McQuillan's Bridge rehabilitation approved after heritage and cost debate

Okay, let's go. Okay. Call to order the meeting Council meeting of Tuesday, June the 23rd 2006. It was supposed to be at 6 p. m. So I'd like to apologise to those who have been waiting for us to start. We had a rather long previous meeting, but we will start now. So first call to order is the O Canada. So you can stand if you're able. To think.

Around. To see who it. Was. Thank you. So we'll take a moment for silent reflection now.

I know I'm going to read the Indigenous territorial acknowledgement. As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in Guelph. A city built over rich indigenous histories. We are guests here. And we should be flecked 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 for refuge for many people over time, but more specifically for the Ed or Wanderung and the Hoden Showny. This land is held as a treaty lens and territory for the Mississaugas of the Credit's First Nation. Guraul flies directly adjacent to the Haldeman track. And as part of a long established traditional hunting ground for the Six Nations of the Grand River, many First Nations inuit and made his people have come from across Turtle Island to call Guelf home today. So

are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Okay, seeing none. Could I have the confirmation of the open minutes of the meetings held May 12. 26, 2026 and May 5th. That was committed open committee of the Hall held May 5th, be confirmed as recorded and well - being read. Classen, Secretary by Colt Sibu? Any questions, comments. Thing none. Is anyone opposed. That carries. Okay, we're going to go first to the Committee of the Whole Consent Report. No, not the Council, when we do that separately. To see if anybody wants any of these items pulled. So I'll just quickly read through what they are. 3. 1, the appointment of the clothes meeting investigator 3. 2 Ontario Health. Multi - sector service accountability agreement, Declaration of Compliance. The

procurement by - law update. Though with glowing hearts program employer recognition of City of Guelph. The outside water use by - law update. The recommendation report new fee structure for building permit applications. Would anybody like any of those items pulled. Okay, seeing none, could I have a motion to approve the moral councillor Gallerson. Going once going? No comments, no questions. Great. Has anyone opposed to the consent agenda? Nope, thank you. That carries. So then we go to the Council Consent Agenda where the only one item. 4. 1. The paramedic service response performance 2025 and performance plan recommendation for 2027. To 2026. And I know that Councillor Galler has a question regarding this. Councillor Gahler, would you like to put the motion on the floor first? Okay, Council seconded by Councillor Bussato. Thank you through chair. Just to confirm, it's not a question, just a comment,

if I may. I wanted to thank City staff and our paramedics team for the fantastic work that they're doing. I wanted to highlight that between 2021 and 2025. They have been able to increase the response times. In the City of Guelph, for the 90th percentile and for the average response time by nearly a minute in both cases. So I think it's very impressive. I think it's important for us to celebrate these achievements and the great work that our first responders and our paramedics do in the City of Guelph and across Wellington County. Thank you. Well said. Any other questions or comments. Hey, I'll go to the motion. Is anyone opposed to the recommendation. Seeing none, that process. Okay, now we have the items for discussion and presentation. So the first one is the 2025 consolidated financial statements and external audit findings report. And we'll have a presentation from T - Share Collee Belgrave. And Brendan

Hall. Welcome.

Thank you. Okay. Good evening, Mayor Guthrie, members of Council and members of the public who are joining us. I am pleased to be here today to present highlights from the 2025 Consolidated Financial Statements. I would like to thank all members of staff and are consolidated entities for their contributions to the City's audit and consolidated statements. The audit process and preparation of the financial statements is a significant undertaking, and I truly appreciate all the communication and collaboration with staff across the city and with our local boards. The municipal act requires the city to engage independent auditors to an express to express an opinion as to whether the financial statements fairly present the City's financial results for the year. Every five years we put the audit work out to tender, and 2025 is the first year of the new cycle. The City Undertook a competitive RFP process in 2025 for the appointment of the City's auditors for a five - year contract ending in 2029. KPMG - LLP was a successful proponent, and at the conclusion of my presentation, Brennan Hall, partner at KPMG, will present the findings from their audit. The consolidated financial statements present a full pitcher of the City and its consolidated entities finances,

which includes its assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenses. Last month, the City presented the year - end budget - focused results for operating, reserves, and debt. The consolidated financial statements used the same set of data, but adds in our consolidated entities results and presents the information in accordance with public sector accounting standards. Along with the City's Financials, the consolidated statements include the Elliott Community, the downtown Gualth Business Association, Wellington Dufferin Guelf Public Health, the Gualth Public Libra Library Board, the Guelph Police Services Board, Gulf Junction Railway, and Gualth Municipal Holdings. The statements are prepared by City Staff in accordance with public sector accounting standards, which we refer to as PCS. These standards are set by the Public Sector Accounting Board of CPA Canada and require full accrual accounting, which differs from the City's budget - focused reporting, particularly in the areas of capital acid accounting, debt, and reserve transfers. The financial statements received an unqualified opinion from KPMG confirming they present fairly in all material respects

the financial position and results of operations for the city. As part of the audit process, three corrected misstatements were identified. All were below materiality, and were fully resolved before the draft financial statements were prepared. Two of these were identified early in the audit by KPMG and staffer confident, these would have also been identified through our normal year - end closed processes. The third, related to a capital project, progress payment, was identified through KPMGs, year - end transaction review. Staff have developed enhanced processes to proactively identify similar items in future audits. Overall, the City maintains a strong system of internal controls and structured urine closed processes supported by multiple levels of review throughout the year. As reported and approved by Council in May for the 2025 year end. The City changed the revenue recognition method for development charge funded projects that are debt financed. Under the revised revenue recognition policy, Development Charge Reserve Funds are drawn down as debt, principal, and interest payments are made. This change improves alignment between cash flows and debt repayment, more accurately reflects the actual availability of development charge reserve fund

balances, and better lines financial forecasting and financial reporting. This required a retrospective restatement, and the 2024 year - end balances have been restated accordingly. The statement of financial position is a snapshot of what the City and its consolidated entities own along with everything that is owed. In 2025, the City continued the trend of increasing financial assets faster than financial liabilities. Overall, net financial assets increased by 14. 5 million as growth in financial assets outpaced increases in financial liabilities. On the financial asset side, growth and accounts receivables related to grants from upper levels of government. The timing of debt issuance for major capital projects under construction and strong 2025 financial performance from GJR and GMHI contributed to the increase. On the financial liability side, the City's debt balance increased due to new debentures issued to fund the south and the community centre and baker district projects. Employee future benefits increased by 8. 3 million largely due to an updated WSIB Actuarial Evaluation reflecting current claims experience.

A reduction in the deferred contribution liability offset those increases mainly due to a recognition of development charge revenues for growth - related infrastructure. The investment in tangible capital assets, increased by 117 million year over year, a significant driver of this increase is progress on the construction of the south and community centre and baker district. The City continues to invest heavily in its capital program. Bottle result in a changing financial position over at the coming years, including drawing down capital reserves, and increased reliance on debt financing consistent with the debt with the approved debt strategy. The City may transition into a net debt position over time as capital investment continues, but is well - positioned to manage these transitions. The statement of operations lists all revenues earned and expenses incurred within the fiscal year. Overall, revenues increased by 79. 5 million in 2025 compared with 2024. The key revenue lines contributing to this increase are grant revenues, which increased by 26. 8 million as a result of multiple grants from provincial and federal governments that are

supporting capital investment in the Gualth community. Taxation revenues, which increased by 24 and a half million and development charge revenues, which increased by 12. 6 million. This slide shows the City's revenues by type from the chart, we can see that taxation and user charge revenues account for the majority of revenue that the City receives. These two sources alone make up approximately 67 percent of total revenues. We can also see the significant increase in government contributions and developer revenues from 2024 to 2025.

Overall, expenses increased by 31. 6 million in 2025. With 25. 8 million of that growth attributable to compensation. As noted in last month's year - end, operating budget report, key drivers include new collective agreements for QP - 973 - and241, increased temporary staffing, over - complement hires, and overtime to support city operations amid staff leaves and recruitment challenges. Employee Future Benefits, which is also reported in the compensation section of the statement of operations, rose by 8. 3 million primarily due to higher workplace safety and insurance board claims. Outside of compensation, operational expense is very year to year, based on service needs. In 2025, purchase services increase mainly due to overall higher capital project spending. A portion of which is not defined as tangible capital assets under PCS. This chart shows expenses by type. And we can clearly see that compensation remains the largest driver of year - over year expense growth, followed by purchase services.

As a reminder, sustainability, vulnerability, and flexibility are the City's three long - term financial framework pillars used to assess financial health and resilience. I will now go through a few key metrics that we have not already previously discussed through the budget reporting last month. The first metric under the sustainability pillar is the cash and investments to reserve and reserve funds ratio. The cash to reserves ratio is an indicator of the City's ability to meet its obligations. The minimum target for this ratio is one - to - one, which means for every dollar and reserve and reserve funds, the city has one dollar in cash and reserves. A higher ratio indicates stronger ability to meet current obligations. In 2025, the cash and investments to reserve and reserve funds ratio is 1. 02 to 1, which remains above them target. This is a decrease when compared to 2024 and as a result of new debt issuances in 2025 and the change in revenue recognition policy for Development Church debt. The next metric is net financial assets, total consolidated net assets increased by 14. 5 million in 2025. This increase was due to financial assets increasing more than

financial liability. This, sorry. This increase was due to financial assets increasing more than financial liabilities due to gross and accounts receivable. The cash and investment balance, as well as the City's investments in GMHI and GJR. The final metric under this pillar is the Acid Consumption Ratio. Which tells us how our assets have aged in the fiscal year. An increasing consumption ratio tells us that our assets are aging faster than we are replacing them. The ACI consumption ratio decreased in 2025, which tells us that the city's invested in capital assets at a higher rate than previous years. Within the vulnerability pillar, the first metric is federal and provincial contributions as a percentage of total revenues. In 2025, the contributions from federal and provincial governments increased to 18. 5 percent of revenue. This increases related to several investments in capital infrastructure from upper levels of government. This percentage can vary year to year based on the type and amount of government funding received in the air. And the timing of revenue recognition for capital projects, which is linked to the execution of capital projects that the grant

funding is supporting. These grants are extremely helpful to move the city's capital program forward. However, a significant number of these grants provided are application - based one time grants rather than stable ongoing sources of funding. The City monitors this metric to maintain visibility over reliance on grant funding versus own source revenues. Tax rares is a percentage of taxes levy is an important financial indicator of municipal economic health and indicates the ability of taxpayers to meet their financial obligations. This metric decreased to 3. 29 percent in 2025 from 3. 63 percent of 2024. In comparison with other municipalities, the Cities continues to have extremely low levels of tax arrays. Further information on the City's taxes receivable can be found in the 2025 property tax receivables and collection information report released in February 2026. The final metric under vulnerability is the return on investment. The Cities return on investment was 3. 56 percent in 2025, which is a decrease from 2024. The decrease is primarily driven by declining market rates, as well as strategic investment dispositions for

one - time realised gains in 2024. The third pillar of the long - term financial framework is flexibility. The metrics associated with this pillar are related to the City's reserve and reserve funds, which were included in the 2025 year and reserve and reserve report provided in May. So we have not included those metrics in today's presentation. Thank you for the opportunity to present highlights from the 2025 consolidated financial statements. My hope is that you were able to take away that the City remains in a stable position at the end of 2025. Although there are challenges ahead on many fronts, we continue to monitor and manage risk, report on progress, and provide our best advice to council as we work towards sustainable delivery for our community. Today, we are asking you to approve the consolidated financial statements and attachment one of the staff report. I will now turn the presentation over to Brendan Hall, partner at KPMG, to discuss the findings from the 2025 audit. At the conclusion of his presentation, both Brendan and staff will be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Just looking, can my slides come up. Just looking to confirm the presentation here, maybe just give us a minute or two. We'll make sure we can pull up the rights for you. Thanks.

Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you for the introduction as well, Taisha. So my name is Brendan Hall. I'm a partner with KPMG and with me. I have Madou, who is a senior manager and instrumental on the audit this year for Guelph and many of the subsidiary entities as well that are consolidated into these consolidated financial statements. Our plan will be to walk through our audit findings, uh, report, uh, and happy to take any questions that you may have. So really as overall highlights here, um, uh, Tisha indicated we do have some corrected adjustments that have been reflected in the consolidated financial statements, uh, we're going to walk through some of the significant risks that we operated with during the audit. And we're also going to focus on what we refer to as areas of audit focus where the team spent, uh, large areas of time based on either materiality levels, uh, areas that are deemed to be a bit more complex within the financial statements. In terms of the status of where we are at today, um, we are

what I would call it the 95 percent completion standpoint. So there are a few administrative elements that we would expect to be outstanding at this stage receipt of a few of the final legal letters. So we communicate with the lawyers that the city uses to ensure we're aware of any outstanding litigations. And topics of such. The other items on here with respect to, uh, the testing of journal entries, testing of TCA editions and development charges. I can happily report have all been completed in the past week since this report was shared, uh, for mailing purposes. So we're getting very close to being in a position to issue our opinion on the financial statements. And Madoua, I'll get you to walk through a couple slides and then I'll take it back over. Thanks, Brendan. Starting with management over, right of controls. This is a presumed risk in all the audits. And we have completed the procedures, uh, now since we issued the report for the, for the filing purposes. So the procedures included, we tested the design and implementation over the controls around the John Lane trees. And we selected procedures. We selected John Lane phrase where we think the significant risk. And we tested a

hundred percent of all the high risk criteria journal entries. And we performed completeness procedures over the John Lane Priest. And there were no issues of findings identified in this procedure. And the next one is the post employment benefits. This area involves significant estimate and judgment. VSS, the key assumptions used to come up with the post employment benefits. We tested the underlying data and leveraged the actual real specialist as a part of the procedure. Based on the completed audit work, we did not identify any audit findings or misstatements in this area. Um, now I'll hand it over back to Brenda. Thank you. Tangible capital assets is a very material number in the consolidated financial statements. And we do a number of procedures to ensure that that figure is accurate. Um, additions, the City each year obviously constructs significant assets. Um, also does repairs and maintenance to existing assets. So we have a few different procedures

that the engagement team performs. We run statistical sampling on the additions that have been capitalized during the year to ensure that those meet the definition of a tangible capital asset and shouldn't have been expensed in the statement of operations. We also, on the inverse side of that, we're looking at what has been expensed in repairs and maintenance type general ledger accounts to ensure there aren't items that are actually being expensed that would have a multi - year benefit and should have been capitalized onto the balance sheet. We also perform substantive analytical procedures on the amortization expense that's recorded during the year. So again, under PSAB, we're required to capitalize those capital assets. And then we basically reflect the consumption or deterioration of those assets over a period of time. So in these financial statements, you have amortization expense, a sizable number that's really a non - cash expense, but reflecting the utilization of your assets over time. So in capital assets, we perform a number of different procedures, again, really from the standpoint that that's such a large number on your statement of financial position. No issues were identified in the performance of our testing

in this area. Obligatory reserve funds and deferred revenue, again, significant topic as Tisha indicated. The city went through a process this year in terms of changing their accounting policy for the recognition of development charges specifically related to projects that are funded with external debt. And so our team was involved in working through that adjustment that's reflected in the financial statements. But on a recurring normal side of the testing, the, again, a host of procedures that we are doing. So, uh, our team, again, on a statistical sample basis was involved in testing. What I'll use casual language and refer to the inflows to the obligatory reserve. So testing the developers contributions, the DC collections, ensuring we're vouching those back to cash, uh, and executed agreements. And then on the other side, the realization of DC revenue ensuring that there's evidence that projects were expended within fiscal 2025, uh, in those projects met the definition, um, and were development in nature. Right. So the only way that we can record that DC revenue is if the funding was used for a DC eligible, uh, expenditure. So testing

is performed on both sides. The inflows and the outflows, um, to get comfortable with the ending balance of the obligatory reserves as at December 31st, 2025. Contaminated sites was a new accounting standard that came into play a couple of years ago. Um, again, there's definitely estimation involved there. Uh, the activity in terms of the 2025 financial statements, uh, for the most part, reflect accretion or the passage of time. And so our team, uh, reviewed the entries that have been recorded to increase that obligation on your financial statements to reflect that obligations to satisfy today are more expensive than they would have been, uh, a year ago. And so that counting standard requires us to present value those obligations. And so you would expect that, uh, that obligation is going to grow over time until elements are, are settled. Asset retirement obligations. Some similarities to ARO, sorry, to contaminated sites. Again, we reviewed management's estimates for the ARO. We tested any of the new editions to the ARO. And we tested the calculations with respect to

the accretion of those obligations in the financial statements. And we did not identify any issues in the performance of our testing procedures. Cash and investments, a large asset on your balance sheet, uh, or statement of financial position, uh, our team maintains full custody of, uh, confirming those balances with the financial institutions that hold the CW Guelf's investments in cash balances, uh, we maintain the submission and receipt of those of those confirmations. Uh, and we ensure that what is reflected in the city's financial statements and general ledgers consistent with what we're receiving directly from those financial institutions. And there were no, uh, no issues identified with respect to those procedures. We also tested significant government contributions to ensure that the criteria in those transfer agreements have been met by the City in order to realise the revenue that's been recorded in fiscal 2025. Uh, in addition to testing the revenues that are recorded in 2025, uh, our team specifically around revenue and grants in particular, uh, we focus on a cutoff standpoint as well. So we actually look at some of the transactions that are happening late in 2025 to ensure that they are appropriate to

be recorded in 2025. And we also actually look at some of the first transactions in 2026 to make sure those shouldn't have actually been accrued for or reflected in 2025. And we didn't identify issues with respect to the testing in those procedures either. So we don't have any, uh, new accounting policies. We do have a change with respect to the, uh, development charges that we've spoke to and that Tysa spoke to as well before our presentation. Um, but really not a new standard year, like some of the previous years have been with respect to contaminated sites, ARO, financial instruments, uh, and things like that. Quieter year on the PSAS front. So the last section that I will, uh, plan to walk through here. Just trying to get to the slide. We'd be with respect to the adjustments that T sha indica indicated have been corrected for in these financial statements. So, um, again, I would agree with the statement that, uh, a couple of these adjustments really were identified as we're performing testing on the general ledger balances. And I do feel that a couple of them would have been identified through the consolidation process.

Um, again, the, one related to just a reclass between where an entry was parked. So, uh, accounts receivable as opposed to inventory, no impact on the statement of operations or the PNL. The item three on the list is with respect to, again, I would call that a bit of a cutoff, uh, timing entry. So the TCA that we feel were understated at the end of the year and also in a cruel. So we've got an asset and a liability, no impact on the statement of operations. And then the first item on the list, uh, was really a duplication of an entry that, again, I think would have been identified at the consolidated level. But again, we found it in our testing and we have to report it to the screw. So I'd be happy to, uh, answer any questions if there are any from the group. Okay. Thank you very much. The presentation. Are there any questions for the councillor Coron. Yes. Thank you. A great presentation. And as chair of corporate services, I'm not surprised at the, at the results, because I know you're measuring not just our statements themselves, but all the processes and the background and the foundation of how they're built.

And I know we have an amazing financial team at the city. Uh, so this just underlines the good work that they're doing my question is, you know, one of the things that this council is very proud of and that we work really hard to protect is our AAA credit rating. And I just wondered whether there was a debt to reserve ratio and our processes are part of what, what is built into those standards and pores measurements. And I know you are not standards imports, but I'm just wondering if there's anything and anything you found that, um, might have impact on us maintaining our triple a credit rating. Yeah. So as an auditor, I don't know that's really an area that I can speak to in terms of the credit rating. Um, I think, you know, when I'm looking at a set of financial statements and I'm seeing, you know, positive incomes generated growth in financial assets as the finance team indicated, those would be too positive indicators in my view. But really don't feel I'm kind of accredited to speak to how a credit rating would be derived. Right. Yeah. No, I understood. I just, uh, any of those flags in a report like this,

um, we would take back to our finance team in order to protect that credit rating. So thanks very much for your findings and, uh, good news all around. Thank you. Mayor Guthrie question. Madam Chair. No, I just wanted to quickly respond to Councillor Corinne, which is not a question to our good people of auditing. So I will stop there and let you continue with councillors that might have questions, but come back to me for a comment. If you don't mind just before wrap up. I'll think about that. Um, is there, are there any other questions for Tisha or Brendan. Seeing none, wow. I think we're all talked out from an earlier meeting. So, okay, thank you very much. Um, and we'll go right to our motion in a few minutes. Thank you for your time. Thank you. So we do have a motion to, uh, for the, to be approved for the consolidated financial statements and external audit finding report be approved. Do we have

somebody online who wants to do that. Councillor Billings, I could have buy Mayor Guthrie. Okay. So I'll go to you Mayor Gotrik. Okay. Thanks, Madam Chair. Look, look, just, just as a reminder to everybody, but for two years in a row now at every budget, council has passed unanimously a recognition. That our triple eight credit rating may be under risk. It was unanimous vote of everyone. Um, because of the efforts we've been putting into infrastructure and the housing crisis. And we were balancing the acts of, of sort of what we could do within our policy within the capacity that we have. Which by the way, we're under, um, policy from the province well under sort of that space, that capacity that's there were very financially good there. But, um, you know, I will say it was, uh, it's something that is, you know, on our minds and on our radars, both collectively as a council

and as staff two years in a row now. And it's been maintained as a triple a credit rating, which is we should also operate in high five and virtual high five to everybody on that. But, um, just, I just want to make sure that there's a little bit of a nudge here for all us to recall. That we have unanimously two years in a row stated. There could be a little bit of a change in our credit reading, but it was methodical. It was, uh, uh, uh, balanced risk as to the why we would do that for the good reasons and benefits as to why. So I just want to make sure that that was reminded to everybody, um, before we kind of move forward just in case in August. Is when the credit ratings come out for us. And we'll hope that everything is fine there, but, uh, you know, just, just be aware. And I can leave it with staff if they think I'm saying something wrong, but I just wanted to make sure that reminder was, was tabled just because the conversation was brought up. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody on

staff want to say anything to add to that? Um, through you or to chair down or to the mayor, um, yeah, thank you for saying that. The only thing I would add is just that also the strategic plan, the strategic priority and the KPI is actually to, to, uh, at least maintain a double A plus rating. And so we are above our target. And so just, just to add to the data side of, of that, um, we are targeting, we are above our target right now. So thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions. Okay. So let's go right to the vote. Is anyone opposed. To the motion on the floor? Okay. Nope. That carries. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming out tonight. And I gave an apologies for having to wait so long. Um, okay. We're going to go on to 5. 2 usage of City Hall as an overnight warming and cooling centre. Um, and this was pulled from the May 22nd information items. And Councillor Caden will speak to

this item and then we'll go to the delegations. Thank you. I have a motion. Second invite Councillor Bussatill that I'd like to have so much. Can we just hold on the motion yet? I just, what we'll have the motions after the delegations. But if you could, but for before the delegations speak, do you want to speak a bit to this item. To introduce it. To them? Because the sports or anything. Yeah. Um, so we just saw a record number of people using City Hall as an overnight shelter when it was open at night during extreme weather warnings. And those who reached out to me listed a number of barriers they had accessing the services. There was a lack of clarity on an alternatives in the case of access barriers from the residents that I spoke with. So, um, I'm just looking to talk about having the county provider processes, provided publicly available document. So processes are transparent to those who need the services or are supporting them and potentially creating a 24 - axis line

for people in need who can't physically attend the shelters who need help either for long - term planning. Or for an immediate need in case of extreme weather. And I know that like all of them municipalities and agencies involved in the service want to ensure everyone has a safe access to for a place to sleep. And I think that clear processes will help achieve our shared goal. So that's why I pulled this motion or pulled this report to talk about. Great. Thank you. Okay. We're going to go to our delegations now. The first one is Morgan Dandy. Is she here or is she online. She's online. Okay.

So you, Madam Chair, we have the delegate Morgan Dandy online. Morgan, you'll just need to unmute and turn on your video if you'd like to participate with the video.

Do you hear us, Morgan? Perhaps Madam Chair, we could go to the next delegate and then circle back with Morgan at the. Okay. Let's go to Michelle Bowman. And then we'll.

Ms. Bowman, you know, the rules, right? There are five minutes and then 30 seconds before you'll get a warning. Thank you. Go ahead. Okay. Thanks very much for the opportunity to speak. Today I came with a very simple ask that Council consider recommending that the information on Fed through weather alerts related to adverse health outcomes be published on the City's website and also on the county's website. So these are yellow, orange and red alert. That represent increased risks of adverse health outcomes. Um, I just want to clarify that, um, throughout this whole process of putting the delegation together that I never expected this information to trigger any kind of response that is outside that described in councillor Caden's motion or the staff report. So it was simply for information that I think is really important for unsheltered people and their support networks to have and

to be aware of. Um, so before I start with that, I just like to say I support Councillor Caden's motion. I think it's really important that we ensure that no individuals fall through the cracks. We know that people have been falling through the cracks. Um, but I support the motion with one caveat. And that is that the city, um, think about a backup plan if the county is unable to deliver on filling those cracks. So it's been clear for a number of winters. Um, that the public has no appetite to leave people out in the cold and these adverse, um, weather. Situations. So on to weather events, um, the focus on the City website and also on the county website, especially the county website. Is on heat and cold alerts. But there are many other alerts issued by the federal government. And I'd like to drop particular attention to the orange alerts. So these events

are uncommon, but we do see them through every season. And they are consequential to unsheltered people. So, um, things, examples include in the winter ice and snow accumulation. Um, and it was actually during one of our typical outy storms that we get a couple of times of winter when I recognise this disconnect and focusing on temperature alone. Um, anytime we can have increased winds or decreased visibility. And in the summer, we have thunderstorms and heavy rainfalls. I think this summer will be, um, particularly important to consider these because we're now officially in an al Nino event, which means it'll be a wetter and cooler summer and thunderstorms and heavy rainfalls will be more significant. Um, so just a couple of examples of how this might relate to unsheltered people, um, tense collapse thing or washed away. A lot of people camp right near the rivers, which can be really dangerous. Rivers can increase flow very

quickly, especially in saturated conditions. If we get lots of rainfall. So those are just two examples of how this matters to unsheltered individuals and the people trying to support them. So I'll just repeat where I started. I'm hoping that Council will recommend that the information on how these federal weather alerts relate to adverse health outcomes can be published on the city and county websites. And it would simply be a short paragraph, a couple, two or three sentences with the links that I've provided in my written delegation. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions of Ms. Bowman. Seeing none. Thank you very much. Do we want to go back to, uh, Mugan Dandy. Okay, Morgan, are you there. You press to unmute six.

Hello, I think it has, there you go. Okay. We can hear. Video might start. I don't know. Thank you so much, chair downer for this opportunity to address counsel with her guard to having a report on how people are let into or not let into our current shelter provider. One of the things that I have learned through being within the community, spending time at Royal City mission, spending time at stepping stone, talking to people on the street. Talking to people that are living in tents in various locations throughout the city. There are definite barriers. And a lot of people don't understand. Why they're being disallowed from going into places. I've recognised that this has become more difficult post COVID. It's become more difficult since there

are more people needing shelter. And when there is a conflict between one individual and another individual that's happened elsewhere. Sometimes they're not aware that that person's in the shelter. And then they arrive there. And they're turned away. There are so many different reasons. That people need to go into a shelter. And I have told council before. I've been at a point where I was afraid I was going to lose where I was living. At which point I would not be able to go into the shelter system because I have a service dog. My service dog alerts. Every time somebody moves around me in an unfamiliar space. That would not be fair to everybody else that is accessing the space. So I don't feel like I can actually use the shelter if it's something that I really needed. By having a full accounting of why people

are turned away, it gives individuals a better opportunity to be able to manage their lives. I really hope that council will support this motion by councillor Caden because. The city needs to have a better understanding. Of how the shelter system functions. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for Ms. Andy. Seeing none. Thank you. We'll go now to Alec Purt.

Okay. Uh, first of all, um, there was report came out. It was on May 26. Uh, I need to apologise, first of all, to some of the city staff, because I read that Guelph today post in the morning. As soon as I woke up, had that my first coffee. And I was a little bit upset when I read it. And the first thing I did is that I came down to City Hall, did a video right off the bat. Did it all in one take? And it was a little bit sharp. But I was angry when I read it. And there's some points I want to be able to make. First of all, we're talking basically about 30, 40 people at the Max. That right now in the wintertime. That when the weather's bad, they have nowhere to go. To be able to say that they could just go to stepping stones, they can't. Some of the people that won't go to stepping stoners because they are trying to deal with their drug addiction and everything else. And there are people that are within the housing system, shelter system. That our detrimental to them. There's at least four girls that I know personally that they will not go there because they're formal abusers are actually

in those systems. So to revictimize them saying, you have to go there. Where they are is, it puts them in a really bad position. There's at least two couples that I know that he or she is either 25, 26. And the other one is 23 and 24 that stepping stone has a policy. You have to be 25 years of age in order to go into their housing. So for them to be able to do it, they have to be split up. They can't be together. So the age variants that comes in as well. Um, one of the other things. Is that, um, in the report that was given by Guelph today, it said that it cost 2, 700 dollars a night. Here. Uh, I do a little bit of auditing. And I tried to work the numbers in my head for one security guard to become an on board. And it said to Bylaw officers and deflect three or four switches, 2, 700 dollars the night I couldn't make the math work. Even later on when they brought in a paramedic as well, because there

was one issue in the washroom that took place. So they brought in a paramedic for the last two or three times. Again, I wonder if that was necessary. Paramedic stations of block away. The police stations are block away. The fire stations, two blocks away is that they have more than enough ample time to be able to come here. Um, the other thing to just say that we're going to close City Hall without having alternative for these people. That's what, that's what got me angry. If there was an alternative, like, you know, Hey, we're going to open up 20 of the cells at the police station. And they can go there and do whatever, or we're going to, you know, allow them to be able to go somewhere else. I could completely be on board with that. But just to be able to say we're shutting down City Hall and we don't have an alternative. And we're, you know, we'll just duel it as we go along. Is it's just bad planning. And, um, just two other things as well is last winter. We got down

the minus 27 degrees. Wind chill was minus 32, 33, depending when you looked at it, is that. Twice I had to call City Hall to find out whether the warming centre was going to be open or not. This one I got down to minus 20. And the decision had not been made at 130 to clock in the afternoon. These people end up going to the royal city mission for lunch and for supper. Some of them go to stepping stone. And, you know, until two o'clock and then they're going to be moved out of there. It would be better if we had a threshold. Toronto does it, buried does it. Kingston does it. London does it. Own sound does it. Uh, Sudbury does it. And most cities have a threshold. That when you get down to minus five degrees or minus 10 degrees, whatever that target's going to be that people know that the warming centre is going to be opened up. Is we had two, three o'clock in the afternoon. People didn't know whether a warming centre was going to be open. Should be a mandatory threshold no matter what the result is going to be or where these people end up going that they know. Most of them don't have a phone. They don't

have internet. They rely on people from royal city mission or the library or stepping stone telling them, Hey, yeah, this place is going to be open. Okay. Thank you. Your time is up. Are there any questions of the. Okay. Thank you very much. I just, before we go to Councillor Caden, I just want to know if there's anything stuff. Want to say in regards to what delegations have said. I mean, I'm aware that it's not that they don't have other places to go. So I just want to have that clarified. Sure. Uh, through the chair to councillor. So certainly, um, I think what the report that was before you, the information report recognises that there is need in the community, but also looks to make sure that the service providers that should be meeting that need, um, are in fact the ones who are addressing the needs and the gaps. Um, we've had a number of conversations with the shelter providers through the county. Stephing Stone and Windham House being the two that the county contracts with and certainly look to the county's expertise in terms of acknowledging if there are gaps and how they're going to address those gaps. Um, City Hall is not

a safe or conducive location for individuals. Um, it will still remain as a warming and a cooling centre throughout daytime hours. Um, but that the overnight, um, the overnight experiences, it's just not a safe environment. Um, and so ultimately, um, looking to our service provider as the county of Wellington, um, who provides those emergency shelter services to, to address the needs in any gaps that exist here in the community. Um, I'll certainly say that a lot of other municipalities who do provide warming centres that it is done by their CMS and where their social services provider, or it's contracted out, for example, in Kitchener, its contracted out through a third party who has the trained and qualified staff who are able to safely staff the location and have the necessary facilities to meet those needs. So again, through the county, we would look to that, uh, that expertise to provide that service. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Councillor Caden. Did you want to put your motion down. Yes, please. Okay. And do you have a seconder. Yes. Councillor Bussatel. Council Bussatil. Okay. So I'm just going to read it because I think it's pretty self explanatory.

I think that I kind of spoke to it in the, in the opening of the topic on the information report. Um, so I'm looking that the City of Guelph, sorry, the Guelph City Council respectfully requests that the county of Wellington as the area social services manager share their review of services and entry processes for overnight shelter admittance for individuals where barriers and restrictions exist, ensuring alternative options are available. Accessible and offer as a due course of process. And a 24 - 7 phone line is available for residents to call for immediate help in case of need for extreme weather events or for those unable to physically attend available shelters due to special circumstance barriers. And while respecting privacy laws consider data collection for annual review by the joint social services and land ambulance committee that includes general reasons for refusal restrictions or other barriers to help inform ongoing adjustments and opportunities to improve the overnight shelter system. And that if any changes are considered that these be implemented prior to the upcoming 2026, 2027 winter

response program commencing. I have questions from Councillor Galler. Guthrie. Second name. Oh, we have a secondary. Perfect. Okay. Council Booster Channel. Any no comment. Okay Mayor Guthrie. Thanks. And through you chair. Could you just throw that motion back up on the screen for me quirks. I think the language said. Pick welf Council respectfully requests that the county of Wallington as the Area Social Services Manager share their review. So they've done a review. It was my understanding through Councillor Bustil that it was brought up at aid joint social services and land ambulance committee that they do regular reviews of their processes. And so this is something that exists in some form. So do we know this for a fact then from. The county of Wellington. That

they've done a review of the things that you've outlined here. I'll let Councillor Booth still speak to that as the chair of that committee. Okay. And just before Councillor Buzzatil speaks to that. Where I'm going on this is that I think that should be changed to, we respectfully request the county of Wellington to provide a review up. Like we're actually asking them to do, uh, an up - to - date review. Um, I, I don't know of any review. That's actually been like done that addresses the actual things that are in this wording of the motion. That's my concern. Yeah. You've said that. And so I'm going to go to Councillor Bussatel. Thank you. Thank you Mayor Guthrie. And I think the members of the joint social services land ambulance committee. We've heard verbally that staff have an understanding, have reviewed, have looked at it, have said to us there's no concern and so on. And you're right. I think if they are verbally, uh, sharing that, then there has to be some kind of

a basis. So, you know, can they share their data? Can they share the information that they've collected? And I thought it was, um, timely that the county housing has received three awards for data, uh, housing data just recently. So we know there's data there. And I think what the intent here is, if you have this, please share it with us so that we're able to engage meaningfully in a conversation around, um, the service delivery and also respond to, uh, residents when we hear that there are gaps in the service. Okay. So Madam Chair, I'll leave it. My sort of. I'll leave it dangling out there for everybody. My question in regards to this. But I think it would be more suitable to have the language say that we are respectfully requesting information about. But when you say the review, it's like, it's like I could go to a link or any of us could go to a link right now and we could click on a report to find a review. There is none. So

I just think it would be better off to say share information. Or to do a review. But I don't think like none of us can go to a link right now and actually look at a report that has a review. And by the way, I believe that the county is doing, you know, verbal, verbal reviewings and check, I believe all of that, but then you can hold in our hand today. To show the public. A report about. The specific things that you're asking for in your, in your emotions. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other questions or Councillor Galler. Thank you. And through you chair, I'm not sure if this question is for, I think it's, it's for staff. Um, I just wanted to follow up on the questions from the delegates. Uh, one of the delegates made, um, a request to change the language on the weather alerts. Could you please confirm for me who puts those together. So through the chair to Councillor Gallers, so the cold weather and warm weather response plan is not something that the city does. That's done. Um, through the poverty elimination collaborative, I believe is the new name. And so they handle that. It's not done through the city. We can certainly

have that conversation with them and make sure that they're aware of this feedback. Um, in terms of what's posted on the City's website, um, because we are no longer offering City Hall is an overnight warming or cooling shelter, those environment Canada thresholds are no longer relevant because we will always be opening City Hall during those daytime hours, regardless of the temperatures. So I think what makes most sense is for, and I'm happy to take that away to follow up directly with the poverty elimination collaborative and to share that feedback with them. I know temperature. I know environment Canada alerts and temperature thresholds. You know, there's should it be a specific temperature. Should it be a specific weather condition. I'm no expert on climatology. And so I'm certainly, we, we've always looked at environment Canada, um, to guide those decisions. And so I'll certainly pass that feedback along. Thank you very much for that. Um, and through your chair, the, the other delegate questions about the cause. Could you help me understand how to set it up to 2754 per night for keeping CHOLE open? Sure. Through the chair to Councillor Gallers. So, um, that was an average. So we actually did have a paramedic here. I think almost every night. Um, I think the first one we didn't, but then we very quickly realised, um, it was far more than one, one medical incident that

led to that, um, from a safety point of view and from a Comfort of the individuals who were here, um, as well as we did, uh, we don't have staff on site overnight. And so again, from a staffing ratio, um, in terms of the number of clientele, because we were up in the 50 and 60 range a lot of the nights. So we were putting two by - law officers and a paramedic in. And because we never knew when the weather alert was going to need that, it meant we were bringing staff in on overtime. And so those were, um, those, those, those 12 hour costs for two by - law officers in a paramedic, as well as we put on additional cleaning staff, um, because the wear and tear and the building and on the washrooms, um, did necessitate us bringing an additional cleaning staff every morning to make sure that the building, um, was clean, um, was free of anything that might cause harm to others because we did experience that. And so that was, uh, just based on an average cost over all of the unknights that we opened City Hall. Okay. Okay. That is really helpful. Uh, and through you chair, the question about when, um, the decision is made that, that there will be, um, the overnight space that, you know, sometimes the decision had not been made into the afternoon. Could you speak to that, please? Sure through chair

downer. So, um, again, we won't be doing this moving forward, but last winter, we were reliant on those environment Canada weather alerts. And so we were waiting each day until those alerts were issued. And they're typically issued in the early afternoon. Um, and so again, that's information that I can pass along to the poverty elimination collaborative. If there are others who are using those thresholds, but it is generally around one third year, two o'clock in the afternoon, um, that those alerts would be issued again last winter. We would then typically scramble to see if we could get staff to come in. And so again, to the other, because I also don't, um, if you look at that, if that infographic City Hall is not the only location, um, in the community as a warming and cooling centre. So again, we'll pass that feedback along to, uh, to those who produce that infographic, um, just make sure that the most accurate information is available to the community. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And my last question through you, Chair. Uh, there were also, uh, comments about the ability of people to access emergency shelter. And I understand that, you know, sometimes a location is not suitable for some people, but could you confirm how many different locations are there in the City of Guelph? Broadly, uh, that people can access should there be, um, it was my understanding that if someone ever showed up at a shelter

and it's full, they'll put you up somewhere. Is that still the case. Uh, so through the chair to Councillor Gull, yes, that is our understanding. There is one overnight emergency shelter location for adults. That is provided by stepping stone. And then Wyndham House also has the emergency overnight shelter for youth. But again, I don't want to speak for the county, but our understanding is that if there is anybody, um, so stepping stone opened up additional spaces, especially in the cold weather alerts to make sure that they weren't turning anyone away. And the assurance that we have been provided by the county is that if there is somebody who has a service restriction or for whatever reason can't, you know, safety, um, as an example, um, that they do have the mechanism through stepping stone to alert the housing staff at the county of Wellington who can then make alternative arrangements, hotels, et cetera. So again, something that we would look to the county as our service provider to make sure that those gaps are being filled, but it is our understanding that they have a process for that. Thank you. And just following up on that, Sinishmen County is responsible. We pay them to deliver these services. What is the appropriate place for community members who have concerns about how the emergency shelter system is running to speak to? Would that be the joint lend

ambulance and social services committee? Is that correct? Through the chair, yes, I would believe that is the Joint Social Services land ambulance committee or, of course, directly through the housing services office at the county of Wellington. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, thank you very much. Um, I am quite happy to support this resolution because essentially of everything that I've heard from, from my colleagues, Councillor Caden, Councillor Bussatel and Mayor Guthrie, even though there was some bantering back and forth. And I think that that tends to reflect that while the information might be out there. It is not necessarily accessible. Uh, in, in a fashion that, that makes it, um, understandable and appreciated, uh, by both the community and by, um, by City staff, City staff clearly confirmed why we need this detail, uh, just in the last, uh, two seconds. And I think we do need quantifiable and verifiable information because I have heard many, many times from on - street workers, mental health workers and social workers. That this is indeed the case. But I have no foundation for confirming it. So, uh, let's get the details. And if there is a report, great. And if there isn't a report,

then I think what Mayor Guthrie has stated is quite correct. But we need to get something so that we have a foundation for starting to deal with this. Council of Bruce Till. Yes, thank you. Um, I'm going to start first with Councillor Galler just to reassure you. I did forward the delegates motion to, um, the poverty collaboration. I can't poverty task force. Uh, they were not aware of it at the time. And I know that councillor Caden did put the delegate in touch with them as well for a more constructive and appropriate kind of conversation. Um, I agree with everything that everyone has said here. I think that we need to get some kind of a report or some kind of a memo or some kind of numbers here because we have absolutely nothing right now. So, um, it's really difficult to respond to nothing.

Anyone else. Mayor Guthrie? Yeah. Thank you, Chair. I mean, we're going to leave the language the way it is. That's fine. I think my point's been made. But I just want to say thank you very much to the mover and to others. For not. Trying to reopen City Hall as a warming, as an overnight shelter space. Um, the report very clearly stated why it should not be, it's not conducive to, to those that need it. Um, we do not have the appropriate staffing. It's not appropriate at all. And so I really like where this is focused now about getting sort of a review or information or report or data and moving forward. I really, really like that. And so I just want to say thank you very much that we're not here debating tonight. And I'll be, I'll be blunt. I thought we were going to not, not before the motion came out. But before it came out, I thought for sure, oh great, we're going to have, we're going to have a discussion about reopening City Hall. And I'm so glad that we're not because I think what we are talking about tonight is highly appropriate for us to get some information to them

move forward from there with whatever that information is as outlined in the motion. So thank you very much. Is anyone else. I would just say that as a member of the Joint Social Services land ambulance committee at the last meeting that they did, um, share their, and one of their annual report, which will be coming to council. Actually, I have a copy with me. We'll be coming to, I think council at the end of July with, with the other boards. Is that, so the report will be coming, but I don't think their staff will be coming. Uh, they did, you know, indicate too that they believe that they had the capacity. Um, anybody who was not allowed in usual circumstances would be sent to a hotel. Um, but that there were, there were instances where this did not occur. And, um, but there was no real data. Like as Councillor Caden's asking for on the whys or necessarily how many. So, um, I think it would be good to get a little more information on all this. Thank you Council Caden. Thank you, sir. I

just wanted to close this out with, we can't improve or fix things if we don't know what's wrong. And all, all we need is information and transparency. People want to know what the rules are, what are all the circumstances, if then, then what. And, um, and what we want is for people to be able to have a safe overnight place in a bed with access to services and train staff nearby in case of issues and systems where they can eventually move on to more permanent housing. And I think that this is the first step in kind of working towards finding those solutions. And I would really appreciate if, if y'all would support my motion. Thank you. Okay. Anything else. Seeing them. We'll go to the question then. Is anyone opposed. Saying none, that passes. Thank you. Thank you council, Kate. Okay. We're going to move forward with 5. 3, the parking mitigation opportunities downtown. Um, Councillor Clausen, did you want to just say a few

words about and introduce this item before we go to the delegations. Yes. Thank you chair downer. Um, I am asking my council colleagues this evening, uh, to support expanded free parking, uh, for downtown during the window component of construction. So that is in 2026 and 2027. Um. This is our challenging time for our businesses downtown. It's not just the businesses, but the people who access them and the people who also attend, um, appointments downtown who need to get from, uh, you know, for example, taxi, uh, another part of, of, of town, um, it is more challenging to move around. And we know that it is having an economic impact on, um, many people right now. There are, there are a lot of challenges. And so I have been working with staff. And so firstly, I would like to say thank you to staff because I, this has been an ongoing collaboration since I started on council. There have been many discussions and there are many mitigation strategies in place. So I don't want to take away from any of the work, the hard work that's being done. Um, there are many conversations happening. And I

know that, um, I know that it's, it's an ongoing discussion. And I think that it's something that requires us, uh, to have some flexibility and nimblenss. I'm, I'm asking this of, of, of our counsel this evening and I have worked with staff on these motions. I will also share that concurrently I have been working with the DGBA on a number of other things. And I know that they have also put this, um, this, you know, if this motion passes tonight, they've also got a motion, um, in the agenda, they're meeting tomorrow evening to match the 25, 000 dollars to match and support. And I think that it would be a really good, um, public, uh, representation of our partnership, um, and our support of the businesses and all of our community who access our downtown during this time. Um, and I'll leave it at that. Cause I know we have delegations and I know that there might be some questions in further discussion. Okay. Thank you. So let's go to delegations. First one is Morgan Dandy is she online. Morgan, are you there.

We go. Hello, you can hear me. I can hear you. Excellent. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to this. I spend a lot of time in the downtown. I gave up my car in 2020. I don't need parking. And I would really love to see a mitigation. For more individuals by promoting transit. One of the things that I see the DGBA not doing is having any mention of the fact that. There's transit that brings you into the downtown. Half of our buses come into the downtown. There are no stops where the construction is currently. And they are all the way around where the construction is. I would absolutely support hubbing further mitigation for some additional parking. But I think that that should be on the DGBA. There are businesses that have already gone ahead and they validate two hours worth of parking.

They've been eating it. Themselves. In order to have their patrons come into their businesses. I believe that if we could do something with transit. It would also help as we go through the next almost decade of construction that is happening on various streets through the downtown. This isn't only a two year project. The reconstruction revitalization of downtown is ongoing past 2030. Past the end of the next term of council. So. To be putting that much of the mitigation budget into parking at this time when the time going on, I believe that if we were to do something with transit, that would help to increase the ridership with transit. It would help to increase people being in the downtown. And once all of the construction is finished, people will already be accustomed to using transit. Which will only enhance the way our downtown functions. Maybe a

little bit of parking. If the DGBA wants to do that on their own, I think the city should be supporting transit. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions of Morgan Dandy. Seeing none, thank you. And we're going to go to Alec Persi again.

And thank you again for letting me be to be able to speak. Uh, downtown Gualth Business Association. Not only do you, they pay higher commercial taxes right now. But on top of that, they have a special levy that they enforced all the businesses at downtown. And on top of that, you have a couple of business that have an extra tax that they have to pay as far as the mat tax. So, you know, a lot of the downtown businesses, they already are paying an awful lot of money. And I just have a little bit of a hard time saying, understanding the optics of it, is that we want to be able to help downtown businesses. And we're going to pitch in 25, 000 dollars, but we want them to be able to match into pitch in 25, 000 dollars as well when they are already paying and exorbitant amount of money. Through, uh, commercial property taxes. Then they have their levy as far as their own tax that they have on top of that. Love you that they have. And then you have to matte tax on top of that, which is four percent. That's just the first thing. The second thing is just the precedent that you're setting right now. Is that we're talking

Wyndham Street. And a couple of years, then we're going to start working on McDonald. Are we going to do the same thing with McDonald? Then what happens with businesses that if you're going to start construction on Gordon Street or on Woodlawn, and they don't have a BIA. Are you going to also say, Hey, we're going to pitch in with you guys as well, but they don't have a BIA. That they're organised. So you're basically setting some businesses that you're going to help. And you're setting yourself up that other businesses. You're not going to be able to help. It's. There's a precedent that's being set here. That. You might be favoring certain things. Do downtown stores absolutely need it. Yes. Our sum to business is not going to make it through this construction. Yes. We know that. But there has to be. Possibly some other things. I'm just concerned about the president that's being said. And then to say that we're here to help downtown businesses. So we're going to give them 25, 000 dollars to help with mitigation. Okay. Annual parking for downtown revenue is 300, 000 dollars. So we're not talking a lot of

money here, but more importantly, the biggest thing is, is that through the mitigation is that then to ask for the downtown Gulf business association, Hey, can you guys pitch in even more money on top of everything that you're already paying. It's a little bit of a struggle that I'm having with regarding that. That's basically all I'm just concerned about the president. That being said, because when you're having further construction, Gordon, Woodlawn, wherever it's going to be, you have a lot of businesses that aren't part of a BIA that they're going to say, well, why couldn't they do that with us. Why did they just do it for this small segment downtown that they already have? Jerome Levy that looking after things. And that levy as well is to use before the downtown court to be able to beautify, to be able to bring in tourism. Santa Claus frayed. Uh, spirit of a season. That levies used for that not to be able to mitigate parking. And so those are just concerns that I have about that. It's the fact that the idea is good in principle, but you're setting a precedent. That down the road.

Some businesses are going to say, Hey, what about us. Why, how come we're not pitching in for us. And, uh, so that's just my concern that I have. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions of the dilute. Okay. See, none. Thank you. Okay. Uh, Councillor Carson, would you like to put your emotion on the floor and do you have a seconder? And I understand you have four now recommendations. Is there a second. I believe Councillor Galller agreed to second. Okay. So. Okay. Are there any questions or councillor Bussatil? That counts for Alt. Thank you. I discuss this with Councillor Clausen and also with staff, a minor amendment. To. Okay. Adjournment. Can I get the motions back up, sorry? Do you want them red. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Uh, Councillor Gawler is asking for them to be read. Explanation for. Okay. That's a good idea. Right. Do you want me?

We just hold for a minute and let Amster Cross and say that. Um, okay. So I'm, I'm reading these out loud. Um, so there are four unless there's, I didn't quite understand if you just want me to speak to it. So one, the Council request that the DGBA works with staff to determine operationally feasible parking mitigation opportunities to support customers of downtown businesses during construction activities on Wyndham Street. Above and beyond the existing parking mitigation already in place. And that the cost of up to 25, 000 dollars be paid from the detour construction mitigation budget, which we already have in place while council respectfully request matched funds of up to 25, 000 dollars for a total of 50, 000 dollars towards mitigation from the DGBA. Two, that Council acknowledge that increasing parking mitigation funding means that other construction mitigation actions will not be delivered unless the construction mitigation is topped up through the 2027 confirmation budget process. And that three, sorry, I don't have it in front of me, so I'm just waiting for the screen. Thank you. And that council request that the DGBA provide an update to Council on their own mitigation efforts related to downtown construction and outline a plan for how they're contributing funds to support these efforts, which I believe

if is not done, it's in process. Um, to be provided. And for that Council respectfully requests that the incoming mayor consider continued investment in similar measures for inclusion in 2027 confirmation budget. Um, and I would like, if it's okay through you, Madam Chair, um, I, I would just like to clarify something that came up in the previous delegation, which is with regard to the taxes. There's no new taxation here. This is, this is coming from our existing mitigation budget that is in place for the downtown, um, and I would just like to add to that, that our downtown is, is our most tax dense land. And so when we're looking at mitigation efforts, I think that it is appropriate to look at a negation efforts for all of our projects, but in particular, the downtown where a lot of people are very, a varying sorts businesses, people who visit businesses and also the people who live there are impacted. And then I did add the last one in because I would like an opportunity for our future council, um, to have, have a discussion about this in the next term of council. Because I think it should be an ongoing discussion. Thank you. Okay. Councillor

Boussel and then Councillor Gawler. Thank you. Um, through the chair, I did a conversation with Councillor Claussen and with staff about this. And thank you to our councillor Clausen for sharing the mitigation downtown support plan. Um, I would like to propose a small amendment, uh, two item number one. So that Council request that the DGBA works with City staff to determine operationally feasible transit and or parking mitigation. And the rest is the same. So it's just the addition of transit and or parking mitigation. When I look at the mitigation plan for downtown for Guelph Transit, it just, it says to keep buses running well during downtown construction. So there's no one added incentive. No redirection from cars to transit. And I agree with the delegate that I think if we can influence some behaviour now, there are some longer term down the road benefits, especially. We know that, um, downtown corridors, parking, uh, the, the development that's happening is with reduced parking and so on.

So let's, let's allow the DGBA and City staff to have a conversation on what is in the basket of options. So that is, um, the amendment that I've put forward. And I do have a seconder in Councillor Kate. Okay. Councillor Caden, great. Okay. So, uh, first we have, so on the amendment first, is there any comment or questions about the amendment adding transit. Okay. Seeing that I'll just go right to that question then. Is anyone opposed. Nope, that carries then. Okay. So for the rest of the missions, and I have Councillor Garler, Councillor Alt. Thank you. I got three. And through your turn, donor. Um, regarding the warning that we acknowledge that there may be other mitigations that do not happen unless we put additional budgets. Could I ask from staff, what are those mitigations? Or is it something specific that we know that we don't want to have the money to do or is it just in general a year from now, we may not have money available. With regards to the, if we put the 25, 000 dollars towards the parking, what do we not get to do, uh, down the road. Room.

Through the, to the chair to Council Guard. So certainly right now what I could say is the construction mitigation budget for the downtown renewal work is fully allocated. And so there's a number of tactics within that Councillor Galler. And they have a range in terms of the order of magnitude of cost. And so, uh, if, if Council were to allocate some of these funds towards, uh, the motion that Councillor Classon has put forth. Staff are going to have to go back and take a look at that list and make that determination. It could be things like wayfinding. It could be things like signage. It's going to have to fit within the funding envelope. Um, whereas some of the, you know, special events and things like that, we might have larger funds set aside to support some of those items. And so it'll probably be some of those more, um, day to day more operational items. Okay. Okay. I appreciate that. And I appreciate that there's flexibility with those. Um, and to the mover, if I could just have a, uh, confirmation because you are on the DGBA. Could you confirm that there will be no new DGBA levy for the downtown that they already have enough money in a fund set aside for that 25, 000. Yes. They do. There is a reserve. And so, um, my intention is to suggest that we use that,

uh, as, as the funding source. So no new, no new levy, no additional percentage is. Thank you for that. And just for, for the members of the public, they did not make it in time, but, uh, the chair of the DGBA did send Council and email earlier. I think it was yesterday confirming that they are in support of this, uh, motion and that they welcome it. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Okay. Councillor Alt. Thank you very much chair downer. Uh, first of all, through you to the mover. I have some questions. The staff as well. Um, with regards to the phrase and I'll ask staff the same question operationally feasible. What do we mean by that? It's a bit of a tongue twister for me. Thank you through you chair to Councillor Alt. I think that it's likely in response to a previous motion that I put forward because it did ask, uh, it was, I did some, a different type of calculation, which was based on hours. Um, which would have been, and using the honk, um, app. And it would have just been a little bit more complicated. So what staff asked me

and they provided this wording. So you could confirm it with them as well. But, um, I might understand that by having the flexibility, um, they're able to, uh, put, put the, the funds where it is going to best serve, um, the downtown. Okay. Thank you. Um, the next one is that it's probably because it's been a long meeting so far. Clause number two, um, is causing me concern because I'm not exactly certain precisely what it means. And I was wondering if you could clarify that for me, please. Number two is with is the, um, that we, we acknowledge that one. Yes. I would, I would ask staff to speak to that one because that was, that was provided. I think it just, okay. From my understanding, it is what it is. I mean, I think that my understanding and that I was, I was as, as, as Councillor Gawler was asking, um, Mr. Gaiman about, um, the allocation of the mitigation funds, um, it's allocated but not spent. So there is flexibility there. Um, so

I think by acknowledging it's a finite budget, um, that, so if something comes up later on down the road, um, that we're not going to be blindsided or the future council won't be blindsided by the fact that we took this 25, 000 dollars and we allocated it elsewhere at this time we prioritized it for an earlier part of the construction. Okay. Thank you. That actually helps a lot. Um, but what it does is it lays out for me the law of unintended consequences might be at work here as well, which is a concern. Um, uh, before I go to staff, um, councillor downer at this point, unless, uh, unless I'm satisfied at the answers, I would ask that these be separated out, please. It might be supporting some and not others. Um, through you two staff, staff, uh, with regards to the current mitigation, the statement was made that this is fully allocated at the present time. What will be the consequence if we, um, remove funds from that. Can we get some specific examples. So through the chair to Councillor also similar to my response to Councillor Gallar, we've got the mitigation funds allocated

to a number of different tactics. And so, uh, depending on the order of magnitude and costs here, so for 25, 000 dollars that could be impacted. So I suggest things like wayfinding, things like signage. Uh, we do have fun set aside for other larger tactics, things like how do we reopen construction areas for temporary, uh, periods of time to support special events. Do you think Bicentennial, you think Memorial Cup, things like that. Um, we have fun set aside for things like marketing strategies. So those types of funds wouldn't be impacted. It would be more of those day to day operational things. I think the things that people would look and feel. The only other comment I may make, um, with respect to the construction mitigation funds is to remind Councillor that there is about 200, 000 dollars right now towards, uh, parking, uh, as part of that construction mitigation fund. And that's with respect to the McDonald law in the two hour of reparking there. So we're looking from, from the city's perspective at about a seven percent potential increase in this, if these resolutions were to pass, would that be accurate. Through the chair to Councillor. So I don't have the numbers in that, in that way, but what I could say is if the funds weren't replaced in the future, and I think that's part of, uh, sort of what councillor classing is after there. If those funds weren't replacing a future budget,

then we would have no choice but to simply just reduce the tactics that are implemented in terms of, you know, how we're supporting downtown and businesses through the mitigation. Is there any cautions that you can give us on that at this point? Or will it just come to rise as they come about. So through the chair to Councillor Alt, I think from, from a construction perspective, you know, we understand that downtown is, is impacted by this construction. You've heard folks speak in terms of the time duration. This is going to be a long time, uh, we're at the beginning of construction now. And so, um, the economic uncertainty out there. We do support ideas to help, you know, drive people towards downtown help those downtown businesses and help them thrive. And certainly we would continue to want to get the message out to the general public, you know, shop local and come downtown and support those businesses, um, but there is only so much we can do with the funds that we do have. And again, I'll just note that, um, council has already put some funding towards parking. Um, DCO Clark Bush may want to comment on just, you know, how much of an impact the 25, 000 plus 25, 000 from DGBA actually provides in terms of parking. And perhaps we're busing as

well. Sure. So through the chair to Councillor Alt, perhaps I can cover a few of the things that you've asked. So, I mean, as, as Mr. Gaiman said, of course we recognise that the impact this is having on the businesses and we want to encourage people to come downtown and support our businesses. Um, anytime, you know, I will say philosophically free parking or transit is not something that typically staff are recommending as good practice because those things do have value. And we want to make sure the world reflecting that value back to the community. Um, and so I think, um, that, you know, 25, 000 dollars plus 25, it may make a dent, but we're also very conscious of not putting a tactic in place that has unintended consequences. We want to make sure that whatever we do drives people downtown to spend money, um, that's where we, so when we used the phrase operationally feasible, we want to make sure that we work with the DGBA to figure out how this can be allocated and a way to make sure it's getting in the hands of the people who are coming downtown to, too frequent our downtown businesses. Um, and so we asked Councillor Claussen for that flexibility. The words operationally feasible were quite

intentional. Um, and I'll use transit as an example. We can't mandate who gets on a bus and where they go. And so we're going to need to figure out how do we incent people to come downtown on transit in a way that makes sure they're coming downtown. Because we can't police when people get on a bus to say, well, where are you getting off if you're not getting off downtown, you can't use this free voucher. So we're going to need to work with the DGBA. Likewise on the parking. We want to make sure, I mean, one of the reasons that we have measures in place is we want to encourage turnover of parking spots downtown. We want people to come downtown shop, eat, and then leave the parking spot for someone else. So we're going to need to work with the DGBA. Um, part of it comes down to the technology that's available to us through our, our, our parking app through the honk app, um, as well as our pay stations, as well as our transit apps. We're going to need to figure out how to do this operationally feasible in conjunction with the DGBA that enables them to have their businesses giving out the vouchers or the coupons in a way that makes sure that they're getting in the hands of the people who are going to come downtown and actually benefit the downtown businesses. So we asked for that freedom and that flexibility so that we can go away. Also are grateful

that it's an and or for transit and parking because we need to go away and have conversations with the DGBA to figure out how best to navigate this. With regards to that. You had made mention of support for customers. And I guess that's where the operationally feasible comes in. Is there a subtext that you're concerned about others actually taking advantage of this? Is that what I'm hearing? Through the chair, I don't, I don't want to sort of make that assumption without talking to the DGBA. But if I understand the intention behind this, it's to support people coming downtown and, and supporting the downtown businesses. So I think whatever our tactic is that we use, we want to work with the DGBA to make sure that it's done in a way that is most beneficial to getting customers into their businesses. I think finally the last question. And I don't know to whom to ask it. So I'm just going to ask it to any one of you for. Because I'm downtown pretty well every day. Uh, either biking or driving my car. I don't see a whole lot of capacity for extra parking. I was wondering if anybody could comment on that. It strikes me that parking is going to be quite a distance from

downtown in many cases. Through the chair to councillor alt, I would say, uh, and I'll look back to Mr. Godfrey, but I think the market square parquet generally has vacancy almost every day. Um, and it really is not that far. Um, and so I would actually say there's lots of parking available downtown. There'll be even more coming online when the, uh, the library opens in a few early next year. I was going to say a few months. But certainly the market square arcade has available parking pretty much every day. Um, so there is part of it is also just encouraging people, um, to maybe change their patterns. It might be another block that they need to walk. Um, but we, we do have despite the construction, there is available in the downtown core. So last point. And so what I'm hearing you say there, the subtext is directing people into market square. And ultimately into library parking as alternatives that either weren't there before or were not, uh, palatable to some. Through the chair, absolutely. We recognise that on street parking is difficult through the construction period. The market square parque, the east and the west parcade, um, those are all great options for people. Um, and, and are really, it's really not that far.

And that and kudos to the team who's done incredible work on the wayfinding signage and helping pedestrian's navigate their way through downtown. So we just need to make sure we keep encouraging people to come down and use those options. Thank you very, very much and chair down. I don't think I need them separated. Great. Thank you. Okay. Mayor Guthrie. And then Council. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair, through you. Um, I just want to really clarify this with, uh, through you to potentially Terry maybe. The mitigation budget was a two year budget. Of approximately a million dollars. And if we decide to use 25, 000 dollars today out of that already existing budget. And councillor Colossen's fourth motion. Of having that replenished for the new mayor and council to determine, it really would actually mean that it's a wash. In other words any. Funds that are being questioned about not going to this or not going

to that. Would be replenished within about six months. If it was already a two year budget. And the, and the, the, uh, mitigation budget was to go out over a two year span. If using 25, 000 dollars now. The budget kind of remains whole. If that scenario works out, as I've described it, correct? Through the chair to the to the mayor. So I think, um, sort of fundamentally you may be on, on the right track there. My only caution would just be with respect to, um, if the funds are moved now. And so there is a bit of a lag in terms of time. There just may be some tactics where, you know, we may have gone to implement them sooner. We may have to delay them. Or if those budget isn't, um, impacted, uh, sorry isn't replenished in the future, um, then maybe some of those tactics don't get delivered. I'll give you an example. So, um, you know, business delivery access plans. So as we move further through the staging, you know, we have fun set aside to help support business deliveries. So maybe, maybe that's the topic that we have to remove

some funds from on a temporary basis while we await that replenishment. And then if the replenishment doesn't come, perhaps then an opportunity lost there. So the things that we would have to work through, um, if council moves this direction. So, um, that's, that's sort of the spirit of just the acknowledgement that there are some risk to the tactics being executed. Um, if funds are temporarily or, or permanently diverted to something else. So Terry, if you don't mind me just restating my question, if you have a million dollar budget over a two year span, the what you've just described is making it sound like you're using the entire one million dollars this year. You're saying that it wouldn't be reestablished next year. In other words, you'd be out. Like how, how, how can you say there might be things that are not implemented. If you're not, if you, if it's a two year one million dollar budget. Yeah. So through the church to the mayor. So again, so the million dollar budget is fully allocated to tactics right now. So all I'm suggesting that if, if funds are diverted towards this additional, um, parking, then we have to, um, reduce 25, 000 dollars of tactics. So

simply that if, um, if the funds are diverted now, if they don't get replaced, then there is that risk. And again, because there's a period of time in there, there may be some shuffling in terms of tactics and the timing in which we were going to do certain things. Um, but staff have to go back and do that analysis if this were, um, something that council, um, moves forward with. Okay. Okay. And then finally, can you please make sure that it stated out loud. That the mat tax is not paid for by businesses and or properties in the downtown. The matte tax is paid for by 99.

Businesses in the downtown or property owners in the downtown are not paying an extra levy. I think that needs to be stated because I believe that the delegate was, in my view, saying something wrong. I don't want hanging out there in the public because I think that needs to be restated. Can I please have staff? Just make sure that that's stated properly. Yes, so can staff just confirm what the, through the chair to the mayor, uh, no, you're correct in that the matte tax is ultimately paid by the guests or the visitors staying in the accommodations. Great. Thank you. Um, do you mind if I just do a little comment right now and then I'm just done, madam chair. Okay. Thank you. Um, good to support this. Um, I do not believe the entire one million dollars of the mitigation budget is going to be used by February, whatever of next year. I am hopeful as a citizen watching from afar that council would maybe see the benefit of, of this move now to then consider replenishing, uh, next year. Uh, maybe even the DGBA could help with that next year. So there's an option option there. That doesn't have any tax implications at all.

Um, so I would like to have this, uh, voted on. I have spoken to many businesses downtown. And it is the number one issue. And I'm just going to say it out loud because I'm blunt. It's not transit. It's parking. People might want to say it's transit. And I get it. Hey, I supported the and or so that that's a great idea. I don't mind that at all to B flushed out, but I'm telling you right now every single business I go to isn't saying, gee, I wish I had more transit opportunities in the downtown. They're customers either aren't coming or the narrative of the downtown right now is because of parking issues. So I am fully supportive of this. Thank you, Councillor Claussen, for bringing it forward. And I'm hoping that this can be supported, uh, during this rough time within, um, with, with the partnership of the DGBA. So thank you very much. Hey, thank you. Uh, Councillor Caitlin. Thank you, Cyril, Madam Chair. My question first is to staff. Um, have we spent any money on mitigation for other construction projects like for your road or for the businesses just earn the

east side of the speed velbridge. Through the chair to Councillor Caden. It's maybe slightly different with respect to other, um, construction projects, uh, outside the downtown area in the sense that the council approved a specific construction mitigation budget through this downtown infrastructure annual program. And so staff are allocating those funds in this ways. But on any project, you know, we would certainly seek to do certain things like keep accesses open to businesses, um, sometimes we've put certain types of signage up. So there has been, um, sort of maybe on the more minor scale, um, tactics put in place on different projects. So hopefully that answers your question. It does. Thank you. Um, in terms of percentage wise, how far along are we in terms of completion. Through the chair to Council Arcaden with respect to, um, construction of Wyndham Street. So that's approximately a two year project. And we're in month roughly three right now, uh, of that project. So still in the early stages, um, first sort of quarter of the project in terms of downtown renewal overall, you know, I think we have the better part of a decade or so. Still to

go. Okay. And was the mitigation budget only meant to last for the two years or is it supposed to be for the full duration. The. Duration. Is chair. Uh, so through the, through the chair to councillor Caden. I think I need a moment to just confirm the answer to that question. My recollection is that it is just for the windom piece, but, uh, if you can just give me a moment, I'll, I'll need to get back to you. Okay. I have a question for the mover. So, uh, we'll do that in the meantime. Do you know if the, the DGBA has employee sponsored bus passes like some of the other businesses across the handling does. I'm just thinking in terms of when we're talking about like having a quick turnover of cars in the parking lot, I imagine that it's very hard for employees to kind of park. In these circumstances. So I'm just wondering if that's something that the DGBA does. Through the chair to the councillor. I don't believe that is a strategy that is taken by the DGBA, but may I ask

a point of clarification. So do the businesses sponsor the bus passes or is it another, is it the VIA? Is there like another, is it like the city that sponsors is that I'm just wondering the clarity there. My understanding is there like, like we have with the universities and with the new Conestoga that they're kind of like, you get a bulk discount sort of thing. And so I'm just wondering if maybe the, the DGBA had something for all of the businesses who are down there and their staff to get kind of like a bulk discount on bus passes. Um, that is not my understanding at this time, but it might be a good question to bring up to a future meeting. Okay. Don't know if I gave staff enough time. Through the chair to Council Caden. Yeah. I can confirm that that's just for Wyndham Street. Okay. Um. So I believe in supporting the mitigation for downtown, I think like that's why I voted for it in the first place. Um, I would like to have the, the final motion or yeah, the final motion kind of separated out because I'm, I'm not opposed to

like if this is what the DGBA wants this budget for, I, you know, I believe in supporting what their wishes are because that's what it's meant for. It's meant to help the DGBA and the businesses that are in the downtown, but I do think that it should be a finite budget so that it's not like a continual top up on taxes. Um, and, you know, we've got the million dollars and we've got two years for it. So if, if you use it all within a certain amount of time, then it's, then it's gone. But I do think that it's a good motion. And if this is what the DGBO wants long meeting, then I'm happy to support the first three in the list. Okay. Are there any other questions or comments? Councillor Coron. Yeah. No questions. Just a comment. I am going to be supporting the motion because I do think behaviour is established in year one. And although I recognise that the, the fund is for an extended period of time. If we can get people downtown in year one, that will establish, Hey, that wasn't so bad. This is doable. I was able to find parking. I'm going to go back again. So I think, uh, you know, it, it'll be good to

see how this rolls out and, um, collecting data is really important to being able to add it to a future budget or increase any amounts towards parking for downtown businesses. We need to collect the data as well. Okay. Thank you. So I'm going to go to the question now. Um, and we're going to do one to three. Is anyone opposed. Seeing none those three carries? Number four. Is, can you put four back up on the screen, please. It's a one about the future mirrors. Okay. Number four is back up on the screen. Is anyone opposed to number four. Uh. Okay. Councillor Caden is opposed to number four. Okay. And so that passes. So thank you. Okay. We're moving on. And now the advancing energy equity in Guelph. And we have one delegation of Morgan Dandy and the recommendation in front of us.

Just a reminder to council that this was fully discussed at earlier Committee, the whole meeting. Along with the next one as well. We're going to you there. Yes. It has just finally cycled through. Thank you so much. I am so pleased that I was able to be part of the community engagement. For the energy equity. Since the time that this was presented to Council, I have become aware of some corporate landlords that have sent out essentially contracts. To the residents of their buildings. And these individuals pay their own electricity. So this particular corporate landlord that I will not name. Has sent out. Contracts. Demanding to know how many air conditioning units, residents, plan on using. And stating that for each unit, they've got to pay

X number of dollars per month or a flat over the summer. Which essentially amounts to an above guideline rent increase. The one that I saw was 170 dollars for the summer or 50 dollars per unit per month. And these are people that already pay their own electricity. So why the landlord is doing this, I really don't understand. But it's just another example. Of how energy. Costs most especially when we're in a heat wave. You know, I'm sure everybody's heard about what's happening over in Europe right now. It is feasible that that is going to happen in southern Ontario over this summer. And if you're an individual that lives on the legislature lives in the legislated poverty of ODSP. Air conditionings essential. It's not a luxury.

And I love that this energy, equity program is something that has been presented to Council Gualth Labs did an amazing job working on this. And I'm very glad that Council is voting on this. I hope it is passed. Just wanted to make everyone aware that there are corporate landlords that are essentially doing above guideline, rental increases. Because people need air conditioning. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions of the delegate. Okay. Seeing them or go right to the motion that's in front of you for the advancing energy equity and Guff, and, uh, one of the things to receive. And then the second, the motions are up on the screen. So that's perfect. Is there a mover. Councillor Hauser, Councillor Galler, seconds. Are there any questions? Council Mayor Guthrie. I'm sorry, Chair. No questions. I just have a comment. Okay. Is that okay? Yep.

Go ahead. Okay. Thank you through you. So I just want to tell everybody, I'm very glad we're voting on this. I hope that unanimous. Here is it hot off the press. This is the Gulf Energy Equity Action Plan booklet that I have right here. And I am at the Global Covenant of Mayors right now in the heat wave in Europe. Right now. Um, and I have already been able to speak to people, uh, I just had a meeting today at quit meeting with the European Commissioner for energy. Uh, and I am presenting this work. By the City of Guelph, um, Toronto University. Guelf Labs University of Guelph. I am presenting this to many, many mayors across the world tomorrow. Um, at my meeting. So I just want to say thank you to our staff for bringing this forward. Thank you to Council for unanimously supporting it at, um, Committee of the Hall. And I can tell you in the couple of conversations I've had today at the conference that it's gone over very, very well. Um, and so, uh, Guelf is on the national stage

because of, of this work that we're doing. And so congratulations to everybody. Um, for that. If you don't pass it, I have to bring these 25, uh, brochures home with me. So please don't do that. All right. Thank you very much. You don't want that to happen. Okay. Are there any other comments or questions before we go to the vote? Okay. Uh, is anyone opposed to this motion. Seeing none, that passes. Thank you. We're going to move on to the community investment strategy update. And we have one delegation, Melanie Flake. She here and she's been here a long time. So we'll have some other delegates.

And you've heard the rules, right? The five minutes and 30 second warning. Thank you. Ready. Good evening, Mayor and members of Council. My name is Melanie Flake and I am the chair of the Eden Mills writer's festival. Today I'm speaking on behalf of the Guelph Arts Advocacy Alliance. A coalition of Guelph Arts and Cultural Organisations working together to advocate for meaningful and sustained municipal investment in Gulf's arts and culture sector. We've seen firsthand how arts and culture can strengthen communities, support local economies, deep in civic engagement. Create a sense of belonging and contribute to the quality of life that matters, sorry, that makes wealth a remarkable place to live. The evidence is clear. The arts and culture sector is an economic driver. It supports jobs, attracts audiences and visitors, animates our downtown and neighbourhoods and generates direct and indirect economic activity in cities across Ontario and Canada. Excuse me. We believe the contribution made by our sector should be recognised and better supported for the full value it brings to the city. Arts and culture

organisations also play a significant workforce development role, offering hands - on training, skill development, mentorship, volunteer opportunities and professional experience that equip residents with transferable skills in leadership communications, technology, project management, and entrepreneurship. These opportunities help retain talent, support creative and cultural industries and contribute to the long - term economic prosperity of Guelph. We believe that City Council staff understand the importance of arts and culture and how it supports the well - being and quality of life of Guelphites. This is reflected in the city's proposed changes to the community investment strategy, including the priorities identified through that process and the expansion of funding programs. We particularly appreciate the shift towards broader access for arts and culture organisations, as well as the recognition that different kinds of community organisations may require different kinds of support. These proposed priorities align with much of the work the Gulf Arts Advocacy Alliance has been advancing, including more flexible and responsive approach to supporting the sector. We appreciate the work

that has gone into developing this strategy, as well as the Cities'willingness to engage with us throughout the process. Building on this program, this is the moment to move from recognition to stronger, more concrete action. For several years, we have consistently advocated for the community fund to be divided into two distinct streams, one for social service organisations, and one for arts and culture organisations. Both sectors do vital work. Both deserve support. The two - stream model with increased funding would better reflect each sector's distinct role and the scale of need across our community. We also strongly believe that municipal funding for Community - based organisations, including arts and culture organisations, should be sustainably increased with current funding levels, at least doubled, to better reflects the scale of need. The cost of delivering this work and the vital contributions these organisations make to our community. This fall, we will be engaging with Council and Mayoral candidates and inviting them to endorse a set of four municipal arts and culture commitments. These commitments outline practical, achievable actions. The City can take to strengthen Guelph's already vibrant and resilient

arts community. And to help ensure the sector can continue to serve residents, support artists, and contribute to the City's economic and social well - being. We thank you for your attention to these priorities, and we look forward to continuing to work with you towards a city where our arts and culture thrive. Thank you for all you do for our city. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Guelph Arts Advocacy Alliance. Thank you. Are there any questions at Councillor Boussel and then Mayor Guthrie. Thank you for your patience. You've been here a very long time. Through the chair, I just wanted to, can you tell me I'm familiar with Guelf Arts Council prologue for the arts, all those kinds of organisations. I am admitting, I am not familiar with the Guelph Arts Advocacy Alliance. Can you just very briefly bring me up to date. Um, the organisation has been working together for several years. I have just become chair of the Eden Mills Redis Festival in December. So I haven't been a part of it, so I can't speak to any of their long - term work other than I can name, and it was included in

submission. Name many of the organisations. So this is a voluntary group who meets periodically to discuss a shared issues. Thank you, Mayor Guthrie. Thank you. My question was exactly the same as Councillor Busatil's. I've never heard of this group. So interesting to hear it now. Thank you very much. Thanks. Are there any other questions? Councillor Klassen. Yes, thank you to the delegate. And I wanted to firstly, I'd like to say thank you for bringing attention to Council's attention, um, the report that you referred to. I think it's from the chamber of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Uh, that talks about how, um, the arts and culture contributes 65 billion dollars a year to the Canadian economy. And I, um, met with, uh, the chamber when I was at FCM and I really appreciate the work that went into that report because I think that we, we underestimate how, how economically important our arts and culture community is to the economy. So then I do have

a question with regard to the request about splitting, um, the, the grants. So my question is, have you worked with staff? Have you, have you provided that direct feedback to them as, as, um, in the, you know, the few years that you've been meeting. Uh, it's my understanding that, uh, there is a staff member and we had a meeting last week that provides feedback and give some insight to, uh, what's being worked on. And so they were aware in that meeting that this was something that, uh, the group has been wanting, um, we just feel that it's, um, when there's, when we're asking for funds for, you know, for instance, my festival, the food bank also looking for funds in the same with the same pot. It just, um, doesn't feel good. Appreciate that, that, that, uh, that response. Um, I will talk to stuff about that afterwards. Are there any other questions or comments? Thank you very much. Thank you for the work you

do. Okay. So, um, I'm going to look for a mover to put the motion on the floor. Councillor Cossen, seconded by Clem Sir Coron. And it's to approve the, uh, recommendations in the community investment strategy. And that the implementation of future grant program streams and other inflationary adjustments are subject to being added through future budget updates. So, uh, is there anyone? Oh, Council Cousen, you have something to say. Yes. I would just like to ask that question quickly to staff. If, if not, I don't necessarily need to move emotion, but I would just like to hear from staff with regard to the splitting of the funds. And if that's something that has been considered, um, I know that it isn't, I think, because that's not what we're approving today. So I was just wondering if staff could provide a comment on that. Um, for, for the future's years.

Hey everybody. Thanks for the question. Um, so through the chair to the councillor, yeah, it was something that was considered by staff. So, um, with the community investment strategy update. Um, it was really focused around the three priorities. And within a single pool of funding. Um, so this was considered by staff. And ultimately, we did not recommend the approach for a variety of different reasons. Um, one being the size of the pool of funding. And the number of sectors seeking an increase in funding. Um, as well. We determined that the multiple funding pools separated by sector could become too restrictive and divided. And would move away from the priorities, um, as the focus for the funding. Um, and for the outcomes that we're hoping to achieve with the program. Thank you. Out of curiosity through you chair, um, what would the size of the pool be better for a split. Through the chair to the councillor? We haven't explored an exact number of what the

total pool would need to look like. We're, yeah, we were looking at within existing pools and what we could do with, uh, with those funds with those programs. Okay. Are there any other questions. Comments. Okay. It's Councillor Bussatel. Yes, thank you. And through the chair, just clarification that the micro grant program still includes the split, uh, between the arts focused development and community development kind of. Through the chair to the councillor. Yes, that's correct. So the micro grant program would still split between the arts and, um, and non - Earth's applications. Okay. Anyone else. Okay. Then the motion has been moved in seconded. And so I will go to the question. Are there anyone opposed. Seeing none? That carries. Okay. We've been pretty, pretty unanimous tonight. Impressive. So the last item is the McCullough Municipal

class environmental assessment. And we have three delegations. So I will start with. Mr. Scarrett. Hello. Can everybody see me hear me. Yes, I can. Terrific. Thank you. Hello, chair downer and councillors. Mr. Mayor, my name is Brian Skerret. I'm delegating on behalf of urban Park Guelph supporting the staff recommendation to rehabilitate and strengthen McCullen's bridge. There have been many conversations about McCullens Bridge since the committee of the whole meeting where you voted in favor of the preferred alternative. Most of them have focused on the cost of repair and restoration versus the cost of replacement. Those conversations have reduced the complexity of a cost - benefit analysis to a two - dimensional punchline. Old bridge expensive Newbridge cheap. In 2004, the bridge was designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. And was ranked third out of 60 in the report Rand Old Bridges to Grand River Watershed Bridge Inventory. In regards to the Heritage River status of the Grand River, which includes the Aramassa, the report quotes

GRCA chair Peter Kroos, the loss of one feature or value does not warrant the loss of the Heritage River status. It is the cumulative effect of the loss of many of these features, which would cause the Canadian heritage rivers board to reevaluate the status of the Grand River. Identifying those heritage bridger bridges important to the designation. Provides a better context for consideration in this regard. In 2013, the bridge was listed in an even more extensive Grand River Bridge inventory. It ranked second insignificance of 167 bridges with eight out of nine heritage act criteria. And just yesterday, June 22nd, 2026, the Ontario Reformatory Heritage Conservation District By - Law took effect. In which City Council further protected McCullens Bridge as a heritage asset in the conservation district. And that word asset is the key to this discussion. And is the aspect of the cost - benefit analysis that is missing. An asset has implied value. A stalk holding is an asset in your portfolio. A player is an asset to their team. A violin is an

asset to the orchestra. But unlike those, a heritage asset cannot be acquired. It cannot be ordered from Amazon, hired or manufactured. It cannot be trained for or traded and cannot rep - engineered. Heritage assets can only result literally from the test of time be managed and valued or lost. Suggesting a steel fabricated bridge can be sympathetic to the old design is true. It's also kind of silly. It simply cannot replace a heritage asset. So the decision matrix for repairing equivalents a bridge shifts from old versus new, the value for money. Yes, a new bridge gets us cross river connectivity. But restoring McQuillan's bridge gives us literally an irreplaceable asset. And Cross River conductivity. Like it's rule in the Grand River Bridge inventory. McQuillan's bridges and asset in the Ontario Reformatory HCD. It is a thread in that fabric. The loss of one of those threads doesn't jeopardize the HCD, but the cumulative effect of the loss of too many of these features would be to erase the conservation district itself. And with stonewals failing, the

chimneyan powerhouse planned for demolition, the greenhouses collapsed, the native sun's murals peeling from the walls, and the trussel bridge having been demolished just last year. We have to ask how many more threads can be removed. The cost - benefit analysis is an important conversation. And the councillors calling for it to be examined have done well to raise it. But for that analysis to be meaningful, it must account for all benefits. In regards to the cause, there is another element of the conversation that is raised. The staff report refers to the Canadian Highway Bridge Code Standards. Kate Barry and the engineering department has been very helpful in helping me navigate this aspect of the discussion. But the short version is that the Restoration, as presented, restores McQuillan's Bridge to be capable of carrying a five - axle transport truck. On the other hand, there is a standard for pedestrian bridges, which does not anticipate heavy vehicle loading. And if cost is truly the issue, then I would suggest investigating the benefit of restoring McCullens Bridge to Canadian standards association S7 specifications. In missing the heritage value of the bridge and not investigating the pedestrian standards for

a potentially less expensive option, these conversations have been missing the bridge for the bridgework. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions of the delegate. Seeing none, thank you Mr. Scary. The second one. Thank you. Uh, the second one is James Smith.

Good evening. And, uh, thank you for the opportunity. My name's James Smith, and I want to thank City staff for the recommendation to restore them a cool - ins bridge. And for the Committee of the Whole for accepting these recommendations, I respectfully urge Council to ratify the decision of the Committee of the Hall. So I'm here as something of a reverse Mark Anthony's funeral aeration, as I'm here to praise the bridge and not bury it. Last week, I missed the Lancaster Snowbirds fly - by - in Hamilton. And my connection with the Lancaster, and the appreciation of it is based part on my wife's great uncle, um, RCAF's youngest wing commander who died in action at the controls of one. And as a kid growing up in a tobico, we had a neighbour who was also a Lank pilot who had worked for the Avro company. Um, I think both men would be pleased to know a Lancaster is being preserved. In air - worthy condition, although I'm sure, like many of us, they would have loved to have seen at least one version of the Avro Arrow preserved as well. I raised the parallel

between these historic aircraft and their preservation were lack thereof. In this context, in part due to the unique wing - like design arch design of the arches of the McCullen Bridge. But also to underscore how Pennywise and Pound Foolish decisions often, similar to the loss of the Avro Arrow, lead to sincere sense of loss in years to come, if they're not retained, used, and kept in working conditions. I appreciate the difference in costs between replacement and restoration. And as counsel, your responsibility to be prudent with our finances, respectfully, I contend that replacement versus Restoration cost difference is not as simple as one would have you believe. Replacement only achieves one outcome, a bridge. Restoration of McCullen's Bridge achieves five additional outcomes. Preservation of a heritage asset, as we approach our bicentennial illustrates consistency and leadership on the heritage file that's really part of Guelph's brand. Two, it honours the overwhelming view of the citizens who

participated in the engagement process. Number three, it avoids a reconsider of motion as heard earlier. McCullen's Bridge status under Part V of the Heritage Act has just been passed. Four, as renovations can begin quite quickly compared to a new bridge design and construction, restoration reconnects a safe trail crossing of the Aramosa in a more timely fashion. And number five, it retains the upfront carbon in the existing structure. And if you're not familiar with the concept, I'd be happy to answer some questions about that. In conclusion, given the rarity and significance of McCullen's Bridge, there may be opportunity to access funds from upper levels of government to accomplish this renovation. I respectfully submit that value engineering may also be undertaken to reduce possible costs. Um, as was mentioned earlier, I heard, reducing the standard to a pedestrian bridge rather than a highway bridge. As architect author and TMU Professor of Design Lloyd Alter has written, generally

renovations versus new construction, have two 80 - 20 rules. Renovation projects tend to be weighted So renovation will help, um, employ people more than a replacement. The other 80 - 20 rule is Canadian content. Generally speaking, according to Professor Alter. A renovation project will have a much greater amount of Canadian content compared to a new bridge. Respectfully, I urge Council to ratify the decision of the Committee of the Hall. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for the Dell - O. - C - Nan? Thank you very much. Thanks for the opportunity. And I would call upon Alexander Smith, no.

Madam Chair Mayor Guthrie and members of Council. I come before you to plead for the life of my hypothetical client, McQuillan's Bridge. I've pled a great many cases during my professional career, but this is my first capital case where the very life of my client is at stake. You're about to vote on whether to demolish McCullens Bridge and Barry - It in a landfill. McCullen's Bridge has served us well for 110 years embodying the tradition from Horstron Vehicles to motorize forms of transportation. And as an important link to the City's pattern of growth and development. For the last two decades, McCullen's Bridge has served as an act of transportation crossing of BRMASA River, serving a vital connection for hiking and psyching trails in the Cities East End. How the City responded to 110 years of faithful service. It is not spent a dime to maintain the structural integrity of the bridge, limiting spending to minor maintenance issues, including litter cleanup, breast cleanup, and routine bridge

inspections. In other words, the Cities maintenance policy from McCullens Bridge has been demolition by neglect. The Heritage Value of McClellan's Bridge is while documented. This council last confirmed on May the 12th of this year when it passed a bylaw that formerly designated the Ontario Reformitary Heritage Conservation District under Part 5 of the Ontario Heritage Act and recognised McQuillan's Bridge is a heritage attribute that supports the culture of heritage value or interest of that HCD. And two, quote, and I quote the By - law ensure that heritage assets are not diminished or run the risk of demolition as a result of neglect. I rhetorically ask those councillors who are considering voting to demolish McQuillan's bridge. Are you not concerned about the hypocrisy of voting to safeguard ahead asset, Amir six weeks later, voting to demolish it? Do not care about the thousands of taxpayers'dollars, the process

to clear the way for demolition of a designated heritage asset will cost. The staff report estimates the design and construction costs for option two to be 2. 9 million dollars. The design and construction costs for option four to be two, or sorry, 1. 2 million. It is clear, I submit that the 1. 2 million dollar figure is nowhere near the actual cost to replace some Quillen's Bridge. First of all, it doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of dollars required to demolish and dispose of McCuillan's Bridge. More significantly, the staff report for the Emma - Earl Pedestrian Bridge estimated the cost of designing and building a single steel span for that project to be 3. 23 million dollars in 2020 construction prices. How can it be that the CD's estimate for an 81 - foot single steel span bridge, Emirl, was in 2020, whereas the estimate for a 70 - foot single steel span for stone

road is only 1. 2 million dollars. In 2026. I have no idea what the actual cost to replace McCullen's Bridge will be, but I respectfully submit neither to you. We all know it will be much greater than 1. 2 million. In my respectful submission, Council should do the right thing and rehabilitate McQuillan's Bridge as the staff, as your staff recommend. Giving the people of Guelph not just a way to get across the river, but also preserving a significant heritage landmark for future generations. Those are my respectful submissions. Thank you. Are there any questions of the delegate. Seeing none. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And thanks to your patience too. Okay, so we'll go to the, if we could put the motion down and then we'll go to questions. Somebody put the. Somebody, okay. Could

I have a mover. At Councillor Clausen, seconded by Councillor Coron. Are there any questions of staff. Council Galar. Thank you, Unto Your Chair, Donor. Perhaps before I get into my questions, there were a couple of statements made by the last delegate. If I could just have clarity on that, uh, on the price and the distance between the two bridges that were mentioned so that we could understand what the difference between the cost of the Emma Toro versus the McCullen Bridge proposal for a steel option. Through YCHA to the Councillor. Okay, so M to Elbridge is a span of 81 metres. Uh, the total project costs to date is 5. 1 million dollars for that bridge. It's a steel girder bridge with a concrete deck, the type of construction. It's on piled foundations. And so in contrast to the recommended solution for Merkel - Insbridge, the

rehabilitated. Reinforced concrete bowstring that has a span of 21 metres. So it's about a quarter of the span. And the estimate at this stage in the EA study is 2. 7 million. For construction. And you would also like the alternative fall replaced with steel. Yeah, so for that one, it's assuming a prefabricated steel truss on concrete footings. Um, it would have a longer span. We do a longer span bridge than they existing. And so it'd be around 35 to 40 metre spans, about half of the emitter L span. And that the estimate for that one is 1. 13 million dollars in this EA study. Thank you. And that estimate, it does include the demolition cost as well as the rebuild? That's correct. All of the options that require removal of the existing include for that. Okay. Okay. Thank you for that. Um, you did mention the cost of the staff recommendation, which is to strengthen and to rebuild the cement bridge. Um, a couple of

the delegates they mentioned that it would be to rebuild that up to the standard for vehicle traffic, but that there were alternate standards. Is it possible that as part of the process you could look to rebuild it to a pedestrian standard for lower cost. Uh, through you, Chair to Councillor Gullet. Yeah, so if I can just elaborate on that a little bit. So this EA study, we've used this CSE S6 code, loading code. We've used the same loading for all six options for consistency. And that assumes that the bridge will support pedestrians and maintenance vehicle loading. Um, this is really a conservative and a consistent approach for us to use to costing and comparing the options. And it ensures that we can use vehicles to maintain the structure, you know, for sweeping, cleaning processes. The alternative loading that was mentioned, the pedestrian loading. It's called CSS7. It is a lighter loading class. Um, which mean the bridge would not be used by any vehicles whatsoever.

Um, it could result in some cost savings. We think they would be minimal for the rehabilitation solution. Um, for this stage of work at EA Study, we've used the more conservative approach. We've applied a consistently. If we were to use the lighter loading case for the rehabilitation, we would also apply that to the other options too. So you could see, um, cost savings for all of the options. We'd keep, you know, we'd be able to keep that consistency. Um, so we have, we don't propose to, we wouldn't recommend changing the loading case that we're using of this EA study stage. But it's certainly something that we would look at as part of our regular value engineering once we get into detailed design work in the future. Okay. So, so through your chair, for the purposes of tonight, not to ask you to go back and to recost it. But if council war two, go with the staff recommendation. Does that mean that as part of the next steps, you would be looking at possible ways to reduce the cost from the 2. 9 million dollars

to a lower amount. Uh, through the charita council, Galler, yes, through detailed design, we will always look at, you know, are there cost savings? Uh, we will need to take into consideration the future use, whether it makes sense, uh, to actually reduce the loading of that bridge or not. Um, while we look through, uh, detailed design and value engineering. Okay. Okay. And, um, through that process, would any of that come back to counsel us information once you've done that review so that we know before the bridge reconstruction happens how much it would cost. Through the chair to Councillor Gallard? That's not something we would typically bring back. Um, if we found cost savings on any project through the value engineering, we would, we would do that. Uh, again, I go back to, we want to make sure we're designing the bridge for its future life in the best state that we can. Okay. Okay. I appreciate that. Um, and through you, Chair, one of the considerations that we have on the, um, on the cost

of this project is the timeline onto when it would actually get built. As I understand it, if we go ahead and support the staff recommendation today, we are looking at the bridge being constructed in 2028. Is that, is that correct? Through the Chair to Councillor Gola, that's correct. 2028 construction. Okay. And if we were to say, actually we are not sure about the criteria used. We want to send it back to for a re - evaluation of the criteria, because I understand we cannot choose an outcome. We have to set the criteria. And if we change secretaria, send it back for a review. When does that potentially, you know, knowing that the community as they have told us, if we send it back, there will be challenges to the, to the heritage, uh, to removing the heritage designation. When would that possibly have us looking at the construction of the bridge? Given the delays of, um, of redoing the process. Uh, through the chaired accounts of galler, if everything were to line up and all the processes to fall into place, um, and, uh, Heritage

Processes start design construction would still be planned for 2028. Again, that's if everything, uh, falls into place, uh, expected. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much for that. Thank you, Chair. Are there any other questions or comments? Okay. Councillor Caran and then Councillor Gibson. Thank Gibson and Peyton had their hands up before Councillor Gibson. Sorry. I think I did go to you first before. Thank you for your chair down and thank you to staff for clarifying that the cost of the replacement was in fact included in the demolition of the existing bridge. So that was a bit of misinformation there. I really take exception to anything that we hear at council from delegates. I did take a little exception tonight with the insistence of the hypocrisy and the hypocritical positions that were stated. And I just wanted to bring back some a little bit of corporate history. Uh, I don't have to go very far back February 25th. Of 2025 Council voted to designate the, I just looked it up on my phone. I also looked

to that heat. They voted at unanimously to designate the DM Rutherford family conservatory. On Christy Lane on the University of Guelph. Some of its steel. We are not being hypocritical. By looking at a heritage designated landmark. Looking to commemorate it moving forward. Unless we are all being hypocritical on this entire council. None of us are being hypocritical. By suggesting that we can replace the bridge and pay homage to the heritage of the site. Because we all did it a year and a half ago at the University of Wealth with the conservatory. I wanted to confirm, but I found it through the news article that we did in fact designate that, that conservatory as a heritage, um, asset. And then we also permitted for the demolition of that asset. So, um, my vote is my vote. Uh, I don't intend to rehash the entire argument from Committee of the Hall. I think I don't think any of us have changed our minds. But I think it's very important. That we reserve the word hypocrite. To only the real instances of where that occurs. This council is not being hypocritical by proposing or having differences of opinion on this asset because we have acted this way in

the past. Thanks for much. Councillor Coron. Thanks. Um. This goes back to 2004 for me. So, you know, this issue is, is something the community has been following for a long time, uh, when first designated under part four, there was a commitment to the community to restore, uh, and, and cost was minimal to, to continue the maintenance. Um, on a regular annual basis, I continued to ask about the EA and the, the process and the timelines and the designation under part five in the GID, which was most, most recent. And I, I the, the comment about hypocrisy is, is curious to me because that again, very, very different situations that there was no rehabilitation or restoration potential for the conservatory. It was a very different situation. We were not the owners and the maintenance, uh, and future use was, was certainly a different circumstance. So I don't want to use the two

as comparison. I think really this comes back to, uh, longstanding commitment to the community that we would preserve and maintain this bridge and restore it. Um, those commitments were made in 2004 along with our partners with post lunchtow, who I recall speaking with, uh, as chair of Heritage Guelph at the time, uh, conserving their heritage as well. Built between just after World War I. And I think that I don't want to talk to the heritage attributes cause that's been well articulated not only in the designation, but by previous delegates. My last comment is, um, the number of bridges we've lost. So we, we lost the truss bridge last year, the year before within the last two years. Um, Alan's bridge, uh, we voted about replacement of Allen's bridge. There's, there's very few examples where we can continue to preserve our river crossing heritage, um, and we've just spent a lot of time talking about the trail system, uh, on the GID lands and the trails that link to this bridge. So I think I really hope council supports that. I certainly, I don't want to

say that cost is not a factor, but cost was a factor in the EA as well. And our consultants looked at all of the factors, uh, together and came up with a recommendation that restoration, um, when all those factors were taken into consideration was still their recommendation. My question though is one of the questions about demolition talked about the cost of demolition being included. And I understand that that is the case. But the cost of the doing another EA in the removal of the footings is something that I would like clarification on. And then we did just have a comment about all of the, if everything goes as planned with removing heritage designations that 2028 would still be the potential date of a new bridge, but I want to also clarify that as if everything goes according to plan as in the removal of the designation, if the legal challenge to that designation, that is not a smooth transition, uh, of those processes. So if there is a legal challenge to that designation and then

the decision is upheld that it does meet part for our and part five and should be conserved. If that's the, the, the outcome of the, uh, legal challenge, where would that put us in terms of timing for, uh, reconstruction. If we have to go with option two, three years from now after ruling of the OLT. We'll pose that to staff.

Uh, through the chair, uh, to house the Corona. We do believe best estimate that, um, if there was a legal challenge to this that we would most likely lose at least a year, uh, if not potentially longer, uh, to either construction or rehabilitation should the legal result back to that. So that's our, that's our best estimate at this time on if there was a legal challenge. Okay. And then the second question, the footing, if the footings of the existing bridge have to be removed, is there additional EA work that would need to be done. Um, through the chat, Councillor Corona, the EA study assumes that, um. We'll see if we're rehabilitating the bridge. We're keeping the footings. If we're replacing the bridge, um, the new one would have a wider span. The existing footings. The assumption is that they would be kind of trimmed off at, at ground level, at grade. So we wouldn't be

excavating, removing buried structures. Um, so that's the basis of how it's being custard for the replacement options.

Do you have any other questions. No further questions. Those were just clarifications. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh, Councillor 2. Thank you through you, Madam Chair. I guess for me, like I'm just trying to be as objective with this as possible based on the numbers and the memo staff provided to us. In my opinion, there are two choices. One from an asset management lens. And maintenance leds. And the second as a design choice. Look just looking at the math from our staff. The current option is 2. 7 million dollars through rehabilitate this brutalist bridge. And there's also a 30 year light service life that's estimated. With 5, 000 dollars in annual maintenance costs. We've talked about alternative four is 1. 13 million dollars with an estimated 75 year design light. And two, And this is also less likely to be tagged up by graffiti. Both options maintained the trail connection and provide safe access. Which is what we all ultimately want than the D. And

even after accounting for the additional EA inheritage work along with the high end us spent for a potential appeal, if this were to be appealed. There's still one million dollars more in savings for the, for this contemporary SEAL trust bridge. If we were to go with that. So I think my urging to Council tonight is we let's just consider the options before us. And exercise from restraint towards our taxpayers because there are options here at the table and we don't have to go with this rection. If it were to fail. Um, so that's just my two cents. I have a feeling that everyone's, um, decisions have been made, but I just thought I'd make that case. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chu Council too Council Caden.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Chair to staff. So the medium option, if we. If we get end up in court. Is about one year, you'd said, but the maximum I had heard is about three years. Is that correct? Uh, through the chair, uh, to Councillor Caden, uh, that is correct. You know, it might take a year to, it may take up to a year to even get to court. Potentially one to three years. So, so we're anywhere from, you know, potentially a year to three or four, uh, to work through that. And then construction would be after that. So probably like six months more. To complete it. I don't know how long it would be.

Through the chair to Councillor Caden. That would be assuming that we would, uh, move ahead with, uh, detailed design while we're in that process. Uh, risking that, uh, risking the outcome. Would add an additional, most likely six to eight months of construction after that. That's correct. And during this time Stone Road in that section always has to be 40 kilometers per hour. Right. Uh, through the chair to Council Creedon, that is correct. Okay. And. And the, the high end for legal fees on this is about 300, 000 dollars. Right. If we, if we go through the two times that folks can take us to the OLT in the heritage processes. It could be about that much additional cost. Through the chair to Councillor Caden. That is the potential cause that has been provided to council. Okay. And we could lose at the OLT. We could

be told that we have to rehabilitate the bridge anyway.

Through the chair to Councillor Caden. That could be the ultimate outcome that is correct. And say we were to go through it. We go through the OLT because one of the delicates. You know, literally did court proceedings for us. So I, I just think it's, it's a likely potential. Um, so if we go through all that and we do get permission and we've done all the extra costs for the environmentalists and stuff like that, there's a habitat issue, right? This is what I heard in the last meeting is that one of the reasons that this was selected as having a better outcome is because, um, that's a natural heritage area. And we would have to be in the river in whatever habitats are there as well as dealing with stuff on the outside areas, correct?

Um, through the chatter Councillor Caeton, the overall evaluation and the natural environment criteria was quite evenly scarred across the options. Um, when you look into the details of the different like subcritaria for natural environment, there are differences. Um, it can take a look at that. If you want more information. You just mentioned the last meeting that there was habitat things and that's why one of the reasons why it was scored higher. So I was just asking if we had to demolish the bridge and then rebuild it. Uh, than if we just restore the bridge.

Through the church councillor, Caitlin, I'm just, uh, I'm just taking a look at our detailed evaluation here. So we can just to recap on the comparison between the recommended alternative to rehabilitation and their second place, uh, preferred solution of remove and replace. So the main places where the difference is, um, subcriteria number three was temporary or permanent impact on wildlife habitat. Alternative four remove and replace. Scored slightly higher. The opportunity to incorporate wildlife crossing and the new bridge. Which you don't really have the opportunity with, with the existing. And in terms of wetland, um, removed, that they, they scored the same. Um, in

those categories. Um. And I think the rehabilitation options got slightly better in terms of impacts on habitat species at risk. But really the differences are not significant between the two options. I just remembering the habitat. So I'm just glad that I remember that correctly. So. For me, it seems that we could end up spending. Three, four extra years before being able to. Get this started if we're allowed to get it started. We could do that whole amount of time. And keep everything in limbo and not have kids crossing pedestrian bridge. And then we could lose in court. We could spend 300, 000 dollars. And it just feels that because we've designated our own bridge twice. And there are a lot of risks and they're real

risks. They're not just, this is not a given that we end up getting to build that other bridge. There's other stuff involved. I think it's, um, prudent for us. I think it's. Fiscally prudent. And I think it's very conscientious of the drivers who are having to drive. Very slowly in a one area on a. Normally higher speed road. I think it's important for us to vote for the staff recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other comments, questions councillor Alt? And we do have to have at 11. I think we need a motion then, right? Okay. And then Councillor Hauser. Thank you very much, Chair. Donor, I will be supporting the staff recommendation. And I'm not going to deal with the aesthetics. Brutalism from the 1970s, not brutalism from 1916 when this bridge was built by either returning veterans from World War I or those who could not serve whatever reason is worth preserving. But what's really most important about this for me as governance. And the governance part of this that is really elemental is that if we look at the history of

Gulf putting delays on decisions to renovate, to build, to rebuild, we cost ourselves an extraordinary amount of money. And we cost it for the river on centre. We cost it for the library. We move the library as a consequence of having lost ability. We cost it for a city hall. We cost it for police station. And the list goes on. Consequently, I am not prepared at this point to defer on something that is a decision that was made long ago by another council. But I have to accept that that decision was made with the best of intentions and that our intention right now is to consider whether this bridge is worth conserving. And furthermore, recognise that the reason that this bridge was recommended to be conserved in the first place was to save money. On the span that is there right now, which I have not yet heard being factored in to any of the costs that we're talking about. I think we owe it. To those councils that came before us that recognise that they could save money. On the span there and recognise that there was value in a heritage structure from 1916,

which would recognise the veterans of World War I and others from World War I that built this and that we could honour those individuals. And whether I like the bridge or not, it's immaterial. It's about governance and it's about making common sense out of finance. Thank you, Councillor Hauser. I was close to about that, but, um. Through chair, I just wanted to remind everyone as well that, uh, like this decision was made decades ago. It has been part of the capital plan for decades. So I don't understand why it's such a question now. And this has been the plan. So that's all. It's in the budget. Is there any other questions or comments. Mayor Guthrie. Hey, thanks everyone and thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate it. Um, I just have one question and then, and then I'll ask if you want to comment or I can put me at the end or if other people wanted to go ahead and me. I don't care. My question through you is, uh, just an easy kind of yes or no. Through you to staff. Were the actual financial amounts and impacts. Known to anybody prior to when the

committee of the whole report was released.

Through you, uh, the chat who, um, three. So the, um, the Committee of the whole package and the staff report is the first time that the detailed dollar amounts of being published and shared with members of council and, you know, available for review by Council and the public. That's right. Thank you for answering it. So. Succinctly, I appreciate that. You've answered it accurately and succinctly. I appreciate it. So Madam Chair, that was my only, that was my only, uh, question. Um, so I'll leave it there. I do have comments, but I'll let you choose if I'm now or later. Go ahead now. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair, through you. Uh, so, uh, I think we all know where this might be going, which is fine. It's a good debate and a good discussion. Uh, it's not a problem. We all have differences of opinion on this. And that's totally, totally fine. You know, the, uh, first delegate mentioned it shouldn't be as simple as old bridge expensive new bridge cheap, um, well, for, for me,

it kind of is. It actually kind of is that. And I have no problem kind of hanging my hat on that. Based on my question. Which was, uh, validated by staff. Nobody knew the cost. Until the committee of the whole report came out. So, you know, for me, I don't want to go back to hanging my hat on a 2004 decision of council or even the six week ago decision of GID lands. Because we only knew about the actual costs. About a week and a half before the Committee of the whole meeting at the beginning of this month. So I just, I just can't get my head around how we should ignore. And I'm not going to ignore the cost that we didn't know before. But now we do. And for me, it's way too much. And for the people that I speak to, and I know we have different people that we all speak to, but I can tell you that this issue is

an expensive issue. And a lot of people are watching this one. This is one that many people are watching. And they think that the amount of people that I've talked to have said that this is too much money at this time. And so people might have a difference of opinion and want to land on spending it because of the heritage value. And I honour that if that's your opinion, but I'm, I'm looking at it through a different lens that it is too much money. I think the bridge is needed for the connection from one side to the other. And we can honour that history in a different way. And save a lot of money. Um, I also really appreciate Councillor Gibson. Asking the question or some commentary around the hypocrisy statement that was mentioned. That really bothered me. I must just admit that out loud right now. To me, that's not a hypocrisy issue when you don't know what the costs were. So we only knew what the costs were for the committee of the whole. So now that we are armed with that information,

I would submit that we are now making information armed fully with the right information to make decisions moving forward. Um, I also appreciate Councillor Gallar asking about whether or not the demolition costs were included and they were. So I appreciate that too. Um, and then, you know, I don't think, you know, I'm an opposite of my colleague councillor alt that we owe it back to councils from 2004. I'm sorry. I want to owe it to the taxpayers today. It's too much money. And I do not think that spending that money now on this bridge is not to me is not worth it. And I think I know where the vote is going and I fully respect that of all my colleagues, but I wanted to be on record. To say, I think this is one that's being watched. And I think that this is way too much money to spend at this time. And it's not worth it. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Councillor Chu had a question and then we're going to Council Clausen. Thank you to you, Madam Chair. Uh, just the staff. I'm just taking a close look at that matrix that

you put together. And I also see for option four that there is an opportunity for an improved wildlife crossing to be incorporated into the bridge. Can you just speak more to that? Because this is something new that I, that actually just taught my eye. That made me and sent often for a little bit more. Through the chair to Council at you. Um, yeah, any of the options that involve, um, constructing a new bridge. I'll say we have the detailed design process to determine what we want that to look like and what features it would have. So it does have that opportunity to, you know, it could be something like the shape of the, um, the beams or they underside girders have, you know, like an edging that animals can use to cross the river. It's that kind of thing. It's worse being referred to that. So there's an opportunity to scope that into the design as we get into it if we were to choose the new bridge. And just another follow - up too. I noticed that it says that the new bridge would allow for hydraulic capacity and greater ability to convey future

storm flows. What does that mean. That sounds pretty important to me, in my opinion. Yeah, through the chat accounts, Le Chew, the options with new replacement bridge would have a wider span. So you have a greater size of opening to carry river flow. So that's what is being referred to when we talk about hydraulic capacity. Okay, thank you. And I would just implore my colleagues. We have a great option. We have a great set of options before us. Let's try to be reasonable. Respectfully. Thank you. Councillor Classen. Thank you, Chair Donner. Just with respect to being reasonable. I think that, you know, we're the same council who invested three quarters of a million dollars in a hockey tournament next year. And I fully supported that. And I think is really important for the celebration of our Bicentennial to have the memorial cup hosted in Guelph. I think it's going to leave a great legacy. I am, I was supportive of that. And I continue to

be. When I look at this bridge, I also see an opportunity for legacy. I see a history of legacy already that has been put in place, whether or not you want to honour that is your decision. But I think that when we look at our assets as a city and as a council, we have to think about a long - term about what are those places? What are those things that make Guelph Guelph? And I want to hearken back to something, I think it was, I can't remember, was it Councillor Caden? Was it Ward of I deserve nice things too in Ward 1? It was that. And I think that's true. I think that's a, that was a really funny and real statement. Um, that's a piece of heritage that exists inward one. And it cannot potentially not be there next year. And I think that, you know, given the other discussions that we've had this evening around GID, that bridge serves as, and it served until very recently as an important connection point for the trails in our city. And I think if we, if we look at it that getting it back up

and online, I think it's going to immediately benefit people. It's going to return a connection where a safe connection where there was not one. And, you know, if I want to back out even further, I do see the economic benefit of having heritage assets because I see tourism and cycle tourism specifically as being something that is significant for our city. Maybe not every single day, but certainly as we expand our trail networks and connections to larger trails like the trans Canada, the GDG. I think that's something that we should certainly be considering, um, because those, those points, those connection points, heritage are not people are looking for those things. They're like, Oh, we, you know, they, they open a guidebook and they're like, Oh, there is this bridge. And that's a point of interest. Maybe we can stop and have lunch there. And if we are intentional about the maintenance and connection to the trails, I think it would be, um, it would be important, uh, and it will be important if we support it this evening. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Councillor Gibson. We're starting to circle. We are circling and that's okay. I just these, these conversations are prompting other things. Every argument that I've heard this evening through you chair

down on every argument I for this morning to restore the bridge was relevant on February 25th last year. And we voted to allow for the demolition of the conservatory at the University of Guelph. All these, all these arguments are true to this date. These are all attributes to our city that we have made decisions on in the past. And respectfully Council Chrome. I know that you declare a conflict of interest in that meeting. Thank you very much. I'll just state that the obvious, but there was an option to force the University of Guelph to restore that conservatory. He's a five million dollar quoted price from the University of Guelph, The Board of Governors came to us stating very clearly. There's a five million dollar cost to restore the conservatory to 250, We kindly request you not make us do that. And they respectfully asked us to give them a demolition permit. And we obliged. We obliged based on costs for them. So the idea that there's anything other than a policy, like anything other than an asset management decision here, we can't have it both ways. We can't talk about being affordable as a city. We're not willing to make affordable decisions. So the, the, the arguments for are the justice prudent today as they were back in February 25th when this entire Council voted

to allow a heritage designed at it. Be destroyed with some commemorative plaque attributing to it. This is the same scenario we're in. So again, not going back on the word hypocrisy, but this is a simple decision of counsel. Um, and it's not a precedent setting, uh, decision of council either. Again. Trying to be affordable. We need to make affordable decisions. Thank you. Councillor Galler. Thank you. And if you could like, we are a circling. I appreciate that. Uh, and through you two staff, I want to follow up on the question of, you know, of the amount of money and where it is coming from. So as I understand that we have the reserves for this and can you confirm when the decision is made. And if we go for the staff recommendation, does that mean that there would be no impact to the tax base because this whole coming from reserves already in place or will it mean that new taxation needs to be put into this to pay for the build? I just, from, from the response, I understand that we already have the

money set aside in the reserves for the, uh, the detail design. But can you confirm for the construction? Those that have to be allocated as part of the capital budget. Or are we drawing entirely from existing reserves that have already been collected and are sitting in the bank per se. Through the chaired accounts or galler. We had provided, uh, that information, uh, I believe. Missile Dyers here. Maybe she can come down and just, uh, a hundred percent confirm for you.

Good evening. Thanks. Uh, so through the chair, um, there's an allocation for this project in the 2027 Capitol budget. There's part of it budgeted for detail design in 2026. It's approved. And then the construction is included in the 2027 forecast. Um, as part of the 2027 budget update, we will be recommending, um, updates to the budget to work within updated reserve forecast information. Um, and so there will be some deferrals and adjustments. So there is an allocation that's sufficient right now to support any of the options that were explored through the EA process that's included in the budget. But the prioritization of projects, um, and the opportunity cost is still an important consideration for council in this decision. Okay. And thank you. And so just so that I understand when you say that there have to be the ferals. So we have money in a reserve, but if we spend the 2. 7 million dollars on this, then there's not getting built. That is already planned in the 10 year forecast. Is that right? Through

the chair, so we have a reserve forecast and the reserve forecast for capital includes tax supported and rate supported and development charge supported projects. And we prioritize all of our capital projects in alignment with that capital prioritization framework. Moving the most, most important, um, priorities of count as established by Council ahead. Um, and so the development charge collections are seriously lagging this year. And so that is the driver of the updates that will be required. So to say that there's money allocated in a reserve for this specific project is not quite accurate. If the, um, allocated in a capital reserve to support the most important capital priorities of council and will be bringing forward recommendations through the next update. Does that help clarify? It does. So this then would be competing for those resources with every other project in the billion dollars of capital by log that we have. Is that correct? Through the chair, yes, that is. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So, so just

so that I'm, I'm perfectly clear. It's not that it's going to be new tax dollars, but it's going to be that we have to shift other projects and put this one in their place. So through the chair, this one is already part of the plan. Um, so it's already part of the plan. It's just, it has to be, it will be considered in comparison with all the other projects in terms of the, um, updating of that plan. So helping this on, how could it already be part of the plan when we didn't actually know what the dollar value would be until two months ago. Through the chair. So there was an estimate and an allocation. And the engineering team can, um, speak to that in more detail and how they do that. But those, those, uh, those plans become more precise as this type of work is done. And as design progresses over time. Okay. Okay. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. I just wanted to get totally clear that we're not increasing property taxes to pay for this, but we're just prioritizing between different projects. Thank you. That is helpful. Is there anyone else? Okay. So I have a question. So in the memo where we received, so this is around the cost at

the public engagement. So the memo received has the information presented at the open house number two did not include the detailed cost estimates. But it did describe estimated relative cost for each alternative interims of high moderate and low. So was this already given to the public that this would be one of the higher cost options. Through the, through you chair to the chair to Councillor Down. Yes, that's right. So, um, we had an information board for each option. It provided the scars in each of the criteria. So it had to score for the financial criteria. And it had some notes to explain how the option compared to the others in terms of it being higher or lower. Um, yeah. So people knew at that open house that it was going to be a higher cost. The other thing, I just, I have to correct. Whether it's around hypocrisy or not around the conservatory. So I just want to correct some of the history of that because I was greatly involved. Um, so we didn't end up designating the whole building. We designated components of it

because, uh, because of it was in such bad shape. So we had to, um, we, we juice the features that were designated to the steel and certain other things. And that they were to be incorporated into, um, some design in it. So the conservatory itself was not, um. Uh, designated sort of in situ as it was that it could be rehabilitated. It was going to have to be taken apart anyway. Um, so I did want to just sort of correct that history and whether it's hypocrisy or not. I mean, the word is offensive to something. So I hear that. Uh, I would say the bridges significantly different in that it is, um, it's had a heart five and it had a part four. And it has an Ontario designation on it as well. So I'm going to go to the vote now because I'm not going to circle around anymore on this issue. Um. Are those who are opposed. Can you put up your hand.

So Mayor Guthrie, Councillor Gibson, Councillor Chu Billings and Councillor Richardson. So that. Sir, you, Madam Chair, that both carries eight to five. Right. Eight to five. So that path is motion passes. Okay. That concludes that. And now we're going to go to the Bylaws and Councillor Gibson. Would you bring forward the bylaws. Thank you very much. I was just reaching for my agenda again. Uh, that bylaws 2026 21216 2026 21241 2026 21245 2026 21249 2026 21253. 2026 21265 2026 21266 2026 21269 2026 21273 and 26 2026 21274 be approved. Subject to section 284. 11 subsection four of the municipal. And

do we have a seconder. Councillor Bussatel. Any comments questions. And you want to pose that carries. So we just made it to the, a couple of minutes before 11. We need to adjourn really fast because I have a motion to adjourn. Councillor Alt, secreted by Councillor Hauser. We are no adjourned. Thank you everybody and thank you for your patience.