Allan's Dam and Macdonell bridge environmental assessment approved

All right. Good afternoon, everybody. It is 430. It is Tuesday, October 28, 2025. This is our city council meeting. And right off the top. I am looking for. Council vote to consider going. Into closed session. As is documented on the open agenda. We have a few to do. And. They are. Let's see here. They're on the screen. Quite a few. The minutes, the closed minutes, the Superior Court decision update of 2002 547-5354 and 55 Silver Creek Parkway south the Ontario Land Tribunal update. Just 2025. Four seven, four and 26. 40 Carden street and 27. 39 mcDennel. Street, Ontario land tribunal, Update 2025 505 that the council of the City Guelph now hold a meeting that is closed to the public pursuant to section two three

nine to Enf. Of the municipal act regarding litigation or potential. Litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals affecting the municipality or local board, and advice that is such a solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. And before I look to see if there's a willingness to go on camera on those. Is there anyone that wants to declare any conf. Conflict of interest or pecuniary interest or any general nature thereof. On these items. Not seeing or hearing anything. So then would someone be willing to move to go into closed on those for me? I'll go to the screen today. Koran and katen. Anything more? No. I'll call the vote. Is anyone against moving into closed on just those. Items. Okay, that's unanimous that we can do that. For anyone watching, there will be a high level summary as usual. When we come out to start in the open session, council, I'll see you in closed in just a couple of minutes. Thank you.

All right. Good evening, everyone. How's everyone doing? I heard one person. Thank you very much. That's great. Thank you very much. For waiting, and I do want to apologize in advance for that weight. And so we're ready to kick things off here just before I continue. We did have a closed meeting of council. That we went into earlier this afternoon. And it was on. Three items, and I just want to give the high level summary on each of those so that you have that in the open session. So superior court decision update. There was direction given on that matter. On 35, 40 and 55 Silver Creek Parkway south. The Ontario Land Tribunal update. We also gave direction on that matter. And on 26 to 40 Carden street in 27 to 39 Macdonald Street, Ontario Land Tribunal Update we also gave direction to staff on that matter. Okay, so that was it for those three. And thank you. That's it for the summary of the closed

session. With that, let's. Kick things off. If you are able, as we recognize our national anthem. Hold on, everybody. Hold on. I'm so sorry. I forgot about that. And I'm so excited. We have a special guest singer here with us today. That is amazing. So can you just turn on the microphone there for us? Yeah. There you go. Is it on now? Okay, perfect. We're really looking forward to this. As much as we love just hearing it on a video. It is way better to have some local talent do this, so welcome. And thank you. Please go right ahead. Can't wait to hear you. Thank you very much. Our home.

And native. Land. True. Patriot love. In. All of us. Command. With. Glowing hearts we. See the rise. The true north, strong and free. Tony stoire. Tunip. William. It.

Of. Lord. A lo.

No. Fo.

For thee.

Thank you. Stay right there. Yeah. I was just thinking. Who watched the Blue Jays game last night? Who would like to move a motion that you should have sang that last? Night yes. I think you should represent all of Canada there for that. I'm sorry. Please give us your name. I'm going to probably not be the best at saying that and I apologize. Is it gith me? Am I saying that right? Yeah. That's perfect. Oh, okay. Let me try the last name now. Yeah, that's perfect, too. Really? Okay, let's adjourn the meeting right now. Then. Okay. Tell us a bit about yourself. Just how long have you been singing for? Well, I've been singing. That's a good question. I actually don't. For the past. Seven years. Seven or eight years. I performed my sister a lot, so that's why I got into singing. But my main instrument is the bass guitar. All right? Singing bands are always looking for bass players. Trust me, I know that. That's. Good. Are you going to school here? Yes,

I go to Gulf. Yeah. Great. And anything that. Have you got any recordings coming up you're trying to do or anything? Like that. No, not really. Well, this is going to be on archived and videos, so you got to send this out, get some people to get you a recording contract or something. Look, we really appreciate it. It was, I don't know, 14 or 15 years ago, actually, council made a decision to. Say, like, hey, if we got some people in town that's got some, got some talent, come here. Dual Canada for us. It means a great deal to kind of showcase the local talent that we have here. And you absolutely nailed it. So you did a fantastic job. Thank you again. Let's give a round of applause. Awesome. Thank you. Okay. With that. Let me just continue for a moment. We do have. Our silent reflection just for a moment. Just to focus ourselves. Great. Thank you. And our territorial acknowledgment. As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work here in Guelph, a city that's

built over rich indigenous histories. As guests here, we should reflect upon the responsibility to care. For the land and the people who live here today and the generations to come. If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude. This place we call Guelph assert as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically the Anawanaroc and the honenoshone. This land is held as the treaty lands in the territory with the Mississaugas. Of the credit. First Nation and coal. Applies directly adjacent to the Haldeman track and as part of the long established traditional hunting grounds for the six nations of the grand river. Many first nations, Inuit and Mati people who have come from a cross turtle island. Carl Gulf home today. Thank you. Is there any disclosure or pecuniary interest or any general nature thereof for any of the items that are in front of us on the agenda today. Hearing and seeing none. And we're going to kick off here. We're really excited. To have community recognition moment here, and this is for the Guelph royals, and I can see. The one I put my

glasses on. Wave, everybody. I can see all over there. So many of the Guelph royals team under 18, right? All right, perfect. Well, here we go. We got some of the information on the screen here and a great picture. But this is really worth mentioning. They were coached by longtime volunteer. Greg Kilinback. Is Greg here? Yeah. And this year. The team won the Oba provincial championship. In addition to winning the OBAs, the team has recently won the Inter County Baseball association team of the year. Also Tracy Coswell. Is Tracy here? Okay. Has been the team manager for this age group for seven plus years and she has earned Guelph minor baseball's volunteer of the year award. That's awesome. Another name dimension is Thomas Schner, who has been awarded the DeCarlow Legacy Award, which recognizes a graduating player from GMBA who has shown dedication, leadership and excellence in the rep program. Congratulations to the entire team for representing our city and for all these awards that you've already received. Let's give them all a huge round

of applause. Thank you very much. And so just at this time, I'm going to come down. We got some city medals. For you and I'll call out your name and we will just meet over there, maybe. We'll just do it right here for a picture. And when you get the metal, just. Stay in the middle, then we can kind of do a group phot. Photo at the end. Even with council behind, so we can all be in it. And then. If any of the parents or coaches or whatever want to come down and get a picture, totally. Fine as well. Okay, so I'll be right down.

Okay.

So they're just whatever I pick up, that's the order I'm doing. It in. So I know some of them might be coaches first, I was just fine. Mike. Mike. Here? Ruthman. Is Mike here? No. Okay. Don't tell him he got one. I'll. Just put over here. Thomasner. Okay, this is going well so far. Greg Kilinbeck. Now, I saw Greg's hand go up. All right, come on down. Perfect. And all of you can come down and just kind of. You can all come and stand. Right here. Whatever. That's totally fine. Greg. Come on around here.

Congratulations. Thanks. Well, thank you. All right. There you go. All right. You want to stay right here? Yeah, I can grab the ones that people aren't here. Sure, that would be helpful. Thank you very much. I might. Give you a few. All right. What about Simon? Simon. Here. Okay. I'm going to hand that to you. Yeah. Griffin. Okay, we're doing good. Andrew. Andrew mcmillan. Okay. Yeah. Mitchell. Mitchell here. Okay. How about Jace? Okay, Allen. All right, Alan, come on over. Yeah.

Jack, okay? Gwynn. All right, Quinn. Do you play? I'm a catcher. All right. Good job. Thank you. Good job. One over here. What about Curtis? Okay. And how about Jamie? You can get that to him. Same last name? I hope so. All right. And Aidan. No problem. And ben. All right, Ben. Thank you. What position do you play? I'm a pitcher. You're a pitcher? Okay, logan. All right. What position?

Awesome Dave here. Dave was. Okay. Is there any Dave in the room that would like this award? How about Eric? All right. Thank you. Tracy. Tracy's, of course. Right here.

Two more. Neil. Is Neil here? All right. What position? Left field. Left field. Left field. And let's hope you are. What's your name? Good. It's you. Come on.

What position do you want to fit? Awesome job. Why don't you stand here in the middle of council wants to even if they want to stand up and come into the building. You do a big poll? Yeah. You got a couple of cameras there. You want to take some pictures? No problem.

Okay. Well, that's nice. Say, that's good. Let's continue with. A motion from council in reference to the confirmation of the open minutes. In the open minutes of September 3, 9th, 10th and 16th, 2025 and open minutes of the Committee of the whole September 3, 2025, to be confirmed as recorded and without being read. So. Want to help me with that? Gibson and bustill. Anything further on the minutes? No kale. Call the vote. Is anyone against the minutes? Nobodies. That's unanimous. And that passes. Thank you. We have the consent report from committee of the whole. We have appointment of the external auditor. Anyone want to pull that? No. The municipal property and building commemorative naming report. No. The Baker library facility lease approval. I think councilor Galler wanted to do one quick motion. On that. Am I right? Yes. Okay. And the utility billing, project status

and customer accounts. Bylaw update. Nobody on that one. Okay, so. Can I have a motion to move all of those except for the library lease, alt and Richardson? Anything further on those consent items. No. I'll call the vote. Anyone against those? No. Okay, that passes unanimously. I have a feeling. That. Your motion is pretty quick. On the library. Am I right? I believe so. You're worshipping. Is everyone with me? Yeah. Okay. Quick question on it, okay? I'm going to say let's do it. Perfect. Okay, but just be mindful. Of time just to get this one out of the way. Go ahead. Your worship, I would like. To move a motion. And I will ask the clerks to pull it up effectively. The staff recommendation originally was for a 30 year lease with two five year renewals. After conversations between staff and library staff. Staff added a memo to this item saying that they were okay with a 40 year lease with 110 year renewal term, and that is the only change here. And. I believe

that my fellow library board member, Councilor Leclasson, will be seconding this. Okay, so. Just to confirm, are you moving what's on here? With an amendment for the 40 years. Or are you just moving it with the 40 years? I would prefer if you put the original motion down and seconded by councilor Clausen. Yes. And then you moved an amendment to change the 30 years to the 40. And also seconded. By councilor Clausen. That's okay. So we are just talking about the amendment. Only right now I got one question from councilor alt. Thank you, Mayor Gutster. It's a question through you to staff. In the memo that came to us on this, the last two paragraphs, I think, are fairly pertinent city as landlord is responsible for major capital repairs and replacement. And then it goes. On in a typical commercial lease for a long duration that is common for landlord to insist on a redevelopment clause. I am wondering what. The significance of this is given that we are extending the lease and that this is a public building. Not a typical commercial lease. Through the mayor to councilor alt. I may start and may

see if our general manager of facilities and energy can come down and speak to you on that. I do know, I think, sort of fundamentally, we're comfortable with the proposed amendment in terms of the timing that we've got here, but Ian can speak a little bit more here to your specific. Question. Through the chair to Councilor alt.

That clause is about if we were to extend. So the memo speaks to the typical period of investment is that 30 to 50 year window. We don't know exactly when that will be. It's a bit of a gray area 40 years in the future. And those two paragraphs really speak to. If we were to extend out to like a 60 year or 70 year lease, then we'd want to be looking at what happens in that. Period of investment because we're aligned to that period of investment that we've covered. Off the concern within those paragraphs. Thank you very much. I appreciate the answer. So what I've now learned is that a 40 year lease is not a long lease. It's a medium term lease. Is that correct? Through councilor Ald. It all depends on your reference period, but for this, staff can support. The request from councilor Galler. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Any other questions on this amendment? Only. No. Okay, well, I'll just. Very quick comment for me. I'm way more comfortable today than I am from the committee of the whole and sometimes by the way I'm looking in the mirror when I say this. Sometimes that breath, that you take just a pause over 20 days or so or

whatever is worthwhile. Sometimes. So I think I just want to recognize you, Councilor Guller, for bringing it forward. Fair enough. But I also want to recognize staff for kind of being able to pull together the information that makes me, and I think many members of council feel a lot more comfortable and looking to support this than what was originally kind of proposed at the beginning, but at least kickstarted the conversation, so that's fair, right? Okay, so I'm going to call the vote on the amendment. Is anyone against the amendment? Nobody. Okay, I'm going to go back to the main motion now, as amended. I'm going to call the vote. Is anyone against? The main motion, as amended. Now. No, we're done. Thank you very much. It's a unanimous vote, by the way, everybody. Okay, let me move on. We have only one item on the consent agenda for council, which is the centralization of the back office support functions. Does anyone want that pulled? Cayton. Go ahead. I'll turn over to you. Thanks to you, I don't. Really have anything else. I just wanted to make a comment on it to thank our back. Office support staff. I think that. It's a job that often gets overlooked and. They are the heart of our city, and they do a really good job, so I just wanted to appreciate all the work they did going into

this report and just what they do generally. Thanks. Yeah. Thank you. That's kind. Thank you very much. Actually, Councilor Caitlin, would you be willing to just remove that consent then? Yes. And. Who wants to second it? Clawson. Okay, great. So I just want to say one very quick comment. But, you know, when I say quick, it really means about 45 seconds. But before I call the vote, I just want to really draw attention to the fact that counsel did this. I often hear too many times. That counsel or the administration is not interested in looking for efficiencies. They're not willing to do reviews. Everything is just always status quo, and they're not willing to do the work necessary to see how things are working. This report. Shows you that we did do it. And so, not only did we do a service rationalization review a few years ago, Came out with several different recommendations. One of the recommendations was exactly this. Council voted to do this work. The work was done by a third party.

And it came back. And here it is. Transparently, we're telling everyone that we did. This work. And so, yeah. It's 85,000 to 100, and so $1,000 in potential savings under a few different categories on some of the back office stuff. But the point is that we did it. It's not so much about the monetary efficiencies. And savings. Of course it is. If that's an outcome that comes from it, but we did the work, and so I just really want to thank council. For doing this work. And staff working with the consultant. To flush this out and to have it come forward transparently so that people can say, okay, yeah, the city is looking into this kind of stuff because council is united on doing this, this. Is what we do. Okay, so I just want to really just say that before I call the vote. Because sometimes these things get overlooked that they're not stated in the public realm enough. That we're doing this type of work while we are here. It is. Okay with that? It's been moved and seconded. I'm going to call the vote. Is anyone against that consent item? Nobody. That's unanimous as well. Thank you very much. We have the items for discussion and we only got the two. The EA for the mactanel. And Allen structures environmental assessment of

the notice of completion. We've got 1234. We got five delegations. One did remove themselves, so we got five. Little bit of correspondence. Then after. That we got the electrospect. Pledge that councilor Clawson is going to bring forward for us, and then that will wrap. It up for us. So let's go with the first one. Mactanel and Allen. Structure environmental assessment. The completion report. And just a note. It says it in the agenda. But the memos have been attached to the revised agenda, too. Michael Darmon from Guelph Community for active transportations coming forward. And then. Is Alex Swami here? Sorry. On my glasses. Okay. Hi, Alex. You're going to. Be in the wings. Okay, so, Mike, come on up. Perfect. Alex, you're in the wings. Arlene, are you here? Arlene? Arlene not here. And what about Ian? Pana baker? Yes, Ian's here. And is Evan here? Perfect. Okay. It's five minutes. You should all know the drill. Four minutes and 30 seconds. You will hear a time that's. Your 32nd warning. The mic will be turned off at the five minute mark. Don't. Get there. Okay,

Mike, it's over to you. Mayor Garthury, councilors and city staff. My name is Mike Darmon, and I'm co chair of GCAT advocacy committee. The wards at Downtown Bridge, along with a wider McDanell. McDanelle Bridge will greatly improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists, so we're very pleased. To see them included in the EA recommendations. As previously mentioned in my last another delegations, the ward Bridge is the most significant element of the at design for safety and enjoyment because it encourages people to walk and cycle as it separates you away from traffic. In the desired line of travel on a beautiful trail. This is how we encourage families who are afraid to bike on roads and try to embrace this more affordable, active lifestyle. This is not just a downtown project as the ward Bridge will connect residents to the extension of the transcander. Trail from Riverside park area through our downtown and to existing moored neighborhoods and new neighborhoods like. The woods. Two development with 700 units. A future possible Imaco development and the Gid on Victoria Road with around 10,000 people. It is one of the most important at connections for a continuous active transportation network pathway into an outside downtown, connecting people to places of work, shopping, food and play. But all of the

recommendations. Were recommended at improvements are needed to accommodate safe cycling. For the cycling. Policy and cycling master plans. The wider Macdonald Bridge will not accommodate safe cycling infrastructure on the south side due to property and infrastructure restrictions on its maximum width. Sorry. And the north side mup will only accommodate cycling in certain directions. Regarding the spillway dam and underpass trail. The recommended alternative of rebuilding the dam, quote, was selected as the most cost effective alternative. End quote. While feasible from an engineering perspective, an underpass would involve significant rehabilitation or removal of the spillway plus rated work. End quote. The underpass is desirable for at and vehicular traffic flow, I believe. Staff have indicated that dam removal would be in the $2 million range. However, there may be also a future cost savings to infrastructure lifecycle replacement. If full or partial dam removal is considered. On my many site visits with the late councilor Bob Bell, who also represented council on the GRCA. Our discussions included the advantages of an underpass and moving the spillway dam upstream. But the advantages would also include partial or complete removal of the spillway dam, including better flood control, increased

flow under the bridge. Lower risk to GJR infrastructure in the area. Less long term damage of water, undermining the foundation and structure of the Go train supports. And a potentially shorter and less expensive bridge length due to increased float capacity. Less risk to residential developments in the flood fringe areas. An inline with GRCA goals to remove dams and naturalized river valleys. And should we also be planning for climate adaptation and mitigation? The conclusions and next steps in the hydraulic analysis report in the AA raised concerns about the dam. And its impacts due to uncertainty about flood risks, due to. The ongoing but uncompleted GRCA modeling exercise quote furthermore, as. Alan stamps Lewisway spillway is not currently modeled as a separate control structure within the GRCA's HeC Ras model. The hydraulic function of the dam on the speed river cannot. Be quantified at this time. So, due to the uncertainty and risk associated with more frequent intense flooding, I'm asking that after the GRCA modeling studies are completed. That a staff informed council and the public. At a detailed design stage to show how the new information has informed decision on the bridge and dam final

design. We will be installing an underpass with the speed Vale bridge soon. And to declare, given budget restraints. I am not asking for an underpass now. Nor did I. During my last delegation, but only keeping our option open to future underpass. The GCAT vision is for a more sustainable and continuous active transportation network from the north end of the city at Riverside park to and through our downtown to the Gid, offering an enjoyable, equitable. And safe trailc experience with minimal on street crossings of busy arterial roads by utilizing underpasses and other protected infrastructure. I hope this is your vision for a more sustainable, equitable and livable future forest isn't. Thanks. Thank you very much, Mike. Really appreciate. I'm just wondering. I just saw that one slide up there, like, the whole time was. It supposed to be scrolling for other things? I was actually hoping to do that, but I have never used this before. Sorry. No problem. It's okay, I think. We're going to show the award downtown bridge in that slide. Okay? I think everybody understood. We saw it. Okay. Thank you. I just want to make sure we weren't. Thanks for. Councilor. I'll just have a quick follow up question. Thank you

very much, Mayor Guthrie. Through you to the delegate. Mr. Darman, you said something that I will ask staff about as well, but I want to. Get clarification in case I misfit you. He said a wider Macdonald street bridge. Will not accommodate bike traffic. Is that correct? What I heard. Yeah. On the north side, there's going to be a multi use pathway. For bike traffic, but on the south side, there will be no infrastructure on that side of it. So that's why the wards downtown Bridge has been used as a way to get around. The corner onto Elizabeth street and Arthur street. Okay, thank you. I said. Allow the same question. Seeing nothing further. Mike, thank you very much. Thanks. Take care. Thank you. So, Alex, come on down. That was Arlene. Hear you again. No. Okay. So, Ian, you're in the wings. Hi, Alex, and welcome. Thank you for joining us. You can start whenever you're ready. Okay. Hello, everyone. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor and fellow counselors. My name is Alex Wami, and I'm a grade eleven IBDP, one student at GCVI, and today I am showcasing youth involvement and leadership within sustainability. And I'm here to say that I firmly support emerge. On their efforts and commitment. Today on. Inquiring about ondoing a hydraulic study on Alan Stan. Today I will be voicing my concerns about if the dam were to stay up and if the city does not decide. To do a hydraulic study in the case of this fed city does not decide to do a hydraulic study and a flood were to happen. Roughly 80 properties are at risk of flooding due to the proximity of the properties to the river. And the case of flooding, over 200 citizens would be greatly impacted in their quality of life. Would be diminished. Although I do not live on the floodplain, I understand the vexa flooding. Very importantly. Because in the past couple of years, due to high millimeters of rain, my house's basement ended up flooding, and this caused a major amount of economic and social strain on my family. And because of that, it caused a lot of difficulties. In my future, though, I ask, has a youth within Guelph to do the hydraulics test on Alex dam so that no other family. Will have to go through such

horrendous experiences. Finally, the last thing I would like to fully preface is the support of youth on this endeavor, not only myself, but I am sure many other youth, if given the opportunity, would love to help you on this endeavor in going forward. Finally. As stated in the recommendation section of page eight, if necessary. And they will create a committee. I would love to work on this committee going forward because I truly believe this is a great cause for the city's sustainability goals, but also just in general. Thank you all so much for your time, and I hope you consider my support and my ongoing support for this endeavor. An emergency proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Is this your first time in front of us here? Yeah. You did a great job. All right. Good job. Is there any follow up for Alex at this time? There isn't. That means you did a great job when there's no follow up. Okay. So we appreciate you coming down. Hopefully it was easy for you, so you can do it. The second time and the third time and so on. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much for coming. Appreciate it. Ian, come on down. And then, Evan, you're going to be last, okay? Welcome Ian over to you whenever you're ready. Great. Thank you,

Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, members of council staff and fellow citizens. My name is Ian Panda Baker. I'm the vice president of development for the Wood Development Group Local property and development company here in Guelph. And as you're likely aware, we are actively consulting on the redevelopment. Of what? We call plant number two, the former WcWood plant between Duke and here. On street. And so the Ea area is kind of our neighbor to our project, and so we have keen interest in it. And then the decisions being made tonight. The EA was complicated because it had so many variables in it, but we do think that it's distilled down to the right kind of combination of elements. But I did want to touch base on two things, but the wards, downtown bridge and Allen Stam. If I could. The plant extension of the rail aligned Gulf Junction rail trail from downtown through the ward onto the Gulf Innovation district and beyond actually runs right through the center of plant number two. And so it's a key piece of mobility infrastructure for us. We're actually basing a lot of the plans around its effectiveness. And its fatality.

But we're not the only one, so. This links your site, Emaco. It links other redevelopment sites in the ward and beyond, and so. It's a key piece of infrastructure for us to see. Done through the best it can be. We have noted that critics identify that there's a maybe different way of doing this, but it's good enough just to achieve. Routes around the intersection on other infrastructure. And we just wanted to comment that we don't think those are actually the equivalents. That the route that comes on the Gulf Junction rail corridor is a regional kind of line that cuts through the area. It's very important that it flows correctly. And that the information that staff have provided for the intersection redesigns of Macdonell and Elizabeth. Always showed the active transportation on a Macdonald bridge being on the north side. And so trail users would actually have to do multiple street crossings to navigate their way through. This intersection fight out of the way, and that kind of defeats the purpose of this infrastructure. So I just wanted to reiterate that it's very important to us that this. Be approved tonight. The other thing I wanted

to comment on tonight was about the island stam. And through our own work at plant number two, we've actually been working with the GRCA. Flood model. To understand the flood fringe impacts on our property. And how we could mitigate that for the neighborhood. And it's actually quite exciting. We're going to be really excited to show it to you as the urban design master plan. Comes forward, but it got us looking at the model itself. And we can concur. With the EA's report that the GRCA model as it stands today is pretty inadequate. For answering the question about removing the dam or not. It's not good enough. It's from the age of the lunar landings. If you see it in real life. So we understand how they got to that conclusion, that the hydraulic function of the Allen fam. Couldn't be quantified at this point. But that doesn't answer the question for the EA, should it be removed or not? And so it's a case of knowing that we don't know the answer. What would be the role of removing the dam? Would it have actually improved? Elevations of flood control through the area or not.

We don't know because we don't have the tools. And while I would have loved to have a big discussion through the EA about rewilding the speed. I mean it's. A fascinating idea. The model is not there yet, and we've also been chasing GHCA on this. Update that they're doing through the whole area. It affects many properties. So what do we do? What? I just want to get across the council. Tonight was the idea. That. I think it'd be prudent for council to recognize that that was a question. That didn't have all the answers and that somehow, if you could note that. And potentially direct staff to keep you engaged in the design of Mactanel Bridge, which. Actually involves the analysis of Alan's dam, and they will have to use the updated GRCA model to begin with. To answer the dam questions, answer the bridge questions. There will be more information coming forward as FaF design this. So that would be my second recommendation. Thank you, Ian. Anything further, then, from what Ian has brought forward right now? Ken. Sorry, Ken. Council Chu, go ahead. Ken

works too. Through you, Mr. Mayor. You mentioned the GRCA flood modeling. Did you guys request that from GRCA as part of your scope of work. Yes. We've given the 1D model, the existing model. Which RV Anderson also used in their hydraulic report that's attached to the EA documents and that's the ancient one. What we're all waiting for is this two dimension model that has taken significant time to develop, which gives you much more insight into the way that the flows and the spills that will actually happen, and you can start to manipulate that in a way that you can with the existing model that we have. And when did you request this? We got it when we needed it. It wasn't held up. If that's the question. Was it? A while ago? I'm just trying to understand how old the model is and. When you requested it. For your purposes. Maybe a question better for staff, Mr. Mayor? I don't. Know exactly how old it is, but. It informed the original flood planning. For the city and for the whole grca area, okay? Sorry. I'm

not joking that it's from the lunar landing era. All right. Thank you. That was a conspiracy joke, right? Come on. Did that did even happen? No, the study happened. The lunar I'm making a joke about. All right. Thank you, Ian. There's nothing further. We appreciate your time. Thank you, Arlene. You just walked in at the right time. I skipped over you twice. So awesome. You made it just in time. Thank you for coming. And just so you know, five minutes. Don't go over that. You know how it works. Start whenever you're ready, okay? Sure. And thanks. Apologies, everyone, if I had the wrong time down. So. Good evening, council. My name. Is Arlene Slocom. I'm speaking today as executive director of Water Watchers. A guelph based justice organization dedicated to the protecting of groundwater and the living systems that make. Up our shared watershed. But I also speak here as a human in relationship with this land, with this river and with the more than human communities who have always known how to flow together and I just want to point out that at this

point in time, As we. Work around honoring this river and the indigenous relationships that have held it for countless generations. At this time. I still don't know the name of this river in Anishnabe, Mohen. And I know the name of the IRA, Melissa, but not the speed. And despite lots of research. It's unknown to me. So I also, in this context of this, would love to. Encourage more research. And partnership with indigenous knowledge keepers in order for us to learn the name of this river. I want to express our support for the submission made by emerge and join their call for a pause in the current process until a full joint hydraulic study commissioned by the city and the GRCA can be completed, this study would explicitly. Model multiple scenarios for. Alan's dam, including maintaining it as is modifying or notching the structure and fully removing it. It would assess not only downstream and upstream flood profiles under both historical and contemporary extreme rainfall. Scenarios, including events like the GTA 2024 and Harold 19 80 89, but also quantified the. Dam's impact on public safety, infrastructure risk, and ecological function. So why does this matter?

Because the last hydraulic analysis in the reports we've read only examine impacts of retaining the dam. It did not analyze alternatives, which means calcium is being asked to make decisions based on incomplete information. We also know that during April 2025, rainfall water levels upstream of the dam surged a full meter above summer flow in just 30 hours, reaching within inches of the Mactanel street bridge. The system held? Barely. But what happens when next larger storms arrive? The GRCA's own flood mapping work shows that up. To 200 people in 80 homes are within the designated floodplain upstream. Yet the flood risks posed by the dam itself through its backwatering and flow constraints have never been publicly modeled. We cannot afford to move forward with partial data when the stakes are this high and the risk don't stop with flooding. The scientific literature is clear, small. Dams in urban rivers often raise downstream temperatures, disrupt dissolved oxygen levels, block fish passage, and alter the riparian function of the ecosystem. In summer, when rivers are already stressed by heat, these effects compound leading to algal blooms, degraded habitat, and declining water quality. We are asking the. River to

function with concrete collar around its neck. We also note that modern flood control for Gulf doesn't come from in channel dams like Alan's, it comes from Guelph. Lake Dam Shand and Conestoga, the GRCA's multipurpose reservoirs. Alan's dam does not serve that functions. Its purpose is historical, not hydrological, so. Yes. We support a pause in a study not to delay, but to deepen and not just. To mitigate risk, but to reveal opportunity. Because beyond the numbers, beyond the models, this is a moment to align infrastructure decisions with our climate adaptation goals, with best ecological practices, and with values that center life over legacy. Other communities have done this. Waterloo's Laurel Creek and Silver Lake Restoration integrated hydraulic modeling with fish passion fish passage channel naturalization and improved public access, new Hamburg Snyder slats and ongoing work across the watershed show this kind of transition is possible and powerful. Let Guelph be part of that shift. So I ask you to pause. Commission the study. Let the data be complete. Let the river be heard. Let this decision reflect not just engineering precision. But ecological and ethical

clarity, because sometimes the most responsible infrastructure is removal. Thank you. Thank you, Arlene, for your presentation. Is there any follow up at all? There is not. So thank you very much. Thank you. And for real this time. Evan, come on. Down. Thank you for waiting.

Right, so. Is it? A joint? Five minutes tour. Of course I know who you are. But just for the public record, if you could state your. Name? Yes. So I'm Anhosha and I'm currently studying at the university. Of Harold, and I'm here to speak on behalf of emerge. Okay, so you are going. To do a joint together with Evan. Okay, well, I'll allow that, counsel. You're okay. Go for it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of council. My name is Angel Shaw, and I'm. Here today on behalf of emerge to speak on requesting a hydraulic study regarding Alan's. Day. This is not just about infrastructure. It's about restoring our natural heritage, protecting lives. Of Guel citizens and protecting. Property and infrastructure. So first, our natural heritage. The speed river has long been a defining part of Guelph's landscape and is a living system that supports biodiversity, recreation, and our community. Connects to the nature. So Alan's dam has been disrupting that. It has altered

natural river flow, trap sediments, raised water temperature, and this is harming the aquatic. Lives. And because of the raised temperatures, we're getting an increase in algae blooms, which is also destroying natural habitats that are along the river. So by removing Alan stamp, we give the river a chance to heal itself. And we're allowing the fish to migrate freely. We're giving wetlands a chance to recover and water quality to improve. Restoring the river isn't about erasing history. It's about honoring the land we live on and the life is sustained. Secondly, I'm going to talk about license safety. Alan's dam no longer serves a functional purpose. It's lost to a relic of a different era. But, however, even an inactive dame is very dangerous. Over time, the structure can weaken, which cost us, say, to invest more. And sediments build up, causing for water to fluctuate. So with climate change also increasing, we're going to be seeing heavier rainfall and unpredictable weather as seen in October. We've gotten some medi hot days, and then we go straight back to colt. So the risk is. Only growing and conducting a hydraulic study will help understanding. These risks and

help take action to remove it safely. Finally, community and property. The staying that water that is behind Alan's dame has led towards an increase in algae. Blooms, poor water quality and has decreased the ecological health. And these are conditions that harm the vegetation. And those that surrounds the speed river. A free flowing speed river would create a cleaner water healthier ecosystem. And create greener public spaces. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to start just by saying that my heart goes out to staff. That are working on this project. I can't believe how complicated this thing is, and I think this is just one piece of the puzzle. Of that area, there's so many moving. Parts associated with it. We have altered our final comments based on additional information from our colleagues at the Ontario River alliance. Council doesn't have the information you need to make an informed decision today. The only way to know for sure is to complete a hydraulic study that will model the impacts of removing the dam. We believe that this should take less than a couple of months and. Is not as onerous attached to complete, given the work that's already been accomplished. There are 200 lives of the wardy heard, 200 lives and 80 residential properties upstream of the dam that

are at risk. These properties lie in the GRCA floodplain and are highly likely to flood during extreme weather. Removing the dam will greatly reduce these risks. A lower flood flooding. On Mactanell street bridge. And possibly cut costs and risks and risks when the bridge is rebuilt. Our understanding again is that the GRCA no longer sees the dam as fulfilling any flood control or flow augmentation. Rule in 2018. According to the city Za, a visual inspection report of the dam area was completed. It was impossible from our perspective to discern which, if. Any concern specifically related to the dam itself, other than the fact that the dam was built in 1938. There were a few details on the sluiceway. There were a few details mentioned specifically. On the. Sluice way, rather in the spillway, but no specific information specifically on the condition of the 87 year old dam. It appears to be unclear how or if the McTanel street bridge is sitting on top of the dam adjacent to it or part of it, or how that affects. The structural integrity of the dam, there would be no reason to incur costs associated with looking at

doing a potential additional safety review at this time if indeed the city first completes the hydraulic study and understand the implications of having it removed. Thank you. Thank you both. Appreciate it. And is there a follow up right now at this time, councilor? Ol thank you, Marigotri. Through you to Mr. Ferrari and Mr. Shaw. And again preface the same that I did before. I'll ask the staff similar questions. The statement you made was the only way to know is a hydraulic study. Part of my problem here is when I look at the recommendations. The recommendations, for all intents. And purposes focus on the bridge arts and cultural advisory. Not on the dam at all. In true confession. I'm not a fan of the dam. I'm not a fan of the pond. I consider it to be utrophic, but there are a number of different factors that I need. To get my head around. So the question for you is really simple. You said the only way. To know is a hydraulic study. Can you give me a breakdown of what the specifics of the content would be and what you might estimate is the cost

of that, and therefore. Time frame as well. Yeah. Through you, Mr. Mayor. To councilor alt. The hydraulic analysis. Not the study, but the hydraulic analysis. I believe it was section six in the. Package that you received as part of the EA, specifically. Did a hydraulic analysis. What they looked at is specifically where the water level would. This was in a two dimensional model. But. Where the water would flow relative to the existing McDonald street bridge. As well as the older Allens Bridge. Where would the water flow in those high in the higher precipitation events. It did nothing to evaluate the upstream impact of it. Obviously, the fact that. The bridge exists, does impede water and slows it. From our perspective, what we feel needs to happen. Is number one, confirm where the existing. Flood lines exist. And what that floodline looks like today is, if

you can imagine the homes on Arthur street, that the floodline essentially exists on the homes that back onto the river currently. The floodline exists in the middle of Arthur street for most of the section from Upstream street. Of the dam almost all the way up until the Norwich bridge, or close to that in some instances, the flood line exists on the properties across the street from some of those homes along Arthur. Street. And on April 6. That's already been mentioned this year, and that was in our report. And. On our submission. Rather, you'll notice that with that 60 mm that there was a 1. Meter over 30 over 30 hours that there was a 1 meter increase in the water level. That did cause flooding in a number of the backyards. This isn't an infrequent. Thing. But the modeling suggests that what they're modeling it for today. Of that line. That flood line looks like is actually for 200. Rain within approximately, I believe within the same amount. Of time, which. Is a significantly greater amount. So what we'd like to know is what happens

to that floodline that I must say that technically literally goes around the building of the river run center because. If my memory serves me correctly, that when the river run was being built, they actually raised it. Slightly to make sure that it was going to be above the sled line. So when you look at that mapping that's readily available online. You could see that line going completely around. It. Now, having said that once, our belief that once we remove the dam, From a modeling perspective, we'll understand what happens to those lines if indeed there's a big open space for the water to now get out of, and it's not being blocked. Our belief is that that flood line could have a significantly positive impact on. Those 200 people. And those 80 properties. Upstream. So really it's looking at the floodline, the current existing flood line, and what the impact would be of taking. That dam out. On impacting that flood line. What we expected to do is to show that a significantly reduced risk does it completely take the risk away from those homes? I don't know. And. Part of it would be that we

would have to look at the study and understand where it's going to be. The other part of the question was the cost. And in speaking with one hydrologist about it, he suggested that it should be well under $10,000, and it shouldn't take. More than a couple of months, at least, based on the fact that there's already a certain amount of information out there and that the GRCA has an awful lot of. The preliminary data that's out there that would add value to that kind of a study. Thank you. One quick question. I don't know that you know the answer to this, but. A lot of stuff as well. Somebody a couple of weeks ago said to me that. The bridge that will replace the McIntynell bridge could not be actually installed at the same height that it is presently that new environmental standards require it to be constructed higher. Are you aware of that. And does that factor into your concerns? The fact that the new dam would be. That the bottom portion of the new dam would be in and around the same elevation as the existing one concerns me. I find it hard to believe. That there wouldn't be some kind of pressure to raise it, to raise the level of. That bridge. But the reality of that would mean that. You'd have

to also raise the railroad. You'd also have to raise. All of the roadways around it. And. I'm not an engineer, but. I would have to suggest that that could be. Significant millions of dollars associated with it. So what we're saying is. That don't raise the bridge. Lower the water. Anyway, thank you very much. I will ask staff the same thing. I didn't even think. Of the railroad, so I'll have to ask that as well. Thank you. Great. Nothing further to you both. Thank you so very much. Thank you. And that's it for our delegations, everybody. So it is back to us. We do have the recommendations that were pushed forward from the committee of the whole to us here. As council tonight. They're up on the screen for everybody. And wondering if we can at least have the regular motions tabled. Yes. Okay, Phil. Yes. Sure. So, Councilor Alton, Councilor Downer will move in second. I've had a request to split some of the voting up front so we'll get through some weed through. No pun intended, way through the waters of some of the questions that we have in front of us, and then

we'll go from there. So alt. And then I see a hand up here. Galler. And we'll start with. Those two right now, okay? Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie. I've heard a lot about the McDonald street bridge tonight, and I'm a bit. Concerned about that. The first thing that I'm concerned about is the assertion that the Macdonald street bridge. When it is reconstructed will be inadequate for. Bike end and additional. Non motorized transportation. Is that to be our understanding? Through you. The merit to councilor alt. So the approach we're taking to designing the wider. Macdonald Bridge. Because there will be a multi use path on the north side of the road which will allow bi directional travel for both pedestrians and cyclists. on the south side of the bridge there will just be a standard sidewalk so pedestrian access only no bikes on the south side of the road The intention is that the ward to downtown Bridge would allow for cycling connection. In that

sort of desire path going southward towards. Elizabeth street or down duke street? Meanwhile. The multi use path on the north side is more intended for connections up Arthur street to the north and over to the St. George's neighborhood. There likely will be some amount of connectivity. Around. The Macdanell Arthur Elizabeth intersection. However, as mentioned, that does require several. Road crossings to be able to make that, and considering the complexity of the geometry. The preferred approach is to minimize the amount of active transportation that's being directed through that. Intersection, as it's also a truck route complex geography and so on and so forth. Thank you. I understand from other cities that it is standard practice to have bi directional bike lanes on one side of a road. Am I right or wrong in that? Through the merit council. Yeah, you're correct. Multi use paths do tend to be bi directional. For both pedestrians and cyclists. Thank

you very much. Thank you very much. No. Through you, Mayor Guthrie to staff. The height of the bridge has been a concern, and we're hearing about the possibility that it could be potentially threatened by large volumes of water.

Somebody told me, I don't know, that the person was an expert, that the Macdadow. Street bridge would have to be built higher. I know nothing about engineering. I was wondering if. Staff could please comment on that. I'm just going to interject for a second. And I just want staff to confirm something, and just so that we can all be on the same page before we move forward. Is it relevant? To be talking about detailed design issues like height of bridges and things like that. When. We are here today. To approve the completion of an EA. So I just want to make sure that we're not getting into the weeds, no pun. Intended again. About certain, like what's the width of a bridge or what's it going to. Look like? I just want to make sure that we're not veering off into areas. That is not applicable to the completion of an EA report that is in front of us. If I'm wrong. Please tell me right away. I'm wrong. Just tell me I'm wrong. But I just want to make sure. What are you looking for? From a question and answer point of view, in conjunction with the report. That is actually in front of us just so we can set the stage and the

foundation before. We move forward with the rest of the questions. Okay? Anybody? Yeah. So to you, Mayor Guthrie. If you can indulge me here. So you're right in the sense the EA is. Done at. A certain level of detail, and it's a regulatory process. City staff have to follow in. These types of situations with this specific type of infrastructure. So after an EA is completed council direct staff to file the notice of completion then we move forward to detailed design of that preferred solution. In detail design is exactly where we make adjustments and do analysis for things like what's the height of the bridge? How do you factor in? Safety for things like flood control, that kind of thing. And so that's worked, that staff would always do. That's exactly. What the professional engineering field would be here for. And so those are future steps in the process. Okay, so back to councilor Alt's question, which I'm actually curious myself in. Yeah, I do have a point of order. And I'm quite happy if you say that I'm wrong. But because the issues that we've heard from the delegates tonight and that I understand there's a potential motion coming forward. Focus on the dam and floodway. My question I do believe is quite germane to what's being discussed and will be discussed later on that's

my concern, but as I said, I'm prepared to. Accept. What you're ruling. Yeah, I would suggest. If we could keep it at this time and you still have the floor. Absolutely. Councilor alt keep it this time in reference to the completion of the EA report. Sort of that regulatory moment that we are in. This process and project, and then if anything kind of starts to come forward around detail design, then. Let's save our questions for that moment for a second, and then we can wade through. It, then. Is that okay? It's quite all right. And as I said, I'm. Prepared to accept. Your decision on this. And the question then stems from the motions that are in front of us. The motions speak particularly about the bridges and not about the dam. And I am wondering whether in fact, much of this discussion. Is then out of order, and we need to focus on the dam at some other point. And I would look to you for some decision on that. Well, how about I just parse? Thank you. I think that's a valid question. How about. I just parcel it out right now? And I know that you're on the list. Councilor Galler. And I'm going to get to you. I'm not going. To cut that off at all. But can we just scope any questions to the EA? If there's none, then we

can. Maybe move it to the other questions that might be coming about, but. I don't want us to start wandering into other areas of detailed design work. That we know it comes next. And I think that's where I just want to make sure that we're focused. Councilor Downer, did you want to speak up for a second and then back to you? Councilor. So I think that's the question I sort of want to ask. So this hydraulic analysis that would be done. Should that be done at this point in an EA or is that done later? In the design portion. And process, and if it's done in the design process and it's determined that the dam should be removed. Does that happen? And that's sort of what I want to know. What happens? People are saying, pause it, vase up, because we need to do it now. But I'm hearing from staff know that this is done later, so can you clarify that? For us from what staff's perspective on process would be, and I think that would help. Us ask our questions about what is in the EA and what's later and what information we, as a council, might want to have later when that

work is done. So allow that to happen, then I am going to move the floor back to councilor alt. Okay, so go ahead. Through the mayor to councilor downer. So with respect to the EA, the EA takes a look at the long list and shortlist of options to solve the problem. And then what it does is it compares those options against a set of criteria, social, fiscal, environmental, criteria. And so on. The balance of all of. The criteria that are in the EA. Each option is analyzed and the ultimate best option is selected. And so the level of detail provided with respect to every single option is not at the level of granularity of detailed design. That's only for the recommended options of the EA. If we were to do that on every single. Aspect, the EA covers the cost and time to complete the work would be substantially higher. The project work would be substantially delayed, and that's just not the form and function of the EA. The EA is the feasibility study, and it spits out sort of what the right path is. From there. So the second part of that question was, if that worked, is done later and there are complications.

Or understanding what the worries that people are bringing to us and the concerns is then that brought back. Or things modified, would you ever come back? With a recommendation that. There's something that we need to do in the design to mitigate this or change. It. Yeah. So through the mayor to you, council Downer. So again, the EA right now suggests it recommends rehabilitation as the main option. That's the option we'll pursue if we were in detailed design of that option, and we found complications that required us to maybe pivot. And change course. Depending on the nature of that, we certainly may be back in front of council. Perhaps we would. Have to have an amendment to the EA, depending on those outcomes. So that is the kind of thing that can happen in the future. If that adds more clarity. Okay. You have the floor. Thank you very much, Mary, Kathy, because I'm still sorry, everybody. No. I'm still trying to deconstruct. The issue here. I'm trying to figure out what is the problem we're trying to solve. Are we trying to solve a problem of the bridge or bridges? Are we trying to solve the problem? Of the dam and the river, or are we trying to solve both? Because when I look at these motions, these motions very clearly identify that we're dealing

with. The bridge, and that's why I'm struggling with this. And if that's the case, then any of the discussion of the dam, in my opinion, is out of order at this point unless it has an impact on the bridges. When to order, your worship. Sorry. I'll allow the point of order, but I wouldn't mind stopped also answering. Councilor Alt's question. But you have a point of order. You go redhead just quickly. Page one of the staff report says that the EA. Has. Four points. Point number two is that Alan's bridge be removed when we approve the first. Motion today. We are also approving, given direction for staff to remove the Allen Spritz. Number three to remove the allen stem. Rehabilitate, balance them. So I think by talking about the first motion we're talking. About the rehabilitation of Alan stem. Okay, thank you. Let's just see what staff say to that question, because they might say, exactly what you just said. Do you need a question? Yeah, through your mayor. Got through. Councilor, if you may

just repeat. Your question one more time. The motions that we have in front of us relate directly to the bridges. There's nothing in there that references the dams. The question I have is, what is? The problem. That we are trying to solve today. The bridges. Or the dam and the river. Or the bridges and the dam in the river. That's the crux of the issue, right? So through you, mayor got through to councilor. Alt the first recommendation in the staff report is for all of the associated infrastructure. That is described in the EA. So that would include the dam. This way, the bridge, the pedestrian bridge, et cetera. Thank you very much. Now, I think we can discuss. Things. Thanks, everybody. Appreciate that, Councilor Gaul. Or thank you for your patience. You're up. Next. Go ahead. Thank you through your worship to staff. First of all, thank you for this immense body of work. I do understand that you need to scope. The project otherwise. There would be tremendous scope creep. So that I am clear as you move ahead with their recommendations as presented

here. Would you do an exploration, as the community members have requested, of the impact of preserving the dam? And the impacts on the properties that are upstream from the dam. Through you. Mayor to councilor Galler.

Through detailed design. We would look at all those impacts. You would be looking at, because here we're given direction for them to be rehabilitated and the community members are saying, well, you should be removing it. As I understand it, back and forth, we would have to give you direction to actively explore removing. Them. So I'm just trying to understand whether you would be looking at councilor downer. Said, would you be looking at those options regardless of any direction from council or not? Through you. Mr. Chair. Mr. Mayor, I'll take. This one. So as we move forward, The rehabilitation of the dam would include in hydraulic analysis that was going to be done regardless. That hydraulic analysis was going to be focused on. Making sure that we can manage the 100 year storm or the regional storm. Under the future MacDonel Bridge, and that can be accomplished through a number of different means. One of them is going to be refined modeling. We've already heard that the model we have is not that accurate. And we've

heard the same from. The Grand River Conservation Authority. We will be refining that model and focusing on. The mcdanell. Bridge and the Allen spillway. We'll also call it the dam. It's the same thing as the spillway. It's the same. It's the same structure, so. Between that. Refined modeling. We will also look at options to raise the underside of the bridge as much as we can. That might include raising the deck to the point where maximum is able to to work. With the various intersections, and it'll also include. We may trim the top of that wear to create a little more elevation to make sure that we can control the storm and get it over the top and what that trimming may look. Like we'll have to investigate it because. The complications of removing that weir spillway, or the dam, as we want to call it. Is, how does that support the abutments for. The existing and the future Macdonald Bridge. How does it support. The peers for the Metrolinks viaduct. Metrolinks will have a significant

impact on what we do here? So that sort of structural and hydraulic analysis would be done. So back to the original question. The intent wasn't necessarily to do a full analysis of what the removal would be like. We would do enough hydraulic analysis to make sure that we could manage the storm. The floodplain. Work upstream of the bridge really is Grand River Conservation Authority turf, and it's work that they should be working on, and they are, because they're refining their model, too. So I just wanted to raise a couple of those points. The other thing we could work on is how does that sluice gate operate during a high water event. Is there something automatic or is it a manual? Type of. We have options that we will explore. During final design to make sure we can control the 100 year in the regional storm event, which is the concern here. Thank you for that. If I may, we received a couple of letters in the last couple of days, one from emerge and one from the Ontario Rivers Association. Could I ask you to

please respond? To each of those. They raised somewhat different but similar concerns, and they were focused not so much as you said. The focus has been on the impact of the dam on. The new bridge that they're going to build. They talked about the impact of the dam. On. The property's upstream and also on the health of the river up and downstream. If I could ask you to talk to those. Certainly through you, Mr. Mayor. We did look at the impacts of full removal. Now, a lot of valid points have been raised by the delegates. But. However. As the acting deputy CIO Gaiman has pointed out, Ea's we don't work to have perfect information. We gather enough information to understand. Are we confident in the decision moving forward? And we are now. Fine tuning of that information will get decided through the detailed design phase. The question about the impact of full removal of the weir. Yeah, we can do the hydraulic studies. Can it be done in a couple of months? I don't know which consultants ever give me that or cans out. No.

We'd be into significant undertaking to revise the model and get that updated. As well point out that the sediment was raised by one of. Our delegates. A significant amount of work to understand. How we would remove the sediments and deal with it so that we're not damaging the natural environment. And honestly, there's going to be contamination in there as well. So that is something we will have to understand as well if we are going. To consider removing that structure. I got the floor. We will also be significant engagement that will have to be undertaken. Even though we've heard from very intelligent folks tonight, well presented arguments on why the dam should not be there. There is many in the community that. Will wish to retain the mill pond out of cultural recreational heritage importance. So there will be that discussion to have as well. Thank you for that, your worship. I have two motions that

I would like to add as well as the three on the floor. If I could ask the clerk to please bring them up based on what I heard. I want to thank our delegates. Mr. Panama care, Mr. Diamond. Mr. Swami, thank you for being here today. And Evan. And thank you so much, everyone. I'm listening to your concerns. I've read the letters and I've worked. With staff on these motions, although they are not supportive because. They're comfortable that. The ES presented satisfies. The safety of the bridge. This is what would be required. To really explore. The removal of the dam. Now. I'll read them out loud. That staff be directed to conduct a necessary technical studies. To evaluate the removal of Adeline stem during the detailed design of the McDonald nylon structures. Subject to the inclusion of 750,000 to expand the scope of capital project. The McDonald Bridge Allen Dam structural upgrades in the 2026 budget and that staff report back to council on the

outcomes of the Allen stamp technical analysis, including. Appropriate. Next steps, I'd like, if I have a second there from council on this. Quran. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We've heard that there would be more studies needed. This is what our staff team has said that would be the scope and the dollar amount to really explore the removal of that dam. So I would ask my council colleagues. To consider this. We've heard from the community for many folks that have a lot of information, and I just wanted to ask staff at the first question. On the motions. The $750,000 addition to the capital. Could you give me a little. Bit of an understanding of how. That would be spent. Would it be that first you do the hydraulic modeling, and then if you determine that there are benefits to removing the dam. Then you do other studies. I'm just. Trying to understand whether we would commit to spending all of that or it would be up to that amount. And at some point you might say, actually, we're not going to spend that. Much. Yeah, through the merit councilor galler, so certainly. That's a conservative number

given. The sort of time which staff had to prepare and think through scope and so detailed scopes. Matter. We need to do that work for good reason. And so the concern is certainly with this. Is once you start to peel back sort of the layers of the onion, so to speak, that there could be much more to this. We have to think about things like structural integrity as well. Of metrolinx infrastructure. All the permitting that may be associated with that studies. They may require things of that nature that are just not part of the assignment and scope of this environmental assessment. Again, that's why staff have the environmental assessment process here with the recommendation in the original report. And so it does feel a bit like an open ended moment here. If council goes down this path, and I certainly wouldn't recommend that. But that's where that funding comes from. Is there any other questions just on this before I call the vote on both of these? Yes. Downer. And then billings. Gibson and Katen. Okay? So it's not necessarily a question. It's just my understanding is that. All the concerns we've heard is around

risk upstream. And staff told us around. Had told us how they're going to deal with that through what they studies and if it comes back. That's the issue that the community has raised is risk. So I don't know. Why we would go ahead and remove it. Decide to remove it. Without having those extra studies done. Maybe my question to staff is sort of that what I'm sort of hearing, that if those risks were realized through extra study and the. Cas extra studies, then we would start entertaining that. But at this point, the recommendation is because there's other risks in what you've identified, in actually removing it as well. Through you, Mr. Mayor. To the councilor. Right now. We're recogn. Recognition. If we got into those other studies and we came back to council. With. Here's the impacts of removal. Then there would have to be a decision made on basis of risk for the community

by council. Okay. So we might get to what councilor Galler's motion is down the road, but. At this point. For me. This is premature, this motion. I would prefer to see a motion to come back, maybe with information. Whenever that work is done, and then. We can. Maybe if there's significant risk at that time, we can just deal with it. But this is premature. From my perspective, and it sounds like we don't completely have all the costs and the risk because staff have just sort of looked at this. We're hearing about this in the last couple of days, so. I don't think it's anyway premature. So I won't be supporting the motion. I understand the intent of it. But I'm not prepared to move that motion today, okay? So, moving right along, I have Billings, Gibson, Kate and Chu and Alt. Unless your question has just been answered. So for you, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to ask Mr. Gaman, so help me out with. This? Because I think you mentioned, and correct me if I'm wrong, that even if council. Were to support this

motion up to spending 750,000 on a technical analysis that you feel that your recommendation? Would not change. If that's correct, can you explain why? Or is it your answer was peeling back the onion and look at everything that happened. Like, just explain it to me through the merit of council billings? Yes, certainly. I expect if we did do that analysis. We're going to find a certain level of complexity and potentially additional costs. And again, from a staff's perspective. The recommendation in the EA is to rehabilitate the structure, right? And that, again, was balanced on the affordability criteria, the social criteria, the environmental criteria, in that regulated process. And so I continue to say you should be pointing yourselves back to that point in our report. And our recommendation. The additional funds can get you more information on another option, but staff would still be the position that the rehabilitation is the preferred method. We would need further council direction in the future based on all of that additional work. If you actually want us to switch gears and do a different solution there, which, again, at this point, I wouldn't recommend. Okay. And then also through Mr. Mayor, I wanted to ask, and I guess

this is just clarity. Would not the GRCA have to approve the removal of the dam? Like it sounds like, council wants to direct this after studies are done, but at the end of the day, would it not? Have to be the Gr. GRCA that gets the approval for their removal. Through the mayor, council billings. There are absolutely permitting processes required here. So GRCA, potentially MNRF and metrolinks as well, depending on what the outcome is, right? So we don't have that solution. Prepared through the lack of the work that would be done to get to that moment. But there could be a number of different permitting processes. Okay, but then also it was mentioned that the GRCA is working on. Extra modeling as well. Do you know how far along they are in their process in this specific area. So through the major council buildings staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but I know the GRCA has gone through their update. I think some of that draft modeling may be in as recently, within the last week or two. But either way, as we go through detailed design, we'll always work with them and work with the most updated information that we can get with respect to the modeling. Typically, models like that start conservative and sometimes tighten with better data and. Better information. That's

not necessarily the case, but that may be an outcome. Okay. And then. Last question. Last question. I promised Mr. Damon. So through you, Mr. Mayor. Okay, let's just. Say, hypothetically, studies are done and is determined that we remove the dam. Is this something that the city of Guaff would be 100%. Financially responsible for or partly the GRCA. Would pay for some of this removal as well. Through the mayor to council buildings. If you just give me 1 second, I just want to confirm. I believe staff through the EA work dam ownership is confirmed with the city, right? I'm seeing heads nod, so I think that gives you your answer. Council billings, that would be city cost. Thank you. Okay. Gibson and Kate. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, just going to walk through my thought process and. I'll ask a question to Mr. Gaiman as well. We're here today to. Ratify. The EA as it's gone through. It's found ourselves a preferred alternative. A preferred solution. We are voting on that so that the staff, city

can issue our notice of completion. I struggle with the idea of carrying. Does it open up. The city to criticism. If we are carrying, effectively, two solutions. Forward from the EA? Like, does it limit you your ability to file a notice of completion if you actually haven't come. This motion kind of opens up a second option, so we're kind of investigating two alternatives still. So are we able to file the notice of completion if we're going to carry this motion forward. Because we're not really sure what we're doing yet, so maybe I'll. Just turn over to you? Does it cloud the ability to sort of close the book on the EA and keep moving forward on detailed design. Through Mr. Meredith Council Gibson so certainly. That's, in a way, what I was getting at with respect to we'd still need direction in the future if we were to switch from the recommendation in the EA so the recommendation is to rehabilitate the damage looseway. And so if that were to change based on further analysis. We'd have to come back to council. We'd have to get that direction. We'd have to amend the EA in the future, because the EA. And when you tell us to file the notice of completion. It's going to say rehabilitate. Okay, so. I will. Support the EA process that

we are finalizing our preferred option moving forward. So that staff can file a notice of completion. All the while understanding that through detailed design, Other things may come to light in which staff need to come back and ask for an amendment. To the Ea, but for the purposes of today's meeting, We'll move forward into detailed design with a preferred alternative that was chosen through the EA. Process. I appreciate staff's effort on this, and I look forward to learning more. Thanks, Kate and Chu. Thank you. Through to you, Mr. Mayor. Acting DCO gaming. Can you please remind me what the cost was for or the estimated cost? Because I know you don't have all the complete details for removal versus rehabilitation of the dam in this loose way. Through the mayor to councilor Cayenne. Actually might look to our project engineer, Andrew Miller. To see if he has the numbers on hand. I don't want to misquote. Them for you. I think I could do it right now, but I'll let Andrew confirm. Through the merit of Councilor Katen. Yes. The removal option. For the allen's

dam as the capital infrastructure only or capital removal of the exact dam. Structure without all the additional aspects that will have to be considered was $2 million. And rehabilitation of the dam was at $415,000. Okay. Srida mayor. So, like councilor Downer, I feel that a lot of the issues that were presented were about. Risk of flooding. And I heard from staff that there are ways to mitigate that. Via shaving, some off the top and other things like that. So I'm comfortable with that. And there is also mention. Of habitats further down the line. And I remember when we were doing our walk. Within the pond structure. Their new habitats that have been created because that's been there so long. When you've got two competing habitats like that, how do you pick between

them? Through you, Mr. Mayor. That one got poked at me. To answer that question. And that comes back to the question. Of. I totally agree. There will be pros and cons to each of these decisions. There is an established ecosystem upstream and downstream of the spill. Spillway. Right now that will be disturbed. The question that staff and council will have to wrestle with is which is the greater benefit. If indeed we move down the path of investigating full removal. Okay, so right now I'm leaning similar to councilor Downer thinking that this is. Just a little bit premature. And that a lot of the things that. I was concerned with that folks have brought up can be mitigated. And that staff will come back to us if there's something. That is dire or exceeds the risk level. Thank you. Chew, then

alt. After you, Mr. Mayor. Just the staff, and I guess I'll provide some preamble. I'm just concerned. Financially long term, what the cost of keeping the dam would be if we kept it. So this kind of just goes back to my concern. I guess my question first would be annually, roughly how much does it cost to maintain the slew? Do we have that figure or just roughly? Through the merit of Councilor Chu on an annual operating basis. We don't have a regular maintenance cost for the dam. We are proposing $415,000 for rehabilitation, which should last. For a number of decades, but beyond that, I can't break it down to an annual maintenance cost. Okay. And for me, I'm just acknowledging councilor Gibson's comments. About being able to file that notice of completion. This is a

municipal EA, so it's within our purview at that of the date, what decisions council ought to make, even in detail design if there is some direction. Is that correct? We can provide some direction. If we. Wanted, hypothetically. Through the miss class Ea. We've undertaken a Folsom process. That documents it all the way along. And you have in front of you a preferred recommendation. I would not suggest counsel pick one different and not just go with it. We would ultimately have to recall back out to the public. And gather the input. And come back with counsel. I would not recommend council make a decision to change the recommendation then. Issue a notice of completion. Okay, I guess I'll provide some comments. This has been an ongoing conversation, I believe, since. 1993, whether to remove the dam or not because it's no longer serving its purpose. Being

a dam for the mill. She's no longer in commission, obviously. And my thinking is we have an opportunity right now, with all this expense of work, to make. That decision whether we're going to remove it or not. If we don't. Have. An opportunity to provide a touch point during the detail design. We are ready making that decision as it is to rehabilitate. And I guess what would speak to the comfort of counsel is if we had some opportunity. Just for a minor touch point of sorts so we can make that decision with more information. Whether we actually. Want to honey up with the monies to remove the dam, but obviously, right now we don't. Want to make that financial commitment because we don't have that information. And also this EA in scope is very broad by its nature. There are three action items and the one that we're focused on tonight is whether. We want to remove or rehabilitate the slew way and spillway. And which is outside of the scope of this current EA.

So that's the conflict that we have. We'd like a touch point, but we also want to ensure that notice of completion can move ahead. So I'm just wondering if there's a way in which we can reconcile that. And if something as simple as an info report could do the job. Sorry. That was a lot. Through the mayor to councilor Chu. To the manicure two. I appreciate the sentiment of the comments that you just made here. The process is exactly that. The council is being asked to make a decision on an environmental assessment. It's fully baked out. It's fully informed by community feedback and a regulatory process, and it's got an outcome, the detailed design and detailed engineering work on every project that we do from a capital perspective. Then takes those things and turns them into. Reality. There's public information. Centers or open houses during those detailed designs. So there's moments where public can come and get informed. Counselors can come and get informed, provide feedback, ask questions, do that kind of thing. Through those channels and means I don't recommend that staff start coming back with information reports. With respect to detailed designs, I think that that is added work for staff that have capacity challenges. In the first place with respect to delivering on the overall capital portfolio. And so that would be

my preference is to just let the detailed design process play as per usual, get involved. In those ways that we normally have for the community and for yourselves. And then budget is always another conversation in the future where we will be talking about those projects. Okay, just one final question. Then during the public open toes, and then the community engagement. Would there be opportunity for you at staff level to contemplate. Whether or not. We want to go ahead and remove the dam. If all that information leads, that would be the most prudent and cost effective solution. To consider. Obviously, it deviates a lot from the rehabilitation, but would there be opportunity for you? Guys to make that decision? Or is a decision already made here tonight based on the direction we're going to provide to you. So through the merit of council to the decision in the EA is to rehabilitate. The structures. And so with that direction, with the notice of completion, that's the work we would seek out to do if, during the detailed design work of that preferred alternative, we ran into complications that would require us to come back to council.

Then that would be how? That process would play out. Perhaps at that point, we would say, we now would recommend. Sort of the item that finished in second place in the EA and maybe funding to evaluate that. Further, but we would be doing the work on the preferred alternative and recommendation in the EA only. We are starting to circle because my list is just growing and growing and growing. I need a dam to stop the list. So I got alt, then bustill, then Downer, then back to caller. I'm sorry. On the amendment. Clause. Guys, I want to wrap this up on the amendment, please. Okay, I really want to wrap it up. So. I am going to alt. Thank you, Mayor Guthrie. And this is on the amendment. It is through you two staff, as I've said. I do favor. The elimination of the dam. I'll be quite honest. There's a number of different reasons, geese being one of them, the eutrefication of

that particular pond, the seasonal nature of there's no doubt in my mind, but our first principles here are about replacing a bridge. And so that's a significant concern to me. I can't answer the questions about Metrolinks and federal jurisdictions, but I'm hoping that staff can please address the challenges. That we might have as a consequence of delays when it comes to extending the lifespan of the current mactinal bridge. If, as. A consequence of much of what we're talking about right now leads to significant delays. Through the merit of council alt. So I think you've raised a valid point with respect. To timelines. We have condition assessments. We do. On the Mactanel bridge. There's a limited lifespan. With respect to that infrastructure, and so we continue to inspect it on an annual basis. There is a point in time at which that bridge structural integrity may be in jeopardy, where we may, for example, have to load restrict the bridge. If you get into the load restrictions, you're. Getting into things like impacts to emergency services, transit, goods, movement, all kinds. Of impacts with respect to how the community transportation network functions. So certainly. I would

be avoiding those delays. From the professional engineering perspective. And again, These studies, this additional sort of contemplated scope of work could grow quite substantively. So I don't think we have a sense right now of the timelines. Do you make one decision and move to another one and another one, and another one and all? Of a sudden, you could be two years, three years, five years before we're even done. A detailed design. And so maybe by that point, we're in a different situation with the macTannel. Bridge. Thank you. As per councilor downer, I do believe what we are talking about is. Somewhat premature. I will absolutely commit to listening to all of the concerns about the spillway and listening to my reasoned colleagues who are very concerned about the river, because I am too. But at this point, I believe this is premature. Consequently, I can't support the amendment. Who's it? Tilde and Downer. Thank you. I will be very brief. I have listened to the delegations and read the materials as well. I would agree with councilor Katen Downer, alt and. Councilor Gibson, I think we need to focus on the EA getting it approved,

filed the notice. Of completion and get staff working on the detailed design as soon as possible with more community engagement which comes later. So I agree that this is premature, and I will not be supporting the amendment. Thank you, Downer. Doesn't need to continue. So, Gaura, then, Clawson, please. Thank you, worship. Just comments on this.

I just want to appeal to my council colleagues. When community groups come and advocate, when the water watchers would emerge, when GCAT they come. And ask us for something. I've been listening. I've got about 60 emails yesterday. And today about this, I think that we need to be very clear. If we do not support these additional motions. Staff will not do an in depth review. Of the removal of the dam. We are telling them, go ahead and rehabilitate it, and that is where they're going to scope their work. So saying that it's premature. This is the last touch point that we have to ask staff to seriously explore the removal of them a good removal compact. That. It's not a good idea that it would cost so much and we would have the second motion that staff report back to council on the outcomes of the Allen Dams technical analysis, including appropriate next steps, and that's a touch point for us. But. We wrote these two down. We are saying no to the exploring, the removing of the dam. So. I'm going to vote in favor of this, and I appeal to my council colleagues to please consider supporting this. And listen to what the

community is telling us, that it's important to them. Thank you. Thank you, Carson. Yes, thank you. And I appreciate all of my colleagues questions to staff and. It might be repeating it in a different way, so please bear with me. It is about process. And I've got an email in front of me from somebody who lives on Arthur street, and this person. Has made a complaint about the fact that. There was a blockage on the sluice way, and her backyard was filled with water. And she was the person who called it in. And so there's a real concern there that in a drop of a hat, your backyard. Can be flooded. So that considered. I'm doing some math. Quick math here. So 2 million for the removal, 415 for the rehab. That's a differential of just over 1.5 million. But if, let's say, in the next 30 years, there's. A major flood. And all of the homes along Arthur street are all of a sudden full of water. And then that could be millions of

dollars worth of damage. So my concern is going back to these emails and saying, The hydraulic dialysis did not look at modeling the impacts that removing the dam would have on the 200 people in 80 homes upstream of the dam. So my question is with regard to the process. So we approve this, you take it away. I think I heard that there's still hydraulic analysis coming and that some GRCA modeling would be considered. So if at that point, It's clear to you that the dam is a problem. Would you come back to us? Or. Would you remove it? I guess that's where. Does the decision point. Where does that come into play? Because right now, From my understanding, we're approving an EA with an option that says we prefer. The cheaper. Let's fix it for now and deal with it. Maybe later down the road. Or fix it again. Or potentially. There might be a point where we can actually make a change. I want to be really clear, but. When that problem is going

to be looked at. And when council might hear about it. So through the merit councilor class, and again, to sort of paraphrase earlier responses, The EA direct staff to do the rehabilitation. Preferred alternative if, through the detailed design work, we determine that that's not a feasible solution anymore, then that's when we would come back. To council seeking different direction. But if the solution designed and constructible and so on, then we would continue moving. Forward again, subject to future budget approvals. Okay. Thank you for making it really clear you would come back. Thanks. Okay. I don't think I have anything more. Am I good? Okay. Can you just put those motions up on the screen for the amendments, please? All right, so I will call the vote. Anyone against, please raise your hand.

Okay. So it's probably easier just for me to say that it's only Qur'an. And gala that are in favor, okay? So that's failed. And we're going to move back to the main motions that have been tabled already. Is there any comments before I call the vote or anything further? No. Okay. You have an amendment. Okay, cool. Is it going to come up on the screen? Yeah. Okay. Go ahead, Councilor Chu. Okay. And then just ask for a second. Okay? Yeah. Through you, Mr. Meer. So counsel just needs a touch point, essentially. That can come back to us as a mechanism to evaluate down the road whether we want to make that decision to go with the second option. Which is to remove the dam. Obviously, the EA and what we're proposing today is to look into and prioritize the rehabilitation. But once the hydraulic

modeling is done, And some of the consultation is done for the detailed design. Perhaps staff can come back to us with that info report. And if one of us, after reading the info report is compelled to bring it back to council for. Further. Budget commitment. We have the opportunity to do that. For me, this is a pure. Financial analysis. The stam is no longer needed. It's not necessary according to the history of it. And it might be the most optimal thing. Financially if we were to get rid of it. But it's not conclusive because we don't have all the right information, which is what the public is petitioning us on. So I think this is a fair compromise. It doesn't commit us to anything prematurely, but. We have this conversation. Public needs to have an opportunity. To evaluate whether we want to remove it and commit to that removal. And I guess I just want to apologize, too, that this conversation is happening this late, I think. We would have liked it. If it was

late earlier. But this is an important decision that we can't just pass away right now so that's just where my thought is. I think it's up to council right now to decide whether we want to move forward. With it, and this motion essentially does that for us. Let me see if there's a second error for this. Is there one? Clause. Thank you. Okay. Is there any questions on the amendment? Okay. I have one myself. Oh, sorry, alt. Go ahead. Thank you. Merrick Guthrie threw you to the mover within the three motions that we have. Where does that amendment go? We'll be number four. Thank you. Yeah, it would be a standalone as I would see it. Okay. Did I see another hand co op? Just two. Okay, Councilor Donner, just procedurally. Staff have said that. If there's a people come forward with their concern about risk. And they've already been through a public process, and

there have been people that won the dam rehabilitated as well. So people have said that too. I just wonder. If you get to that point where. If staff are bringing something forward. And they haven't identified any risk or problems through their further study, then it would actually be a reconsideration of counsel, because then. It's not something that staff are bringing back and recommending. It's something. Oh. I'm going to pull this report and do a motion to remove it, even though there's no recommendation, because. We're through the EA process. That's my understanding of the process here. Yeah. I'm comfortable that staff are going to bring back something. If there's these risks that the community is worried about. I would concur that that's procedurally, that's probably where we would be sitting, which would need a super majority of council to agree for an opening of a reconsideration. If you don't mind me just saying because it's moved and seconded on. The floor right now. I have a little bit of a problem with just the last part of the motion. I would feel more comfortable, but I need staff and my colleagues to maybe jump in. But

I would feel more comfortable if the last part of the motion was. Can you put it back up? On the screen.

I know I'm doing this on the fly, everybody, so give me some grace. But. The stoppage directed to report back to council with an information report during the detailed design phase. Following the public opened houses. I like all of that. I'm wondering if the ending. Should be. Something to the effect of if information deviates from the council approved. Ea. Completion. Like, in other words, If it's deviating from what we're doing today. Then maybe that's when it comes forward. But here's my question to staff. Is that usually in that case, A staff led report of any deviation would not need a motion of reconsideration because. It's led by staff, so they would be compelled. They'd actually be compelled. They wouldn't even worry about an information report. They would be compelled to have to bring something back to us as a full council report and when it's led by staff, there's no notice of motion process. Required.

Yeah, exactly. So I just want us to be careful. And I'll go to you through our Cao. But this whole thing about addressing feedback and Alan's dam and structures, to me, floats to a position of what councilor Downer just said, which is like, well, then any counselor can. Just pull the information report and bring it forward to have a discussion, which would then have to trigger a notice of reconsideration process. But if we instead had it that. If the information and the detail design work and the modeling and all this kind of stuff comes back where it's completely deviating from. What we're doing as a process today. I feel an information report might not even be required, they would just come back. To our Cao. Yes. So thanks, Mr. Mayor, for the opportunity to comment on the language above. I believe it's. Unnecessary. To direct staff to report back. There will be. And I'm just confirming again, we've, heard everything here today. As we go through detailed design. We have a risk management lens. If

there is a risk problem, flooding or otherwise. We will absolutely be back in front of council to advise. Next steps. We have an engagement process. Policy. We always provide kind of the summary of engagement throughout. The detailed design and leading into construction. And then I just also want to remind council that along the way through our PMO and our project management office. This is a tier one capital project. There will be lots of. Public posting like monthly updates, quarterly updates on our construction website you'll be able to follow along the process of this project as well. There are so many opportunities here. And this is not the last touch point. On this file. These are processes that typically we are not in front of council with because they are very regulatory. In nature, the EA process and then moving into the detailed design. And you really usually see. The touch point with council being at

budget, I would say generally, but because of the complexity we really thought this was an important one to have in front of. And have an open discussion about it. So I think it's all been really great discussion. We hear the feedback. But. The added report back is, in my opinion, not necessary. Thank you. Thank you to our Cao. So based on. That coming back from our Cao, that response to both the mover and the second or would you like to still maintain your motion and require vote of counsel, or would you like to consider removing it. Sure. Do you, Mr. Mayor? I think the broader decision is not so much about the risk. I think staff would have been confident already with the rehabilitation, doing their due diligence about the risk already. The question is more so, do we want the dam or not in the future? And do we want to have that opportunity, make that decision down the road? I think that's. The decision we have to make tonight, or else staff is going to go ahead. You correct? Me if I'm wrong.

Too, with going ahead with the rehabilitation and assessing risk, and if there is that risk, that outweighs. Rehabilitation. Then they'll come back to us. But as far as I'm concerned. It's very much a matter of do we want the dam or not? Or do we want to have that opportunity to make that decision, to have the dam or not? Down the road. So that's why I felt the information report would be the simplest and. Cletus way to do it without burdening staff with more work. So that's. Just my comments. No, it's okay. Council, too. No, you're fine. You're. Allowed to have that. That's fine. Do you want to maintain the motion, the amendment on the floor, or did you want. It's okay. I'm not trying to pressure you. You have every right. Did you want to leave it on the floor for a vote, or did you want to remove it. Can you remind me about the notice of reconsideration that you're talking about? Earlier. Sure, if you may. We have a process. Most councils do that. If you have any item that we have made a decision on. Anything. Whatever. Pick an item. And we've made that decision. Then a member of council that was in the affirmative to move forward on something has the right to do what's called a notice of motion

on a reconsideration. They would come forward and say, like, look, I made this decision on this with the majority, but I changed my mind. These are my reasons why I want to have a discussion of it at council, but it requires a super majority of two thirds of council to agree to even reopen. The discussion of that item. If that's achieved, then it says, if you kind of go back in time before the decision was made and you actually rehash that decision, and you can go in a different direction as long as you get a majority of counsel to agree with that. If you don't. Achieve the supermajority to reopen the discussion of it at all, then it dies on the floor and the previous decision is maintained. I think in this situation, I think I just want to echo what the CAO has said, okay? This conversation has been valid. We're not invalidating what's happened at all. Our staff have said, I think, in four or five different ways the same thing, which is they're going to do to the detailed design, they're going to be looking at risk. They're going to be looking at any mitigation that might come up or pop. Up during that process. If something comes of a nature that is requiring a deviation from what we're voting on, tonight. They are compelled to come to council, not an information

report. They're compelled to come. To counsel with an actual report. And so I kind of feel like. If that happens, then the trust is that they will come back and we will have that conversation. At that time. But you too are also correct. That if we are approving what's in front of us today, we are saying, The preferred, preferred way we're going is rehabilitation. That is the preferred way that where you're going with the EA being done and they are going to work on that unless something deviates from that that pops up down the road, okay? So I believe that the information report personally is now not required, even though I think it was. A valid idea because. Of. The trust that staff have said verbally and publicly here tonight that they would come back and say something to us or something deviated, and it would be a report, not even an information. Report, but you're the mover, so again, there's no pressure. You have every right to move an amendment, so you let me know if you want me to. Call the vote on it. Or if you'd like to remove it. Yeah. I really appreciate that breakdown. Thank you for that. For me because. Of the this is more so a decision for

us down the road if we want to pull this and then retrigger that process. A member of council in the future can do that. And I think with the timing of everything, I think that's more than fair because it has come up as a last minute item. But I think it's important that we have the ability to bring this discussion up at the table down the road. So I think I'm going to put this on the table. For council to decide tonight, and then. We can go from there. Do you have every right. No problem. Everybody, look, I'd really like to call the vote. On the amendment. Do I need to go to you? Gibson and alt still? Yes, Gibson and then alt still. I'm going to call the vote on the amendment, okay? Just from my council. Colleagues and I respect everyone's opinion. If you are thinking in the future, you may want to reconsider this decision. You need to vote for the staff recommendation tonight. If you vote against the staff recommendation tonight, you've already voted against. So you would need to go to a member of council that has voted for the staff recommendation and is open to reconsider their decision. As far as I understand, the bylaws. You are corrected this evening. Tonight, Councilor Chu, you won't be able to bring back a notice of reconsideration in the future, just as

a I just want to make sure I'm being respectful to what councilor Chu and Galler are considering. If you want to have that conversation in the future. You should be voting for the staff recommendation tonight or. Else you lose that right to bring forward reconsideration. Thanks. Thank you. You are correct procedurally on that, by the way. Alt, and then I got to call. Thank you, Mayor Guthrie. I'm sorry. I will be. Voting against councilor Chu's motion because I believe that the principal is held within councilor. Chu's motion have been expressed very well by CAO Baker and in fact, I do not want a supermajority to imperil the possibility of reconsidering. At some point in the future. That we might need to change our minds. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you, councilor. Ald. It's great that your amendment is here. We're going to call the vote on it. Okay? So I, too, am not going to vote in favor. Of it. I think I was kind of, like 80% there. It's just the last kind of wording on it that didn't sit with me, but that's okay. We'll call the vote. Okay, we'll have it put back up on the screen, and then I'll call. The vote. Okay, so all those against, please raise

your hand. Sorry, Carly, are you your hand up or down? Sorry. Just doing your hair. Okay. All right, so. It's. Quran and Clawson and Caller and Chu that have voted in favor of it. So it does fail. Okay, thank you. So we're back to the main motion, everybody. Okay? Is there anything. More before I please call the vote. And I've been asked to split, and that's totally fine. So if you don't. Mind. I haven't said anything yet on this, so I'm just going. To just say a couple of things. If there's anyone that thinks that this whole process has been complex, it's encapsulated in tonight's conversation. And so. Rightly so. It is complex. Just even the area is complex, so. Rightly so. It should translate into complex discussions, and we just had that. It's fair. So I just want to also acknowledge. Some of the correspondence and delegations. Councilor caller yourself, bringing forward furthering the discussion as well, I don't want to dismiss that at all. I don't think it's. Been dismissed by anybody sitting at this horseshoe at all. I also heard several times,

many different members of staff also acknowledge the complexity and the stuff that's been said by delegations. As well. They said it. It's not ignored. In fact, I think I heard you, Reg, say there's. Some of the issues that were brought up are valid enough. Nothing's being dismissed. Here at all. So I just want to make sure that that's captured, and I appreciate that. I took a tour of the actual. I took a tour with staff just last week. It was complicated enough for me that I had to ask for an onsite tour that I know. Some of you have also gone on before as well, by the way, so not just me, but it just happened to be me down there. And. I thank you, staff so much because it really put into perspective. Like, look, actually walking and pointing at the things that need to be happening and the risks and. The liability of what this does and that does, and I just wanted to talk a little bit. About just because it was a fluke that had happened. The pedestrian bridge beside the railroad tracks. I was asking about that question. And as we were talking about that, A lady walked across the railroad track in a distance. And. The issue there of having that trail. Like the pedestrian cycling bridge to the

side of there was no more evident to meet and in that very moment when I saw the lady. Not very well walking across that bridge. Human nature is that you're going to take sort of the quickest way to get where you want to go. And I think having that pedestrian cycling bridge there. Is actually a very prudent thing for us to have. And I needed to see it in person. I had to see it in person to understand that. And so I know it's a complicated thing. But I'm so glad councilor alt as well brought up the question just about. The structure of the bridge and how's it going with engineering and the safety of that? And whatnot as well, and I was confirmed. That. Our staff are doing engineered reports on it year over, year over year. But we have a responsibility. To make sure that we are maintaining these assets. And. That whole complex of that intersection in that corner. Is. It has to be fixed, but here's has to be fixed, so I just want to say thank you to staff and thank you to everyone that's been involved in this, but. I am very much in favor of what's in front of us here today with the caveat that if anything happens, future, I'm sure we will absolutely know. Okay, so

I'll call the vote on a split. Can you just put them up on the screen for. Me one more time and I'll go through one, two and three. So the first one is that the assessment be approved must not be directed to issue the municipal class. Environmental assessment notice of completion. So I'll call the vote on that. Is there anyone? Against that. Just galler. Okay, thank you. And number two is that staff be directed to salvage, retain and conserve the steel. Railing system and the salvageable elements of the superstructure of Allen's bridge for functional or commemorative reuse in the vicinity of Alan's bridge. So if anyone's against that. Please raise your hand. Oh, I didn't know you'd be like that. Okay, councilor alt and myself. So that passes. And then number three is that staff be directed to engage with the arts and. Culture Advisory committee, Heritage Advisory Committee to identify opportunities for historical commemoration, placemaking, and heritage conservation within the project area during the design processes. So anyone against that? Please raise your hand. Nobody. That's unanimous as well. Okay, we're done. Thank you very much, everybody. We appreciate it. We are at our last item, and I'm going to turn it over to

councilor Clawson, who's bringing forward this called elect respect fledge. So over to you, councilor clause, and thank you. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you to my colleagues. I'm going to try to be very brief. But I am bringing this forward because I've felt firsthand. How discouraging hostile spaces can be, and. In political sphere. And I would like to help change that. So this motion is about creating a culture of respect. So that everyone can participate safely. And it's about taking a pledge, the electrospect. Pledge sets a clear standard that respect and safety are expected in our political space. And I hope that you've had a chance to take a look at it, but the motion is built on the resolution. That's put forward by the elect respect campaign. The elect respect campaign. Was started by a group of counselors and other politicians and mayor in the Halton region. Originally put forward by Marianne Mead Ward, who is the mayor of Burlington. Where they

were having a discussion around abuse and harassment. In political life. And I think that we are no strangers to the political discourse that is happening right now. It's a toxic atmosphere, and I think there's a number of us who have also been. Part of that or targets of that. What I liked about the elect respect campaign is that it actually brings us together. In a group of politicians, and it holds us to these standards. And so there's six commitments. That I'm asking each of you to take. And there's a couple of other parts to it that asks it to be sent to other levels of government as well. And the pledge is also online, so anyone can take it. It doesn't have to. Just. Be counselors, it can be members of the public, it can be staff, it can be other. Organizations. I recently read that a chamber of commerce also took the pledge, which I think is exciting. Because I think we really need to be focusing on the idea. Ideas and the policies.

And not personal. Tax. And toxic behaviors. And so I'm asking if you would please support. The motion. But also, could you please take the pledge online if you haven't already? I know a number of you have, so thank you for that. And I'm obviously a little bit nervous on this one because. It impacts us, and I know it's impacted a number of us in different ways, so. Thank you for your attention. And I also have. A few cards to give out. I just wanted to say thank you to councilor Hauser. Who picked them up at the Healthy Democracy conference a couple of weeks ago. So thank you for being part of this conversation. I never confirmed an official seconder. I bet you everyone's hand. Okay. How was. There it is, then. Okay. That's fine. Thank you. It's because. You brought these back for us. That's the reason why, okay? Anything as a question to councilor

Clausen at all as the mover? Okay, we'll do questions first and then comments if we need to. Kate. Mine's a comment. Just go first. Comments is fine. Go first. I think it's a great idea. I think it's very complementary to the upgrad. Upgraded code of conduct that we just passed. And. I've seen things in the media just in terms of how other councils kind of relate. To each other and behave, and I've always been very thankful that we don't. Do that. I have not. Felt that sort of behavior in our council, and I've always been very pleased with that. And I would love if the community at large would also get on board with this, because that seems to be. Where a lot of. The behaviors tend to. Kind of turn and. I think that. The more we are in this together, the better we're going to be as a community. And the more we can accomplish. Thank you. Thanks, Councilor Cayton. I appreciate that.

Gibson, please. Yeah. Thank you very much. Mayor Gaspy. I'll just be a little bit vulnerable here for a minute. I've stepped back a little bit from my social media profile in recent years. Largely just because of my enjoyment of my personal life a bit more, but also just because of the level. Of engagement that I was trying to maintain, and it was bringing a lot of positive, but also a lot of negative. I will commit through this process. I'm not a perfect person. But when I'm engaging with people, I always try to keep in mind. Where they're coming from as well, and trying not to match energy all the time. The simplistic illustration I have is when I'm speaking to a constituent. They're passionate. They've got 15 minutes of my time or ten minutes of my. Time, and they really want to let me know what's bugging them, and I try. Not to match that energy simply because it feels to them. Like I'm overly defensive and. Something that. I tried to mirror in recent

years that while we're taking in all these opinions, That we aren't just simply just mirroring back what they want to hear. We are. Disagreeing with people respectfully at times, but that it's always done on a professional. Level, and it's never involved. The personal. So thanks very much for bringing this forward, Councilor Clawson. Happy to support. Thanks, Councilor Gibson. Anybody else before I call the vote at all? Okay, I'll just say ditto. And I would also just say that. I want to thank your leadership, Councilor Clausin, for bringing this forward. I think it's. Great. I want to thank councilor, not counselor, I guess, Mayor Mary Ann Meadworth. I'll just say it publicly in case she sees this back. For also doing this. Ontario Big City Mayor's caucus also endorsed this a little while ago. As a full caucus as well. I had the pin at home. I forgot to bring it tonight. And amo, of course, is also on this as well, attached to the Healthy democracy initiative that they're doing as well. And finally, I would just say that. This is directly related a lot,

I think, to misinformation and disinformation. And the things that I have found. Where the heightened disrespect. And vitriol is. Is usually hovering around the target of those that are spreading misinformation and disinformation on purpose. And. I think, as councilor Katen said, that opportunity for us to have unity around these values. But also in speaking truth and printing truth and facts around things also will, I think, really help. In this whole endeavor that we have here as well. And I've just been reminded, too, that. I'm assuming this is going to be unanimous. That every other council and councilors individually, mayors and such, have. Really promoted that we've done this. So I would just encourage everyone to say, like tonight, on social media or tomorrow or something if you can. We've taken a stand or together in unity around these values so that we can try

to be the best that we can be in trying to help our community. And just as councilor Gibson said, Not perfect. Me either. By the way, just in case everyone didn't know that already, we're all not perfect, but how we can work together to keep each other accountable on these values, I think, is just as important, too, and we do that in a respectful way as well. And so I do like the one. That says reject and call it harassment, abuse, and personal attacks. I just think that that's something that we should all try to very much me work on it. If we see someone attacking counsel or Hauser or you or a staff member or whatever. We should try to have that unity of sticking up for each other a little bit around those types of circumstances that present themselves. So. I love it. Thank you. This is really taking fire across the whole province. It's doing very, very well. And again, I appreciate your leadership in bringing it forward. With that, I'll call the vote. Is anyone against? The elect respect values and pledge. Just one more time. Anybody? No, I was kidding. Okay, that's unanimous. That's great. Good job. Thank you. Sorry, did you want to say something else? You had? Your

hand up or are you good? No, I just wanted to say thank you. And I appreciate the support. And look forward to. Many. More civil and democratic conversations. In my future. All right. Thank you again. Well, I think we're at the end of the evening, which I think a lot of baseball lovers will appreciate bylaws councilor Richardson. They're going to be up on the screen for you. To read out for us, if you don't mind. That bylaw 2025.

2111-0820-2521-1138-2 thousand and 2521-1158 be approved subject to section 284.1 114 of the municipal act. Great. Thank you very much. Seconded by Councilor Alta, I think. Yeah, perfect. And I'll. Call the vote on those. Is anyone against those bylaws? No, that's unanimous as well. We are now at the mayor's announcement. Art? Nothing. Oh, yeah, that's right. When do I have that? Is it Thursday? You guys know more than I do. Thursday, 06:00 I believe. 630 to eight. I'm so sorry. I forget what it is. Sometime this Thursday night is. My town hall budget Facebook on the mayor cam Guthrie page. Hopefully, everyone can be respectful. 630 I believe. Yeah, I'll put out. Some posts on that. That would be great. And with that, I'm adjournment. Before we do admit, or maybe just after we do adjournment, wondering if my colleagues on the screen. Could just stay

on the screen for 10 seconds. And maybe everyone in the room here could gather together in the middle, holding up our cards. And we could have a group photo of everyone on the screen. Well, come around and we'll do that. So I'm going to move Koran. Will move adjournment, I think. Yes. Billings will say second to that. Okay, anyone against? Aderment. Nobody. Perfect or adjourned. But let's do a group photo. I'll tell you on the microphone when we're done. The photo, okay?

People on the screen give us all a thumbs up.

Okay. Go blue jays. See you later, guys. Bye.