. And they are the biggest concern raised about it with parking, the considerations of parking. So in the list of responses from the consultants report, uh, the question is what indoor recreation space is amenities and activities. Would you like to see at a revitalized kinks and Memorial Centre. In descending order, the response of the priority is indoor farmers market. Then it goes walking track multipurpose program rooms, fitness and cardio spaces, food and beverage spaces, lobby lounge and social spaces indoor pleasure. I can go right to the end nothing about a rink. Where did this come from? And I think Councillor should be asking that question. It's not clear where it became a priority and it's the only very specific matter that's in the report. In successive titles, aren't they report findings after the one that I just referred to, which is on page 36, the words beyond ice, which indoor considerations are most important. Where did that come from? That's on page 30 soon. So there's an assumption here all of a sudden that twinning the ice pads is important. And I want to talk about that. So the proposal is that there's going to be a partnership between Queens, as you've heard from multiple people, including Councillors attending here, where a little nervous about a repeat of the stadium proposal. And the concern that we have with it is the process. And the obfuscation here in this report about the nature of that relationship with Queens is concerning. So just to confirm from what I've heard tonight, Queens is going to be a tenant, not a part owner. Of the Memorial Centre. And what does that tendency mean for the public? Will the general public have access to the second ice pad or will it be Queens only. If not, this proposal makes no gain, no net gain for community users. In fact, it's going to get heavier use because of the closing of Central 70. And everyone's expecting sender 70 folks to come to the MC. So if one rink has taken out of the picture for public use, including local hockey associations, because Queens is now a player, an important player in this game of capitalization of public space. We make no gain. In fact, we're going to be tighter because of the movement from 77, centre 70 to us. I would like to remind Councillors, the Memorial Centre as a public amenity and serves an intense urban district, as John just described, as a green open flexible used vibrant recreational community space. We are already facing loss, as you've also heard from the, um, consultant that there will be loss of open space due to the covering of the pool and potentially the redevelopment of the Memorial Centre building. I stated in the staff report quote such an arrangement has the potential to leverage external investment, reduce the city's capital burden, support long - term facility, sustainability, and provide certainty for both parties. My question is, what does it provide for the public. And how much do we know about the nature of this relationship with this new leverage? We, the public need to see details of the relationship between Queens and the city for this public amenity. And what this means for public access. Given the specificity of financial planning for the MC in this report in terms of the twining of the ice pads, we urge you to separate the out the Memorial Centre and its grounds for more detailed review before proceeding to stage two. I don't think anybody wants to see a repeat of these soccer stadium proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Smolka. Please state your name and you have five minutes. Thank you very much. I almost don't know where to start and I'm impressed that the first two speakers had, uh, very comprehensive notes. Uh, I think the first thing I want to say is that, um, the turnout tonight should no way reflect how important council's Miss committee's decision is for the people of Kingston. Our recreational facilities are really important. And, uh, get a lot of use. And we care about them. So, um, I think that came out quite well in the consultants report. And I think the consultants report when reporting on what was heard seems to reflect. I mean, you just heard from his birthfoot that it reflects what Williamsville has heard at their town halls. And they're ongoing work. But when you go to page 29 of The Report, yes, I think it's page 29 of the agenda. And you see the visioning directions. This has led to a lot of concern, not just for me, but I think for people who have bothered to look at this report at this time of year when so much else is going on. And it's really vague about everything. Like I heard Commissioner Campbell say that, um, the market is protected. The fallfair is protected. But we know from history and I think Mr. Grenville made a good point about history. We know from history, the city has made attempts to get rid of the agricultural affair. And so having a visioning directions say just very, um, ambiguously annual culture agricultural events and support for local farming practices. I don't think that says enough about the agricultural society. And to celebrate it as 200th anniversary last year. And, and I think that is my overall concern. For what the committee is being asked to do. When you look at the motion before you, um, there's a gap between the consultants report. And the motion and the motion is kind of giving staff heart blosh to go ahead and plan and spend more money, um, I was a bit surprised when I was looking at the agenda for your March meeting that SPM already has a contract with the city for phase two. Whereas I would have thought phase two depends on your decision. And you're a few of the next steps. So I just feel this is getting ahead of itself in terms of the process. Good consultation. But then where are you going? And, um, I have the slide in front of me that the presenter presented on the process, um, I don't know if you can call it up. I know that's problematic. But in phase two, there's preferred conceptual designs. Capital redevelopment strategy, operational model financial and economic impact, engagement round two. And I would suggest to you, you've missed it on very important step. If you want the public to, to understand what's being proposed for, what did Miss Campbell say 150 million dollars. When we're already told we have 248 million dollars of infrastructure debt and we're hiding out water and wastewater to create more borrowing capacity. After the preferred conceptual designs, I think the public needs to know what they are. And I would suggest maybe, and this is where I found the report problematic. Obviously some architectural work has been done because there was an architectural company involved. But where are the details of which facility is really. At its end? I mean, we know the Memorial Centre isn't pretty. We know the ice freezing mechanism at centre 70 isn't great. Um. Portsmouth Olympic Harbour seems fine, although maybe not as efficient or whatever commercially profitable as it could be. But why, why aren't us in this process reflect coming back? Because I think, um, the presenter said we don't come with answers, but the staff report has pushed answers. So the, the consultants report is pretty general. And I'm very disappointed by that, uh, visioning directions on page 29 because it's so vague. Um, but I really think you need to bring the public along. You need to bring the public alone because you're going to expect money from the public. And that means coming up with something more concrete, telling us more about the architectural realities and being frank about how this parking is going to work at the Memorial Centre with two ice pads and a closed swimming pool, which is always going to have traffic there. And the 30 seconds. So I really hope that Councillounce, well, the committee will state a Council great report for phase one. We need to set some direction for the consultant to do the conceptual work for phase two. And maybe you need to know that the focus should only be the Memorial Centre. And let's get that done right. Or maybe the focus has to be centre 70. And we all need to know more about the relationship with Queens, which does feel an awful lot like the soccer stadium. They do not own this land. The public owns this land. And it should be public. Thank you. Your time is up. Uh, Madam Clerk, is there anyone else in our virtual land. Okay. Uh, we'll take this to staff to answer questions in whichever order you like. Who would like to go first. Director. Okay. So the questions. Will we restate the questions. For staff. I'm aware the comments in there. There were a few questions. Yeah. And every once in a while. So I have some notes, but, uh, I'm not sure what you guys jot it down. Um, perhaps I could get started chair and then Director El Grisma can feed in with the specifics on it. I think there were some higher level questions in there that I'm happy to address. Um, Mr. Grunville John understood a question to planning. And I think a question to Council about the OP consideration. Uh, we don't have more to offer on that tonight as you would have expected, but points are taken and understood. Thank you for that. Um, Ms. Barfout, um, I think the question of Queens exclusive use. Is certainly not the intent of that partnership, but also taking Miss Schmoka's comments as well about, um, this group and the public receiving more information about those Queens agreements. That is the intention of the phase two process and reporting back to this committee is also an expectation of the phase two process. So this is not direction that this committee would then recommend to council that Council would give to staff that would then see construction underway. Um, without additional opportunity to understand more about those processes, um, Queens is currently the second largest user of ICE at the rink, uh, at present, the largest is the church athletic league, um, we would expect that we would continue to see the ICUs similarly shared out amongst those groups. Um, I know that Mr. Garguero has been sort of whispering in one's ear and indicating it's a 20 year long agreement with Queens University on the use of the facility. It's actually something people cherish about the site is the ability to go and see those games played there. Uh, so certainly not trying to wrap up, um, concern around what that agreement looks like and suggest that that's an easy thing that no one needs to details on. Certainly the details will be forthcoming through the next phases of the agreement as well as the recommendations to Council that would be necessary to enter into any kind of binding agreement with Queens, which would be anchored in the development proposal for the site. Sorry, I'm looking at my own notes on the questions. Um. So again, just Miss Barfoot going back to the question around separating out the Queens components. That's the will of Council. But at this point there are check - ins that would be expected with this committee and up through Council or additional details would be shared. Um, and then to go back to Miss Schwalka, um, the question on the agricultural failure direction and why the direction was provided as it was to the consulting team really draws out of Council Report 25164, where again, Council endorsed a criteria that said that staff were to determine the feasibility of continuing to support annual agricultural events and the promotion of Kingston farmers and local farming practices. That is really where the consultant is taking their direction from, um, in that direction was upheld by Council and its confirmation of that direction. Um, and I think I've already commented on the coming back to committee and the process by which this will return to this committee and also up to Council. And I believe to the question of the twin pads, uh, in 2022, uh, Hugenboss that brought forward the twin pad concept based on discussions at that time. Um, and I will continue to, to look, um, back through those, but it has been a conversation that's been brought forward for a period of time now. Um, and is certainly upheld. Oh, sorry. Final comment maybe before I see if Director Elgima has more to share. Why is there an architect engage? The architects engaged as because the RFP was for the entirety of the project. And that will require an architect to advance fees to design and consultation on the design elements. Um, so that is why there is an architect on the consulting team at this point. Thank you. Director, do you have anything to add. Through you. No, thank you. Commissioner Campbell. I think covered it all. Um, I believe there was a question in them guards to, they were questioning the high priority of the twinning of the ranks. Cause apparently according to our public members, that wasn't a high priority. Someone could touch on that, please. Thank you. So from a service perspective, replacing both of those ranks is really, is a priority to continue to offer ice for the community. During the community engagement, um, staff had direction from council. On moving ahead with the twin padding of the, or exploring twin pad concept at the Memorial Centre. Um, so knowing that, uh, the community knew that that was part of the project. And so those elements that were listed in terms of what else are you looking for in addition to iCE? That's how that was framed because the exploring the Memorial Centre was already, um, Direction of Council. From the previous report. Commissioner. Yeah. Thank you. And through you. So it is report. It was an arts recreations and community policy's report. 22 - 002 or Council endorsed, um, criteria for the revitalization project at the Memorial Centre, which at the time included, um, the design options for enclosing the Colgan Outdoor Water Park, two ice pad consideration to move the site forward, community services hub in partnership with organisations. Um, indoor and outdoor year - round farmers market annual agricultural advance and the promotion of Kingston farmers and local farming practices, uh, design project impacts to net zero and continuing the legacy of the cytism Memorial to those who died in the Canadian armed forces. These criteria endorsed by Council in 2022 were carried forward in the criteria reaffirmed by Council following the soccer stadium consultations were additional inputs were received from community, which is why Council was then asked to reconfirm the criteria such that we could engage this consultation process with Council's Direction on those considerations. Thank you. And I believe that the other question was, uh, will public have, uh, access to the second ice rank. And I believe that actually is stated within the report. Can you please confirm that, please. Yes. That's an important piece of the partnership with Queens. Queens right now is a, is a very, um, large user of the site. And so the Queens functions are pretty important right now. And, uh, any, any agreement that we would bring forward to Council would need to include the community aspect and the use of ISA for the community. Thank you. And I believe this might be blended. I was mentioned that page 29 visiting directions. Bear to be very vague about everything. And the gap between what the consultant has stated and what's within the report. Would someone be able to touch on that, please? Uh, thank you. And through you, the role of the consultant is to reflect the consultation with community and reflect what was heard through the visioning conversations. And I think the consultant and as many have recognised an excellent job of representing those conversations. The role of the SAF report is to ensure that the anchoring of the consultants report reconnects with the Direction we've previously received from Council, as well as with other Directions and considerations before Council. These are not intended to be disharmonious, but the purposes of the two reports are not identical in their nature. So staff are certainly speaking to the Broader City considerations of how the information received through the consultants report would be understood to move this project forward. And then after we've received the direction, certainly the consulting team will begin the phase two work, which will allow for further detailed exploration and consideration, which will all receive community input and feedback. Staff will then also offer input and feedback based on their examination of the consultants findings. And Council will then have the benefit of considering both of those reports. Thank you. Further comments. So this closes are our Republic engagement portion. Uh, this report does bring a recommendation to Council. So I will need to move her in a second error. Councillor Stephen, Councillor Ridge, all those in favor. Okay. That passes unanimously. Brings us to our second item of business. Which is the playground accessibility plan. Staff having on top of the briefing. No pressure. You don't have to. You don't want to, but I'll give you the opportunity. Uh, no, the one thing that I would just like to share is that, um, this, the playground, um, the accessible playground tool is actually a really innovative, um, approach to, um, to assessing playgrounds. It's, it's really an advanced, um, kind of method in how we measure playgrounds and ensuring that we've got, um, accessible playgrounds. And it's a really great approach. I just wanted to make sure that we recognise that this tool is a really great tool. And, uh, we've actually received quite a bit of a, um, feedback and request from other organisations that would like to utilise this tool in the future. Um, so I just wanted to make sure that everyone kind of understood the importance of this tool and the great work that's been done here tonight. Ya subimos. Thank you Mr. Chair. I threw you. Um, in the report, it's, uh, its states that 2. 89 million dollars is going to be required for capital upkeep with our current park structure. What are we, what do we currently spend or what are we budgeting. Right now. For our capital, uh, expenditures for parks. So through you, Mr. Chair. Currently for the 2026 year, we have three playgrounds that are currently going in, uh, two of them would be considered the tier three. And because we had this playground or this plan in draft already, we are actually on target, uh, with a lot of the principles that we're speaking to, uh, integrated into those upcoming playgrounds. So we're looking at three, approximately 307, 000 per playground. So that's for the two tier threes. And then in addition to that, we also have a tier one playground as part of the Shannon Park Inclusive Playground Project. Now that funding for that particular project has been covered by, by partners, uh, through comprehensive, um, donations, um, but, but for this year, you can say approximately six, just over 600, 000 has been, uh, earmarked for, for playground replacement. Thank you. Yeah. The, just a quick comment. The Shannon Park accessible playground that's being built is a remarkable feat of, um, the will of public and private and volunteers all coming together. And I think it's fantastic what is taking place there. So. We have a ways to go to meet this criteria from what you just described in our current, uh, capital assessment going forward. So. It's going to take a bit. I believe Councillor Rage has already indicated his enthusiasm for accessible playgrounds. And I'm standing there right with him. Uh, I would like to see a stronger component for older adults. For our playgrounds. I know that when people think of playgrounds, they think of young children enjoying it or preteens. But we have a strong segment of an older adult population that enjoy our parks as well. And I think there needs to be a fuller lens in consideration of that. So happy to hear about the criteria and the mechanism that we're using moving forward. Um, can staff confirm that they're, I believe there is, but I just want a straight confirmation that there is a senior's component lens that we are looking at when we're doing our criteria verks. Yeah. So, uh, through you, Mr. Chair, yes, so in short, the, the playground component is a specific element, uh, tied to this particular plan. Um, but it is a component within a broader recreational lens and fabric. And definitely whether you're looking at active recreational elements for, for young children through youth through to adults and seniors, um, we would also want to ensure that we have the same for the passive, passive recreational humanities. And that, that, that goes part and part with, you know, again, youth younger adults, adults. And then through to, through to the seniors. And a key component of a successful park and playgrounds being part of that is the integration and how you design these public open spaces so that they, they are complementary. So whether we're talking about the tier three and tier two and tier one playground today, um, these elements all need to be complementary with the other, uh, recreational uses in the park system for, for different ages. Thank you. Uh, that's great. Um, from what I can tell and our tier ones clearly are, are identified as all age groups, zero to 100. Um, tier four or tier twos sound like they hint in that area as well. My concern is for the tier threes and bringing those, uh, standards if we can a little bit higher to support all ages. But, um, we're heading in the right direction. We're going to have a bit of a funding issue moving forward. And that's just normal for what we're dealing with. So. Thank you. And I appreciate the staff putting the work in on this. Well done. Council Ridge. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair. That was very impressive. You didn't even look at me. You knew my hand was up. Um, the, the only question that I have for this report, first of all, I want to say this is amazing work. Uh, that's been done. And was one that I alluded to, uh, earlier with the presentation is we have a lot of parks. We have a lot of tier three parks, right? And the work that needs to be done to get some of those park or playgrounds up to, um, a sufficient accessibility and inclusivity standard. Is it feasible to do all of this work within, you know, a 10 year span or 20 year spin. Yeah. So through you, Mr. Chair. Obviously in the report, uh, in the plan, uh, one of the big items that we were, we were tackling with was obviously the sort of the, I would say a very progressive plan with the tiering model. But at the end of the day, we have a number of baseline number of inventory for park. So we have 117 playgrounds identified, uh, many of them are the tier threes. There's going to be a challenge or an obligation for those playgrounds to be replaced within the life cycle that we've also identified. So in the, in the playground or in the plan, we have identified that playground typically rather their tier one or tier threes. They're typically going to be around that 20 year life cycle before the age out and need to naturally be replaced. So at a bare minimum, um, if we take that current inventory and then don't account for increases or decreases, you're looking at about just under six playgrounds that need to be replaced every year just to maintain that sort of base load service level. Um, certainly if you fund, uh, more than that, uh, you would be able to accelerate the replacement of the playgrounds, especially the sort of the backlog of the playgrounds that are aging out, uh, that, that were identified in the report. That could be possible. Obviously it's subject to a funding structure that could accommodate that. But you could fund for the first several years at a higher rate. And then bring down that, uh, that sort of backlog back to that sustainable replacement of about that five to six playgrounds per year. That's ideally, that's where we would want to get to, um, in, in the model of 117 playgrounds. Okay. Thank you very much. That's all. Mr Campbell. Thank you. And through you committee members won't be surprised to hear me comment on budget. I think pragmatically, as councillors are well aware, the budget pressures are, are significant. Um, I want to commend the parks team as well. And, um, and the recreation function more broadly. Not only are they looking at the call for action through the accessibility plan, but also looking at the geographic distribution and availability of an inventory of park resources across the whole of Kingston. So just looking at the order of priority on park replacement against life cycle renewal, if you will against as well, you know, geographically, are people going to be able to have something within a reasonable distance in their neighbourhood. So this is a great entry point into a budget conversation, certainly, but also a privatization opportunity to be looking at ensuring equitable access to park resources as much as we're able to manage within our existing budget constraints. Thank you. Any other committee member? Have any further questions. Okay. Um, well, I'm going to take this opportunity. Yes. Hold on. Um, sort of jumping on, we'll cancer Amos would say in earlier, guards to basically the age limit of the parks, especially the tier threes. I have very good experience with that. Cause sorry, my children basically age data them about age 12. And when they got a little older, it was much for them to do, especially when younger children came in, especially when they're playing on the one, the one play structure. So you could already be one or one age group working on it. Either you got your toddlers or you have your young adults playing on it. So are there futures, especially with the tier threes, regards to when we're designing our parks to include other age groups. I know we talk about inclusivity. And that's where I'm going to go down this aspect. Because we talk about other ages. Because we don't, if we don't have things for especially the young adults, even though we should have things for all ages, young adults will be doing things probably they shouldn't be doing. So either an extra play structure or even a half court basketball court. In order to keep them. Because we see basketball in that state of driveways everywhere. So just wondering what that vision is like. Thank you. So Mr. Chair, good, good questions. So I'll go to your last part. So with the, uh, obviously it's important back to how we design the parks as a whole, um, the playground is a component. And the good, you know, a good park development is to look at the programming of the entirety of the site with the amenities that support, uh, the community. So that, that would be, you know, the playground itself, um, but also those adjacent amenities like basketball, you know, your court surfacing pickleball tennis. And then into sort of the informal, uh, open lawn areas for, for, you know, frisbee and catch all the way up into your, you're more, you know, programmed formal fields and diamonds. So that's, that, you know, good design will capture that sort of broad, broad audience to ensure that there's something for everyone. Um, with respect to the playground design, there is still significant flexibility within, uh, how you can lay out and program the actual playground itself, even to a, to a tier three level, um, typically playgrounds are design and manufactured with, with a two to five age limit, um, many of the elements are, are designed for that. And then you have a, uh, sort of a six to 12 limit for, for older kids. That's sort of the traditional, uh, norm or categories. And depending on, on the size and how you configure the amenities, those can be integrated in an appropriate way to ensure that the minimum conflict with very young children and older children. And then when you're getting into the larger, uh, footprints, uh, if space permits, you're able to actually separate those, those two to five and five to 12 structures. Um, the other nice thing. The playground industry has evolved significantly from sort of that traditional platform base play. And what we're seeing now, we have more selection to do, uh, theme, play, natural play, uh, lots of rope and, uh, cord, uh, net climbing type play, which does tend to, uh, stretch out that sort of older age segment, uh, beyond the sort of the 12 sort of age out limit. Um, so, so what, what we've seen when we're incorporating those new, new pieces, there is just still that natural excitement and engagement that we can still bring, um, to the playground itself to help with, with extending the sort of the use to an older audience as well. I'm going to step further in regards to the older audience because I've been hearing lately about requests for outdoor. Exercise equipment. Um, and I've seen some in some smaller communities. We see them in some other areas. Are there any plans of having doves included within our future plants. Yeah. So, uh, Mr. Chair, to that question, definitely that would be a complementary, um, amenity that, that would be geographically placed throughout the city because it does provide a unique, um, uh, outdoor amenity requirement or, uh, use. It's typically, uh, very accessible. There's typically no, well, charge to use them, uh, they're a free amenity to the public. So as opposed to going to a paid gym in some cases, uh, typically the, the greatest benefit, uh, in, in location of those, those, uh, those outdoor exercise equipment pieces would be within a park typically on a looped or circuit type trail. However, they are typically not integrated. Into, into or near the play playground structures themselves. Just because they naturally look like play pieces. And often children tend to tend to use them as such. So, but, but definitely they, they are appropriate when, uh, when designed, uh, in the right space in the park system. Thank you. Um, now within the report, especially in table A11, uh, existing playgrounds inventory, we get quite a few parks. There are classified as fair poor, very poor. Um, I want to guess within the next plan, there's a schedule or a plan or to upgrade these. Yeah. So that, that question, uh, that comes back to, to the, it's a, it's the age old question of we would tackle the most poor, uh, items first. Obviously it's, it's a comprehensive of sort of three key components. We were looking at the playability factor. Um, the accessibility component that's especially, uh, outlined in this plan. And then of course the, the structural, um, rate of failure or aging out from a safety perspective. So between those three elements, we would prioritize the playgrounds that, um, that are in porous condition. And those would have to be prioritized for replacement, uh, first. And then again, back to sort of that financial component, you know, with that sort of bottleneck in that port, a fair category or very port of poor category. Those, those would need to be, uh, replaced because there will be a point in time where the playgrounds will age out and will require removal from a safety perspective. But if we're able to sort of follow that five and a half, six playgrounds per year replacement, um, that will, uh, level out the asset class over time based on its life cycle. Okay. Thank you. Um, now we had an inventory and a mapping of all the tier three parks. And I would tend to sink throughout the city. There's a fair distribution. However, I'm going to point out that what haven the cataract west neighbourhood. There's basically right now, I would say a parquet, which basically it's only good for anyone that's H5 Dunner. And there's a tier three park. For that size of area, they've been waiting 20 plus years for their, I'll say tier one park that's in the box. Why do we get to this point? Cause they're waiting so long for a tier three park, especially for the population area. They seem to be a mess. Cause even four years ago was going around, I was very quite disturbed on that aspect. That there was no place for the kids to go to play. And, um, and I'll talk to the tier three after that. Okay. Well, so to your question, and I'll, I'll plead, I guess, ignorant to a point as I'm relatively still new with the city. I can't use that forever. But, uh, understanding from a, from a park land perspective and planning perspective on parkland, that, that question will be, we are currently undertaking an update to the park master plan. And we're hoping to bring that forward, uh, as part of that, the official plan, uh, in 27. But with regards to the playground components, the playground that you're probably alluding to or, or that you're, that community requires or does need is going to be forthcoming and the upcoming catarachway, uh, West community park. So that will be a, uh, that will, you know, satisfy a significant deficit that is currently present as you've identified. Uh, once that park comes online, uh, that, that park, because it's a community level park, uh, it does have a higher level of service. Uh, the playground itself is, is, uh, designed to a higher level of service than what we consider a current tier three. So it would, it would likely fall in its current iteration, uh, just because it was designed just prior to the plan, probably closer to a tier two. However, uh, knowing that there is, there is that deficit. We have identified that site as a potential feature tier one, uh, given, given the geographic, uh, distribution of the other tier ones, uh, proposed across the city. Thank you for that. And that leads us into tier one discussion. Um, but like I said, they've been way a long time for that, that park concerning, it's been a void in that area, I'll say. Within the reporter, it also states the suggestions for tier one parks. And it's just one in the West End. And it suggests the carrot west park, Community Park or the new hospital site. All right. Discuss the fact that they've been waiting for a park. We're not going to have delays on this park. Are we not? Um. There have been a few delays and completion of this work. So I don't think, I think we may have a bit of a riot if this is not done by next year. Commissioner Campbell. Uh, thank you. And through you, um, and with respect to the chair and to the committee, the report before you tonight is really around the accessibility plan around the parks. And I know the team is intending through, uh, the September meeting to bring a quarterly update report to this committee. And I think within that report, there will be opportunity for the Parks team to comment on parks and development, timeline for parks, et cetera. So I certainly don't want to stop the question. Um, but I just also want to respect the fact that the staff, um, may not have all the information at their fingertips tonight to have a broadest of conversations about park development more broadly in the city at this time. Thank you. I can give you just one little tidbit on that, I guess. So with respect to the catarachway West community park, we are currently in the procurement stage. We expect the community park procurement for the, for the general construction tender to close in the coming weeks. And then we're still aiming or targeting the last part of the, for this 2026 year to begin. And then we are, we're still aiming for the same December 10th, 2027 construction completion date because that, that's what's in the, in the procurement package for the, for the tender community. Okay. So to confirm this tier one classification, it's not going to delay that. That's, that was based by main question. No, so, so yeah. So, so we're moving forward with how it is already designed. Again, it was designed before the tier system came out. Um, but we're just given that as a community level park, the community level park has a higher level of service than just a Motnica, a neighbourhood or local playground. So I would, I would say, if I was to compare, uh, playground type, it's, it's going to fall closer to that tier two range in the current upcoming design and construction. Okay. Thank you for confirming as quite certain all the residents in that area. It'd be very comfort in knowing that the. Remaining visitoring councillors. Okay. Um, do we have anyone in the public online because we don't have one, anyone here present. So if anyone online has any questions in regards to this report, uh, Miss Boca, you have five minutes. Thank you very much. Nikkishwalka. I just want to say that I hope in all the work that's going to be done on centre 70 in the Memorial Centre. And Portsmouth Olympic Harbour that everything in this report is integrated into that work. Um, cause that wasn't really clear to me. The presentations are nicely on the agenda tonight, but there wasn't a lot of cross - reference that I heard. And so that's really my point. I think, um, making playgrounds accessible is a really good initiative of this council. And I'm really glad to see this. It's a long time coming. Not sure this question there. Z. You want to comment on that. Okay. Um, thank you. So again, this is, this report comes with a recommendation. I need to move her a secondary. So we have Councillor Ridge and Councillor Amos, all those in favor. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. Um, we have no motions. No notice of motions, no other business. No correspondence. Data next meeting is scheduled for the arts recreation committee policy committee is scheduled for Wednesday, August 12th, 2026 at 6 p. m. And I need to move her in a second for adjournment. Councillor Steven Councillor Amos, all those in favor. And meeting is adjourned at. 836. Have a good evening.