Sleeman Centre ice allocation and youth subsidy

All right, good evening everybody. I'd like to call the council meeting to order, please. It is Tuesday, March 31st, 2026. We're here for our Council meeting. And right off the top, as disclosed on the Open Agenda, we're looking to move into a closed session of Council. And it's only under one item, as is on the screen there, that the Council of the City of Guelph now hold a meeting close to the public pursuant to the municipal act to consider bargaining mandate report Ontario Public Service employees local 231. As per section 239 2D of the municipal act regarding Libra Relations or Employee Negotiations. That's the only item that's in front of us to discuss enclosed. And wondering if, before I call the vote on that. Is there any disclosure of pecuninary interest? Any general nature thereof for that one item that's presented to move into closed. No, don't hear or see anybody. So would someone be willing to move it for me? Councillor Alton Clauson will second. Thank you. Anything further. No, okay, I'll call the

vote to move into closed. Does anyone against. That's nobody, that's unanimous. So we're going to just have a quick closed meeting, everybody, on that one item. Uh, as it's described on the open agenda, we do have the open session starting at six. So, uh, if you want to hang out, so be it. Uh, if you want to go grab a drink and help support our local businesses downtown for half an hour, go do that. For six o'clock. Okay. Thank you.

Hey everyone, this is your one minute warning and sorry to everybody here public wise for our delay in starting the open session. We will kick things off in just one minute, okay? Thank you very much.

Okay everybody, we're gonna call the meeting to order for our open session. Thank you very much for waiting that extra few moments. We appreciate that. Just before we look to stand to recognise our national anthem, we did move into a closed session, which is why we're a little bit late. It was described on the agenda in regards to, let me just read it for you. The bargaining mandate for Ontario Public Service employees, local 231. And so as a high level, summary for that, we did give direction to staff in regards to that matter in camera. Okay, so that's what occurred there from a direction point of view. And other than that, that's it. And so please stand if you're able, as we recognise our national anthom to kick off our open meeting.

Great. Thank you. And I'll just take a moment for Silent Reflection. Before we continue.

Great. Thank you. And now our Indigenous territorial acknowledgement, as we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work hearing Guelph. A city built over rich Indigenous histories. We're guests here in Sub Reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land, the people who live here today and the generations to come. If our actions today can move us towards Reconciliation, we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude. This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many people's over time, but more specifically, the Anahuanarock and the Hononishoni. This land is held as the treaty lands and the territory with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. Yet Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman track and is part of a long - established traditional hunting grounds for the Six Nations of the Grand River. And many First Nations MAT people who have come from across Turtle Island, Hall Guelph Home today. Thank you for that. Is there any disclosure at pecuniary interest or any general nature thereof for the items that are in front of us tonight. Don't here or see anybody jumping up and down. So I'll consider that matter closed with nothing to be reported. Thank you.

And we're immediately into the confirmation of minutes. The first one there being held on February 4th, the 10th and the 24th of 2026 to be confirmed as recorded and without being read. Would someone be willing to move the minute's for me. Lawson and Alt, thank you. And does anybody need to comment or any edits. On the minutes. Not hearing or seeing anything. I'll call the vote then on that. Does anyone against the minutes. Don't see anyone at all. So that's unanimous. Thank you. And then we got our consent agenda flowing from Committee of the Whole everybody. So, you know, I'll read them all out and let me know if you got a poll one here. Lobbyist Registry, the one you review. The 2026 administrative development charged bylaw update. And the 2026 property tax policy along with the recreation of facilities allocation process update. Any of those need to be pulled at all. Nope. Councillor Billings, you put up your hand. You want to move the consent. Yeah. Okay. Does anyone want a second? Okay, Goller. Okay. Anything further on the consent anybody? Call the vote.

Does anyone against the consent items. That's nobody that's unanimous. Well done. Okay, we're at the moments of items for discussion on our agenda. The first one is a presentation. From, we have an annual presentation always from the Integrity Commissioner, John Maschera's here. He's going to join us by video. And John, I see, I think you popping on the screen here. Welcome. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of Council. I trust you can hear and see me. Yes, we can. Thank you very much for joining us, John, and hope you're well. And, uh, I think, uh, you know, the rigmarole here. So I'll just turn the mic over to you. To go right ahead with your presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. And good evening everyone. Um, my firm, Eredan Berlacell LP is the Integrity Commissioner for the City of Guelph. Uh, we've been, the Technic Commissioner now for five years. I can hardly believe it. Uh, this is our fifth report, uh, that annual report that we've provided to you. I must say, uh, it has been our, uh, pleasure and our privilege

and our supreme honour to be of service to the municipality already for five years. Uh, every year I come and do an annual report for you. Um, this year is no different. The annual report encompasses a summary of our activities over the calendar year from January the 1st to December the 31st, 2025. By the way, on September of last year, we were reappointed again to be your integrity commissioner for three successive potential one year periods. I will mention this again just before I end the, uh, the presentation, because of course Bill Nine is awaiting third reading at the province. And that may have some implications on whom your future integrity commissioner could be. As you know, uh, the municipality adopted a code of conduct. It was significantly revised when the Bill 68 amendments were made in 2017 to come into force on, uh, 2018. Um, we've had some, uh, involvement in that. And I'll speak about that in a moment. Unlike many of the other

municipalities that my firm looks after as an accountability officer, as integrity commissioner, we have seen an actual decline in the amount of complaints and the amount of requests for services that we received over the last year. Uh, most other municipalities have shown, uh, I guess in anticipation of this year being an election year, a marked increase in the number of complaints, applications, and, uh, involvement of the public, whether they're contacting us for requests, for information and the like, uh, concurrent with that, um, we've also typically received a lot more requests for information. And the last year actually showed a market decrease. You'll see on the front page, we only received one formal, uh, code of conduct complaint last year, which is down from four from the year before. And I think down significantly, I think we had seven or eight, uh, in 2023. We did not receive any at all, um, applications under the municipal

conflict of interest act. So the only complaint that we actually dealt with was a complaint regarding, uh, an issue that a resident had that a member, um, acted disrespectfully through social media. We did not find a contravention in this instance. We, uh, did not fully report because we didn't believe that a full investigation was required. But we want to take this, uh, opportunity to, uh, please ask members if you're at all concerned and you're using social media, please refer to the City's social media guidelines for elected officials. Okay. And please be cautious. When you use social media, it's worldwide, it's instantaneous and you can't recall it. Uh, so be very, very careful what you put out there. Um, and you can always, of course, seek the advice of the integrity commissioner. With respect to that, this is a good segue. Uh, you'll see on page two, we talk about our advice giving function, something that is unheralded in the municipal accountability regime. You always hear

about investigations and complaints and applications. You rarely hear about the advice. Uh, members of council and members of local boards reached out to us on eight separate occasions. Uh, four different members of council asked this for advice. Uh, and two members of local boards asked this for advice. And the advice ran the gamut on conflicts of interest, whether they were under the municipal conflict of interest act, whether they were in common law or under your code, uh, some matters dealing with gifts and benefits and proper, uh, proper conduct on behalf of Councilmembers. I do want to highlight one, uh, one paragraph. It's the third paragraph, which has received some media attention. Uh, I've written in the report, we would like to highlight a growing concern. We have received various requests for members asking how to respond to harassment. And this is harassment from the public. Uh, it is no secret that, um, we live in a volatile state these days. There's polarized divisions. Uh, there's,

uh, a great amount of vitriol and toxicity, uh, in almost everything that we have to face day to day. And members of council are not immune to it. Members of the administration are not immune to it. So we've received a number of requests this year that asked how do I deal with someone doing this? And this has been a more recent phenomenon that we've noticed. Um, our view has always been. And interesting enough, there's a recent report from Toronto's integrity commissioner on very much, uh, Councilmember being harassed and gives pretty much the exact same advice. We, uh, indicate that it's best to seek to not engage. Um, and to attempt to deescalate the matter. Uh, if you can, uh, attempt to withdraw if you're in a public place or you're in a public setting, uh, and attempt to do so on a safe basis. If you must get involved, please, please be careful in how you do so. Remember you're probably held to a higher

standard. That certainly was the case in the recent City of Toronto report that received some notoriety. Um, and, and, and just be very careful about how you interact with members of the public who may not be polite, who may be provoking you, who may be accosting you, who may be trailing and following you around and seeking to get that gachu moment. Always take the higher ground and attempt to withdraw, with grace, with some dignity and at all times with some civility. Um, I remind members that, um, requests under the code of conduct should be done in writing. That's what's required under the municipal act. I certainly have no issue speaking to any member, but the initial request, in order to set out the ground rules and what the background facts are. And to give me an opportunity to understand what the situation is should definitely be in writing. Uh, this year, we also, uh, did some amendments to the, um, to the code of conduct. My partner Laura Dean primarily, um, uh, did those, uh,

she reported back to the governance review committee in March of this year. And Council accepted, uh, number of proposed changes, uh, to the code of conduct, uh, regarding prohibitions on political endorsements, the promotion of third party interest and the use of titles in social media during election campaigns. So those were adopted on May the 27th, 2025. Our advice and recommendations with respect to changes to the code of conduct were rather minimal and sculpt. We did what Council was seeking for us to do. Uh, certainly I've always believed that there could be some updating and perhaps some, for lack of a better word improvements made to your code, but we've held off because Bill Nine is now at the province. The municipal accountability act, uh, and you'll see that I've made reference at some extent on page three. It follows the failed build 241, which died on the order paper when the provincial government called an

election. Bill nine essentially proposes the same authorities that were put in there. The province has put forward that it's to strengthen municipal accountability. Uh, if you probably Google my name, you'll see that I have taken issue with that. I do not believe in my heart. In my mind that the province actually is doing that. Uh, I find that the legislation, uh, is not well put together. And, uh, proposes, uh, removal of members which I have set on record. And I'll say it tonight that I don't believe will actually happen. It sets up a two, uh, two investigative process two person investigative process, one by the local integrity commissioner being aired in burlus. The second being the provincial integrity commissioner, which I just don't get the involvement of the provincial integrity commissioner who can only make recommendations on very serious egregious breaches of the code that bring harm and her injury to a person or persons.

Uh, and then, uh, if that is comes before council, council must vote unanimously to remove a member. And this is the province says is a strengthening of municipal accountability. I believe that the province missed the mark. Uh, I spoke at, uh, in front of the standing committee on the Bill nine hearings, uh, I think they were, uh, largely the committee was largely deaf to what I was saying because, um, deaf two, I think what a lot of people were saying about that. Um, so it is currently, uh, in front of the provincial legislature for third reading, uh, you may have seen some recent media tension about this indicating that potentially the bill may be stalled because the province can't seem to make its mind on what to do. And what to do is other things that are in the bill proposed. One is to give, uh, to make, uh, mandatory training, uh, and some sort of certification requirements for integrity commissioners, uh, that, uh, that looks like it's going to be done by the provincial

Integrity Commissioner. Mandatory training for members of Council and, and local boards, uh, you've had training and we are a recommending it again after the election, perhaps in the first quarter of 2027. And a uniform, uh, province - wide provincial code of conduct for members of council and local boards. Uh, and a uniform investigative process, which could, in some instances, actually, uh, raise the standard of what's in place in some municipalities. But I fear that in some other municipalities, potentially the city of wealth that's done a very good job with its code of conduct, uh, potentially lower, uh, common denominator for good standing. Uh, so I'm, I'm a little worried about this. And I was, uh, I was hoping that it was going to come out sometime before, uh, nomination start on, on May the 1st of this year so that anyone who runs for office will know what the game, uh, rules are, uh, starting with the new, uh, with the new term of council

after November the 15th. Uh, and yet we still have had nothing from the province. And if you've been following along, it has stalled several times former minister Calandra twice that indicated it was coming forward and never did, uh, Minister Flack has indicated it's still coming forward. And yet it still hasn't. So, uh, it might have a very real determination on, uh, what your code of conduct will look like next year. And potentially who your integrity commissioner may be. We don't know what sort of rigor the province will put to persons like infirms like ours who do this work. Uh, I hope we can still continue to do the work. I, I enjoy doing it. My, my, my partners and colleagues at the firm enjoy doing it. And we certainly have appreciated and are very thankful for the support of the, uh, elected representatives of the City of Guelph, but also I want to put a special thank you to your clerk's department who does an amazing job and who give us an incredible amount of support. So with that, um, Mr. Mayor, members of Council, I'd like to commend you again for your high ethical

standing over the years that I've been, uh, looking after my firm's been looking after you. And again, this year, um, I'll go back to what I think I said the first year, uh, an A plus clean bill of health for the City of Guelph. Thank you, Mr. Mayor members of Council. That is my formal presentation, but I'm also happy to take any questions that you may have. Well, thanks, John. We really do appreciate you walking us through that. Thank you so much. Is there any follow - up question at this time from any members of council or does the presentation report sort of speak for itself. Okay. Councillor. Okay. Let me just say goodbye to our, our, our guest then. John, there is no questions. And so again, thank you very much. And I say this every year. We hope we don't hear from you. See you. Talk to you email nothing. All of us at all, um, the next year. Okay. Very good. Thank you again, Mr. Mayor, for the opportunity to be here this evening. Good night. All right. Take care. Bye bye. Uh, okay. Councillor Goller, you're willing to move the recommendation to receive. Thank you. Someone willing to Quran. Thank you is willing to second. Is there anything further before I call the vote then on receiving? Don't hear or see

anybody. I'll call the votes. Anyone against receiving that presentation. Okay. Let's see unanimous. Thank you so much. And next up is Suzanne Craig who's our lobbyist register. And Suzanne, this is a first time for you coming to give us a quick overview of our year. And so, uh, we see you popping on the screen right now. I believe. Yeah. Am I here? You are here. We can't see you, but you sound great. Oh, I have to. Allow that. Hey, perfect. Thank you. We see and hear you. Thank you, Suzanne for joining us. And I'll turn it over to you to give us a little overview as well, uh, on your report. Go ahead. Thank you so much. Uh, your worship, Mayor Guthrie, members of council. It's a pleasure to be with you here this evening. Um, I believe this is my second year that I'm submitting a reported. The first was not a full year. So, uh, this would be the first annual report of a, of a calendar year as your registrar, um, and I submit this report before you for your consideration and receipt. As I said, this is the second annual report

from this office that covers the period from January 1st, 2025 to December 31st, 2025. Uh, your staff has submitted a year review of the lobbyist registry in the regime. And this has been received on the consent agenda this evening. I see. And I'm pleased to have been consulted by your staff in the one year review. The report before you is short. However, I believe that this is a good news story and so far as, uh, there have not been any significant concerns or deviation from the bylaw rules. Uh, the intent of the bylaw is to enhance transparency and accountability by requiring individuals who lobby public office holders, members of council and senior staff to register and file returns detailing their lobbying activities. And as you know, the By - Law came into effect in 2024, October, but you held off on actually implementing penalties until January 1st, 2025, so that individuals and businesses could come up to speed with the by - law. Businesses with a financial interest may not be considered to be lobbying if the communication is part of the city's procurement process or the planning process or by invitation or relating to

general charitable endeavours. As lobbyists register, if I receive a complaint, following the completion of an investigation, if I determine that there has been a controvention of the by - law, I have the authority to impose the penalties as outlined in section seven of your by - law. The first offence up to 30 days prohibition from lobbying, second, up to 60 days prohibition. Third, 90 days prohibition from lobbying. And if significant, a permanent ban of lobbying with the city. And I may also impose additional measures such as mandatory education and training. So there's an escalation penalty system that's premised on education and not punishment. I continue to communicate that lobbying is a legitimate activity in a democratic government accountability regime, such as what you have here in Guelph. And often people ask, well, why did the province confer the powers on municipalities to create a lot being by - law, a registry and a registrar? And I answered, it's about accountability and government decision making. And this is what your council has decided that you want to be accountable, but transparent, allowing all to not only have a voice, but also know who is influencing members

of council and senior staff in making municipal decisions. If a matter is governed by an established municipal procedure under the planning act, the procurement by - law, the heritage act, council meeting management rules, then individuals and businesses wishing to influence counsel in the decisions they make under these processes do not need to register as lobbyists. The online registry allows the public a window into government decision - making to view those who are suggesting new processes or bylaws, what they're suggesting and to who. The lobbyist code of conduct at standards of conduct or lobbyists, the Promote Public Trust and Government Decision Making by requiring registration in the registry and to adhere to conduct that is fair and transparent. Of note, there have been no complaints brought forward to my office in this reporting here. A complaint would mean that an individual member of the public or council as a whole or a council member believes that an individual or a business should have registered and did not, or did register but did not file a return setting out when they lobbied a brief description of what they lobbied on and who they lobbied. My role with

respect to investigations is only triggered when I receive a complaint. I have no power to independently commence an investigation. I don't have own motion powers. However, I do from time to time review registrations on the registry with a V - to - Identifying gaps or omissions and information provided. There were 40 new registrations in this reporting period. There were 24 returns of lobbying communication from the last report, uh, when I tabled in February, uh, of 2025. And about 36 in this reporting period up to the end of January, a little over this reporting period. Examples of lobbying registrations include requests for discussions about review of a City By - Law to perhaps include consideration of commercially scooters, a company discussing potential new opportunities for municipal road maintenance using different technologies. The use of potentially AI technology for pedestrian safety. So the registrations do not guarantee that the public office holder or member of council will meet with the lobbyist, or that the matter is within the city scope to transact. And if there is a meeting, the law being of a public office holder does

not circumvent any existing approved city procedure. In other words, meeting with a member of council or a senior staff with a new idea or a process may very well lead to the matter being rooted through one of your departments with one of your staff who have carriage of this area, or it could be a conversation identifying that this is outside of the jurisdiction of the city. The takeaway, I believe, is that there are many matters in which the municipality benefits in learning from individuals and businesses, new technologies and different initiatives. The registry is simply a way to give the public access to those communications that happened so that it's understood that future decisions may have been influenced by these conversations. And the public and others know by whom and with whom these communications have happened so that transparency is at an optimum. In this reporting period, I received six general inquiries, two for members of council, two from staff and two from the public about either the registry or the interpretation of the bylaw. General communications about the administration of the registry are not counted in this number. In formal discussions with staff or simple

clarification from council members are not listed as inquiries. In fact, there were about 18 administrative or requests for direction type conversations with my office that were not inquiries. I did not conduct any education sessions and there were no updates that I've proposing to the existing regime or Bylaw at this time. As I've not identified any concerns and there have been no complaints received by my office. The general questions that I've received in my view evidence, a real desire on the part of members of council and the public to understand the workings of the registry regime and what is required to be in compliance with the bylaws. In conclusion, I'd just like to echo Mr. Mascara's comments about, uh, the clerk staff who have been wonderful in assisting me, their professional assistance has been most helpful as I went through this reporting year. And I'd like to conclude by thanking you, Mayor Guthrie and members of Council for your leadership in adopting the lobbyist registry as part of the City suite of accountability and transparency tools. Thank you. Well, thank you very much for joining us. Sorry I messed up on the one year versus two year. I apologise. Hope you don't do an inquiry on

that. But all right. Um, I have one question from Councillor Alt that would like to, uh, to talk to. Thank you very much Mayor Guthrie. I would be happy to move the report as well if you wish through you too, uh, Ms. Craig. Ms. Craig. This is a learning experience for me. It probably is for others as well. So I apologise if these questions are a bit mundane. Is it a duty of a councillor if they suspect somebody should be registered to report that person. Uh, through you, uh, Mr. Mayo took Councillor. Uh, the short answer is no, the lobbyist registry is about lobbyists. So it is outside looking in. There is a mirror of the, uh, the transactions with public office holders. However, the responsibility to register the responsibility to file a return lies with the lobbyist. Now if a member of council is meeting with someone who has brought forward a matter that does not seem to be covered by any of your approved processes or bylaws or a statute, certainly as an

ambassador and a leader of the organisation, you can remind individuals and businesses. You know, we have a lot of lobbyists registry and you might want to familiarize yourself with the processes, but there's no obligation in your bylaw, uh, that requires a member of council if they believe in individual as a lobbyist and hasn't registered, uh, to contact my office or file a complaint. Thank you. Following that up with the Corallerie to it. And this might be completely outside your responsibility. What about staff? Do they have, are they covered by the lobbyist registry if they suspect somebody, uh, should be registered, uh, where do, where does staff fall on this? Thank you through the mayor to you, sir. So the, the envisioning of a lobbyist registry as part of a suite of accountability tools, uh, set out prior to, uh, the, the lobbyist registry coming into force that there would be education, at least for the first year, if not the first couple of years. And looking at the various, um, examples in Ontario and outside of Ontario, the City of Guelph, its staff through consultations

with the public through consultations with members of council decided that they would default to the responsibility of the lobbyists. And then after one year or two year review, determine it, there are stronger requirements needed. IE should members of council be required such as at the City of Toronto, uh, where members of Council who believe that an individual is a law being and has not registered have to stop the meeting and have to bring that to the attention of the lobbyist. Many of the jurisdictions in Ontario that have lobbyists registries and lobbyist registrars have decided that they want that responsibility to remain what the lobbyist. That being said, uh, your staff, um, and information bulletins have gone out, uh, and members of council are encouraged to contact my office if they believe that they have been lobbied or there has been lobbying activity with a company or an individual who has not registered. And that's why you have the lobbyist registry. Cause all you have to do is take a look at the registry and see the individual's name or the company's name, when, if they did meet and communicate with the public office holder. And if it's not there or if the subject matter is

different from the conversations you had, a conversation with the lobbyist register is warranted. It's not required. Thank you. And I think it's the last question. I hope it is, but I appreciate your answers. Um, does a person who is part of a lobbying or delegating activity where one member of the delegation is a registered lobbyist. If that person is not registered, should they be registered as well? Um, especially if, if they're not just acting as a resource, but are actually, uh, actively intervening and lobbying or delegating. Through the mayor to you, uh, Councillor, there are different types of, uh, of, of lobbyists. And of course, a lobbyist might work for a company and therefore register the business, uh, and speak on behalf of the business they are given that authority to speak on the, on behalf of the business. Anyone who contacts my office. I always say, uh, you know, if you have two or three individuals from your, uh, business attending a lobbying meeting with a member of council or a member of staff, that all those individuals should be listed. You might have an engineer. You might have a planner. You might have

an individual who is looking at government relations. You might have an individual. So even though it is one organisation, if the various individuals attending the meeting have different portfolios, remembering that we are looking at transparency. Why is the meeting happening? What is it that the, uh, the group is trying to communicate to the public office holder to perhaps bring life to a new bylaw, bring life to a new process. So, um, ordinarily, if an individual is a consultant lobbyist, they work for, uh, a company, uh, and a couple of other people come as you said in support, um, all do not have to, uh, list their names, uh, but I just believe that in the event that there is an investigation, uh, it's better to list who attended the meeting their roles in the company. Transparencies about, uh, providing all the information that the public and members of council need to make decisions. I do have one last question for you. It's an opinion question. Is it in your opinion appropriate for this council like the City of Toronto to make it incumbent upon councillors to report if they suspect they, uh, being lobbied. Uh,

through, through the mayor to you, Councillor, I don't give opinions unless they are written opinions. Um, uh, and I do believe that counsel is the decision maker here. You will decide what is best for your jurisdiction. And you have an opportunity with the yearly review, uh, with your staff who abely come out and ask your opinion on whether or not there should be changes. My role is to, to, to look at what came on my desk to determine if there is a need for a change. As I said, complaints are investigations or complaint driven. I have not received any complaints at this point with the questions that I've received. I don't believe that there is evidence that there is a need for a more robust regime. That being said, Council is Supreme. If that is your will, uh, you have a one year review after the election and you may do so. Thank you very much. Hey, thank you, Councillor Alt. Uh, you moved it. Would someone be willing to second councillor Gibson? I'd see no further questions, I believe. Nothing further. So Suzanne, thank you so much. And you have yourself a great rest

of the evening. And thank you for your presentation. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you members of Council. Good night. Bye - bye. I'll call the vote then. Is anyone against that receiving of that presentation. Okay. That's unanimous. Thank you. And we're moving right along to the Sleeman Centre operating model. We have a few delegations that have signed up. So thank you very much. Um, we have our first one. If you want to get ready is Alan Rickard. Is Alan here. Okay. Come on down, Allen. And just so, uh, just so everyone knows maybe those watching online or those that are in the room. You have no more than five minutes, uh, to delegate. Okay. Uh, you'll hear a chime in the room at the four minute and 30 second mark, which is your warning that you only have 30 seconds left. Uh, if you do get to the five minutes, your microphone gets turned off. So don't, don't, don't let it get there. Okay. Uh, and then just when you're done, just stick around and, uh, you could, you might have a follow up question from myself for my colleagues. Maybe not, but just stick around until I, uh, dismiss you. Okay. So, uh,

Alan, thank you for joining us. And your five minutes will start when you start. Go right ahead. Thank you. Uh, good evening Mayor Guthrie and Councillors. Thanks for the opportunity to speak on this issue. Um, there's a number of other delegations here that I'll be representing some of the organisations. And I see you've received a lot of, uh, submissions as well. Um, I'm here as a Ward five resident. I've got three kids that play hockey, uh, two in the GGHA, one in the GMHA. And two of them got their start with the Stanley Stick organisation. So I spent a lot of time in ranks. What I can tell you is that over the last month or so, um, this has become a very hot topic at the rinks. Um, there's a lot of underlying frustration, I think that this kind of sparks. And I think it's not just about the Sleeman Centre, but about some of the signalling that that has been to that community, um, around this broader structural issue that we have simply, simply put Guelph does not have enough ice pads, enough ice rinks for the community that it needs. The signal that I'm talking about is that today we're on March 31st and we're talking about things that will affect, uh, ICE availability and cost, uh, certainly in September, September one

with the, with the expectation that we will have, uh, a new facility available for us. But that facility is still under construction. I think that's a little bit of a cart before the horse approach. Uh, I think it would be, uh, approach to make sure that we have this as bookable ice before we can start making decisions on limiting or changing the availability or cost of that ice. Um, the challenge is, I mean, these are very complex facilities. There's going to be a very complex commissioning process for these things. Um, and the certainty around us as we sit here today months away from the, uh, that availability. Now Sleeman Centre itself, you know, it's not, it's not the most ideal place for, for minor hockey. It's certainly isn't for Community use. You know, it's right downtown. Usually you're down there. There's a lot of traffic issues. Parking is a challenge. But it's necessary. Um, we don't have, uh, have enough ice. In fact, there's quite an extreme shortage of ice as we look around to other communities. Right now we have five community ice pads for a population of about 165, 000 people. That works at to about one nice pad for every 33, 000 residents of the city. And as far as I can tell, that puts us at the lowest in the province

for Ice availability of communities of our size. And reality, it's actually even a little bit worse than that of those five pads we have three of them that are regulation size, uh, two of them exhibition and centennial that were built in the 1940s and 1960s. And they're much smaller, uh, sizes there. Not really suitable for playing sports and, you know, they can be for other uses perhaps. But we still have to use them right now for both recreation level hockey and other uses as well as some rep level. You know, the girls rep hockey teams are playing in those rinks right now. And they're much smaller. And due to the lack of alternatives, we, we sort of are effective capacity as much lower than what that count suggests. Another issue is that this is triggered, I think is how it's kind of happened over time. You know, it was identified probably about 25 years ago that Guelph should be looking at having some more ice pads here. That was formalized in 2009 when there was a needs assessment that was done and a report that was put out. We're now at 2026 and we're, we're looking at, uh, finally getting these two new ice pads put in. When we look at our own projections here, we're looking at 208, 000 people in Gulf by 2051.

And as far as I can see, there's really no follow on for, for what is the planning going to be? You know, it's taken us the 16 years to get this, these ranks, uh, what's the next step behind that? And that context matters. Once the sand facility is opened, it still is not enough ice for this facility. The City reports, a provisional target of one pad for every 22, 000 people. Most communities have, uh, target more like one for 15, 000 people, uh, one rink. And we don't even get once these two ranks are operational, seven ranks for 165, 000 people. That doesn't get us to even our own bar that we set with the reports that we had. So these, these future needs that we seem to want to be committing to, they're not meeting the current needs that we currently have. And those needs set by our own reports that we've had and seen there. So with that context, I guess my, uh, my recommendations here or my asks would be first, please don't change any of the ice availability or cost access, et cetera. Sleaming centre until we know for sure that we can book ice at the new facilities. Second, can we please start a planning process? I'm not sure what that looks like, but to look at the needs for

the future going, going forward, uh, figure out what those levels are that we need to have. And third, we, we really do need to have a plan for centennial and exhibition. These are aging facilities and it's, it's a problem. Thank you. All right. Just boom. Right. The wire there. Good thing you didn't say I have seven requests. We had the three and that was good. Okay. Is there a fault? Okay. Uh, follow up from Councillor two, Councillor Busatil. Thank you very much. Go ahead, Council Via. Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor. Alan. Good to see you. Um, thank you for meeting with me this past month and sharing with me your perspective. Uh, on behalf of some of the minor hockey folks. Um, you mentioned the condition of some of our older facilities like Centennial Exhibition. Do you see opportunities for us to use those differently and we're creatively. Absolutely. I think the couple issues there. I think thank you for the question. Councillor Chu. Um, I think that there's, uh, the opportunity certainly to have them being used still, but it's more than just the size of the rink that's the issue there. Um, I can tell you, uh, I volunteered at a, uh, at the girls hockey tournament a couple of weekends ago. It was pouring rain on a Friday. And as the teams were coming in, there was, there was water leaking

out of the light fixtures in one of the change rooms. We had to move that team to a different change room. Um, the city staff were great in helping us do that, but they said, you know, this change room isn't great. This change from number one, uh, because it doesn't have a door on the, on the bathrooms. And so we said, well, we can, you know, we can manage that because we can use the other washrooms. And then as I go into the men's washroom and exhibition, uh, arena, the, the urinal, uh, eight inches from a sink. And I just, it sort of catches me that, you know, these really aren't suitable facilities. I don't think we, we have that standard anywhere else in the city and certainly, I think it should be, you know, something looked at. So it's not just about just the ice surface size. That is absolutely something that we can incorporate into a strategy here, I think. But, um, you know, the facilities themselves needless to say the huge, you know, capital maintenance cost annually that come with those as well as very high operating costs for these older facilities as well. I guess just my last comment or question rather. Like we had mentioned during our discussions that our geographic footprint, the city is quite limited for any new

build. We talked about, uh, Cambridge being an example, uh, but that facility is located in their Industrial lands and unemployment lands. And, you know, our employment lands are quite limited. Then we have to be quite strategic in how we scope out opportunities, uh, private public partnerships or privately, um, proponent driven projects. I think just with that context, how do you think we can address that broader demand in the city moving forward. Yeah. That's, uh, I don't know if I have an answer for that. I think, um, certainly it's got to be in conjunction with, with a lot of folks, right? I think that there's some development land developer land that we see. Um, but it's going to be the same challenge I think we have for just that population growth as well. Uh, that we are faced with that constraint land to develop anything. Um, so I feel that's a bit more of a challenge for you folks to figure out than, than I don't know if I have a great answer, but, uh, but I understand the constraint. Absolutely. It's, it's part of the, part of the challenge. No. Thanks for the conversation. And hope we can continue that on. Thanks very much. Thank you to Councillor Pusotill and then Coron, please. Thank you

very much for the delegation. So I have two questions. I really want to boil it down into what is the concern here? What is something that we as City Council and staff can take away? And what I took away is that it's the certainty in booking for the season. Is that fair that if you know now that when you can book it, that alleviates some of the concern for the season. And then I have a second question. Sure. I mean, I think, I think that those are, um, the tip of the iceberg issues. So thinking about getting schedules out, uh, in time when I, when I think of, uh, our neighbours in Milton, um, the, when the kids are trying out in April for, uh, their teams, they know exactly which night, what time their home practices and home games are for the entire rest of the season. I know in Halton Hills, uh, by the time they get to the end of September, they have their full schedule booked for the entire year with the constraint amount of ice that we have here, um, booking and trying to keep everybody, um, happy in the arenas becomes a real challenge. And I think that that limits the ability for parents to be able to plan things more than, you know, a couple months, uh, couple months out. And that becomes a real chat with three

kids in hockey that becomes a real challenge for, for us. But I think what it's really sparked is this underlying, uh, is Ice availability for the, for the community. Thanks. So I didn't quite get an answer. So yes, it's about booking and scheduling and having that, that kind of laying way to make sure you get there. My second question is, and Councillor Chu kind of tweaked it for me as I remember having this conversation around pools. And I know that we have pool facility baseball facilities, Councillor Houser and I visited in the industrial area and Cambridge was, was mentioned. And I'm old enough that I remember rinks in Cambridge. It wasn't the municipality that responded to the need. It was the private sector that stepped up and created ice opportunities there, just like we've seen with, you know, pools and we've seen with, with, um, uh, baseball facilities as well. Are you aware, is that, you know, Constitute was asking, how do you see the solution to this? You understand we like, I mean, we have limited capital funding and resources smaller and smaller and smaller. Um, and the, you know, the amount of pressure on the public. So do you see private sector anywhere

in your conversations? Absolutely. In fact, I think that is that will be one of the solutions that, I mean, I don't know what the exact solution is. I think that needs to be determined amongst groups of people that will be working together to figure this out. I hope we can start that process. Um, but yeah, I think that that's very viable. This is what we've seen in Cambridge, right? They've expanded that rink to a couple more pads. There was some community involvement, some private money. It's a very successful rink. You know, they have lively, I was there last night for a hockey practice. It was, uh, you know, they have a bar up there, which is fantastic for the parents and viewing also the baseball diamonds. And they've got a Pro Shop as well. That was a solid bar, right? Yeah. Salad, you could get salad there. Yes. Yeah. And that's where I was going. You know, I was thinking about my experience. Yeah. There's, the number of other, if you look at the Luna, uh, one in Hamilton, it was called the Mohawk four. That's another public private participation thing. I think that that's the model that seems to be working where you can get more than one ice pad. You can get sort of economies of scale working with a private partner. And frankly, they're probably better at filling it with more commercial run ice availability for the communities. And with those salad

bars, thank you very much for your delegation. Okay. Councillor Quran, I think is going to bring us home on this one. Great. And then we'll go to our next delegation. Go ahead. Thanks. And this is, this is a great conversation on important topic in the community talking about future planning. Uh, we talked about the private sector and we've talked about what the public sector can provide. I'm wondering about the university, the other institutions. I know there's two ranks there. The red and the gold. How often are those used by minor hawking? I mean, I can, I can speak for my personal use, um, I think some of the folks that are coming up later will have better information on, on how that, those are actually used, you know, hours. They're part of the associations. Um, we use them all the time. Um, and I think that there's, you know, there might be a willingness at the university we've heard to possibly expand those facilities, which would certainly help in the community also. Uh, the challenge with the university though, you know, I talk about my one to 15, 000 ratio that we see in communities. The university student body and especially the staff there, that's about 30, 000 people. And we're talking about a demographic that is a high use demographic there. So the ice really, you know, there's certainly some ice at certain times available. Um, and it's the only ice available as far

as I can understand through the summer, uh, having ice availability there as well. So, so certainly part of the hopefully could be part of the solution also. Great. Thank you, Councillor. And thank you very much for coming. We appreciate your presentation. Thank you. Thanks very much. Chris is coming down next from the Gulf Miner hockey association. And I think Jamie, Jamie, you're in, where's Jamie. Jamie here. Sorry, I don't have my glasses. Hi, you'll be in the wings. Okay. You're after that. So after Chris, hi Chris, thank you for coming. Thank you. And again, uh, no more than five minutes. I'll turn it over to you. Hey, good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of council and staff. My name is Chris Saint - Cois and I am the vice president of Gualth Minor Hockey Association and a member of the Gulf Sport Council. I'm here representing over 1700 youth athletes and their families and in alignment with a broader Guelph Sport community. Thank you for your time and opportunity to speak on this issue. Over the past few years, our ass experienced tremendous growth. We have grown from under 1, 200 players to over 1700 today. An increase of nearly 50 percent. And yet during that

same time, our access to ice has not meaningfully increased. For the past four years, we've repeatedly come to the city asking for additional ASIS support this growth. And the consistent response has been there's no more ice available, which we can all agree. To give you a real example of how constrained the system is, our tryouts are not scheduled by us. The dates are dictated by our governing bodies and take place over four week periods starting in April. Over the last several years, the city has provided us zero hours of ice to run our tryouts. Zero for which we require hundreds of hours to do so. This year we've been given a dozen or so hours to support 30 four teams. We are forced to leave Guelph and spend tens of thousands of dollars in other municipalities just to run a fundamental part of our program. Here's another example. Our governing bodies require us to provide pre - evaluation skates prior to tryouts. This is not optional. It's an obligation that we must offer to our players to ensure they are properly prepared. We have approximately 700 players who should have access to these sessions. Based on the ice currently available to us, we can only accommodate about 120 skaters. The program sells out in under an hour. That leaves over 500 players without access to

prepare for ice before tryouts. Putting them at a disadvantage before they even step on the ice. Now we do recognise that the South En Rec Centre will help. But let me be clear, it helps. But it does not solve the problem. Those additional hours will quickly be absorbed by all user groups who have been operating under the same constraints. Minor hockey figure skating. We have all been limited in our ability to grow and deliver quality programming. And more importantly, it does not replace the need for stable, predictable access dice. Let me put our situation perspective in terms of overall demand. To run our program at a bare minimum, we require 5, 000 hours of ice. The City of Guelph is able to provide us 3, 500 of those hours. That means we are forced to secure roughly 1, 500 hours of ice outside the city every single year. In that ice - af facilities that have no obligation or allegiance to us as an organisation puts us in a very vulnerable position. We're relying on third - party facilities to deliver core parts of our program facilities that can reprioritize increased costs or move access at any time. Briggs me to the core issue. And

why this conversation about Sleeman Centre is so important. Even though our total hours of Sleeman may peer small in isolation, they are critical part of a very tight system. The additional South Rec Centre hours will quickly be absorbed by all user groups. From our perspective, Sleeman is not surplus capacity. It is essential capacity. The proposal before you removes a predictability of our contracts at Sleeman Centre and moves youth organisations into a general booking system. For us, this is not ideal. This is not about locations. It is about certainty. We plan our season eight to 12 months in advance. We build teams, recruit coaches, set registrations, schedule leaks, commit to programming, well before the season begins. Without knowing how much ice we will have or when we will have it, we are being asked a plan programs without understanding our capacity. That is not sustainable. What is also very concerning is how the proposal came forward. As the largest ice user in the City of Guelph and very likely the single largest youth user group in terms of revenue contributions back to the city contributing about 750, 000 dollars annually back to the city, We were not consulted. Not once. No meeting, no phone call, no email. Staff had every opportunity to reach out and say, Hey, we're trying to increase revenue of sleepman. How would

you, how would this impact you? Instead, we are presented with a decision that directly impacts our ability to operate without any engagement. We have heard the argument that the youth group's long - term contracts are limiting the city's ability to host events at SLEMEN, respectfully, that is not accurate. The tragical hip, the RCL's Blue Rodeo, Grand Slame of Curling, the Kia Cup, Shrine Sergio, is cheerling competitions. Hillside inside. All major events, the City has hosted all while youth user groups who are active in the building. We have always worked around events. We have always been flexible and at no point have we prevented this from happening. So I'll get to our simple ask. We're not asking to block events. We are not asking for exclusive access. We're asking to maintain our contracts at Sleeman Centre with a displacement clause. Give us some notice three months, six months. And if a vent is booked, we will move. We will adjust. We will work with the City as we always have. Time's up. Okay, thank you very much. Uh, and, uh, we appreciate your presentation too. Uh, I saw a hand come up here and then one over here. So Gibson and then Boosatill, please. Uh, thanks, Mr. Coy. That was, that was great. I appreciate it. And I've heard this before and I, and I appreciate

your sentiments. There's one, um, piece that I wanted you to touch on that I didn't hear in your delegation. That was your, your big power play tournament every year. Yes. You and I, I think we discussed this a few years back, a couple hundred teams. And it seems like we're taking over Cambridge that weekend now, because we're taking 50 some games from the tournament and sending it over there. So if you could just speak to me, I think the little bit of a sleeping giant here in terms of economic development for our city as well in terms of, uh, hotel stays, teams that come and then utilization of our facilities and how we could grow that, that event even more with more ice time, you know, keeping sleepness centre online. For sure. Um, we hosts about a hundred teams for that one weekend. It brings in significant amount of revenue to the city in terms of hotels. But unfortunately we have people staying in Milton, Hamilton just to play in Guelph because that's the closest hotels. And we use all of Cambridge Sports Park for that weekend. Um, on a bigger impact, it provides about, um, 50, 000 dollars to our bottom line to help reduce the cost for our users. Um, so it's very important for us. Um, and I know the girls run similar tournaments, but we just don't have the facilities here to do it. Um, the way we need, we're sending a lot of money outside of Gulf, uh, for, for those tournaments. So you're right. We do use Cambridge a

lot. And for that. Okay. Thanks. And if I just, I just want to make sure I clarify if I'm wrong, but I heard you say that you want to work with the city. You don't want to be displaced. You're willing to give with some notice you're more than willing to move programming around to make yourself, if a big event's happening, the Sleepman Centre, you'd be more than willing to move, move your scheduling a little bit to help accommodate. That's the type of partnership that, um, correct. That you're proposing. Yes. That is a hundred percent true. Um, you know, let us deal with what we have at the Sleen Centre. Like if it's games, obviously those are harder to displace, but we can have practices. We have everything that are easier to displace. And our season is only six months long, uh, core season for September to February. Um, then we get into playoffs on that. But our core season is in those months. And I'm pretty sure, um, if there's an event happening at Sleen Centre, it's not with a one month notice. There's enough, um, planning that has to go involved that we would be able to plan around that as well. Thanks very much. Thank you, Busotil. And, uh, and then Boucher Till and then Alt, please. Thank you. And through the mayor, thank you for your delegation. So I have two questions. In your, your delegation, I didn't hear clearly whether or not you were, you are okay with the removal of the youth subsidy in using the Sleeman Centre. And then

I have a second question. Okay. Yeah. I didn't touch on that because I knew it was going to be talk with other delegations. So, um, yes, obviously we are opposed to removing the youth subsidy from the Sleen Centre. Um, you know, as, as you know. Ice costs are the largest impact for us. It's our larger, uh, pass through to our families and removing of that is it just increased the cost for a family's. We already have to use so much ice. Like I said, 500 hours of ice. That we have to use that we do not get a use subsidy for, um, whether it be at the university, came or sports park or another municipalities. Um, at one time we did have the youth subsidy at the University Arenas. It was an agreement partnership between the city and the university. And that was removed from us as well. And so, uh, we are paying a premium for probably 30 percent of our ice already, you sub city would still be intact. Thank you for, thank you for that. And my, my last question is similar to what I asked Mr. Rickard is, you know, I think back to the 90s. I was very young, no kids, but I worked on the Guelph Youth Music Centre

where the arts community came together working with the City of Guelph to create a facility. You know, what I asked Mr. Rickard is, you know, looking for the solution going forward has, you know, the Guelph Minor hockey talked about either with private or so on, looked for alternatives in the private sector, joint public, private, the Guelph Youth Music Centre was City and the Suzuki String School that fundraised for that capital renovation and building and so on. Have you thought about that? Because, you know, I dream about that. Okay. All right. Um, no, to be honest, I think. There's a narrative around the City of Guelph that council or the City will not allow private. Public partnerships. I don't know where it's stem from. But that is the narrative around the hockey arenas that the city will not allow a private public partnership. Um, when you go into other municipalities and you see, you know, facilities all donated by different corporations and companies and all that Gualth doesn't have that for the most part in any of our facilities. Again, those narratives probably predate me, but

that is the narratives around. And if, if council can say yes, you know what, we would support a public - private partnership. I am confident that within our 1700 families, there is enough people who would know people who would go out and start doing what needs to be done to build it. If we had some assurances that yes, it could be done. Thank you for the response. And that would be with us, right? Of course. Okay. Um, thank you for those questions. And I believe my last year to wrap this one up is alt, please. Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie. Through you to the delegates, Mr. Sun Kwa. Um, Mr. Sunqua, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that everybody is concerned about, uh, positive activities for, for children and youth, and even for adults, uh, both in this council and within the community. Um, but my questions are technical in nature. And I apologise if, uh, if, um, if they are unseemly in some sense, the stems from the last presentation that we had from the, the, uh, the, the, the lobbyist register. You said that you, uh, a member of the Guelph

Sports Council. Corre you speaking on behalf of the Guelph Sports Council. Right now I'm speaking on behalf of the Guelph Minor Hockey Association. Okay. So, but another organisation. Okay. Um, I will continue though on asking about the sport schedule. What is the status of the sports council? Um, I've read about it, but I'm still not clear what it's, um, uh, mandate is. So our mandate is to, uh, support all the Gulf Sport groups and to be a voice and to bring them together, uh, to, to provide one voice and advocate for what we, we feel is what the Gulf Sport Community needs. Now it was established a number of years ago with high excitement. And over time that has dwindled a bit, but we are core group, but there's about seven or eight of us now that would meet on a quarterly basis. Uh, when schedules allow to bring up any issues we have or discuss any issues. We have, um, as far as I know, our, de facto, leader right now did have a phone call with the mayor recently last week to discuss their viewpoint. And unfortunately we didn't get a memo in by the time. Yeah. Okay. And, and thank you. Um, just following up again, because I think it's more sports

council, but I understand you're representing minor beer. But this will help me a lot. What is the comparison of facilities available for minor hockey relative to fields and diamonds for other sports for members of the community. Um. I would say I'm a baseball parent as well. Um, I would say the same challenges across all the sports are there. I think, um, availability is one and infrastructure is another one. And, you know, we talked about the centennial ice rink and exhibition. I think we have the same infrastructure problems within on baseball and other fields. I'm sure if this was talking about removing, uh, youth user groups from certain premium soccer fields, the Gulf Soccer would be here as well in saying that they rely on those, uh, to just meet their bare minimum programs. And I think we're the last number of years, the Guelph Soccer has seen some fields being renovated and improved just to meet their, their bare minimum. So I think we're all in the same boat. Um, in terms of, you know, we'd always like more, um, but I think we're at

a perfect storm of the city growing infrastructure, not growing along with it. And the demand is there as well. And it's a perfect storm and to the other councillor's question. I don't know what the right solution is, but I think, you know, if there is an opportunity for a private public, uh, partnership to explore for fields, for diamonds, for, for rinks, I think that's an option. And, and thank you very much for both your heartfelt presentation and also for working with youth in hockey. I wish you all the best, regardless what happens in this particular discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Alt. Um, I have a question just before you go, uh, can you explain to me a little bit more about this displacement policy idea. So I think where. And I wasn't at the committee, the whole meeting, but of course I watched it and everything. I'm up to speed, but the, the report is basically suggesting that the blocking of times would shift to the south En rec centre giving, giving the opportunity then for the semen centre to be open up for more events in large, you know, concerts and conferences and et cetera, et cetera. And I think everyone sort of

nods their head and agree. Like we want it, we want to use the semen centre more for that for sure. Um, but are you, are you still asking for the blocking of time. At the Sleeman Centre. But with a displacement clause in your contracts? Okay. So just yes. Your answer to that is yes. Yes. Okay. Um, because your demand, the demand of your programming is so great. Correct. So do you have any, sorry, sorry to interrupt you, but do you have any. Ideas of other, like you say that you use Cambridge or these other, do they have similar wording in their contracts or are you aware of other larger facilities where a displacement contract or displacement language is built into the contracts? Um, I do not have one on the tip of my tongue. I would assume there would be some that longer bookings that if something brighter and shinier and more, uh, generates more revenue comes in that they would push people out, which is, it happens. Um, but I don't have one on

the tip of my tongue. I think for us, like I said, our schedule is from September to February for the most part. Yeah. And I would like to think that if there's an event happening in November, we know before September that is happening. Okay. And so I think with in due time, we, we can adjust. We don't use a lot of ours at Sleen and Centre. But those hours are critical. Okay. Awesome. Thank you for, thank you for explaining that. Okay. That was, that's it for questions for you. We appreciate it. Thank you very, very much for coming. Thank you. And, uh, Jamie come on down. And then, sorry I got to put my glasses on here. Is Michelle here. Okay. Michelle, you're in the wings after, after Jamie. Okay. Jamie, thanks for coming. Thank you. And you're with the Guelph Minor hockey association as well. So thank you very much. And, uh, you have up to five minutes if you need. And so your time starts now go right ahead. Okay. Thank you. Uh, good evening mayor and council. Thank you so much for having me here today. My name is Jamie Baggio and I have the privilege and honour of serving as a president for Gulf Minor Hockey. Gualth minor hockey is more than just hockey. It's a child stepping onto the ice

for the first time. The teenager finding the belongings that they need and the families whose winter revolves around community and connection. We serve over 1700 families through house league, rap hockey as well as introductory and development programs, making hockey accessible to as many children as possible. We are not a private club. We are a community pillar. And right now we are out of ice and we are concerned about our future. This season alone, GMHA secured over 150 hours externally for operational purposes. Our teams of independently sourced another 500 plus hours outside of the City of Guelph. Our spring triads racked up almost 500 hours that did not come through the city as well. And our housing program, one of the largest in the tri county, sat on a wait list from many of our age groups because we did not have enough ice to accommodate creating more teams. Removing regular access to the semen centre and used subsidy does not create efficiency. It creates displacement and unaffordability. This isn't new. The City Commission studies in 2009 and 2023 showed the same conclusion. Gualth needs three to four additional pads. One pad serves roughly 15, 000

residents and our population at 165, 000 requires 11. We are moving in the opposite direction. Reducing youth access to the same is centre delivers minimal financial benefit. Less than 30, 000 annually from Golf Minor Hockey, but removes a reliability primetime use, long - term community bookings and stable revenue. River Run exists for arts and culture. Sleeman was built for sports with youth hockey as a priority. From an operational standpoint, the argument that youth programming limits of n opportunities simply not factual. The reality is at large - scale events are not booked overnight or weeks out in our season is only six months long. Youth organisations plan in advance and are already operating with regular yearly constraints as it is. We have consistently demonstrated flexibility and accommodating many tournaments and BACHO dates in our season, coordinating with the City and the University of Guelph and adapting to Lost Ice Time while working collaboratively with our stakeholders. And we will continue to do so. The City is in serious about expanding its events portfolio. That expansion must happen through proactive booking and transparent planning. Not displacing the very community programs that use the facility for half the year. With proper planning, events and youth programming can coexist

with each other. In fact, this is a standard practice across municipalities in Ontario. The Southend Rexner may have two paths, but we do not have a confirmed allocation. And we start our season in September. We cannot plan or grow. If semen axis is removed, one new pad merely replaces a lost, leaving the community, with at best one pad immediately that would be consumed by current demand, eliminating 4. 25 percent use subsidy will push costs onto families and increase in fuel food and rentals fees due to needing to go outside of the city, effectively making hockey less affordable. When COS rise and access shrinks, participation drops of access to Sleeman Centre is reduced. The impact will not be seen in a budget line. It will be seen by fewer children playing sports. It will be seen in programs that can't expand or worse must shrink. Removing the U - Subsidy and regular scheduling program from Siemens does not address the underlying issues. It shifts the burdens onto families, reduce the system efficiencies and contradicts over a decade of city commission planning. Looking ahead, Guav has six paths. Soon we'll have aid, and the removal of semens will leave us with seven. But by 2030 and 2031,

Centennial and exhibition are expected to be decommissioned. Leaving us now with five pads in four years within eight percent growth in population. We are back further than where we are right now. The solution is clear. Maintain youth access and stable allocations to the semen centre. Implement coordinated scheduling so events in community programs can coexist. Advanced long - term infrastructure planning aligned with population growth. In support privatization opportunities for multi - season facilities. We have an opportunity here to support children, families in our community. Not force them the bare burden to planning gaps. Let's keep youthy sports and gualth in a priority. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much, Jamie. And what about for Jamie? Is there any follow - up questions at all. Alright. Uh, we're going to have a trend here. Councillor Busatil. 124. Yes, thank you very much for your delegation. Same question I've asked all the delegations and you referenced it. About the public - private partnerships. And I look close to Cambridge and the model that they've had there to respond to the gap. I understand about the burden on families, but also the burden on public. We're competing.

Well, there's all sorts of pressure. So can you speak to, has your organisation at the board level, talked about, explored, put together strategic plan, had conversations with the City about this is a great question. Thank you very much, for asking it. Um, we have had a lot of conversations over the last five years that I've had the opportunity to serve on our board about the limitations that we have with our IS at the moment. And nothing was off the table in terms of conversation. When this proposal came forward about semen centre, this was very catastrophic for us. It has a huge impact in the fact that we know in the next four years, we are going to be actually in a worse position than we currently are while attempting to grow a program with a population. So over the last few weeks, I have reached out to two major developers. One is Buckingham, who actually does the Cambridge Sports Park. Um, they built and operated under City Land. And then Canlon Sports Park as well. Both are exceptionally keen to come in from a privatization perspective. They have models that work. They have models that are exceptionally effective. Uh, they work within our groups that we have. They can accommodate the needs that we have, that the girls hockey would have that ring out would

have. This is a great opportunity. But in terms of land and where that goes, I think that again, that comes back to you wonderful people as to what can we do? There is opportunity. We can 100 percent have these conversations with these developers. This is what they do. Thank you, excellent response. You're welcome. Great. Is there any follow - up right now. Nope. Thank you very much again for coming. We appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks so much for your time. You got it. And Michelle, come on down. Uh, you're going to close us off with your, your delegation tonight. From the Guelph Girls Hockey Association.

Thanks for coming, Michelle. And whenever you're ready. Okay. Oh, wonderful to inspire. Yep. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of Council and City staff. Um, my name is Michelle Waterson and I'm here on behalf of the Gulf Girls Hockey Association as the president. Uh, we are here today to strongly oppose the removal of the U subsidy and the displacement from the Sleeman Centre. And I also like to note that we did submit a petition on behalf of our members. Um, and its core, this issue is about access. If this substance removed the cost of ice will increase and those costs will be passed directly onto families. This means higher registration fees. And for many girls, that becomes a difference between playing and not playing. I'm sorry. I'm emotional about the girls. Um, we already know that girls drop out of sport at a higher rate than boys and cost is one of the primary barriers. At GGHA, we are actively working to address retention through initiatives like beyond the bench in partnership with Homewood Health and Wellington Dufferin Public Health to focus on mental

health, competence and belonging. But the reality is we cannot solve retention if participation itself becomes unaffordable. And Council has a direct role to play in that. There's also a broader issue here. Asility Access. We have not been able to add additional teams in over 10 years. Due to lack of available ice. We do not go elsewhere. We stay in wealth. We are Guelph Girls Hockey Association. We belong in Guelph. The mid, the demand is there. The players are there. The interest is there. But the infrastructure is not. And that has real consequences. Girls are already leaving Guelph to play in other centres because we cannot offer teams or comparable ice times. We are losing athletes. Not because of lack of interest, because of lack of access. And while we recognise support and celebrate the addition of new rings, we need to be clear. Displacing user groups when run rink while adding two new ones does not result in two additional ranks. You cannot boast about adding two new rings. We'll removing affordable access from an existing rank. It simply shifts the problem. We also know

that this is not only youth programming that will be displaced from the semen centre. But adult programming as well. And to be clear, we are not here to debate the number of ranks per capita. Others have brought that forward tonight. But we are here saying this. There is a real and immediate access problem. And it's directly impacting girls and sport. This is not just a planning issue. It's a municipal responsibility. The City of Guelph must take ownership of ensuring equitable access facilities to youth sport. We also want to address the comparison to be made between sports and the arts. We fully support investment in the arts. They are essential to a healthy and vibrant community. But using the absence of an art subsidy to justify removing a sports subsidy is not responsible policy. Council has the authority to support both. And we strongly encourage you to do so. This is not an either or decision. Our children deserve to be both creative and physical and have those opportunities to thrive. And we need to talk specifically about girls in sport. This is timely today as the future of sport in Canada Commission Report was released

today. The current sports system is not consistently designed to meet the needs of women and girls in sport. Yet, the demand is growing rapidly. Girls hockey alone has seen an approximate growth since 2022. And at the same time, we know the impact of sports is profound. Girls in sport have lower rates of depression and anxiety. They are more likely to stay engaged in school. There are up to 80 percent more likely to graduate and pursue higher education. And 94 percent of women in C - suite leadership positions played sport. They're coming to Council and years to come. Swart is not just recreation. It is a proven pathway to leadership, resilience, confidence, and long - term well - being. And for many girls, the rink is more than a place to play. It is a safe space. As support system and a foundation for their future. So when we talk about removing the subsidy, we're not adjusting a line budget. We are creating a barrier. A bury with disproportionately impact families already facing financial pressures. I bury that will push girls out of sport and a bury that directly contradicts the outcomes we are as a

community say we value. Today we are asking counsel to maintain the U subsidy of semin centre, recognise the affordability, acknowledge the ongoing shortage advice and commit into investing grassroots programming and facilities that support youth and girls in sport. Great. Well done. Thank you. Thank you. Um, and thank you for your presentation, uh, okay. I saw Gibson and then alt, please. Yeah. Thank you very much for your presentation. And thanks for expanding the sort of the face of this conversation. I think a lot of people are just associating Gulf Miner hockey, but it's, the other user groups that you utilise the Sleeman Centre. And it just, it dawned on me when you were talking about, uh, Gulf Girls, but the ring ad association, Stanley Stick. And if cramping firm wrong is the figure skaters, is figure skating also a key program at the youth subsidy at the Sleeman Centre. So and the giant and the giants. So I again, I appreciate it. And I also appreciate you delving into the, um, the value of support. We often talk about excess to services access to our library services and access to other things. And the value that brings to the individual. And this is access to sport and the sort of the resilience aspect that sports builds in our use lives. Um, this is more of a

comment than a question. Remind me what your role it was again last year. You're in room at four. Um, last year was 440 this year was 492. Um, I would like to make it clear that again, we don't go elsewhere to play. Our girls go elsewhere to play. Yes. When you go to tryouts. Uh, Fergus, Waterloo Kitchener, Cambridge air, North Hilton. You see the Guelph colours. All the time. Because once they play rep hockey, they don't want to go back to locally cocky. Um, and so they go elsewhere. Girls have open borders where boys, this is new for them. This was a first year that they've had open borders. Girls have had open borders for years. Um, also our local league, not only plays, we don't just playing wealth in a local league. We play in a community, um, between centres close to us. So we're, again, we're not always here. And I also would like to add that our local league only plays at exhibition. Our games are at exhibition. There's no viewing area for grandparents. They can't do the stairs. We have leaks

in the bathroom. I mean. My quick math is you just quoted in one year you got a 10 percent growth. And we could have had work. We just maybe questioned the advent of the creation of the professional women's hockey league. I'm sure has helped with the registration and getting girls in hockey. Yeah. It's a great sport for girls. Is everything we're told not to be right. We're told to be quiet and mindful. And you know, they're, they're, you know, they can share for one another, you know, they can be a little bit aggressive, you know, stand their ground, use the boards, push in the corner, steal the puck. Um, it's a great sport for girls. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And Councillor Alt, and just one second, if you don't mind, Councillor, Hall to name Klaus in. And then to Busatill, uh, I just a reminder everyone just get right to the who, what, when, why is it right to the questions if you don't mind? Thank you. Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie, through you to, uh, Ms. Waterson. Ms. Waterson, uh, your presentation for me, uh, brought up something that, uh, more important than really what we're here for. And that's equity.

And I'm hoping that you bring it up. I'll tell you my favourite coaching experience and I coached a lot of teams was coaching women's rugby. There's nobody I would rather coach than women. I'll tell you that question is, do you agree? No. The question really is one of equity. And you've answered some of it by stating that essentially you've been compartmentalized to exhibition park. What would you like to see. For girls minor hockey in Guelph right across the city irrespective of the debate that we're having at this present time? Well, I'd like to make it clear that it's not that we don't want to use exhibition. Absolutely. Exhibition we've used. We'd use Centennial. We'll use any rank, but they're just on appropriate for game ice. And so we'd like to be able to move our games into other facilities. And again, at our U7U9, which is the fastest growing divisions that we have, we require half ice boards. The only boards that we have hi - fi ice are at West End rank two, I believe it is, um, and centennial. We don't have eye set centennial at appropriate times to be able to offer

that program. And then also, um, we only get the West End at appropriate time on Sundays, which then would displace all our other girls as well. Um, so that is a challenge. Um, for us. Yeah. And I do want to. Then I'm going to leave the question, but I'd love to talk to you about equity because you've, you've really raised an important issue there. I would love to talk to you about equity. Okay. Thank you. And then, uh, Clausen and then Busatill. Thank you. Yes. Thank you for your presentation. And I just, I'm sorry, but I'm also a product of women in sports. And I just wanted to say thank you for the work that you do in, in raising women up in sport and advocating on, on behalf of them. Um, we need more of you. Um, my question is about just the semen centre specifically. So are your girls playing in the Sleeman Centre or Primer? I might've heard the answer over here, but I just, I wanted the clarity around the Sleeman Centre specifically. Yes. We do, um, get I said Sleeman Centre. Um, I would like to say like our program, we will grab anything that ever becomes available. We are

not, we are not picky. Like, and so the reason we've got Sleem and Ice was another user group didn't want it. So we took it in order to be able to, and to be able to not necessarily grow a program, but just we, we share ice. Like our team share ice. Other centres have their own ice time. Like a U18 team would have their own nighttime. We often share ice. So our teams aren't even, so they're not getting the same amount of ices in Cambridge. Cambridge, for example, um, their U18 elite team was getting proximally 115 hours of practice ice. That's practised ice alone. Um, the Guelph girls are getting about 95. Um, and that's not always consistent. And that also includes some strength and conditioning. So it's probably even less than that. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Great. Thank you. And to, uh, to take this home. On this one, uh, Busotil, please. Still asking questions about the salad bar. Yeah. Yes. I'll have a salad bar for you. Good to see you, Michelle. It's been a long time. Thank you. Yeah. So I'm going to ask the same question that I asked

Mr. Rickard and Mr. Saint - Kwa and Madame Baggio just about like, how can we address this? We need partnerships in this. So two part A, do you work with the other groups around ice needs? Um, and you made reference to, uh, the arts and you're familiar with the Gualth Youth Music Centre, you know, some leadership from the Suzuki String School that took orph in piano. And everyone else and built the facility and manage that and so on and created the governance and so on. Is that part of your vision as well. That public private kind of vision? Because, you know, looking to the city, I don't know how we're going to meet all the needs, whether it's pickleball and soccer and pool and gymnastics and underwater hockey and everything else that I've got on my list. Um, all the things are important. Yes. Yeah. Can you tell me about kind of what, where you sit in that? Oh, absolutely. We would love, we love that. Um, in fact, I just had a conversation and I joke about this always. I'm like, if I had a wrench uncle, which I don't, or when the lottery, I, I wouldn't make an all girls rank. Honestly, uh, there's one in Nova Scotia, which is amazing. But I don't have a wrench uncle. And I haven't won the

lottery. But a member heard me say that, uh, they said, you know, I have connections and I have some access. And if you can provide me sort of what a revenue stream is, what sort of ice costs would be. I might be able to, you know, facilitate some discussions. So we're definitely open to that. Um, look, we, we, we want to play hockey. And just to supplement, are you a member of the Guelph youth. Sports counsel? And are these conversations happening at that kind of level? Um, unfortunately, uh, we have not been given access to that, um, sports council. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Sorry. Um, seeing nothing further. Thank you again. We really appreciate that. Thank you. Have a great night. Good night just to ask you a follow - up question. Yes, you may. Sorry. Anytime that that last answer is just not sitting well with me. You said the word you have not been given access. And I just need to flush that out a little bit. Cause I know a lot of the people that are on there and I'm like falling off my chair. Is it is

it actually you're, you've been refused access or have you not been invited or have you been invited and just not had a first meeting it? Like I just can you just give me some of that? Like what, what does that mean? Um, we, um, had been approached. And I said, yes, definitely please. We would like to be a part of it. Yes. Please let us know when you're next meeting is the next meeting has obviously not happened because it's been a year, but, um, and my followups have also not been returned. So, okay. So a conversation had happened for an invite to the next meeting, next meeting has happened yet. No follow - ups have been returned by an email to find it when that meeting is. Okay. Still a customer service issue there. I would, I would state, but not a no action. I just wanted to make sure that there was like, you're not, I didn't want it to come across like you aren't allowed. So I just, I appreciate the clarity. Thank you very much. Yeah. I'll, I'll get on the phone on that issue. Thank you. Thank you. Very much. Okay. So Councillor Gibson, I do see your hand, but just, I'm sorry, just one second. Okay. Um, just as kind of normal practice, I wouldn't mind going back to staff.

They've listened to our delegations. They've heard us converse on some things as well. And I think to just kind of get a ground level foundation about moving forward, um, I think it is important for staff to be able to respond to what they've heard. Maybe the accuracy of corrections, which is fine. That would like those corrections come to us too. Uh, just so we can kind of get, get a move forward position, um, is it CAO Baker or WCO clock bush? Okay. Colleen over to you. Thank you. And I'll go to you, Councillor Gibson. Thank you Mr. Mayor and to council for the opportunity and to the delegates for coming out. Um, I think we all share the passion for, uh, for youth sports here in the community. And I do think at the end of the day, we all have the same shared goals in terms of access to facilities. Um, I wanted to provide some clarifying information and maybe some helpful information as you deliberate. Um, so first, just want to give reassurance, um, so when we talk about the opening date for Southend, um, staff, we have been assured we will have occupancy by the beginning of September. That's for staff to get in be commissioning the building. Um, and we do are still on track to be planning a grand opening for in October. What we will do is that we

will ensure no one loses a 60 nights time. And so if we are not in a position to be, no one will lose ice time. So as we look to move groups out of the Sleeman Centre and into the south end, if there is a period where we need to leave the groups at Sleeman Centre as we transition because I don't want to commit to what day in September or October, we will be moving groups. We will ensure that no groups lose out on ice time when we are moving their block from the Sleeman Centre to the south end. So I just wanted to provide that assurance. Also, and again, this may be news to most people, um, but, uh, we are going to be adding spring ISA so thinned. So with a new facility that's a little bit more energy efficient, we are going to be in a position to be adding spring ice in April and May. We're going to pilot it and, uh, see where the demand is. We know the university has been picking up a lot of the spring ice, but it is something that we have heard that tryouts in particular are a real issue for groups. Um, again, which is why we want to focus on getting groups into the south end and getting them access to that facility. Cause we'll be adding that spring ice and April and May. Also just want to clarify, there is no plan to decommission centennial or exhibition. That was, uh, that was sort of, um, mold about early on in the days when there was a discussion about with South End

coming online, would we be taking one of centennial exhibition offline? And the delegates are correct. They're older facilities and we do have to do repairs on them. Um, but there is no, uh, there is no specific plan to decommission subtanual or exhibition. We want to monitor ice usage and our capacity moving forward once we get the south and open. We have also always been open to public private partnerships and we continue to be as well as all sponsorship opportunities. We are actively seeking sponsors. If anybody's out there, we are actively seeking sponsors for our, our facilities, for our buildings. In fact, when, uh, that we did public RF, a request for expression of interest process for the south end. And we proposed three models, a developed finance and operate model, a develop and finance model or an operate only model. And we put out that RFEOI to see if there was interest at the time. This goes back almost 10 years before Council made the decision to proceed with Southend. We did not have any submissions that, uh, that were viable. Um, but we have always been open to those public private partnership opportunities as well as sponsorship. And that includes discussions with the university. We have had discussions over not just ICE, new facilities field houses, et cetera. We do have a capital budget

challenge here at the City. And so in our conversations, we continue to be upfront with partners about what our limitations are within our capital budget. But we have always been open to any of those proposals that would come forward. Um, currently Community Group, she's in Sleeman Centre average about 30 hours of ice time per week. And when the Southend opens, there will be over 130 hours of new primetime ice. So that's where we're going to be able to pick up that ice time that's being moved out of the semen centre. Um, I do want to clarify and, you know, yes, we've had lots of sleeve in events, but the list that was provided, that's well over 10 years. Tragically hip was over 10 years ago, um, were, we're talking about one to two events a year. In order to actually utilise this underperforming asset, we need to do better than that. We need to use the Sleeman Centre more than once or twice a year. We will absolutely, um, continue to accommodate ice usage at the Sleeman Centre. But what we are proposing to do is we want to move the groups to the south end to be able to guarantee their dates to be able to guarantee their bookings, um, will continue to offer bookings and ice time at Sleeman Centre to Community Groups, but on shorter timeframe. So not for the six month box, but in shorter time periods, um, we'll continue to

accommodate hockey tournaments. For example, at Sleeman Centre. Bumping may sound easy, but practically speaking, it really becomes difficult both for staff and for the group because we may not have anywhere to bump that group too if we haven't guaranteed them their blocks at the south end. And it does mean that we may miss out on opportunities. There are short notice bookings like film shoots that we want to be able to take at the Sleeman Centre that are often on short on, on, on, on a short turnaround time period. So we need that flexibility. We'll still continue to take those shorter term bookings from our community groups. But what we really want to do is be able to get their block of ice confirmed at the south end so that they know they have their time slots. Um, we also are going to be doing that allocation. Yet this spring, we hear the message loud and clear from the groups. They need to have that assurance. That's why this report is before you in March. And I think some of you asked, could we defer this report until later in this spring? And I said, no. Um, we really do need this report decided tonight for exactly that reason. We want it. We want to be able to give the groups the assurance of their ice time. Um, and hearing loud and clear as well concerns about equity and ice allocation. Thank you for approving our allocation policy. You did that earlier this evening. That's the mechanism through which we're going to start to look at

how we deal with equity within our allocation, not just for ice. That's the other thing I really want to emphasize. We're talking a lot about ice tonight, but we have recreation, um, capacity challenges across much more than ice. I absolutely recognise that as a municipality, we cannot meet the full demand for ice use. We rely on the university. There's a private arena in the south end. Um, smaller sized. But we are not in a position to meet the full demand for ice, for aquatic facilities, gym space, pickleball, et cetera. We have, as you know, we have pressures on our capital budget. We've deferred lots out of our capital budget. And so absolutely we do still need to look to others to help us meet that need in the community. But in the meantime, what we really want to do is make sure we're maximizing the sleeve and centre, maximizing the usage of that facility, which is similar to other OHL arenas. Kitchener Waterloo Memorial Auditorium, for example, has very similar policies to what we're proposing to put into place and make sure that this spring, when we're doing the ISA allocation, we accommodate everyone and get their dates locked in in the south end. So they have the assurance that they're looking for. Great. Thank you very much. We appreciate that being all stated like

out loud like that. We really appreciate that. That can give some certainty and some clarity for the user groups moving forward to, um, so thank you. Uh, sorry Councillor Gibson, um, do you have a question or can I get motions at least put on the floor? Um. I just want two, maybe two points of clarity. We heard from to staff, we heard from our delegates a willingness to, um, engage in at like a displacement policy or a short term displacement. I've read through recreational silly allocation process report again. I don't see specific wording in that report about a displacement policy. Can you, can you expand on that? Can maybe answer that or do you need direction from council today to, to, to adopt something like that? No, it's through the mayor. So it isn't our recommendation. Our recommendation is that we move the groups to the south end and we guarantee them their blocks of time at the south end for those sort of six month chunks. And that then they book on a case - by - case basis at the Sleeman Centre. We don't recommend leaving their blocks at the Sleeman Centre and putting a sort of displacement clause and effect because it's going to very much hamper the efforts of our staff

to get bookings for the Sleyman Centre. And we're also very concerned that we're going to continually be going to groups and not have ICE to move them to. Um, so we highly recommend that they move those solid blocks to the Sleeman Centre where we can make sure that we're accommodating them. Um, or sorry, to the south end. Thank you, Ms. Baker, that we move the solid blocks to the south end where we know we can accommodate them. And then we will continue to take those bookings on a case - by - case sort of more one - off at the Sleeman Centre. Thank you, Mr. Masoar. I'm hearing is there's a, you're essentially telling them that there's guaranteed that you're going to get their blocks of time at the south end, but there's still going to be opportunistic bookings at the Sleeman Centre. Absolutely. Okay. And then, um, maybe for due process, Mr. Mayor, I believe the way the recommendations are written, I'd like them separated if you don't mind before I put them on the floor. And then I believe that if we are to vote against clause three, we don't need a motion for anything else other than yes or no to the youth subsidy no longer being applicable. Number three, just a yes or no subsidies gone. We vote no. The subsidy remains. That's right. Direction any more than that. Yes. To the mayor. I didn't actually comment on that because that one is fairly simple. It's a yes or a no. Either we remove the uth subsidy or you retain it.

Okay. Thank you. Um, I'm. Happy to move the motions separated, please. And I'll save my comments for number three at the end if you don't mind. Or I can, I'm happy to share my comments before then, but let me just get a seconder. Can I have a seconder for what's on there? Okay. Uh, I'll go down her. Thank you. Um. And, uh, let me just ask right now, is there any further questions before comments. Other than knowing that these three are being separated? And I know the motions coming after these three. Okay. So we'll get to those in a second, but questions only, alt, please. Thank you, Mayor Guthrie, through you to stuff. It's a quick one. Um, I appreciate, uh, what, uh, Deputy CAO Clack Bush had stated. But one area that, that has been avoided, which I'm concerned about is the, the economic cost or advantage to downtown Guelph and the accompanying impact on downtown business. That's projected if we change the use of, uh, the Sleeman Centre. Through the Mayor to Council Rule certainly in conversations with the DGBA, uh, and our downtown businesses. We know that when we do large scale public events ticketed public events that there is a significant

impact for the downtown businesses and for restaurants, that is one of the ancillary benefits to using Sleeman Centre, the way it was really originally intended. Um, community ice unfortunately tends to be a smaller number of people and without public who are coming downtown, um, and so that is one of the reasons why we'd like to see the Lehman Centre used for more public facing events is to draw people into the downtown core, um, and to be that economic generator in the downtown court. And if Mr. Goodrum can add to that, I'd love it. And if you can't, if Ms. Clark Bush has said everything, I'm fine with that too. He's good. Ditto, I think. Okay. Okay. So before I continue, cause I see no other questions, uh, unfortunately you're going to get a couple of questions from me. So bear with, okay. Sorry. Council searching. You have questions. Go ahead. Through you, uh, Mr. Mayor. Um, DCO Clive Bush, thank you for indulging me in a call yesterday. Um, you just clarify just the timeline of our facility needs assessments. And even just like forecasting out to the next term of council when we can expect staff capacity, just given the time frame of the

SEC transition that your team is working on. If we were to undertake that. So to the mayor, um, if you're referring to the previous facility needs assessment, the most fulsome facility needs assessment was done in 2009, although as we brought updates related to the south end community centre forward to council, there were, there were updates. Um, and so in terms of the next term of council, we don't have a formal, um, placeholder to do a fullsome facility needs assessment for our indoor facilities. We're currently doing the outdoor fields field strategy. Um, but once the south end is open and we've had time to evaluate need, we would certainly through, I would say our capital budget process becoming back to the next term of council. Um, to identify if there is future needs. As I said, we know the demand is there. It really comes down to what is the capacity of the municipality to try to address that. Um, versus it being done through the private sector, um, and so, uh, I think in answer to your question, once the south end is open and we have time and we sort of evaluate usage and demand across all, not just ice. We will certainly be evaluating that and determining sort of next steps. Okay. And just to follow up, because I see, uh, we have

our acting DCO as well. Um, and our general manager for ECTEV. I notice within the Hanley Creek in our appointment lands, we have, um, multi - land parcelling available. Do you think if, uh, something like the Cambridge Sports Complex were to be proposed on those lands? Because I know before they were deemed provincially significant. Is that some kind of proposal that would be entertained by us at the city with Luke and their team. Cause I think I was just preface this. Like I think we just need to be able to demonstrate that the willingness to kind of entertain these conversations. And I know you do have these conversations with the public just needs to know that. There is that. Oh, well, through the mayor to Councillor Chu, all our remaining lands in the Hanland Creek business park are currently up for sale and we're anticipating, um, uh, proposals, um, by the end of April. So, um, if that does move forward, um, there's a report anticipated to Council on June the 2nd. So that moves forward. We won't have any, um, lands in the Industrial

Park any longer. Okay. And yeah, that's just more question for clarity. It's to open the conversation. But, um, yeah, I guess I'll reserve my comments for later. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So a couple of questions from me. And I'm calling to you a little bit. Okay. So I, I'm sitting in a position right now where I think I'm, I have a difference of opinion on this displacement clause conversation. And I think where, where I'm hearing is that I'm hearing group or groups that are at least open to a conversation around what a displacement clause could look like. You know, what is, what is point A and B and C and what would trigger something if it's a film shoot within a week? Can that be put in as a clause? Like compared to no. And so I'm kind of sitting in a conference. I feel uncomfortable because I totally get why you're saying no. I really do. But I also feel like

the conversation with user groups about the parameters around what would trigger a displacement clause has not ever happened. And I feel like this is like a new, this is a new territory we're in, right? Like and think, thank goodness, it's new territory because we're got two new ranks coming on. Thank goodness. But can we not like do, can we not try like hate these words? Well, like a pilot program for a year, like we're doing like a one year transition here. Can we not try displacement clauses with everything like very clearly laid out as to why a group would get displaced? None of us would want to hear. Well, I won't. But no one wants to hear, Oh, we just got kicked out. It's on Facebook or something. We just got kicked out because of, well, it's in your claws. It's in your claws. So don't complaining about it. Right. So if, if the parameters around the displacement clause were known and negotiated in good faith up front, why can't that work. And that's where I'm struggling. I feel like we should try it for

a year. And you still then, you still then can book all the events and you can be called a concerts. And you can have a film crew come in three days before. And you're like, sorry. Your displacement clause says we can kick you out like for any of these types of issues. And they, they have to, they have to live with that because they signed their name to what the parameters of the displacement cause were. So I'm, I'm struggling with the no versus the, can we not see about something maybe working for that? That's, that's, that's where my headspace is at. So, so certainly a few thoughts on that. So first of all, to you, um, our experience is when we have previously displaced groups, it is very challenging. The organisation might say that they're okay with it, but individual families, it can be very frustrating. We hear lots of the complaints, groups. It's very challenging for families with small kids to be displaced to have to find out that they're going to a new location. But I do think the bigger issue is fundamentally why. Because if we don't move the groups into the south end now and get their blocks of time in the south end a year from now, those blocks, like we, we know the demand is there. And so we would rather move them from Sleeman Centre and get them their guaranteed ice time at South End. So calling me,

I interrupt because I made a, I might have pitched this wrong to you. So my apologies. Let me just interrupt because I think you're going somewhere where I wear my head space wasn't at. I agree with you in the bookings to be blocked to the South End. Full stop. No problem. Okay. Now we also know there's capacity issues where they are always looking for more ice and more blocking of times. Okay. So they're moving from semen centre. Fine. To south end. Fine. Now they want an extra bit of hours to also block. On top of. Can we not have a conversation with all those user groups. With really strict parameters of displacement. That would trigger an actual displacement and working with them to make sure that all of their membership is told in advance of those parameters. So there isn't any problems of that so that if it's triggered, then it's triggered. And I just don't understand why. So, so I just want to make sure you understood. I understand the moving of the blocking to the south end. It's the extra now that they could also block, but we're saying no. And that's where I'm struggling. So thank you for the clarification. So first

step is to get everybody moved and accommodate their existing ice times. So we make sure they're looked after. Then under the recreational allocation policy that you have just approved, we will then offer all of the additional time south end, all of our arenas, including at the Sleeman Centre as it be as available across the board equitably to all of the groups following the parameters that you've just approved. And yes, we will be offering that ice time that remains at Sleeman Centre. What we won't be doing is blocking the six months at a time. It will be shorter. It might be two months out at a time. Um, but we absolutely will continue. And we do now. We work with our groups now. Um, if the storm has a game, the storm has a game tonight. It's a Tuesday night. That's an unusual night to have a game on. I'm guessing we might've had to work with some groups to accommodate it. I don't actually know that for a fact, but I'm just guessing. So we absolutely can and have demonstrated that we will work with groups when we do need to bump or, or, or displace the, as you say. And that will still absolutely be available at Sleeman Centre. We just want to make sure that first and foremost, we get everybody's blocks moved. And then through an open process available to all of the groups under the new recreational allocation policy, we will make ice time available and we will work with groups.

Yes. You're making me feel a bit better. Thank you. I'm trying. No, no, no. I know it's hard. Thank you. That does satisfy, I think the head's nodding around that. So thank you. Um, my last question then is the logistics, the process around letting the users know how to book those times at the Sleeman Centre. So everything gets shifted to the south end, giddy up. Everything's good. Now there is X amount of hours and available time over here two, three months in advance, as you said, whatever. I have consistently heard that that is an onerous and difficult process to try and figure out how they can book. How is that? Is there any technology being looked at? Is there any other processes or logistics so that all user groups have access to be able to try to book the extra available time in and around where the other intent of the semen centre is going to go for events and concerts? How will people know and how quickly and easy is it for them to

book those times? So I want to take an opportunity to actually not take credit for all of my answers and to give a huge shout of thanks to Ms. Evans, our general manager of culture and rack and Mr. Giles, who as our sleeve and centre manager who are up in the gallery and actually helping me tonight with all of the answers. Um, and so it is a, it is an absolutely great question. And we want to continue to work with our user groups to make it easier. So when we go out in the spring and we provide them with their booking information package and they feed us back with the expression of interest, that's how we get the information. But we are looking to make that easier through online forms so that it is easier for the groups. And I will then still say the recreational allocation policy that you have just approved is also what's going to guide this for us. And it's great. There's a reason why you're considered them both. Um, ironically, I actually thought it might get more attention than this, but I'm really glad that the recreational allocation policy was approved because it's exactly how that's going to guide this process and try to make it easier for groups. Okay.

Okay. I thank you everyone for giving me the extra five minutes. To flush that out a little bit. I would love to just hear stories of after the booking and blocking is done at the south end of user groups whoever they are. Saying, wow, we got our blocking at Southend and we also got. 45 hours over here too back at the Sleeman Centre. How awesome is that. That's the kind of conversation I want to hear. Um, and hopefully that happens. Okay. However, it's doled out. That's fine. Okay. Okay. Well. And then, you know, can we can we get feedback from staff in a year's time on how things are working at all? Like, can there be an information report. Can there be something that comes back to Council that says with a one year booking, we've done the following. This is how it's worked. Yes. I think I'm going to just commit to us on behalf of staff that we can bring in information, a report back. I would think probably at the end of our first ice season. So I'm thinking probably spring 2027,

given that ice has been our focus, but we will certainly want to report back because we haven't talked about aquatic facilities because that hasn't been what, but I think there's also very similar conversations about aquatic facilities, um, in particular. So we will report back, uh, via information report ideally and sort of Q2 2027. Okay. You've really helped. Thank you so much. Okay. Let's get to the motions. There's three of them. They've been asked to be separated. Um, so the first one is that the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer of Public Services or to designate have the authority to negotiate the semen centre rates and fees when revenue can be recovered through the rental profit share or ticket sales. Does anyone have any questions or comments on that one. On that one. Okay. Council Gitching. Yeah. Thank you. Uh, I'm just reading the, the recommendation I hurt them back to a conversation. I think, uh, Ms. Clackbush, you and I had back in 2014, uh, when I first ran for council, it was all about how can we maximize the Sleen Mi Centre? And I think at the time you said, um, well, the river run centre is operated differently. We're allowed to charge different ticket sales and we're allowed to work within a budget. Whereas the semen centre operates, uh, much different. I'm grateful. And, um, I just wanted to give full credit to moving the

Sleeman Centre in this direction. I may not agree with you on the U Substitute in a minute, but I'm going to give you kudos now. It's terrific to see the Sleeman Centre being run more like a business. Being able to take some risks, hit and miss on some concerts and then hit really well on other concerts. That's exactly how the river on centre operates. So, um, I'm more than happy to support, uh, clause one. That's for me. Thank you. Okay. Anything more in clause one. No. Okay. I'm going to call the vote on clause one. Is there anyone against. No one that's unanimous. Thank you. On the second one, which is the semen centre capital reserve fund ticket service charge increase from between two and three dollars starting September 1st, 2026. Any questions or comments just on that. Nope. Okay. I'll call the vote then. Is, sorry, the just popped up on this middle of the screen there. It's gone now. Did you guys see that? No. Okay. I'm going to call a vote. Is anyone against that. Okay. That's unanimous as well. And so now we're at, um, the youth facility discount will no longer be applicable for rentals at the Sleeman Centre effect

of September 1st, 2026. Any questions or comments on that? I mean, this is a yes or no. I'll go to Councillor Caden first, please. And then Gibson. Thank you. Um, so just like the parents who like to plan months ahead. So what our staff, uh, and I know that the youth discount is separate from the scheduling. But, uh, we as a council had made changes to our downtown design away from installing a playground immediately and implementing a public space used by - law that disallows tenting in the name of downtown being an economic driver. The proposed policy doesn't disallow youth sports. It just refocuses our facility in the downtown through an economic lens. Um, and I feel that the concerns being addressed with our, with bringing on the two new rinks. At the same time that the suit is removed, uh, that it nullifies those concerns. I've heard that other municipalities don't offer youth discounts. The university doesn't offer it. And the commercial ranks do not. The use groups can still book at sleemens and they'll have two more rinks in an area. That even

have free parking. I think that this is ultimately going to be a cost savings for the families, for the groups who are booking in the south end. Uh, I understand the equity conversation. I'm very proud of the work that council and staff have done towards that goal. I think that the allocation policy that we've just passed is going to address that need. So I'm not, I'm going to be supporting the removal of the youth subsidy for the semen centre. Okay. Thank you for your, for your comments. Um, I saw Gibson. I saw Corinne and I saw Busatil. Okay. Go ahead, Gibson. Uh, thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. Just to summarize my thoughts on this, uh, sounds like the user groups are all going to have their time secured this out the end to the used groups that are here. Please get to know our facility allocation policy that we just published. That'll be, that'll be your opportunity to grab times at the Sleeman Centre. Once all your times have moved down to the second. So the block of time opening up at that facility. Um, on the youth subsidy, I've looked at the report. It's clear to me staff have recognised that the 91, 000 dollar loss of revenue to the city, um, every

year when we are providing that subsidy, uh, just to put that into context, that sounds like a lot of money. Um, and I'm all for saving money. That being said, um, I don't think in the grand scheme of things access to sports, um, it's a trivial cost when it comes to allowing, um, kids access to sports, especially youth. I know a little bit about the sleeve and centre and how it operates. I know a little bit about how the storm operate. And a good, a good playoff run every year. Um, more than covers that subsidy for our youth in terms of revenues through the Sleeman Centre. So I'm not obliged to support that. Um, my only, my other piece of mind that is going through the back of my mind right now as I'm looking ahead 20 minutes in our schedule. I'm looking at a vote to remove youth discounts, your youth subsidies, uh, preceding a vote to, um, visit, revisit council's composition for next year in reenumeration. That's not sitting well with me, Mr. Mayor. So I will not be voting to reduce youth subsidies. Um, especially in the shadow of our next agenda item tonight. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for your comments. Corinne and then boots at all, please. And thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm actually two minds on this one. Um,

weighing the different options and asking a question of staff. I often hear the Sleeman Centre being referred to as a premium facility. Does it cost more to operate for youth sports? The Sleeman Centre compared to one of our other, uh, ranks at the West or the, um, Victoria Road facility. Through the marriage. Just to clarify, does it from an operating point of view? Does it cost more? I believe that is the case because of staffing. Yes. And so it is a larger facility. And so it requires more staff. Um, so from that perspective, it is a Premier facility in terms of the actual ice itself and the size of the facility, but also just in terms of our operating costs, it does cost more. And when groups are booking there, is there per hour cost hires the same per hour cost as it is at other facilities. So the subsidy is a, is a percentage. And I'm just wondering where the actual ice time cost is higher. I'm phoning a friend seeing signals there in there. Yeah. There is a differential in the cost at the Sleeman Centre. Um, Ms. Evans is saying it's about 35 dollars an hour different in the cost to use. Okay. So the groups that are booking there are, are paying more than they would at other facilities already. Okay.

Okay. Thanks. Okay. Uh, Councillor Busatil and then Chu is going to wrap it up. Thank you. I'm not going to, I'm going to ditto what Councillor Caten said. And for me, my decision is really, uh, aimed at creating an uncumbered Sleeman Centre. I want that revenue there. I am very well aware of other kinds of subsidies that are available, whether it's the arts or sports for youth and families to become engaged. Um, and so, sorry. Uh, and, and for me, uh, the groups will have access to the Sleeman Centre without the subsidies. So I will be requesting that or supporting the removal of the subsidy. Okay. Thank you. And, uh, to Chew. Yeah, through you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for this whole sum discussion. And I realised half of the conversations were really about the booking policy. Uh, so just on that piece, I hope that we can establish clear lens of communications with our user group organisations and families and groups that

come in soliciting, uh, feedback from customer service. Um, yeah, I'll be supporting, uh, the youth subsidy just because this is very much a transition period that we're in. And I'm representing a community where we've been waiting for 20, 30 years for a community centre. So I'm very happy that, uh, that work is being done. I don't want to take away from that work. But just on the whole, I think we do need to engage in broader conversation, then take a stronger leadership role in just a long - term planning of how do we utilise, uh, some of the limited lands that we do have to scope out E3s or any other operating model operating models and proponent driven, uh, endeavours. And I just want to let everyone know that's watching that the city is open. We have a great active team that's headed by our, uh, general manager that's sitting right there. James Goodrum. So I hope if there's any proponents out there that's willing to entertain any possibilities, you come talk to Mr. James. But yes, on the youth subsidy, we're in a transition period. So I feel like it's quite appropriate. And it actually doesn't take away from much of that 1. 6

million dollar shortfall that we have. So I think based on my representation of the Southend and just the number of user groups that are in the Southend asking for this to be in place, I do feel like there's a duty for me to keep this in place. So I want to make that very transparent and clear for those that are watching today. Okay. Hey, thank you. Okay. So I'll call the vote. So if you vote, um, uh, if you vote against this, it means that the youth subsidy would, if that's the will of council means the U subsidy would stay. Okay. And it would be applicable. Okay. I think everyone knows where I'm at. I want it to stay. So, um, I'll be voting that way. Okay. So all those against number three, please raise your hand. And for the clerks, I will yell at the names for you. Uh, so, uh, Richardson and Billings and Guthrie and Klauson and Chew and Goller and Gibson and downer and houser and Quran. Okay. So that pass, it fails. Sorry. The motion fails, which means the subsidy

stays. Okay. So, um, thank you. Um, now, uh, I have a couple other motions that have been, uh. Are being looked to be tabled. And so we'll go with, uh, I think I, I had brought one forward. Would you mind just doing one for me? So Councillor Goller and Councillor Hauser have agreed to move. And second, one, um, on my behalf, which I think we'll pull up on the screen. And it's just talking about subsidy and it's looking for a memo, uh, to come at the next budget cycle about looking to expand a youth subsidy to the non - sports facilities for those kids that are into culture and arts and music and such. Like is there a possibility at the river run centre? Could they do that? Um, uh, at the museum as an example. And so, uh, it's, it's basically just for the next term of council at the budget time, they will receive a memo that gives some of these details. So they're better informed during that budget cycle to determine whether or not the validity to it. And, um, for me, it is an equity thing from, from kids that are

into sports. I think there's lots of kids that are, are not into sports. And this might be something that can, um, can really spur on even maybe even some more use of some of those facilities too. So, uh, with that, I've kind of explained it as well as I can. I'll leave it open for any of my colleagues to ask any questions or if it's pretty straightforward. I can, I can look to call the vote Coronavise. Yeah. Minor, minor edited. It said at River Run and Gualth Museums, uh, and that is very prescriptive. I wonder if we could say such as, but not in, you know, but not limited to. There may be other facilities. So if we could just go such ass. And I think that was the intent. So I appreciate then. Yeah. I think that was the intent of the mover. I'm seeing thumbs up. Thanks. Yeah. So we'll just, um, have that as an actual amendment. And seconded by Councillor Alt. You okay with that, Councillor? Uh, sure just one second. I just want to make sure the clerks have captured that such as language as an example of those two facilities. Are you okay with that? We'll just display it on screen through you, Mr. Meredith, confirm the movers comfortable. But not limited to. Is that okay? Hits you at

the same intent, Councillor Cran. Yeah. Okay. And still okay for a second, uh, Councillor Hall. All right. Do I need to actually go to you on a question on this on the amendment. Okay. Good. I'm going to call the vote please on the amendment. Okay. Has anyone against. No. Okay. That's, that's great. Thank you. So the amendment passes question on the motion now. Thank you Mayor Guthrie. The overall intent of the motion, I think is quite appropriate. And it was part of what I struggled with in my decisions on the last three motions. Uh, through you two staff, uh, what I don't see in there is any identification of profit versus nonprofit versus not for profit or charitable organisations. Will staff take that into consideration if a report is to come back to us. Through the Mayor accounts or alt. Yes. The current fee subsidy is, uh, has very narrow. It has requirements as to how many youth as in what percentage of the youth participating. I think it's 80 percent of the youth. I have to be from wealth. There is also a requirement related to not for profit and charitable status. So we will make sure that that's clear when we report back. Lovely. Thank you. With that mind, if I call the vote, everybody. I'll call it now. Is anyone against this

motion as amended. Nobody that's unanimous. Thank you, Council. There's a second motion now, which is a, uh, and it's our last one. Councillor Goller and Coron, sorry. Is that right? I believe so. If, uh, if Councillor Carne is still interested in supporting that one, are you okay? And if I could speak to it well, so that, hold on. I need to find a secondary. I thought you were. Yeah, are you okay to second. Okay. Good. It's on the floor. Perfect. Over to you. Thank you. Worship. I'll just scream it out. Uh, that self report back through the 2027 confirmation budget process and the financial impact of implementing recommendations. And I give a number of recommendations there from the Parks and Recreation Master Plan to implement low barrier recreation access to homeless youth, low - income residents, newcomers and other underserved groups through neighbourhood - based programming. Equipment lending, triad activities and drop - in opportunities. Uh, and just for everyone's clarification, those particular recommendations were approved by Council in the Guelph and the Recreation Master

Plan, but they were not funded. Uh, they include increasing city provision of park neighbourhood based recreation programming, including equipment lending to support participation and year round access. Uh, adopt service of delivery to increase access. Two and supportive opportunities to community creation and health focus programming. Incorporate recreation sampling in the recreation service delivery model with low cost, local mid - minute triad activities, introduce community members to City Recreation Programs, uh, investigate free triad activities as part of Welcome to Gulf Program and increase provision to drop in recreation programming to meet demand for spontaneous recreation options and activities. Effectively, during the earlier part of the evening, we're talking about, um, subsidies for groups that, that are already able to pay for activities. This would be exploring some sort of city funding for groups that are not already paying for recreation activities. Um, under CERP groups. So that is my, my intention. Um, and I would hope that throughout this might come at the same time as the previous motion, if approved so that it would be part

of the same report to reduce the workload. Do the Mayor Councillor and Council, yes, our intention will be to bring this back via information report well enough in advance of the budget process that the next term of Council has the information available to them. Uh, thank you, Caitn has a question and our comment. And then Busatil, vote. Okay. Caden, please. Thanks. Um, through you to staff. So would that report include existing programs that are already out there like the FARE program and anything else that we have in terms of what's existing in our social services budget. Uh, through the Mayor to Councillor Caden, I think we can certainly include a high level summary of what existing programs exist. Um, as to the Social Services budget, we would need to look to our colleagues at the Council at the county to see what they could provide. But certainly it's easy for us to insert, um, a paragraph or two about the existing programs that exist here at the City of Guelph. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councillor Cait. My first question. In addition, I'm, I'm aware that the City provides community benefit agreements to

a number of organisation that already provide, uh, equipment, free recreation and so on. And, you know, I even think of the children's foundation that the City of Guelph provides funding to provide subsidies to access programs. So, you know, yeah, so my question is, you know, the lens of this and the intention of the mover is I don't want the city to get back into the business of, of doing this when there are community groups that are doing this. So can you respond to that? Cause I'm feeling very uncomfortable about this. So through the mayor, yes. So you receive, um, and I don't want to commit to the timing of when miss sales group provides these reports, but you do receive information reports every year on the CBAs. So the community benefit agreements and what, um, what has been provided to the community through those as well as through our community grant program. And so I think those are going to be two really important companion pieces. As you consider this, um, because those two were existing reports that you receive every year anyways, um, are a great way to kind of evaluate that existing funding that the city is already providing to third party organisations who then in turn or flowing that money out into

the community. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. That's a good point. So yeah, thank you very much. Okay. Uh, so I will just call the vote then on, on this then. Is there anyone against. Oh, that's unanimous as well. And I think that brings us to the end of this discussion. Um, thank goodness. My band from 10 years ago is looking for an anniversary show. So the semen centre wants to, to book us for our 10th anniversary, uh, let me know. I'll give you a good deal. We're open to negotiation. Okay. I won't, I won't, I won't kick out any ice users though. For sure. All right. Thank you. Um, Council and everybody in the chambers and everyone, uh, we're going to take, uh, quick break. We've been sitting for a while here. Um, we are going to come back at, um, 10 two. So we're going to take a 20 minute 22 minute break. Um, at 10 to nine, we will reconvene. Okay. And we got just a couple items. Yep. Just a couple items and we'll be, we'll be done. Thank you.

Can we just ask our friends online virtually to put their cameras on for us, please? Okay, I will. See here. One minute to call the meeting to order.

Well, they were coming. You know what's going to happen as soon as you.

Ok. Here we go. We only got two more items to get through. The next one we're talking about is the Council Renumeration Review. We have one delegation that has prepared for this who has been waiting. For us, Alex Pervis is going to come on up. Thanks, Alex, for coming. The other delegation that was on our agenda, just so you know, has withdrawn, okay? So it's just going to be Alex hitting us off the top. Alex, thank you. You've been here before. So you know the five minute rule. And with that chime that happens before five minutes with the 32nd warning. So go right ahead. Okay. Whenever you're ready. Right. This will be much shorter than five minutes this time. Gualth storms in the third period right now under down one to nothing. Uh, more importantly about talking about what's happening here today. Uh, I was here eight weeks ago, actually today eight weeks ago when we were first talking about as far as 33 percent pay raises. And just a couple of things I just

wanted to refresh and then just numbers. I love numbers. I do a lot of oddity and had my work and everything else. But in 2022, again, is on the state 2022, a councillor was making 41, 528 dollars fifty six dollars. You know, it's some would want more. But it's, it's, you know, it's good pay. Now the other thing is that when you voted eight weeks ago, as far as on the 33 percent, It didn't pass. But still five councillors voted in favor of it. Now the one thing I want to acknowledge, and this is through the mayor is that you voted down two or three different times as far as a raise for yourself. So I just wanted to public acknowledge that because a lot of people don't, that never comes up. That for yourself, you voted against the pay raise for yourself. So that's the first thing. Uh, second thing that I want to talk about is that, uh, concerning the vote, uh, time audit is that this is the third meeting that we come back talking about what you're going to pay for

yourself. That seems like a lot of time. And I've loved to know what the time audit is for city staff, recommendations for them to come back with something else and everything else. It's been an awful lot of time to make a very simple decision on what this should be. It started off three to three percent. Thankfully that didn't pass. And then it's gone two or three different ways. And now we're here today to hopefully to be able to make a final decision on this. Now the one thing I would like to say as far as competitors is that the only thing that really should matter is single tier cities of similar size. Not compared yourselves to places like London or Hamilton that are half a million people. And meanwhile, you know, we need to compare to cities that are single tier single size. When you look at Barry is that their councillors are getting paid 45, 677 dollars right now You look at Kingston. They're councillors are getting paid 50, 000 and twenty dollars right now. You look at Brantford. They're getting paid 42, 523 dollars right now. Right now Guelt is that you're getting

paid 52, 856 dollars. That's not a few not even close like between Brantford and Guelph is basically almost a 10, 000 dollar differential. Of pay. And so I wrote an article back on November the 14th 2025 talking about the concerns I had as far as the budget as far as the deferrals that were just in the process of being taken as far as 111 million Um, you know many different things and I warned that You know even with the hockey parents here talking about as far as ice time and everything else is like the city is in a crunch right now And people are upset and uh... You know they're stressed out as well. So basically what I would like to suggest and again, it's just my recommendation is that You are paid well compared to other cities of similar size You are paid far more than what they are. And uh... So what I would suggest and again if I was a councillor you wouldn't like to hear my personal opinion What I would do But I would suggest is that a clear message

to the contracts are coming up with the fire department and also with transit That's you're going to be dealing with in a few months time take a pay freeze your pave for one term You're getting paid more than enough money now paired to other cities. To You know to vote down to 33 percent great move Uh for yourself holding down a parries for yourself That was a smart move But I would suggest and strongly urge that Take a pay freeze Give the tax praise a break And then when you do go into negotiations with both the transit and with the fire departments They've got a leg to stand on is that your tightening your belts. And you're able to move forward on it That's basically what I have to share Thank you Okay Well thank you Ox for your presentation Is there any follow - up to this delegate. There is not Thank you Hopefully you can meet the storm game and turn it around Okay Thank you. Alright and that was I said was it for delegations on this matter Um I did I did speak to the to the clerk Just in advance of the meeting here now There is a motion that

was referred from the other Council meeting Uh, at the end of February that you'll see on the agenda Um, however Uh, there is two motions that I know Uh, couple councillors have prepared Um, one from Councillor Quran one from Councillor And I think it would be probably Uhr and again I did Connect with the clerk on this That, um, we don't put It's going to be cleaner Okay, everybody a lot more cleaner to not put down the referred motion And just debate the two motions that would be And maybe it's only one motion because it might pass or whatever Right, so. I'd like to go to Councillor Corons first Uh, to put down Uh, and then if that doesn't go anywhere I can go to yours Councillor Gull are okay Uh, hopefully everyone with me so far Is everyone okay with that? Just want to make sure? Okay So Councillor Corin has motion prepared We'll throw it up on the screen And we will ask to see if there is a seconder to this one Councillor Cron Do you know if you have a secondary

yet. Councillor Hauser, okay Perfect So now that it's on the floor Did you want to read it and maybe speak to it? Sure It's a different substitute and amount that the salary for the position of City Council are being thirty - seven for the 2026 30 - term of Office Subject Annual Inflationary Increases equal to the non - Union Municipal Employee, the newe group. Um, so first of all I want to thank staff for going back and getting us some information, some additional information It's similar to the information that was provided in our first report But broke down a little bit more on the region and the single tier and provided with a little more context So this recommendation comes out of looking at table two Which only looks at the Councillor base salary on table two on the addendum Uh, related to... Uh... Councillor Cron Could you move your microphone? I'm having a very hard time here in you. Sure Thank you. Was the audio wasn't working. Okay. My ears Yeah, thanks So This recommendation comes out of that additional breakdown Uh, that speaks

directly to just the Councillor base paid not including the regional pay Uh, I also want to point out that, you know One of the things that we didn't compare was You know Councillors Per resident, and some of the comparators, it was for Guelph For example, on average 13, 500 residents per councillor Others Brantford in Kingston, it's around 11, 000 residents per councillor So I went with this item, because I know for the third time here talking about Council Compensation. And we didn't take the full recommendation of the citizens Committee on the full - time part - time balance Uh, where the compensation would have been much higher had we taken that recommendation We didn't take the recommendation Uh... Our staff in their first report, which was 11, 000 dollars higher than what's on the table now at the 70, 000 Mark that would have incorporated some of those... Um, opportune responsibilities that we also have, like land ambulance and social services That other jurisdiction councillors

in lower tier also have... I didn't include that So again This comes from table two on the additional information we received Um... The reason that I am tabling this is also We created the policy We created a policy at the 55th percentile We went back out and we amended some of the comparators that we used And this is a policy - based recommendation. If my colleagues are not interested in this number And I think we need to talk about the policy, and I'm not sure that we're prepared to do that Because... Nominations in the election Open on May 1st Uh future candidates need to know We need to make this decision tonight Future candidates need to know what the compensation is before that happens So going out and doing a full policy review is not appropriate at this time So my recommendation on the floor is Policy - based on our current policy I'll leave it at that. Okay, thank you very much, thank you very much Is there any questions? The mover or to staff Um... On this at all. Don't hear... See any... Okay, so I am gonna - Oh. God. Comments, okay

Uh, thank you to your worship And thank you Councillor Carran for bringing this from... We're gonna Staff for doing this additional Uh, body of work Um... I am looking at the report That came forward Uh, and on page 3 of 7 We look at the additional municipalities that are the single tier municipalities of around our size. I see there that the 55th percentile would be 51, 000 495 dollars February 53, 040 That's about 180 bucks off What Gulve Councillors are getting paid this year So when I look at those municipalities of a similar Um... Asas that are also single - tier I see that they're getting paid Much the policy, the 50th percentile is where we're at So I'm going to respectfully vote against this motion And if it fails I will bring back the original motion to have no increase Uh... For the Councillor Position. Okay, thank you Gibson and then Klauson, and then Katean on the screen Yeah, uh Thank you Three Mr.

Mayor So again, we've had our ideological conversation about Um... This role and what the Remuneration should and could be, but I do You know I wasn't aware I haven't checked in on our most, um... Comparable communities in a long time And the delegate kind of brought that up But Kingston and Berry have always been sort of... Measuring points for me personally Single Tier Municipality is approximately the same size of us Uh... Proximity to Toronto, all the very similar comparables that we have as a community And... And the delegate was right Barry has 10 councillors in a mayor They pay their councillors 42, 000 dollars Which is markedly lower than ourselves The City of Kingston. Has similar number of councillors in a mayor. Uh... And they pay their councillors 45, 000 per year So I don't see a justification Um, at all When we compare ourselves to the most comparable communities Um, we would be... A big outlier from those two communities in terms of our council Remuneration If we decided to take this track Uh We can look at data, and we can write policy But, you know, at the end of the day Those

are our best comparators in the Province of Ontario And we are already far exceeding their pay for City Councillors And we are outnumbering in some cases their council as well So I'll be voting against it, and I'll be voting for the status quo. Okay, thank you Um... You know I'm very sorry I know that Councillor Caitn was one of the, but who else, sorry I should have written Clauson Okay, so it's Claussin, thank you. Um Yes, I think this question is for the mover Um, my question is just Regard with regard to that comparison of the 55th percentile, which is the average of a number of municipalities versus... I just want to know the difference between those numbers, the 53 and the 59 Because Councillor Goller brought up on page 3 That we're aligned to market at 53 versus I think you're referring to the comparator data On - Yes I was looking... It was table 2 on the additional calculations Provided by staff, and I believe Councillor Galler was removing any municipality that is Lower tier. That has a lower in an upper tier, and Concentrating only on single - tier Okay, thank you,

thank you for the clarification. Thank you, and then to Keaton, and then to Donner Then back to the mover, yeah. Thank you, 3U Mr. Mayor. Um I think that... More so than just the size of the municipality We are not even considering the cost of living in the Municipality, and I've lived in Sudbury It is much cheaper than living in Guelph And... I know that Kingston Waterloo Berry. Also cheaper than living in Guelph So when we're looking at paying people to be able to live in Guelph, and work in Guelph Then we need to factor that in, and it's not something that has been in the direction from staff, but it's something that I'm considering... When I'm looking at The numbers between what's being proposed by Councillor Quran versus Councillor So... Equity - wise, I have already stated quite a few times. That At the pay rate that we have... This is not a doable job... Uh... Unless you have... A spouse that can carry

you, you've already had significant savings You're not somebody who has additional expenses such as Disabilities You're not a single parent. There's any number of reasons why this does not help us move towards having diverse population... On our council. And... I'm very happy for those of you who can afford that pay. But Most of our population... Can't afford that... As their primary job. And the number of daytime meetings... The fact that we have equity policy for Ramadan. It does not make. So I'm gonna be voting for Councillor Krohn's motion, because I think that that is a push in the right direction... Towards making our council more diverse and more respective... Of the population that actually lives in Guelph. Okay, thank you so much, Councillor Downer, and then... Councillor Quran... Just - I think, just similar to Councillor Caden, I'm gonna support it. I think it's very difficult to compare even to Kingston, and Barry, which are the two that we often do Compared is... We don't

know, and just a quick search, how much... Administrative assistance, those councillors get. I remember 20 years ago, Gwen The King Ag, the Kitchener, which isn't on this comparator, but... They had an assistant for every three councillors. At that time. And the same with Brantford had one, like they each had for two. So like, it's very difficult even that way. Like, so if you don't have that kind of assistance, it's just more time for the councillors to be doing their own administrative work, which it's traditionally what we've all done, We've all kept our own male lists and things like that. So I think it's just been a very difficult to compare to. And I think there is an issue with the policy. I don't know how we correct that and how we look at that. Maybe we forget about. The comparator issues and start looking at what the rule is. And what the hours are. And what that might involve. Um, and, you know, and start looking at these other factors that are involved in the work as well. So I think I will support Councillor Quran's motion, just to sort of move that a step closer. At that time, all I got to say about

that, I guess, for now. I said a lot the last. Uh, and then finally I'll go to the mover to wrap it up. Thank you. Yeah, just wrapping it up. I know, and I recognise Councillor Gibson's and Councillor Goller's calculations based on the current 55th percentile. So I did a quick search. And Barry Staff are recommending 70, 218 for 2026, and beyond. Uh, and, uh, that includes a 2, 400 annual Car Alliance. So the additional figures that need to be added in there. So I think we're using numbers as of today, and we're basing it on calculations today. Um, but I think it's important to remember that our single - tier comparator municipalities have set or are about to set their compensation review, and we're using figures from the past as we're calculating our 50th percentile. And we may end up finding ourselves at the low end once they've passed their compensation. Decisions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anything further. No. Okay,

so... Okay, yeah, I'll just call the vote then. Everyone ready? Uh, all those against this motion, please raise your hand. Okay, so it's Richardson and billings. And, uh, Chu and Goller and Gibson and Guthrie. I think it passes. 7 - 6 through you, Mr. Mayor. The motion is carried 7 - 6. Okay. Great. Great. We can celebrate that, it's done. Okay, so thank you very much. And we will now move on to our last item, I believe. Yes, it is. Councillor Goller asked for this to be added here. For us to... It's what we normally would call a Support motion. Uh, we have delegation, Morgan Dandy, that wants to come and speak to this. Just as you're coming up, Morgan, to get ready for your delegation. I'll just give the floor to Councillor Goller as the one presenting it. Uh, secondary for this already. Okay, Corinne, we'll second. So why don't you just speak to

it as the mover, just as our delegation comes up and gets ready, okay? Thank you, your worship. Um, this motion actually came through an informational report from other municipalities, uh, they are attached here. Um, and it was actually, um, Mind Zandi, who reached out to us and alerted us to this. So thank you to you, Morgan, for bringing this to our attention. And, uh, making sure that we got ice on it. Um, there is a bill going through the provincial level, uh, that will be decided, I believe, in August this year, to protect our, um, farmland. And that is the nature of this. To make sure that there is additional scrutiny done whenever it's converted for other uses. Um, and, um, it is on the screen. For everyone, but just for the sake of those that are at home that may not have seen this. The motion started that Gulf City Council Support Bill 21 Protect our Food Act 2025, and strongly urged just a provincial government to support this and every measure to protect our farmland, to aggressively prevent further losses and to ensure the future of agriculture in Ontario for future generations. And

then that we distribute this motion to other municipalities. Thank you. So Morgan, thank you for waiting, and I'll turn the mic over to you with your up to five minutes, uh, delegation. Go right ahead. Council members, staff fellow Guelphites. We all know. Farmers feed cities. Bill 21 Protect our Food Act is designed to protect the land from which farmers feed us. Because once land is converted away from agriculture, it is extremely difficult to get prime crop fields restored. Every body needs to eat. And farmers feed cities. Even though you can't say it with me, you can think it. Because I believe you all agree, yes. Farmers feed cities. A City of Guelph document titled Egritt Innovation Sector Profile lists many reasons why I found it curious. That Guelph had not yet given formal acknowledgement or

support to build 21 Protect our Food Act 2025. From jobs to business and research, without protecting the land where our food is grown. And one of the most fertile agriculture areas of Canada. We jeopardized the Agra Food Industry right here in Guelph. Protecting jobs, business, and research. Right here in Gualth is why I sent an email to all of you after reading the information package. And thank you to Councillor Galler for pulling the report and putting forward emotion of support. It only takes a quick Google search to learn of the importance of agriculture and agri - Food Industries and Gualth and surrounding Wellington County. A June, 2023 County of Wellington Report, Wellington County emerges as an egg or food powerhouse leading the way in crop and livestock production states, quote. While Wellington County covers only 0. 2 percent of total land area in Ontario, it

supports five percent. Of the provinces field crops.. With Guelph being in the middle of the donut, food means jobs. Jobs in the fields, jobs and food processing. Jobs and research, jobs in retail, jobs and culinary. And most importantly, the job of keeping our population healthy. Three quotes from the 2025 Canada job trend analysis. Job market report for the Ontario Secret Profile Agriculture. One, approximately 71, 700 people were directly employed in Ontario's agriculture industry in 2024. Two. The broader Agra Food System, including Food Manufacturing, processing, and retail supports, 861, 000 to 871, 000 jobs in Ontario accounting for about one in nine jobs in the province. Three. The Ontario Agriculture Sector is a significant contributor to

Canadian agriculture as a whole, according to statistics, Canada's 2021 census of agriculture. The province has the largest share of farms and farm operators nationwide and is ranked second in farming operating revenues. I believe, like RMP, this council understands the importance of having a continuous band of agriculture to support a growing population. I believe this council understands the importance of agriculture. We are, after all, in a converted building where agriculture was the focus. And just down the road is the University of Guelphs, Ontario Agriculture College. Did you know that the OAC website landing page announces founded in agriculture connected to life for over 150 years we've worked across disciplines to connect communities? Help feed the world. And improve life. I believe this council will join other agriculturally - minded municipalities and send their unanimous support to

protect our food today. And in the future. Because we all know, think it with me. Farmers feed cities. All right, thank you very much for your presentation and delegation. Is there any questions for the delegate at all at this time? Seeing none, thank you very much. And is there any questions at all? Okay. Uh, our comments. Okay, go ahead, concentration. Yeah, thanks. Um, thanks to the delegate. Um, thanks for bringing forward, Councillor Galler. Um, I think there's Merit. I was just reading the bill today. I honestly think there, I think the underlying message here is just sort of, uh, trying to stop land swapping and trying to stop, um, ministerial orders. I think that's pretty plain English in the, in the bill looking to stop those practices. And I think all most governments in the last 25 years have been guilty of that. Um, that being said, I think the room for improvement in the bill, but I'm happy to support today. I think it's a good start and it's a good conversation. Great. Thank you very much. Is there anything for, Karan, please? Yeah. Just thank you to Councillor for bringing this forward and

standing for putting it on our agenda. Um, less than five percent of Ontario's land is class one farmland. And, uh, we are in the GTA where we depend on that, uh, arable land for our food supply. So this is really a no brainer for me that food security isn't just a local issue. It's a, it's a national issue. And, uh, I think this sends a message to the province that, uh, we want that sustainable future in the GTA region. Thank you. Is there anything further at all. Okay. If you just give me a moment, I just want to ask for the motion to be put back up on the screen. Uh, to help me decide whether or not I will support this or not. So give me a second.

All right. Well, I will support this, but, uh, you know. This isn't going to go anywhere, the province. It's not going to go anywhere at all. Let's just call it what it is. It's not going to go anywhere. Um, and, um. I, I have always felt that more and more restrictions when other opportunities arise for land is always something that is, I think, important to have as an option. And I will state too, that as much as you might hear some of the positives, there are negatives to this, including farmers that have actually applied about the negative, uh, issues around this. But I don't mind the wording that you've put in there that is urging to support. Like I urge is fine. I'll go with that because I subscribe to where this is trying to go. But, um, you know, this is from a independent member. It will not go anywhere at the province. I can guarantee it. And, uh, and so good on her for, for trying to bring something forward and to try to see if there's municipalities that want to support it.

And that's why it's here today. Uh, but, uh, I would just always be cautious of, of things that restrict and restrict and restrict, uh, and, um, there are always two sides to, um, to these types of issues. They're not all rosy, um, like we may think there are many farmers that have a lot of problems with it. The way that this is so far, but maybe another readings of the bill or amendments, it may change. With that, I'll call the vote. Has anyone against? All right. That's unanimous. Thank you. Councillor Billings. You are bringing forward the bylaws. Please be aware that one by, uh, on the, uh, agenda is not applicable. And so it is not being shown as the clerk says brought that to my attention. Uh, 21230. Again, that has not, that is not captured here. So go ahead, Councillor Billings. Okay. So I'll move the Bylaws seconded by Councillor Gibson. That Byla 2026 T1203 2026 21 208 through 21 to 10 21

229 21 232 and 21233 be approved subject to section 4. 114 of the municipal act. Okay. Thanks. Any by - law questions here, comments. Are we good. Okay. I'll call the votes. Anyone against the bylaws tonight. That's nobody. That is unanimous as well. Mayor's announcements. I got nothing. Anyone else have anything that's relevant. Oh, Councillor Caden, do you have something. Yes. I just want to just say happy trans day of visibility to our trans community engulf. Thank you. Anything further at all. Okay. I will ask for an adjournment. I bet you billings will put up her hand for that. And Busatill ward meat. Vosatil. Thank you. Uh, has anyone against a German. Nobody. That's unanimous as well. Thanks a lot, everyone. Have a good night.