Vision Zero plan and advisory committee redesign approved

Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I'm going to call the meeting to order the choosing March 25. 30 a. M. City council meeting. The first thing that we have. Is a closed item. If we can have a motion that the council of the city of Guelph now hold. A meeting that is closed to the public pursuant to section two three nine, subsection two f. Of the municipal act regarding advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. If I can have a mover cou. Councilor Alt and councilor Koran. Are there any opposition to that? Seeing none. Thank you. We will break and return for public session at 10:00.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Prior to the start of this public meeting, closed meeting was held with counsel to discuss item 3.4. Municipal franchise agreement with Enbridge, where council received information and. Provided direction to staff. Before we start the open meeting, just formal regrets were received from councilor O'Rourke and. Just. We will be taking a break at 1030 for 15 minutes to address an IT issue. Connecting that's affecting the chamber. So we will take a 15 minutes break so that it. Can come and help us problem solve with that, I would ask if you're able to. Please stand for a national anthem.

Thank you. Can we have a moment for silent reflection, please?

Thank you. And now, our indigenous territorial acknowledgment. As we gather, let us. Take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in Guelph, a city built over rich indigenous histories. We are guests here, and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land, the people. Who live here today and the generations to come. If our actions today can move us towards a reconciliation. We should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude. This place we call Guaff has served as traditional land and a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically, the adowonderock and the Hodin. No. Shone. This land is held as the treaty lands and territory with the Mississaugas of the credit First Nation. Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman tract and is part of a long established traditional hunting ground for the six nations of the grand river. Many first nations, Inuit and Mati peoples who have come from across Turtle island called Guelph home today. Are there any disclosures? The pecuniary

interests and general nature thereof. Seeing none. Can I have confirmation of the open minutes? Councilor Billings and councilor Downer. Is there anyone opposed? Seeing none that carries. Thank you. Item seven, committee. Of the whole consent report, we have a number. On consent. 7.1 2025. Property tax policy. 7.2 redesigning advisory committees of Council 7.3 governance review and 7.4 single use item strategy. Phase two, reusable containers. Are there any separations, Councilor Koran? Terms of reference for committee 7.2. Thank you. Anything further from council? Seeing none. What I'm going to suggest is that we approve seven. Point. One, three and four moved. Councilor Alt seconded. Councilor Galler. Are

you approving or you have questions, councilor? Katen and Mayor Guthrie, or is that in favor disapproving? Okay, so I was just trying to second it. So in other words, I'm approving to. Okay. So, anyone opposed to approving those consent items? I'm not quick enough. Seeing none. Those are approved. Can I get someone? To place recommendations. A consent item, recommendation 7.2. I've got councilor Clausen and Mayor Guthrie. Those are place moves seconded and. Councilor Quran. You'd like to speak to those? Yes. Speaking on the item related to heritage Guelph. And if you remember, Madam Chair, that I. Had placed an amendment that failed on a six six at committee. The whole and I've since had some discussions with our heritage planning staff. I want to thank staff. For that dialogue. That was very helpful to me. Understanding the needs of the committee, the technical experience and skills that are needed on that committee, and in the course of that conversation, I have an amended recommendation to

add some additional skills and expertise. To the committee. The addition of indigenous knowledge. And the addition of landscape architecture, and then. Clarifying statement related to library archives. And heritage and history education, and I've removed any reference to communications and media. That was in my previous. Amendment, and so placing that on the floor for consideration. Thank you. And do you have a secondary? I hope so. Councilor Downer. Thank you. All right, so the amendment, it was up on the screen, does everyone have that amendment? Okay, can you just put it back up on the screen, please? Councilor alt I was just wondering if it would be possible. Chair Busatille whether we could hear from staff, whether they support have any concerns. Or have anything further to add. Certainly through the chair.

Councilor alt. I was trying not to call you, Phil. So sorry. So through the territory council alt we appreciate the discussions with the councilor and have no issues with the amendment. Thank you. Are there any other further questions? Did we? Get the amendment up on the screen. Councilor Gibson. Were you able to capture it? Okay, good. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? I will call the question then. Is anyone opposed to the amendment? Seeing none that carries. Thank you. Now. I require a vote on the consent item 7.2, as amended, please. Is anyone opposed? No, that carries in SO 7.2 as amended. Carries. Thank you. Items for discussion. We have vision, zero action plan, we have a delegation. And this is not in person, I believe.

Good morning, Morgan. Can I just get you to turn your camera? Oh, there you are. Got you. Sorry, a little dark. Give you a minute. Okay. Thank you. So the five minutes presentation, and then after your presentation, we. Will ask council if they have any questions of a clarifying nature. Go ahead. Thank you very much. Chair bosatill. And mayor counselors. I really just want to say thank you for putting together vision zero with staff, making sure that. Nobody. Is killed on our roads due to a collision. One of the things that. I really noted during. The workshops last week. There were a number of counselors. That. Were saying that one of the things that they really wanted to make sure. Didn't have any degradation. In budget is transit. We've already stretched transit. So called improvements.

I call them bringing things. Up. To a world class level. I have to go to a doctor's appointment today. And if I have to take regular transit, I'm going to have to go on three. Buses. I'm super glad that I've got the ability. To use the mobility transit. And be able to have door to door service. But if I didn't have that option. I would literally have to take at least. Three separate buses to get from the ward. To Stone road mall, essentially. So one of the things that. I believe really needs to happen as we are working through Vision Zero. Is that we remember two things. One. Cars are the things that create. The congestion within the city. And two. Our transit system. Does

not work. In a way that allows the majority of our residents to be able to have transit as an option. There was a challenge issued to counselors, not this iteration of council, but in the past. To take. A week and use transit solely as their mode of transportation to get around. And from my memory, the only one that actually made a commitment to even trying was councilor. Alt and he found that. It was literally impossible for him to be able to use the transit system in the city to be able to get around to his meetings in the city. We were. Talking. About. Parking. And one of the things that will happen as we improve our transit system. Is that less people will feel that they are obligated to have a car. The other thing

that will happen is our employment system. Our employers will be happier because. Their employees will be able to get to and from work without having to create more traffic congestion. Because they have to use a car in order to get to work from where they live. I've used transit since I was two years old. My grandmother never had a driver's. License. I am a strong advocate for transit. I didn't even get my driver's. License until I was forced to by my mother at age 19 because the transit system. Where I grew up. Was such that I could get anywhere in the city that I wanted to be without having to. Use a car. Easily and quickly. Wealth needs to rapidly move to. A grid system. Modified grid because of the way that our streets are. But we need to move. To that modified grid system as quickly as possible, because one of the things that's going to start happening as our economy is. Being decimated.

By the leader down south is people are going to have to give up their cars. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for the delegation? Seeing none. Thank you very much, Morgan. Okay, so can I have the motions put on the floor, please? I've got councilor. Alt councilor galler seconded. So the motions are on the floor. Are there any separations? I'm looking to Mayor Guthrie. There we go. Thank you, Marigutri. Thank you, madam Chair. So I did send a couple of amendments to my colleagues and to clerks. And based on. Your leadership. Here. Chair. Busatill. You had indicated that you'd maybe like to go in order. Of one before the other. Which one would you like to do first? I'm sorry, I. Just can't remember. Thank you. So you are speaking to recommendation number

one and in particular, the action item number four. In the attachment. If you can do that one. And then number 57. Next. And clerks have that. Perfect. So we'll go in the right order. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm just waiting for. I think clerks are putting it up on. The screen. My apologies. There it is. Okay, so it's that action four of division zero. Guelph action plan for safe streets. The implementation of the quality transit network, including the conversion of general tropic liens to dedicated. Traffic lanes be amended to require city council approval prior to the implementation. And I just need a seconder for that. I think councilor Billings had mentioned. I think it's pretty straightforward that. If anything warrants the removal of the liens, that has to come back to council, so. We have that heads up in that discussion at that time. Both pros and cons. To why that's being recommended. And that

the line of sight for that decision is done in the public realm with the elected council to have. That input at that time. That's it. I'll just stop there. Too, to see if there's anything further. Thank you. I have councilor alt. Thank you. Very much. Chair Busatille thank you, Mayor Guthrie, for putting that forward on principle. I don't have any concerns with what is presented, but I would like to hear from staff because I think that. This is possibly an issue of implementation that might require some authorities, and I just want to get clear if there is any opposition or if it's clear sailing. Thank you through your chairman's Delta councilor alt certainly from a staff perspective, implementing the quality transit network is direction that we have from council through the approval of the transportation master plan. In 2022. At that same time that I say that, of course, staff are aware that things can continue to change over. Time with respect to implementing a transit system that has a change to. Physical lane use on the roadway system is certainly something. Staff will review, analyze the data and sort of come forward with that

appropriate recommendation. In terms of timing on when we think. It's appropriate to implement that type of system. So there's no concerns with coming. Back to council with respect to an approval like that. But from a staff perspective, we do feel like that approval already is in place. Thank you very much. With that. I don't think I have any problems supporting the amendment. Thank you. Is there anything further from any other councilor? Councilor Gibson? Speaking in support. Just experience has shown me over the years that we approve a policy or we approve an approach. And decisions are made. And it's tough for some residents to see those changes and then come to council and say, why did you approve this? Why did you approve that? And the easy answer for counselors is, well, I didn't approve that. I approved a policy that resulted in that. And I think that I'm welcoming of the accountability where we make tough decisions when it comes to transit. That. It should be. A committed decision of counsel. So that we can look our constituents in the eye and say we didn't just approve. A strategy that resulted in that decision.

We don't want to hide behind. Our staff. We need to be making those decisions. In the public, and that's why I support on the big items, this stuff coming back. To council. Thank you, councilor chu. Thank you, madam Chair. And through you. Yeah. I just want to say I have every confidence in our staff, and they've demonstrated as well that. They're very thoughtful and prepared whenever they come to us. And even when they liaise with us behind the scenes through email conversations, But for me it's a very practical matter. Pertaining to my ward and I would assume ward five as well. Just on Gordon street, we're? Going to experience. A lot of big changes coming up in the near future. And in the medium and long term as well. There's going to have to be a discussion on how are you going to be more efficient with transit, especially with Route 99. So I think a public conversation would really help put people at ease and help just be radically transparent. And I think that's kind of the age. In which we're living in now. And our staff are very capable, so I have every

confidence that we can facilitate those conversations when needed in an appropriate way. So I just want to say it really resonates with me. So I appreciate everyone's support on this. Thank you, Councilor Chu. Anything further? Seeing nothing. I'll call the question on the amendment. Is anyone opposed? Seeing none. That's unanimous. Thank you. Back to you, Mayor Guthrie. Thank you, madam Chair. And through you. Excuse me. The second one is going to, I think, come up on the screen here. And this is more of an advocacy. Type of motion, but. It's just in regards to action 57, the plan for safer streets be amended to add the words and testing. So it reads as follows. Review. And support. Enhanced driver education, training initiatives and testing with the Ministry of Transportation. And that's it. I'll look to see if there is a seconder. Councilor Clawson seconded. Go

ahead. I'll be quiet. Are there any speakers to this? Councilor Galler? Through you. Church. Just a question to staff whether they had any concerns about adding the word testing. And just to confirm that we're all on the same page, when someone's taking. Their license tests on street. Through the charity council are no concerns from staff. Is there anything further from any counselors? Seeing none. I'll call. The question is anyone opposed? Seeing none. That is unanimous. And now. We're going to place the recommendations. One, as amended. Two and three, call. The question is. Anyone opposed? Oh, sorry, Councilor Galler, if I make questions. Chair. Thank you. Through you to stop. I just wanted to ask. I have received a few questions and I wanted. To ask about action item 58, the one that talks about advocating to the Ministry of Transfer to enhance minimum standard for winter maintenance. I just wanted to ask. Since council is approving the advocacy to improve this, is there any opportunity

for the city of Guelph to actually increase our standard for winter maintenance. Around cycling. And pedestrian safety. In advance of the ministry changing the regulations province wide. Or do we really have to wait for the province to change their guidelines for the whole province? And then. We can do a little bit more hearing wealth. So through the chair to councilor Galler. And I do see my colleague, Doug Godfrey, is. In the audience, so he may want to add to this, but I think certainly we're always looking at how we can improve. And learn from our practical experience. And as new infrastructure gets implemented, Certainly that's something that. We can continue, improve our practices with at the same time, improving our levels of service. Would really probably be a budget enhancement, like a service enhancement through budget that our staff would have. To, I think, consider and bring back at a future time. And so improvements come with the cost, and I think it's kind of that straightforward. Okay, I appreciate that. And one other follow

up. Many of the messages that I saw from constituents talked about feeling that there was a little bit of a gotcha with the automated speed enforcement. I think many people did not realize that it was happening. So just to clarify, when the next round we're going to have more. Automated speed cameras in place. Will there be any additional measures to make sure that. It's more clearly visible that on this road there is a speed camera. Like using ballards or some other physical tools. Through the chair to Councilor Gauwler. So when we put out a speed camera, it's fairly prescribed for the province. The sign requirement. What we have done is we have put up additional signs. There's redundancy in the signs. And as we talked about at the workshop and committee, the whole. We also put it on our website. Typically, local media picks it up as well. We do a public release once a year with all the locations, so we're trying to be as transparent as possible. While also sticking to the guidelines and requirements from the province. Okay, just so that I'm clear. Did you say that you put up additional signs

above the minimum requirement by the province? Council through the chair council. What we do is the sign that goes up municipal speed camera and use sign. It's very prescriptive. It's set up by the province, what we do. Is we put up two or three of those signs. That way, if one gets stolen a pole. Gets knocked down. We're not relying on one singular sign we have some redundancy. To cover us off in the event something unforeseen happens. I really appreciate that, and I'm really excited to see these changes come into place. Thank you. Thank you. Chair. Thank you. Is there anything further? Yes, Mayor Guthrie. Thank you. As quick as possible. Seeing the time frame there, just because of the. It thing. So I just have a question through you, madam chair. To staff. Can I just. Get an answer. On. I have to ask this in the public realm, because it needs to get out in the public realm. The time for processing these speed enforcement camera tickets. How's that going? Because that is

the main complaint. That. People 30 days later are getting the tickets, and the argument from them is if this is supposed to be about safety and change of behavior. Then why aren't I knowing in a much quicker time frame? So, can I hear from. Staff about how that's going on the processing and, or is there anything else that's coming that can start to make people more aware. That they are getting a ticket. And it's processed faster. Through the chair to Mayor Guthrie. We've actually had an update from our vendor lately that they're working on. The ability to get the images to the processing center. Basically day of. So that's being piloted right now. So. I am hopeful. Certainly by the time we do the expansion. Point for August 1 that that process might be in place. Okay. That's much better. And then my last quick question is. Do you happen to know? The high level

percentage of tickets issued. Within. A certain. Most vulnerable times. Compared to sort of off times that are occurring. There's a narrative. Of 03:00 in the morning type of tickets or things like that. And I'm not wanting to get into any details at all about when something's on or not. Or implemented or not. I don't want to get into any of that because people. Should be following the speed limit. But. I am curious to know, are the bulk of tickets happening? Around. The moment where it's most vulnerable. For our pedestrians, our walkers, our bikers. Our school kids that are around these school community safety zones. What is the percentage there? Is it high? Is it 50 50? Through the chair to Mayor Guthrie. When we going to be putting cameras in? For the ase we are

looking. At places and looking to have those cameras operate at times when. Our most vulnerable users of the road are at most risk. Okay? Again those cameras. Are always in operation. So I think you can expect that. If you are breaking the law, that there are times when. You are going to be getting a ticket. Are they operational? All the time. I would say no, but those. Times that what we are trying to do, the whole purpose of the program, is to protect those most vulnerable uses in those places where they are at the most risk. So I don't. Have a percentage specifically for you. I can tell you that the tickets that are issued. Are. The bulk of them would be during those times. Okay, thank you. That addresses my second question, so with that, I'm done. Madam Chair. Thank you for the time. Thank you. We have 1 minute before we do our it exercise. Councilor Gibson, is it? 1 minute. Sure. Perfect.

Thanks. Just comments. One quick question. Is there any time? The most effective speed reduction tool that I've seen in our city. Is the center Lane. Ballard. When. Literally. Residents slow down to a crawl to pass those things they don't want to hit. Their window or hit the side of the car. Is there any way we can in the summertime? Anyway, or the non winter season. Sort of use them together. And this is a question to staff, where we have our cameras in place. But we also have those central line balls because that, in my experience, has really helped a long range. For example, in my end of town, everyone slows down when those things are in. Place. Maybe a question to staff. Can we use them together? Through the chair to Councilor Gibson. Let me take that away and I'll get back. To you. I don't offhand no reason why we couldn't, but I don't. Have all of the ase regulations. Voted under my. Hard job here, so let me take that away and just confirm if there's any issue. With that. But I appreciate the feedback and suggestion. I appreciate that, Mr. Anderson, because, again, I do want to support this. Maybe a message from myself to the residents that I've spoken to. Is that? This should never be seen and should never be

intentionalized as a revenue stream for the city. The idea is that we receive zero revenue because no one is speeding, and that's the message that I really want residents to hear, that the core purpose of the cameras is to keep school zones safe during those core hours. And I think residents, by and large, accept that. I think that the frustration comes again with the delay in receiving a ticket or if you're not the actual driver and perhaps a spouse. Or a child is driving your car, you're the one who gets the ticket. That being said those are all small pieces. The effort here is to protect. Vulnerable areas. And residents of our city during core hours of those vulnerable times. And again, just from my experience, thanks to Mayor Guthrie for asking those questions to staff because those have been important for me to hear. And again, my message to the city is it's not a revenue stream, it's. Not seen as and should never be a revenue stream. Ideally, we'd be spending money. On this and having zero revenue because there would be no tickets being issued because. Everyone's driving the speed limit through these areas. So thanks very much, chair busatill. Thank you, Councilor Gibson. So we're at 1031. I'm going to call.

The question is anyone opposed to. The vision Zero recommendations, as amended. Seeing that carries. Okay, we're going to break now for 15 minutes so we can work. Together to resolve the it connection to chamber issue. Thank you.

Thank you, councilors. And thank you especially to it for walking us through this problem solving exercise. Next on the agenda is item 8.2, which is public space use bylaw, proposed amendment. Mayor Guthrie would like to speak to this. And then we have one delegation. Chair. I guess it would probably be more appropriate for the delegation to go first, and then now we can move from there. Okay. Thank you, mayor. We're going to try to reach out to Morgan dandy, give 1 minute. Oh, there she is. God, her. Hi, Morgan. Can you hear me okay? Yes, councilor. Okay, perfect. So you have your five minutes. And 30 seconds before the end of your time. You'll hear the time and just wrap up for that. And then afterwards, if you could. Stay online for any questions from counselors. Okay? Thank you. Welcome. Thank you very much. Chair Busatel I had actually kind of hoped to hear what Mayor Guthrie had to say about this amendment prior to

saying anything. Because. I'm not really sure what the point of this amendment is. The fact that there is an amendment having to come through. To me. Speaks. To how quickly. This bylaw was put into place. And the reason that I put my name up is because the one person that I know would have been advocating. Today is not able to do so, and I'd like you all to remember that. Kate nixon. Was named for several awards. And most recently, it was the Guelph Community Builder Award for leadership and vision. As a young leader. You all know Kate. You all know that. She speaks truth to power, and she continues to do so. Through those whose lives she greatly affected. I'm one of those. Lives and the fact that. We're here. Having to revisit the public

space use bylaw once again shows to me that this was done too quickly. Without proper consultation. And that the most vulnerable amongst our citizens. Are being. Further. Criminalized. I just have a really hard time. Criminalizing my neighbors that are unable to afford. A place to live. And are unable to use. Our inadequate shelter system. And the reason I say inadequate shelter system is because I know. That if the person that I rent from were to tell me that I had to leave, I would not be able to use a shelter because of my service dog. I've said this. Before. And I know the city can't control the shelters. With the combination of the public space

used bylaw with the closure. Of the supervised consumption sites. Is going to cause more issues within this city. That's all I have to say, right. Now. Thank you, Morgan. I'm just going to look around the circle and on the screen to see if there are any questions of the clarifying nature. No questions. Mayor Guthrie thank you very much. Morgan thank you again. Did you want to say a couple of words. Thank you. Chair busatill. No. I think I would like to move into a closed session. For legal advice on the issue with my colleagues and to hear from our legal and I think that might be proper to do that first. Before. Coming back out into open session to consider the amendment. Thank you. So councilor Galler says he's going to second that. And there is a resolution up there on the screen. If I will read it, that's okay. Council of the city of Guelph now hold a meeting that is closed to the public. Pursuant to section 2392, subsection F of the Municipal

act, regarding advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. And so that's Mera Guthrie and. Councilor Galler. Anyone object? Seeing none. We're going to go into close. Thank you.

Hi. Councillor Chu. Hi. Carrie, is that you? It is, yeah. You know how long they're. Going to take? I am not sure how long they will take. You could try joining closed if you like. Oh. Are they enclosed or. They are enclosed, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Not a problem.

Thank you to everyone. Just reporting back from the closed meeting. The summary is that information was received by council on item. 8.2. And so right now, I'm going to look to council chambers to see if there's anyone that would like to speak to this item. I've got Katen. No, madam Chair. I haven't tabled the motion yet. Okay. All right, go ahead. All right. Thank you so much. Through you, madam chair. Just wondering if the clerks could put the motion up on the screen. Under public space use bylaw proposed amendment that the definition of sensitive public space in section 3.51 of the bylaw 2002 420990 be amended to add after the words includes but is not limited to the words any public space that shares a property line with a school. Or childcare center. And I believe. That is secondary by Councilor Guller. I just want to confirm if that still stands. You got a nod there. I don't know if you saw. Okay. No, I

can't. Thank you so much. So with that, if I could just take a moment to table my reasoning. So this has come up to me. Maybe it's not coming up to some others, but. It has percolated quite a bit since last fall. And there is a lot of concerns that I'm hearing from parents, from educators and others. That this maybe should have been defined as sensitive areas in parks and, sorry, schools and daycares. Right from the get go. And I think that by adding this definition, And this example into the definition of the bylaw that it does provide clarity around what council would feel, if approved by council, that these are sensitive areas that. Abut and not only schools and daycares, but. Are also. Used quite often. I'm. Hearing of Easter egg hunts coming up. Where? The kids. And the volunteers and the teachers are going to be hiding the eggs all over not only their own school property, but maybe into the adjoining public

spaces. And there's concerns that these public spaces where it is concerned to be sensitive for our children. Could be used in other ways. That cause friction. And cause sensitivities. To what those public spaces really, in my mind, should be used for, and in others as well. I just want the council and the public to know that I did send this out to all of the school boards, not just the heads. Of the boards, the chairs, but to the administration side as well. Now, the timing of some of their meetings on both the French, the Catholic and the public, maybe did not meet up with today's meetings, but I did receive confirmation from the catholic school. Board both. From their. Chair of representing the board, also from the administrative side of things, from the catholic school board that they passed a motion in full support and full endorsement of this amendment. That they too have heard many concerns from parents and teachers alike. So I thought

I would just. Express that as well. I also wanted to say that. The motion does impact around. 27 areas, give or take, out of the around 119 areas that are across the city. It is. About a 22% impact, if we could put it that way. And look with that. I don't want to. Belabor the amendment of this. I think it's straightforward. I don't mean that to be in any way controversial. I sincerely don't. I am trying to speak. To the issue based on the feedback that I am hearing from parents, teachers, volunteers and others. And I would rather make. This clarity. Come forward from counsel. In a way that gets that clarity out in the open, transparently, for everyone to realize. What we feel is sensitive. I will just say that. Just an hour or so ago. We took a unanimous stance that we would

like to have sensitive areas around our school zones when it comes to speeding. And at the same time. I think. That decision speaks somewhat. To this as well. And I think the public spaces that. Abut schools and daycare centers should. Be defined as sensitive areas and for the enjoyment of those people that would be using them, especially our children. With that. I'll just leave it at that and see how the conversation goes. Thank you. Madam chair. Thank you. So I've started a speaker's list. I have, councilor. Katen Alt and Karon. Councilor Keith. Thank you. Through you, madam Chair. I have a concern with the speed at which this is being brought forward and the lack of public engagement and feedback. I think. While cars are a known risk, people living in tents are not necessarily the same level of risk. To people in school areas, and I think that. It should be brought forward to groups that could be very much affected by this, like

the AAC. Because the unhoused population has a very large disability. Community contained within. And I would like to make a motion to refer this to be reviewed by the AAC because I believe there may be unintended consequences to the disabled community that I'd like to know about before making a decision on this. And I've sent a motion to the clerks. I apologize. I wasn't able to email it out. Because I am locked out of my email. Thank you. And do you have a seconder for that? Councilor alt. And it's up on the screen. So my motion is, can we put it back up? Thank you. That the public space use bylaw proposed amendment be referred to the accessibility advisory committee. Thank you. Speaking to the amendment? Mayor Guthrie. Thank you. To you, madam. Chair to staff. Is this a requirement? That needs to happen from a process point of view. And have any staff members

heard of this motion prior to now? Or was there any feedback from anyone for the last almost two weeks that this motion has been transparently. Tabled. Has there been any feedback at all? So through the chair. Answering in reverse order. In terms of feedback that we have received, I had one single inquiry from the poverty task force. Who had simply a question about the resolution that the mayor added to the agenda. That was the only inquiry that we as staff received from anyone. Over the last two weeks since the agenda has been posted. There was a single delegation that you heard from this morning, but to my awareness, we've had no other. Inquiries or questions come in through staff on this. And know. My understanding is that it is not a requirement for the AODA to consult with the AAC, it would be at council's discretion. Well, thank you. And two through, madam chair to the clerks. Did any correspondence come in on this matter

that's been transparently posted for two weeks? Through you, Mr. Mayor. Or through you, madam chair. To you, Mr. Merritt. There was no correspondence received. For this agenda item. Okay, thank you. And to the mover, did you make other members of council aware of. This referral motion prior to you tabling it just now. Yes, I had talked to the chair about it, and I had talked to clerks about it, and. I would have emailed it had my email been operational, but it was not, so I came down. In person to make sure that I would be able to. Talk to folks and let them know. So I had a technology issue, and that's why I wasn't able to send it out to all of council. So my last question to you, madam Chair, is. To the mover. How many other people on council knew about your motion of referral because I certainly didn't. And yet I've been transparent for the last two weeks on this motion. So I'm just wondering how many other people on council knew about this and. Not me. I'm sorry, is that

a question for me? Yes. I sent it to the chair. This morning. And then we had our technology issue. And so I wasn't able to send it to other people. I only thought about it this morning. I am not sure what the intent of your question is. Well, just about transparency, madam Chair. That. This feels like I got you a moment, I must admit. So I'll leave that as my comment on this, I will not point of ordering a referral. Please. We have had referrals that have come up at the spur of the moment quite frequently. And we have never had a question like this. And I would ask the chair to determine whether this kind of questioning and dialogue is appropriate. We are bordering on points of personal privilege. Thank you. I think we can end this convers. Conversation. I think Councilor Alta is right. We've had other motions coming from the floor. May I finish then, madam Chair? Thank you. I feel like this is coming out of the blue when an opportunity

may have been presented to inform all of council, including myself, as the mover, and I have every right to be frustrated. That from what I would feel as an opportunity to give people a heads up, including me, as the mover was not provided to me. When I do know that others. Were informed. And so with that, I do not feel that the referral is necessary. I would ask my colleagues to not approve the referral. We are elected officials that are here to make decisions. And I think this is a moment for us to make a decision. And I've also been told. That the matter about the implementation of the bylaw has already once gone through the acC. And I appreciate that we would just make a decision today on this matter. Thank you very much. Thank you, Maric Arthri. I have councilor Koran, alt and then Galler. Thank. You. And I have a question about the amendment, but I do want to say that. I was not informed by the mover that a referral was coming, and I do find that the line of questioning is quite uncomfortable. And again, borders on points of personal

privilege. My question about the amendment has to do. With. The inference that by posting it on an agenda that is. Public. It absolutely is public and it's absolutely transparent. And I agree with the mayor that two weeks on an agenda. Lets those who regularly read council agendas know that it's coming. But the mover also indicated that. You informed other agencies, school board. Trustees that this was coming, and I'm just wondering. It speaks to the referral. In that the pause for the AAC would also allow a pause for other agencies, like school. Boards to have more time to respond. But my question is to the mover of the original. Motion, so I hope it's in order. When the school boards and daycare centers were informed, at what point did you send an email? To those agencies and organizations, letting them know, because they aren't necessarily agencies and organizations that would be looking at council agendas. So

at what point did you send the email to them? Yes. Do you? Madam chair to councilor Koran? You would know that because I sent a transparent email to all of counsel indicating that I was bringing this motion forward about two weeks ago. And in that email I stated that I would also be informing. The school boards. So in the past, when we've had anything in regards to school board issues. One of the complaints I've heard from members of council is that. We have not actually proactively reached out to them, so. I did that based on the previous times when these types of issues have arisen. So all of council was aware that I went to the school boards. Yeah, I understand that and appreciate that. The email that we got informing us about your amendment and thank you for the two weeks notice. When did. That would be informing school boards. When did the email to the school boards go out? Was it the same day. I think so. I'm sorry, I don't have it in front of me. Sorry, ma'am. Chair. I think it was either the same day or the next. I can't

recall. Oh, actually, I remember now. It was the day before the agenda went public because I did not perform a courtesy point of view. I did not want them to find it on the agenda. So it was the day before. Okay. Thank you. Those are the end of my questions. Can we speak to the referral? Because. I see some merit. In having a little bit more transparency. In agencies knowing that this was coming. I agree. Being on a public agenda is transparent. But many of those organizations, such as schools boards, don't have an opportunity to meet to discuss a matter as a board so that they can adequately respond. I mean, certainly a chair could. Respond. But the chair may not be responding on behalf of their organization because they haven't. Had an opportunity to meet. That's where I'm wavering on. My support of the referral is whether there's benefit to having that additional time. Thank you, madam Chair. Thank you. I have councilor. Alt and then Galler. Thank you very much. Chair Busatille I

will support. The referral. And there's one very simple reason for that. I cannot support the motion as it currently stands because I'm very concerned about charter challenges. Challenges in the court. And it strikes me that if we do not have some sort of input, from the Aac. As an advisory committee of council. What we are doing is that we are playing with some fundamental principles in canadian law, including. Mobility rates. And really, the questions. Of life. There are people whose lives. Are actually being put. In a rather uncomfortable situation as a consequence of this, and until such time as I'm quite confident that we are not in the position where we are opening something up that actually can have ramifications far beyond Guelph. I can't support this particular resolution, so. I thank councilor Katen for bringing this forward, even if it was not brought forward. In such a fashion that I would have learned about it a week or two ago. Thank you, Councilor Galler. And then Richardson. Thank you, chair. There was a question

asked about. How many people have written about this? I personally received five emails from constituents. And the property elimination task force with concerns about. This change to the public is bylaw. But going back a little bit, when the bylaw was first put into place, I received concerns. From close to two dozen people. About specifically? The bylaw permitting income is to be set up in areas close to schools. So I think we've heard from both sides, people that are concerned about this happening. And. Speaking to specifically? To the amendment, to the referral. I think it would not hurt us to have hear from more people from the ex's ability advisor committee on the impacts of this change. It is a sensitive issue. And I think the more voices that we hear from to make a better informed decision. I think that would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you. I have Councilor Richardson and then Gibson. Thank you. Through you chair busatel. And I'm not sure if my question is for staff. But if I understand correctly,

this is not a change to the bylaw. It does. Not affect the material impact of the bylaw, but it's only a clarification. So I'm questioning why we would need. To. Go back for more input when we're not really changing anything but just trying to make the bylaw more clear. So through the chair to council Richardson. So under the bylaw. There is the provision for defining what is a sensitive public space. And if you think back to at the end of August. You as a council voted to designate St. George's Square and Market Square as sensitive public. Spaces. So you have that ability within the bylaw to. Make that determination as to how sensitive public space is defined. So to your question, it is not fundamentally changing the bylaw. It is simply adjusting the definition of sensitive public space, as you did. Back in August for those two locations. If this were to. If the motion as presented were to pass, you would simply be amending. The definition of sensitive public space to include those. Properties, those public spaces that share a property line with a school or a childcare center. So it is not changing

the bylaw. It is simply adding. An additional definition under that sensitive public space. Thank you. Thank you. Just a reminder, council, that what we are discussing is the referral motion to the accessibility advisory committee. Not. The original motion. So I have Councilor Gibson and then councilor Downer and then councilor. Cayton. Through you chair of Bustel. I thought to pose a question, but I won't. I'll just leave it at comments. I believe this amendment has been brought forward. In a transparent way. It's been public for two weeks. Lots of people have asked questions. Lots of people have inquired. I know. This referral is coming up as a bit of a surprise, but. The concerns I've heard around council, around charter risks and charter challenges, and the depth of expression. My comment would be. Why has the motion come forward with simply focusing on the AOC like the accessibility advisory committee? With the depth of concern that

has been expressed around counsel, you would. Think that surely there's more groups that we would want to hear from, but it's. Not. It's being singled into one committee. That's going to be targeted on consultation. Be given. An opportunity, a proactive opportunity to weigh in when there's been two weeks to do. So. It doesn't seem like there's concern to. Have this sent out to all of our advisor committees or all the user groups or all the different stakeholders across our city. And so I struggle with targeting to one committee, and for those reasons, I think the immaterial nature of the amendment, the clarity that brings, I just don't. Believe it needs to be sent to one committee at this time. Thank you. Councilor Gibson, both councilor Galler and councilor Koran raised other stakeholders. You're welcome to make an amendment to the referral motion for broader consultation or engagement. If you'd like if that would make you more satisfied with this. Thank you. Through chair. My comment

was just. Around. The dialogue that I've heard from council. That. I'm just surprised. That the angst that has been expressed about the lack of input would only be limited to one. To the extent that's been expressed, that it's only been extended to one committee. So what I'm saying is, I don't believe that. My opinion is that I don't believe that it has to be consulted on. To any further extent. I believe it's been a very transparent process, similar to a notice of motion that would come forward from council, and so I believe it's time to make a decision. Thank you. I have Counselor Downer and then councilor Cayton. Yeah. I'm just ruminating on this, but I don't think it needs a referral. It's a further clarification. Of that specific part of a bylaw that has already gone through public consultation and. It's 20. I think it's around 22 parks out of 120 that are further defined. I don't see it any different. Than the original bylaw and how. That was managed. It's not a ban.

You need to move here. As we've had before. And that was. Handled quite well. You heard at our last joint social service committee that. There were eleven encampments. Eleven people living in encampments right now. And I would say that the bylaw also helped people get into shelters. And housing. And when you read the reports coming from the county, We're moving along. It's not perfect, and it certainly hasn't been solved. But. I just see this as a further clarification of the existing bylaw, and I don't know what other accessibility issues, and I know the ACC did not support the original bylaw and I know there are council members that didn't support the original bylaw. But I don't see this as fundamentally different. Than what we passed before. Thank you. I have Councilor Keaton. Thank you. Through you chair. So while the addition to the bylaw may

not be significant, the amount of property that it affects with the change is significant. We have John McCray School, Mitchell Woods, Mary Felon, the WCA, Fred Hamilton, Wells outdoor school hearts and smile daycare. They all border on very large green spaces. And so the effect and the cumulative effect. On people who are unhoused, trying to understand the bylaw. Find a place. Be able to move within those spaces because the further you push them out. Find a border chair. This sounds like. A justification for voting against the amendment, not a justification for voting for or against the referral. This is directly speaking to why I want the AAC to provide feedback on it, because. It's a large area that wasn't considered when the AAC originally provided feedback. Councilor Gibson. I'm just going to rule it in order. Thank you. And so this is why I want to refer it to them. And while we did have

two weeks. Based on? Our processes. The aac. Meets every two months. They don't have the ability. To meet directly. On something with two weeks notice. And provide feedback or create delegations. So I'm asking that they're given the opportunity. To provide feedback. On this process. Thank you. So I have councilor Chu and then mayor Guthrie. Thank you. Through you, madam chair. For me. The intent of. This amendment. In other circumstances, I would be very happy to. Allow the aoc. To have more consultation, but I do want to stress, I think the intent of. The original motion is an act of good faith and transparency. And the fact that it's not changing. The original intent of the bylaw as a whole. I think it warrants

our exercise of discretion. Just to be discerning of. Where we are and how we got here. And I just want to say. To public watching. We've had many reforms and efforts to reform our governance processes. We have more transparency with the Joint Social Services Committee. And I get fielded questions over email all the time. I meet with people regularly all the time. Constituents who have concerns, no matter what they are. And it's also our duty as well to continue the dialogue. And I think. We have to acknowledge that here today. It hasn't been a two week process. It's been an ongoing process that people are seeking clarity from all, each of us. And I think, respectfully, we all have had a role to play. And to facilitate that dialogue, and that should be acknowledged as well. And I just want to say I think there is consensus whether. You voted for or against the bylaw originally? There is consensus that we want to really. See

the process. As smoothly as possible so that. We don't hurt the most vulnerable that we are trying to protect, which is the school. Children and which is the homeless population. Thank you. Thank you. I have Mayor Guthrie. Thank you, madam Chair. And through you. Just a question through to staff, then just. I kind of appreciated the commentary from councilor downer. The entire bylaw. Did eventually go to the ACC already, is that correct? So through the chair. Yes, as requested by council, we went and met with the AAC on October 17. At that time, council had already approved the bylaw, but we were asked to take the bylaw and the implementation of that bylaw to the AAC for a fulsome discussion, which we did on October the 17th, and we held. Off on our implementation of the bylaw until after we could have that meeting. Yes. Is there any way you can describe through you, madam chair. What their feedback was about

the bylaw in its entirety. I'm just wondering if we're. Not going to really receive. Any different type. Of. Commentary that would come out of referring it. Through the chair to mayor Gathery. I'm hesitant because I don't want to speak on behalf of. We can certainly go back and look at their minutes from that meeting and provide that to council. They did provide. I think the chair also delegated as part of the initial august consideration of the public space. Use bylaw. And then again in October. There was feedback provided. I know that they did have some feedback about the bylaw as a whole. But at that point, staff were not there. Because the bottle had already been passed. And so we really focused the conversation on the implementation aspects. Of that bylaw. Yeah. Okay, that's fair. All right, then, based on that, I have my other question. Madam chair. I'm done. Thank you so much. I would ask that council not refer this. Thank you. Are there any further comments on the referral? Motion. Okay, seeing

none. I'm going to call the question. All those opposed to the referral? Motion if you could. So on screen. I have. Councilor Chu, Councilor Gibson Marigutri. Councilor Billings, councilor Richardson and councilor downer. So that motion failed. Thank you. We're back to the original motion. Are there any speakers to the original motion? Sorry. Councilor Gibson. Yeah. Thank you. Through your chair, Busatel. So my reflection on this amendment. And through discussions with the mayor, the mover, as well as staff. The idea of bringing clarity to the bylaw is a good thing. It brings clarity to the community. I've had. Numerous constituent meetings in recent months with just these questions being asked. I am a daycare provider. What does it mean for me? What do we mean with properties attached to school areas or public spaces? And I do think the clarity is needed. So I appreciate it coming forward. The other piece that I've been dwelling on

just since the start of our meeting today. Is that we spend a lot of time regulating public spaces, specifically sensitive areas, and we have deemed these areas to be sensitive. There's a sensitive population that at ten school in these locations. Every day. And we have taken it upon ourselves to regulate the areas around public school property. Case in point. This earlier this morning. We have heavily regulated and used technology to enforce our rules on public roadways. In and around schoolyards. So I see. Just as a natural extension. Of that protection that we're providing. And for our sensitive populations. Our school zones. And so I really do applaud the idea of bringing clarity, I think the community welcomes this clarity on the bylaw. And for those reasons, all those reasons, I'll be supporting it. Because again, It just adds to. The regulation and appropriateness of properties adjacent to those sensitive areas. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor

Keaton. Thank you. Through you chair. So. I think that what we're doing is we're leaning into a stigma saying that. People who are living in tents are inherently dangerous. To school children, which they're not. We have the sensitive public space areas. For cars because cars can kill people, and we know that. Any kind of issues that someone who might be living in a tent is doing towards children that could be dangerous, is already covered by other crimes and can be dealt with by police and the law. I think that what we're doing right now is we're expanding it unnecessarily. Due to borders on areas. That with the list that I've already mentioned of schools and daycares that are on large, large green areas that. We're going to be further reducing the space that people who are unhoused can be, and I think it's confusing. I don't think it's necessary. And I think that our current

public space use bylaw. Was always able to deal with the issues. We were told that when people were complaining earlier, So I don't understand why we need it. I think that it will have unintended consequences of removing. Large, large areas of green space, and I'm very opposed, thanks. You have councilor downer? Yes. Can I just ask a question of steph? So. Madam chair two staff. So my understanding is I just want to make sure I got this right earlier. There's about 22 or 23 parks that this would cover. Out of. 130 20 I can't remember through the chair. So because this could move depending on new childcare centers coming online or not, we're not able to provide. A definitive list because it will evolve. Because as schools and childcare centers change. At this point, based on our analysis, And so this does apply to public spaces, but generally that's predominantly parks. And so when we look at our parks and we did the analysis. We

believe there are 27 impacted parks out of 119, which I think, to your point is 22% of our total number of parks is. Where the 22 came from. But at this point, looking at the list that we were able to get from. The province of those childcare centers in the schools. We believe that there are 27 locations. Where a property line is currently shared and so that those would be now defined as sensitive public spaces and how many would have to be removed. Today, I don't need the location, but. If this bylaw was put into. So at this point in time, there is one encampment. That we are monitoring that would. Be in violation or would be in a sensitive public space where this motion to pass, although. We believe that encampment may have been recently abandoned. But based on what we've been tracking over the last two weeks since this motion came, forward. There is only one current encampment that we are aware of in the city and we do track all encampment locations. That would then need to shift the location. If this motion was they're not banned from having an encampment. They're just not allowed to have one in that area, so. They would have to move. So through the chair. This one again. If it has been abandoned, then it becomes

a moot point. But if it has not, then there is one individual in one encampment who would need to move the location of their encampment. Okay. And. Have you received complaints from places, from schools? Or daycare centers. Or in the last year or so through the chair. No, we have not. And I suspect that's partly because we have not seen a practical situation where we have had an encampment in close proximity to a school. However, certainly. When the original public spaceships bylaw came forward and there was a lot of feedback there. Was certainly a lot of public questions about proximity to schools back sort of in, I think that September time frame. And we did provide a lot of clarifying information out because we did get a number of inquiries from people who asked about proximity to schools. But since the time. Of the bylaw being implemented. We have not. But again, I suspect that's because we don't actually have, other than this potentially one. We have not had a significant number of encampment that are in any proximity to schools. Or childcare centers, okay?

That's all the questions I have. I'm going to support this. Originally, I was a little cool to it, but I do see. Is it a further refinement of the definition. Of sensitive spaces. I think, again, it goes back to I'm not too concerned about charter challenges. And it takes us back. To our original bylaw that. This isn't a ban, that we didn't have a challenge to it. Again. It's a public use bylaw. There are certain areas that you can do things in. Which we regulate throughout the wholesale city, so. I am going to support this as a further refinement of the bylaw. Because I don't think it fundamentally changed what we already approved. And it's not an outband, it's. Telling people, this is where you can be, and this is where. You can't be. Thank you. I have Councilor alt. Thank you very much. As I had said earlier, I will not be supporting this particular motion. I'm very skeptical about its potential to actually

have any positive impact at all, although I do think that there is a potential for some negative repercussions to occur, including a legal challenge. I'd made reference to the possibility of legal challenges. But the other thing. That I really want to address is whether this bylaw will actually enhance child safety. And I'm not certain it does. I don't have any statistics on children that have actually become vulnerable as a consequence of people living in encampments, unless those children are living in those encampments themselves. And I think that what we are doing is we're addressing something that everybody, including those who live in encampments don't like, and that's homelessness. The only problem is, we're not solving homelessness by doing this, we're just moving it. Along, and that's one of my big concerns. If you talk to. Workers on the street right now. They will point out that one of the great challenges this winter was actually getting to the encampments that were out there, because some people don't. Want to go into shelters for various reasons. We'd heard from one delegate today that if she were made homeless. She could not go into a shelter because

of her compan. Companion animal. There are other reasons as well. I'm not about to get into all of those. But when we get to the very basic issue of public safety, I think that there is a fundamental difference between the Highway Traffic Act. And. Actually encouraging those who need to live in encampments to move on. I think we're not addressing the real issue, and that's homelessness. Thank you. Is there anything further from councilors? Seeing nothing. With council's indulgence, I will share that. I will not be voting. In support of this. I'm concerned that it is overly broad. And one of my colleagues talked about the large swaths of land that are attached to schools. Such that an encampment could be a kilometer away or greater from a school because of the Parkland and my concern, and I've gone out and I've talked to the encampments. The residents of the encampments. My concern about pushing people further, further out from the services and the supports that tend to be downtown and within transit accessibility. And I

also agree. I think I've raised it. And thank you to Merrigothary. For reaching out to the school boards. I've raised concerns whether it's a fireworks bylaw and so on about the need to really consult with. The other stakeholders in the community. So I'm concerned about this. The other thing is that I heard quite clearly from staff. Is that they haven't heard about problems. Related to schools on this issue. So I concur with Councilor Katen that I don't want to fuel. An encampment equals. Unsafety. Unsavory people who are going to harm your children. I don't want to. Fuel into that, so. I will not be supporting this. And I think we're ready to call the question. So counselors who are not in support of. The recommendation, please raise their hand. And so. I have. Koran alt bozatil Galler. And Katen. And so that falls, fails. So the motion is carried. Pardon me, madam chair. I just

want to make sure we have the vote. I have that carrying. On a six five vote. So maybe if we could confirm. We have eleven members present. Three, four, five. Against. So it fails. It passes. Five or five again. Thank you for that. Thank you. Okay, the last item in Mayor Guthrie, I'll turn to you. This should be a quick item. Item 8.3. Well, thank you. Hopefully this doesn't get referred. Thank you for the last discussion, by the way, everyone. I know, it's a sensitive thing. So thank you. For you, madam chair for that. And moving on to this one, though. I was made aware last week. That I was approved by the large urban caucus. Of the association of Municipalities of Ontario. To join. The Amo association with the large urban caucus. Sorry, I might have said larger than mayor's caucus. I do not mean to say that. Large urban caucus. Under amo. And

so what happened is that there was a vacancy. And so there was an opportunity. Across the province for people. To send in their resume. And their cover letter to make the case as to why they could be appointed to this caucus. And so I did that. I think it's a really great thing for growth. And Emo does such great work for us and all other 443 municipalities. And it would enable me to be a part of this caucus. Be working alongside colleagues across the province. And really. With the province themselves. I need a motion of counsel to approve that appointment to the emo large urban caucus. So if you don't mind, I'll move it myself. And councilor Richardson told me that she would be willing to second that, and I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Sorry. It would start in June and it would go through to. The end of this term. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. So move by yourself. Seconded,

Councilor Richardson. You did. Have some other counselors here that put their hands up as well. So I'll go straight to the vote. Is anyone opposed? Seeing none that carries. Thank you very much for putting your name forward and the work that you do. I'm going to move to item number nine, bylaws and councilor Koran. Thank you. I move seconded by Councillor Richardson. Councilor Richardson, bylaw numbers 2025. 2103. Do you want me to rethrell the numbers through 2000 and 2521-0412-1052-2106-7210-68 be approved subject to section two a. Four point eleven of the municipal act and without being read. Thank you. So that has been moved. And seconded. Is anyone opposed? Being done that Carrie's. Thank you. Item ten, mayor's announcements. The only announcement I have is that you did a fantastic job chairing today. Thank you. I'll be settling up in your office next, okay? All right. Get the. Measuring paper on your desk. Okay. Motion to

adjourn, please. Councilor Katen and councilor Richardson. Anyone opposed? That carries. Thank you very much, everyone. Thank you, everybody. Bye bye.