McQuillan’s Bridge Environmental Assessment be approved, and that staff be directed to issue a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Notice of Completion to rehabilitate and strengthen the…

2:31:11Those conversations have reduced the complexity of a cost-benefit analysis to a two-dimensional punch line

2:31:18old bridge expensive new bridge cheap

2:31:21In 2004 the bridge was designated under the ontario heritage act

2:31:26And was ranked third out of 60 in the report grand old bridges the grand river watershed bridge inventory

2:31:32In regards to the heritage river status of the grand river, which includes the aramasa

2:31:38The report quotes grca chair peter krauss

2:31:42The loss of one feature or value does not warrant the loss of the heritage river status

2:31:48It is the cumulative effect of the loss of many of these features

2:31:51Which would cause the canadian heritage rivers board to reevaluate the status of the grand river

2:31:58Identifying those heritage bridges bridges important to the designation

2:32:03provides a better context for consideration in this regard

2:32:07In 2013 the bridge was listed in an even more extensive grand river bridge inventory

2:32:12It ranked second in significance of 167 bridges with eight out of nine heritage act criteria

2:32:21And just yesterday june 22nd

2:32:242026 the ontario reformatory heritage conservation district bylaw took effect

2:32:31In which city council further protected mccollin's bridge as a heritage asset in the conservation district

2:32:38And that word asset is the key to this discussion and is the aspect of the cost benefit analysis that is missing

2:32:44An asset has implied value

2:32:47A stock holding is an asset in your portfolio a player is an asset to their team

2:32:52A violin is an asset to the orchestra

2:32:55But unlike those a heritage asset cannot be acquired

2:32:59It cannot be ordered from amazon hired or manufactured. It cannot be trained for or traded and it cannot not be engineered

2:33:07Heritage assets can only result literally from the test of time to be managed and valued or lost

2:33:15Suggesting a steel fabricated bridge can be sympathetic to the old design is true

2:33:20It's also kind of silly. It simply cannot replace a heritage asset

2:33:24So the decision matrix for repairing mccollin's bridge shifts from old versus new to value for money

2:33:32Yes, a new bridge gets us cross river connectivity

2:33:35But restoring mccollin's bridge gives us literally an irreplaceable asset and cross river connectivity

2:33:45Like its role in the grand river bridge inventory mccollin's bridge is an asset in the ontario reformatory hcd

2:33:52It is a thread in that fabric

2:33:54The loss of one of those threads doesn't jeopardize the hcd

2:33:57But the cumulative effect of the loss of too many of these features would be to erase the conservation district itself

2:34:04And with stone walls failing the chimney and powerhouse planned for demolition

2:34:08The greenhouses collapsed the native sun's murals peeling from the walls and the trestle bridge having been demolished just last year

2:34:15We have to ask how many more threads can be removed

2:34:18The cost benefit analysis is an important conversation and the councillor is calling for it to be examined and done well to raise it

2:34:25But for that analysis to be meaningful it must account for all benefits

2:34:30In regards to cost there is another element of the conversation that is raised

2:34:34The staff report refers to the canadian highway bridge code standards

2:34:39Kate berry in the engineering department has been very helpful in helping me navigate this aspect of the discussion

2:34:46But the short version is that the restoration as presented

2:34:49Restores mccollin's bridge to be capable of carrying a five-axle transport truck

2:34:55On the other hand there is a standard for pedestrian bridges which does not anticipate heavy vehicle loading

2:35:00And if cost is truly the issue then I would suggest investigating the benefit of restoring mccollin's bridge to canadian standards association

2:35:08as seven specifications

2:35:11In missing the heritage value of the bridge

2:35:14And not investigating the pedestrian standards for a potentially less expensive option

2:35:19These conversations have been missing the bridge for the bridge work. Thank you

2:35:24Thank you. Are there any questions of the delegate?

2:35:30Seeing none. Thank you. Mr. Scarab. The second one. Thank you

2:35:37The second one is uh james smith

2:35:40Good evening and uh, thank you for the opportunity

2:36:03Thank you for the opportunity. My name is james smith and I want to thank city staff

2:36:07For the recommendation to restore the mccollin's bridge and for the committee of the whole for accepting these recommendations

2:36:14I respectfully urge council to ratify the decision of the committee of the whole

2:36:20So i'm here is something of a reverse mark anthonies funeral oration as i'm here to praise the bridge and not bury it

2:36:29um last week I missed the

2:36:32Lancaster snowbirds fly by in hamilton and my connection with the Lancaster

2:36:39And the appreciation appreciation of it is a based part on my wife's great uncle

2:36:44An rcaf's youngest wing commander who died in action at the controls of one and as a kid growing up in atobico

2:36:51We had a neighbor who was also a lank pilot who had worked for the avro company

2:36:58I think both men's would both men would be pleased to know a lancaster is being preserved in air weirdly condition

2:37:04although i'm sure

2:37:06Like many of us they would have loved to have seen at least one version of the avro arrow

2:37:12preserved as well

2:37:14I raised the parallel between these historic aircraft and their preservation or lack thereof

2:37:19In this context in part due to the unique wing like design arch

2:37:25Design of the arches of the mcclellan bridge, but also to underscore how pennywise and pound foolish decisions

2:37:33often

2:37:34Can

2:37:35Similar to the loss of the avro arrow lead to sincere sense of loss in years to come

2:37:41If they're not retained used and kept in working conditions

2:37:45I appreciate the difference in cost between replacement and restoration and as counsel your responsibility to be prudent with our finances

2:37:54Respectfully, I contend that replacement versus restoration cost difference is not as simple as one would have you believe

2:38:01replacement only achieves one outcome a bridge

2:38:06Restoration of mcclellan's bridge achieves five additional outcomes

2:38:11preservation of a heritage asset as we approach our bicentennial illustrates consistency and leadership on the heritage file that's really part of

2:38:20golf's brand

2:38:22Two it honors the overwhelming view of the citizens who participated in the engagement process

2:38:29number three it avoids a reconsider of motion as

2:38:34We heard earlier mcclellan's bridge status under part five of the heritage act has just been passed

2:38:41Four as renovations can begin quite quickly compared to a new bridge design and construction

2:38:48restoration reconnects a safe trail crossing of the aramosa in a more timely fashion

2:38:54And number five it retains the upfront carbon in the existing structure

2:39:01And if you're not familiar with the concept, I'd be happy to answer some questions about that in conclusion

2:39:07Given the rarity and significance of mcclellan's bridge

2:39:10There may be opportunity to access funds from upper levels of government to accomplish this renovation

2:39:17I respectfully submit that value engineering may also be undertaken to reduce possible costs

2:39:24As was mentioned earlier. I heard

2:39:28Reducing the standard to a pedestrian bridge rather than a highway bridge

2:39:34As architect author and tmu professor of design loyte alter has written generally renovations versus new construction

2:39:42have two 80 20 rules

2:39:45renovation projects tend to be weighted 80 towards labor and 20 towards material

2:39:52so renovation will help

2:39:55employ people more than a

2:39:58replacement

2:39:59The other 80 20s rule is canadian content

2:40:03Generally speaking according to to professor alter

2:40:09A renovation project will have

2:40:12A much greater amount of canadian content compared to a

2:40:19New bridge

2:40:21Respectfully, I urge council to ratify the decision of the committee of the whole

2:40:26Thank you

2:40:28Thank you. Are there any questions for the

2:40:32Seeing none, thank you very much. Thanks for the opportunity

2:40:36I would call upon alexander smith now

2:40:51Madam chair, mayor guthrie and members of council

2:40:54I come before you to plead for the life of my hypothetical client mcquillan's bridge

2:41:00I've pled a great many cases during my professional career

2:41:04But this is my first capital case where the very life of my client is at stake

2:41:10You're about to vote on whether to demolish mcquillan's bridge and bury it in a landfill

2:41:16mcquillan's bridge has served us well for 110 years

2:41:20embodying the the tradition from horse drawn vehicles to motorized forms of transportation

2:41:26And is an important link to the city's pattern of growth and development

2:41:31For the last two decades mcquillan's bridge has served as an act of transportation crossing of the armosa river

2:41:39Serving a vital connection for hiking and cycling trails in the city's east end

2:41:46How the city how has the city responded to 110 years of faithful service?

2:41:52It has not spent a dime to maintain the structural integrity of the bridge limiting spending to

2:41:59minor maintenance issues including litter cleanup brush cleanup and routine bridge

2:42:05bridge inspections

2:42:07In other words the city's maintenance policy for mcquillan's bridge has been demolition by neglect

2:42:15The heritage value of mcquillan's bridge is well documented

2:42:20This council last confirmed on May the 12th of this year when it passed a bylaw that formally designated

2:42:28the Ontario reformatory heritage conservation district under part five of the

2:42:33Ontario heritage heritage act and recognize mcquillan's bridge as a heritage attribute that supports the cultural heritage value

2:42:41or interest of that hcd

2:42:45And to quote and I quote the bylaw ensure that heritage assets are not diminished

2:42:52Or run the risk of

2:42:54demolition as a result of neglect

2:42:57I

2:42:58Rhetorically asked those counselors who are considering voting to demolish mcquillan's bridge

2:43:05Are you not concerned about the hypocrisy of voting to safeguard a heritage asset and then a mere six weeks later

2:43:14Voting to demolish it

2:43:16Do you not care about the thousands of taxpayers dollars the process to clear the way for demolition of a designated heritage asset will cost

2:43:27The staff report estimates

2:43:29The design and construction costs for option two to be 2.9 million dollars

2:43:35The design and construction costs for option four to be two or sorry 1.2 million

2:43:42It is clear. I submit that the 1.2 million dollar figure is nowhere near the actual cost to replace mcquillan's bridge

2:43:51First of all, it doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of dollars

2:43:54required to demolish and dispose of mcquillan's bridge

2:43:58More significantly the staff report for the emma url pedestrian bridge

2:44:03Estimated the cost of designing and building a single spute steel span for that project to be 3.23 million dollars

2:44:13in

2:44:152020 construction prices

2:44:17How can it be that the city's estimate for an 81 foot single steel span bridge emma url

2:44:24was 3.23 million in 2020

2:44:29Whereas the estimate for a 70 foot single spills steel span for stone road is only 1.2 million

2:44:38dollars

2:44:39in

2:44:40Sorry in 2026

2:44:43I have no idea what the actual cost to replace mcquillan's bridge will be

2:44:48But I respectfully submit neither do you we all know it will be much greater than 1.2 million

2:44:56In my respectful submission

2:44:58council should do the right thing

2:45:01And rehabilitate mcquillan's bridge as the staff as your staff recommend

2:45:07Giving the people of guelph not just a way to get across the river

2:45:12But also preserving a significant heritage landmark for future generations. Those are my respectful submissions

2:45:21Thank you. Are there any questions?

2:45:26Seeing none, thank you. Thank you. Thank you and thanks to your patients too

2:45:30Um

2:45:32Okay, so we'll go to the if we could put the motion down and then we'll go to questions

2:45:40Somebody put the

2:45:44Pass somebody. Okay

2:45:46Could I have a mover?

2:45:48At councillor classon seconded by council coran

2:45:53Are there any questions of staff?

2:45:57Councillor gollard

2:46:00Thank you and to your chair, donor

2:46:03Perhaps before I get into my questions, there were a couple of statements made by the last

2:46:08Delegated if I could just have clarity on that on the

2:46:13The price and the distance between the two bridges that were mentioned so just so that we could understand

2:46:18Um, what the difference between the cost of the emma to arrow versus the mcquillan bridge

2:46:24Proposal for a steel option

2:46:30Through you chair to the councillor. Okay, so

2:46:33Um

2:46:34to L bridge is a span of 81 meters

2:46:38The total project cost to date is five point one million dollars for that bridge

2:46:45It's a steel girder bridge with a concrete deck

2:46:49The type of construction

2:46:50It's on piled foundations and so in contrast to the recommended solution for mcquillan's bridge the rehabilitated

2:46:57Uh reinforced concrete boasting that has a span of 21 meters. So it's about a quarter of the span

2:47:05um

2:47:06And the estimate at this stage in the ea study is 2.7 million

2:47:11construction

2:47:14And you would also like the

2:47:16alternative for

2:47:18Replace with steel

2:47:19Yeah, so for that one, it's assuming a prefabricated steel truss on concrete footings

2:47:26Um, it would have a longer span

2:47:28Um, it would be we'd do a longer span bridge than the existing

2:47:33So it'd be around 35 to 40 meter spans about half of the emma to arrow span

2:47:39And that the estimate for that one is 1.13 million dollars in this ea study

2:47:47Thank you and that estimate it does include the demolition cost as well as the rebuild

2:47:51That's correct. All of the options that require removal of the existing include for that

2:47:57Okay. Okay. Thank you for that. Um, you did mention the the cost of the the staff recommendation which is to

2:48:05Strengthened and to to rebuild the cement bridge

2:48:09Now a couple of the delegates they mentioned this

2:48:12That that it would to rebuild it up to the standard for vehicle traffic

2:48:17But that there were alternate standards

2:48:19Is it possible that as part of the process you could look to

2:48:23Rebuild it to a pedestrian standard for a lower cost?

2:48:29Through you chair to councillor goller

2:48:32Um, yeah, so if I can just elaborate on that a little bit. So this ea study we've used

2:48:37This csa s6 code loading code

2:48:41We've used the same loading for all six options

2:48:44For consistency and that assumes that the bridge will support pedestrians and maintenance vehicle loading

2:48:51Um, this is really a conservative and a consistent approach for us to use to costing and comparing the options

2:48:58And it ensures that we can use vehicles to maintain the structure, you know for sweeping cleaning processes

2:49:06the um

2:49:07The alternative loading that was mentioned the pedestrian loading. It's called csa s7

2:49:13It is a lighter loading class

2:49:16Um, it would just mean that the bridge would not be used by any vehicles whatsoever

2:49:21um

2:49:23It could result in some cost savings. We think they would be minimal for the

2:49:28rehabilitation solution

2:49:30um

2:49:32For this stage of work at ea study, we've we've used the more conservative approach. We've applied it consistently if we were to

2:49:40Use the lighter loading case for the rehabilitation. We would also apply that to the other options too. So you could see

2:49:47um

2:49:48Cost savings for all of the options we'd keep, you know, we'd look to keep that consistency

2:49:54um

2:49:55so

2:49:57We have we don't propose to um, we wouldn't recommend

2:50:00So changing the loading case that we're using at this ea study stage

2:50:04But it's certainly something that we would look at as part of our regular value engineering once we get into detailed design

2:50:11Work in the future. Okay. So so through you chair for the purposes of tonight

2:50:17Not to ask you to go back and to recost it but

2:50:20If council were to go with the staff recommendation

2:50:24Does 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

2:50:32to a lower amount

2:50:36Through the chair to councillor Goller. Yes through detailed design, we will always look at, you know, are there cost savings?

2:50:42We will need to take into consideration the future use

2:50:46whether it makes sense

2:50:48to actually

2:50:50Reduce the loading of that bridge or not

2:50:54While we look through

2:50:56Detailed design and value engineering

2:50:58Okay, okay, and um through that process would any of that come back to council us?

2:51:04information once you've done that review so that

2:51:07We know before the the bridge reconstruction happens. How much it would cost

2:51:15Uh through the chair to council galler that that's not something we would typically bring back

2:51:21If we found cost savings on any project through the value engineering we would

2:51:26Do that

2:51:27Again, I go back to we want to make sure we're designing the bridge for its future life in the best state

2:51:34That we can okay. Okay. I appreciate that

2:51:38and and through you chair

2:51:40One of the considerations that that we have on the

2:51:44On the cost of this project is the timeline until when it would actually get built as I understand it if we

2:51:51Go ahead and support the staff recommendation today. We are looking at the bridge being constructed in

2:51:582028 is that is that correct or

2:52:03Through the chair to council galler. That's correct 2028 construction construction. Yeah, and and if we were to say

2:52:10actually

2:52:11We are not sure about the criteria used

2:52:13We want to send it back to for a reevaluation of the criteria because I understand

2:52:18We cannot choose an outcome

2:52:20We have to set the criteria and if we change the criteria send it back for a review

2:52:25When does that potentially you know knowing that the community as they have told us if we send it back

2:52:31There would be challenges to the to the heritage

2:52:34To removing the heritage designation

2:52:36When would that possibly have us looking at the construction of the bridge if given the delays of

2:52:44Of redoing the process

2:52:49Through the chair to council galler if everything were to line up and and all the processes to fall into place

2:52:57and

2:52:59Heritage processes start design

2:53:02construction would it would still be planned for 2028 again, that's if everything

2:53:07Falls into place

2:53:10as expected

2:53:12Okay, okay. Thank you very much for that. Thank you chair

2:53:17Are there any other

2:53:19Questions or comments? Okay, council caron and then council gibson

2:53:25Thank gibson and hate and had their hands up before you council gibson. Sorry. I think I did go to you first before

2:53:33Thank you through you chair downer and thank you to staff for clarifying that the the cost of the replacement was in fact

2:53:40included in the demolition of the

2:53:43Existing bridge. So that was a bit of misinformation there. I really take exception to

2:53:47Anything that we hear at council from delegates. I did take a little exception tonight with the

2:53:52insistence of the hypocrisy and the hypocritical positions that

2:53:57were stated

2:53:59And I just wanted to bring back some a little bit of corporate history

2:54:04I don't have to go very far back

2:54:06February 25th

2:54:08of 2025

2:54:10Council voted to designate the I just looked it up on my phone council looked to death

2:54:15He they voted unanimously to designate the dm. Rutherford family conservatory

2:54:19On christie lane on the university of wealth and then immediately voted to demolish it and preserve some of its steel

2:54:26We are not being hypocritical by looking at a heritage designated landmark

2:54:32Looking to commemorate it moving forward unless we are all being hypocritical on this entire council

2:54:38None of us are being hypocritical by suggesting that we can replace the bridge and pay homage to the heritage

2:54:44Of the site because we all did it a year and a half ago at the university wealth with the conservatory

2:54:50I wanted to confirm but I found it through the news article that we did in fact designate that

2:54:56that

2:54:56Conservatory as a heritage

2:54:59asset and then we also permitted for the demolition of that asset

2:55:03so

2:55:05My vote is my vote. I don't intend to rehash the entire argument from committee the whole

2:55:10I think I don't think any of us have changed our minds, but I think it's very important

2:55:15That we reserve the word hypocrite

2:55:18So only the real instances of where that occurs

2:55:21This council is not being hypocritical by proposing or having differences of opinion on this asset because we have acted this way in the past

2:55:29Thanks for English

2:55:34council caron

2:55:39Thanks

2:55:41This goes back to 2004 for me

2:55:44So, you know, this issue is is something the community has been following for a long time

2:55:50When first designated under part four there was a commitment to the community to restore

2:55:55And and cost was minimal to to continue the maintenance

2:56:01On a regular annual basis, they continued to ask about the ea and the the process and the timelines

2:56:08uh and uh and and the designation under part five in the gid which was most most recent and I I

2:56:16The the comment about hypocrisy is is curious to me because the again very very different situations that there was no

2:56:25Rehabilitation or restoration potential for the conservatory. There was a very different

2:56:32situation we were not the owners

2:56:34And and the maintenance and future use was was certainly a different circumstance

2:56:40So I don't want to use the two as comparison

2:56:42I think really this comes back to a long standing commitment to the community that that we would preserve and maintain this bridge and restore it

2:56:51Those commitments were made in 2004 along with our partners with the post-lynch township who I recall

2:56:58speaking with as chair of heritage wealth at the time about

2:57:02conserving their heritage as well

2:57:04because it's built between just after world war one

2:57:08and

2:57:10I think that I don't want to talk to the heritage attributes because that's been well articulated

2:57:14Not only in the designation but by previous delegates

2:57:18my last comment is

2:57:21The number of bridges we've lost so we we lost the tress bridge last year year before within the last two years

2:57:27um allen's bridge

2:57:29we voted um about

2:57:31replacement of allen's bridge

2:57:34there's there's very few examples where we can continue to

2:57:39preserve our river crossing heritage

2:57:43And we've just spent a lot of time talking about the trail system

2:57:47On the gid lands and the trails that link to this bridge. So I think I really hope council supports that

2:57:53I I certainly I don't want to say that cost

2:57:57Is not a factor but cost was a factor in the ea as well and our consultants looked at all of the factors

2:58:04together and came up with a recommendation that restoration

2:58:08When all those factors were taken into consideration was still their recommendation

2:58:14My question though is one of the the the um questions about

2:58:19demolition

2:58:21talked about the cost of demolition being included and I understand that that is the case

2:58:26but the cost of the in of doing another ea

2:58:30in the um removal of the footings is something that I would like clarification on and then we did just have a

2:58:38comment about

2:58:40all of the if everything goes as planned with removing heritage designations that 2028 would still be the

2:58:47Potential date of a new bridge, but I want to also clarify that is if everything goes

2:58:55According to plan as in the removal of the designation if there's a legal challenge to that designation that is not a smooth transition

2:59:03Of those processes. So if there is a legal challenge to that designation

2:59:07And then the decision is upheld that it does meet part four and part five

2:59:12And it should be conserved if that's the the the outcome of the legal challenge

2:59:18Where would that put us in terms of timing for?

2:59:22Reconstruction if we have to go with option two three years from now after a ruling of the ol team

2:59:30We'll pose that to staff

2:59:43through the chair

2:59:45to house the current

2:59:48We do believe the best estimate that

2:59:51um

2:59:52If if there was a legal challenge to this that we would most likely lose at least a year

2:59:59If not potentially longer

3:00:02to either

3:00:04construction or

3:00:05rehabilitation

3:00:07Should the legal outcome result back to that?

3:00:12So that's our best estimate at this time

3:00:15On if there was a legal challenge

3:00:20Okay, and then the second question does the the footing if the footings of the existing bridge have to be removed

3:00:26Is there additional ea work that would need to be done?

3:00:32um

3:00:33through the chair to councillor cloran the the ea study assumes that um

3:00:40Obviously if we're rehabilitating the bridge, we're keeping the footings if we're replacing the bridge

3:00:45Um, the new one would have a wider span the existing footings

3:00:49The assumption is that they would be kind of trimmed off at at ground level at grade

3:00:54So we wouldn't be excavating removing varied structures

3:00:59um, so that's the basis of how it how it's been uh, costed for their

3:01:05replacement options

3:01:18Do you have any other questions?

3:01:19No further questions. Those were just clarifications. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Okay, uh, councillor to

3:01:28Thank you through you madam chair

3:01:31I guess for me like i'm just trying to be as objective with this as possible based on the numbers and the memo the staff provided to us

3:01:38They're in my opinion. There are two choices one from an asset management lens

3:01:44And maintenance lens and the second as a design choice

3:01:47Look just looking at the math from our staff the current option is 2.7 million dollars to rehabilitate

3:01:54This brutalist bridge and there's also a 30 year light service life. That's estimated

3:02:01with

3:02:02$5,000 in annual maintenance costs

3:02:05And then the other option which we've talked about alternative four is 1.13 million dollars

3:02:12with an estimated 75 year design life

3:02:15and two

3:02:17$2,000 annual maintenance costs

3:02:20And this is also less likely to be tagged up by graffiti

3:02:24Both options maintain the trail connection and provide safe access

3:02:28Which is what we all ultimately want than the day

3:02:32And even after accounting for the additional ea and heritage work along with the high end estimate for potential appeal

3:02:40If this were to be appealed

3:02:43There's still one million dollars

3:02:46More in savings for the for this contemporary

3:02:49Steel trust bridge if we were to go with that

3:02:52So I think my urging to council tonight is we let's just

3:02:57consider the options before us

3:03:00and exercise some restraint towards our taxpayers because

3:03:04There are options here at the table and we don't have to go with this recommendation

3:03:09if it were to

3:03:10fail

3:03:12So that's just my two cents. I have a feeling that

3:03:15everyone's

3:03:17Decisions have been made, but I just thought I'd make that case

3:03:19Okay, thank you. Mr. Chu. Councillor Chew

3:03:23Councillor Caden

3:03:25Thank you through you madam chair to staff

3:03:34So the the medium option if we

3:03:39If we end up in court

3:03:44Is about one year you'd said

3:03:46but

3:03:47The maximum I had heard is

3:03:51Is about three years

3:03:54Is that correct?

3:03:58Through the chair

3:03:59to councillor Caden

3:04:01That is correct. You know, it might take a year to

3:04:05It may take up to a year to even get to court and then it could take potentially one to three years

3:04:10So so we're anywhere from, you know, potentially a year to to three or four

3:04:16to work through that

3:04:18And then construction would be after that so probably like six months more to complete it

3:04:24I don't know how long it would be

3:04:29Through the chair to council Caden

3:04:32That would be assuming that we would move ahead with a detailed design

3:04:39While we're in that process

3:04:42risking that

3:04:44Risking the outcome

3:04:46Would add an additional most likely six to eight months of construction after that. That's correct

3:04:52And

3:04:54During this time stone road in that section always has to be 40 kilometers per hour, right?

3:05:02Through the chair to council Caden that is correct. Okay, and

3:05:10And the the high end for legal fees on this is about 300 thousand

3:05:17dollars, right if we if we go through the two

3:05:21times that folks can take us to the OLT

3:05:25In the heritage processes

3:05:27It could be about that much additional cost

3:05:35Through the chair to council Caden that is the potential cost that has been provided to council

3:05:42Okay, and we could lose at the OLT we could be told that we have to rehabilitate the bridge anyway

3:05:52Through the chair to council Caden that that could be the ultimate outcome. That is correct

3:05:59And

3:06:00Say we were to go through it

3:06:02We go through the OLT because one of the delegates, you know

3:06:06Literally did court proceedings for us. So I I just think it's it's a

3:06:11Some likely potential

3:06:15So if we go through all that and we do keep permission and we've done all the extra costs for the environmentalists and stuff like that

3:06:21There there's a habitat issue, right? This is what I heard in the last meeting is that one of the reasons that this was

3:06:28selected as having having a better outcome is because

3:06:34That's a natural heritage area

3:06:36And we would have to be in the river

3:06:38In whatever habitats are there as well as dealing with stuff on the outside areas, correct?

3:06:53Through the chair to councillor Caden the

3:06:56the overall evaluation and the natural environment criteria was quite

3:07:01evenly scored across the options

3:07:04um

3:07:05When you look into the details of the different like sub criteria for natural environment, there are differences

3:07:12um, I can take a look at that if

3:07:14um, if you want more information

3:07:18You just mentioned in the last meeting that there was habitat

3:07:21Things and that's why one of the reasons why it was scored higher. So I was just asking

3:07:27If we had to demolish the bridge and then rebuild it

3:07:31There's going to be more of a footprint

3:07:35Than if we just restore the bridge

3:07:42through uh through the chair to councillor Caden. I'm just uh, I'm just taking a look at our

3:07:48detailed evaluation here

3:07:51um

3:07:52So we can just to recap on the comparison between

3:07:57the recommended alternative to rehabilitation and the

3:08:01uh, second place our preferred solution of remove and replace

3:08:07um

3:08:08So the main yeah the main places where there's a differences

3:08:12um

3:08:13Sub criteria number three was temporary or permanent impact on wildlife habitat

3:08:19um alternative for remove and replace

3:08:22um

3:08:23scored slightly higher

3:08:26um

3:08:29That was the opportunity to incorporate wildlife crossing in the new bridge

3:08:37And um, which you don't really have that opportunity with with the existing

3:08:43um

3:08:45and in terms of wetland

3:08:48um

3:08:50Removed that they they they scored the same

3:08:53In those categories

3:08:56um

3:08:59And I think the rehabilitation option score slightly better in terms of impacts on

3:09:05habitat of species at risk

3:09:08Um, but really the the differences are not significant between the two options

3:09:13I was just remembering the habitat. So I'm just glad that I remember that correctly

3:09:18um

3:09:21So

3:09:23For me

3:09:25It seems that

3:09:27We could end up spending

3:09:30three four extra years before being able to

3:09:33um

3:09:35Get this started if we're allowed to get it started we could do that whole amount of time

3:09:40And keep everything in limbo and not have kids crossing

3:09:45a pedestrian bridge and

3:09:49Then we could lose in court we could spend 300 000 and then we've saved nothing and

3:09:57It just feels that because we've designated our own

3:10:02Bridge twice

3:10:05And there are a lot of risks and they're real risks

3:10:08They're not just is it not a given that we end up getting to build that other bridge. There's other stuff involved

3:10:15I I think it's um prudent for us. I think it's

3:10:20Fiscally prudent and I think it's very conscientious of the drivers who are having to drive

3:10:26Very slowly in a one area on a

3:10:29Normally higher speed road

3:10:32I think it's important for us to vote for the staff recommendation. Thank you

3:10:38Thank you. Are there any other comments?

3:10:42Questions counselor alt and we do have to have a at 11

3:10:47I think we're we need a motion then right? Okay, so and then counselor how's her? Thank you very much chair

3:10:54Downer I will be supporting the staff recommendation and I'm not going to deal with the aesthetics brutalism from the 1970s

3:11:02Not brutalism from 1916 when this bridge was built by either returning veterans from

3:11:09From world war one or those who could not serve for whatever reason is worth preserving

3:11:15But what's really most important about this for me is governance

3:11:18And the governance part of this that is really elemental is that if we look at the history of wealth putting delays on

3:11:24Decisions to renovate to build to rebuild

3:11:28We cost ourselves an extraordinary amount of money

3:11:31And we cost it for the riverrun center. We cost it for the library

3:11:35We move the library as a consequence of having lost a building. We cost it for a city hall

3:11:40We cost it for a police station and the list goes on

3:11:44Consequently, I am not prepared at this point

3:11:48To defer on something that is a decision that was made long ago by another council

3:11:54But I have to accept that that decision was made with the best of intentions and that our to attend our intention right now

3:12:02Is to consider whether this bridge is worth conserving?

3:12:05And furthermore recognize that the reason that this bridge was recommended to be conserved in the first place

3:12:11Was to save money

3:12:14On the span that is there right now

3:12:16Which I have not yet heard being factored in to any of the costs that we're talking about

3:12:21I think we owe it

3:12:23To those councils that came before us that recognized that they could save money

3:12:29On the span there and recognize that there was value in a heritage structure from 1916

3:12:35Which would recognize the veterans of world war one and others from world war one that built this

3:12:40And that we could honor those individuals and whether I like the bridge or not. It's immaterial

3:12:46It's about governance and it's about making common sense out of finance

3:12:51Thank you councillor hauser

3:12:54I was close to about that but um

3:12:58Through you chair, I just wanted to remind everyone as well that uh

3:13:01Like this decision was made decades ago. It has been part of the capital plan for decades

3:13:06So I don't understand why it's such a question now and this has been the plan

3:13:10So that's all

3:13:12Yeah, that's it's in the budget. Is there any other questions or comments?

3:13:17Mayor Guthrie

3:13:20Hey, thanks everyone and thank you madam chair appreciate it

3:13:23um

3:13:24I just have one question and then and then I'll ask if you want to

3:13:28Comments or I can go put me at the end or if other people want to go ahead and me. I don't care

3:13:33My question through you is just an easy kind of yes or no

3:13:37um through you to staff

3:13:40Were the actual financial

3:13:43amounts and impacts

3:13:46Known to anybody prior to when the committee

3:13:50Of the whole report was released

3:14:06through you

3:14:08the chair to

3:14:10mega three

3:14:11so the um

3:14:13The committee of the whole package and the staff report is the first time that the the detailed dollar amounts have been

3:14:20published and shared shared with members of council and

3:14:25You know available for review by council and the public. That's right. Thank you for answering it. So

3:14:32Succinctly I appreciate that

3:14:34You've answered it accurately and succinctly. I appreciate it. So madam chair. Oh, that was my only

3:14:40That was my only uh question

3:14:43Um, so I'll leave it there. I do have comments, but I'll let you choose if I'm now a leader

3:14:48Go ahead now

3:14:51Okay, thank you madam chair through you. Um

3:14:54So, uh, I think we all know where this might be going which is fine

3:14:58It's a good debate and a good discussion. Uh, it's not a problem

3:15:03We all have differences of opinion on this and that's totally totally fine

3:15:08You know the uh first delegate mentioned it shouldn't be as simple as

3:15:13Old bridge expensive new bridge cheap

3:15:17Um, well for for me it kind of it

3:15:21It actually kind of is that and I I have no problem kind of hanging my hat on that

3:15:26um based on my question

3:15:29Which was just validated by staff

3:15:33Um

3:15:35Nobody knew the costs

3:15:37Until the committee of the whole report came out

3:15:41So, you know for me

3:15:43I don't want to go back to

3:15:47Hanging my hat on a 2004 decision of council or even the six week ago decision of gid lands

3:15:55Because we only knew about the actual costs

3:16:01About a week and a half before the committee of the whole meeting at the beginning of this month

3:16:06So I just I just can't get my head around how we should ignore and I'm not going to ignore

3:16:14The costs that we didn't know before

3:16:17But now we do and for me it's way too much

3:16:21And for the people that I speak to and I know we have different people that we all speak to

3:16:27But I can tell you that this issue

3:16:32Is an expensive issue

3:16:34And a lot of people are watching this one

3:16:39This is one that many people are watching

3:16:42And they think that the amount of people I've talked to have said

3:16:47That this is too much money at this time

3:16:51And so people might have a difference of opinion and want to land on spending it because of the heritage value

3:16:58And I honor that for if that's your opinion

3:17:01But I'm I'm looking at it through a different lens that it is too much money

3:17:07I think the bridge is needed for

3:17:10The connection from one side to the other

3:17:13And we can honor that history in a different way

3:17:17And save a lot of money

3:17:21I also really appreciate

3:17:23Councillor Gibson

3:17:25Asking the question or some commentary around the hypocrisy statement that was mentioned

3:17:31That really bothered me. I must just admit that I'm loud right now

3:17:35To me, that's not a hypocrisy issue when you don't know what the costs were

3:17:39So we only knew what the costs were for the committee of the whole

3:17:44So now that we are armed with that information

3:17:46I would submit that we are now making information armed fully with the right information to make decisions moving forward

3:17:54Um, I also appreciate Councillor Goller asking about whether or not the demolition costs were included and they were

3:18:02So I appreciate that too

3:18:04Um, and then I you know, I I don't think I you know

3:18:07I'm a opposite of my colleague

3:18:10Councillor Allt that we owe it back to councils from 2004

3:18:15I'm sorry. I want to owe it to the taxpayers today. It's too much money

3:18:21And I I do not think that spending that money now on this bridge

3:18:27It is not it to me is not worth it

3:18:30And I think I know where the vote is going and I fully respect that of all my colleagues

3:18:34But I wanted to be on record

3:18:36To say I think this is one that's being watched

3:18:40And I think that this is way too much money to spend at this time and it's not worth it. Thank you

3:18:47Thank you. Uh, councillor Chew had a question and then we'll go to councillor Plassen

3:18:53Thank you through you madam chair. Just the staff. I'm I'm just

3:18:57Taking a close look at that matrix that you put together and I also see for option four that

3:19:04There is an opportunity for an improved wildlife crossing

3:19:08uh to be

3:19:09Put incorporated into the bridge

3:19:11Can you just speak more to that because this is something new that I that actually just caught my eye that

3:19:17Made me and sent

3:19:19option four a little bit more

3:19:25Through the chair to councillor Chew. Um, yeah, any of the options that involve

3:19:30Constructing a new bridge

3:19:32I'll see we have the detailed design process to

3:19:35Determine what we want that to look like and what features it would have so it does have that opportunity to

3:19:40You know, it could be something like the the shape of the

3:19:44The beams are they underside girders have

3:19:48You know, like an edging that animals can use to to cross the river is it's that kind of thing

3:19:53It's what's being referred to there

3:19:56So there's an opportunity to add into the design as we

3:20:00Get into if we were to choose the new bridge and I just another follow-up too

3:20:05I noticed that it says that the new bridge would allow for greater hydraulic capacity

3:20:11Uh and greater ability to convey future storm flows. What does that mean?

3:20:18That sounds pretty important to me in my opinion

3:20:23Yeah, yeah through through the chair to councillor Chew

3:20:27Um, the options with a new replacement bridge would have a wider span

3:20:31So you have a greater size of opening for to carry river flow. So that's what is being

3:20:38Referred to when we talk about hydraulic capacity

3:20:42Okay, thank you and I would just implore my colleagues. We have a great option. We have a great set of options before us

3:20:50let's

3:20:51Try to be reasonable

3:20:53Respectfully, thank you

3:20:57councillor Plassen

3:21:00Thank you chair downer

3:21:02Just with respect to being reasonable. I think that um, you know, we're the same council who invested three quarters of a million dollar

3:21:10dollars in a hockey tournament next year

3:21:14And I fully supported that and I think is really important for the celebration of

3:21:20Our bicentennial to have the memorial cup hosted in Guelph. I think it's going to leave a great legacy

3:21:25I am I I was supportive of that and I continue to be when I look at this bridge

3:21:31I also see an opportunity for legacy. I see a history of legacy already that has been put in place

3:21:38Whether or not you want to honor that is your decision

3:21:41But I I think that when we look at our assets as a city and as a council, we have to

3:21:48think about

3:21:51A long term about what are those places? What are those?

3:21:55Those things that make Guelph Guelph and I want to harken back to something

3:21:59I think it was I can't remember. Was it council or katin? Was it was it ward?

3:22:05Ward five deserve we deserve nice things too in ward one

3:22:08It was that and and I think that's true

3:22:11I think that's like that was a really funny and and and and real statement

3:22:17That's the piece of heritage that exists in ward one and it it cannot potentially not be there next year

3:22:23And I think that you know given the other discussions that we've had this evening around gid that that bridge serves as and it served until very recently

3:22:34As an important connection point for the trails in our city

3:22:37And I think if we if we look at it that getting it back up and online

3:22:41I think it's going to immediately benefit people

3:22:44it's going to return a connection where a safe connection where there was not one and

3:22:50You know if I want to back out even further

3:22:52I do see the economic benefit of having heritage assets because I see

3:22:57tourism and cycle tourism

3:23:00specifically as being something that is significant for our city maybe not every single day but certainly as we

3:23:07expand our trail networks and

3:23:09Connections to larger trails like the trans canada the g to g

3:23:14I think that's something that we should we should certainly be considering

3:23:17Because those those points those connection points heritage are not people are looking for those things

3:23:21They're like oh, we you know they they open a guidebook and they're like oh there is this bridge

3:23:25And that's a point of interest maybe we can stop and have lunch there

3:23:28And if we are intentional about the maintenance and connection to the trails, I think it would be

3:23:33Um, it would be important, uh, and it will be important if we support it this evening

3:23:40Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else?

3:23:43councillor gibson

3:23:45We're starting to circle

3:23:47We are circling and that's okay. I just these these conversations are prompting other things

3:23:52Every argument that I've heard this evening through you chair down every argument

3:23:55I've heard this morning to restore the bridge was relevant on february 25th last year

3:24:00Well, we voted to allow for the demolition of the conservatory at the university of guelph

3:24:05All these all these arguments are true to this day. These are all

3:24:09Attributes to our city that we have made decisions on in the past

3:24:12And you're respectfully cats councillor grove. I know that you declare a conflict of interest in that meeting

3:24:16Thank you very much. I'll just state that the obvious but there was an option to force the university of guelph to restore that

3:24:22Conservatory is a five million dollar quoted price from the university of guelph

3:24:26The board of governors came to us stating very clearly

3:24:29There's a five million dollar cost to restore the conservatory to 250 000 annual maintenance fee

3:24:35We kindly request you not make us do that

3:24:39And they ricks they respectfully asked us to give them a demolition permit

3:24:43And we obliged we obliged based on cost for them

3:24:47So the idea that there's anything other than a policy like anything other than an asset management decision here

3:24:55We can't have it both ways. We can't talk about being affordable as a city if we're not willing to make affordable decisions

3:25:00so the the

3:25:02The arguments for are the justice prudent today as they were back in february 25th when this entire council voted to allow

3:25:09A heritage designated asset be destroyed with some commemorative plaque attributing to it

3:25:15This is the same scenario where so again not going back on the word hypocrisy, but this is a simple decision of council

3:25:22And it's not a precedent setting decision of council either again

3:25:27Trying to be affordable need to make affordable decisions. Thank you

3:25:31Councillor goller

3:25:35Thank you, and if you could like we are certainly I I appreciate that

3:25:40And through you to staff I I want to follow up on the question of you know

3:25:44Of the the amount of money and where it is coming from

3:25:48So as I understand it we have the reserves for this. Can you confirm?

3:25:53when

3:25:55The decision is made and if we go for the the staff recommendation

3:26:00Does that mean that there would be no impact to the tax base because this is all coming from reserves already in place

3:26:08Or will it mean that new taxation needs to be

3:26:13Put into this to pay for the build

3:26:15I just from from the the response. I understand that we already have the money set aside in the reserves for the

3:26:24The detailed design, but can you confirm for the construction?

3:26:27Those that have to be allocated as part of the capital budget or are we drawing entirely from

3:26:35existing reserves that have already been

3:26:38Collected and are sitting in in the bank per se

3:26:45through the chair to councillor goller

3:26:48We had provided that information. I believe

3:26:55Missal Dwyer is here. Maybe she can come down and just 100 confirmed for you

3:27:11Good evening. Thanks. Uh, so through the chair

3:27:15The there is an allocation for this project in the 2027 capital budget

3:27:20There's part of it budgeted for detailed design in 2026 that's approved

3:27:24And then the construction is included in the 2027 forecast

3:27:29As part of the 2027 budget update, we will be recommending

3:27:34Updates to the budget to work within updated reserve forecast information

3:27:39And so there will be some deferrals and adjustments

3:27:42So there is

3:27:43An allocation that's sufficient right now to support any of the options that were explored through the EA process

3:27:50That's included in the budget

3:27:52but the prioritization of projects

3:27:56And the opportunity cost is still an important consideration for council in this decision

3:28:02Okay, and thank you. So just so that I understand when you say that there have to be the referrals

3:28:07So we have money in a reserve, but if we spend the

3:28:132.7 million dollars on this

3:28:16Then there's something else that is not getting built that is already planned in the tenure forecast. Is that right?

3:28:23Through the chair, um, so we have a reserve forecast and the reserve forecast for capital includes

3:28:31tax supported and rate supported and development charge supported projects

3:28:35And we prioritize all of our capital projects in alignment with that capital prioritization framework moving the most most important

3:28:44priorities of count as established by council ahead

3:28:48and so the

3:28:50development charge

3:28:52collections are

3:28:53seriously lagging

3:28:55This year and so that is the driver of the updates that will be required

3:29:00So to say that there's money allocated in a reserve for this specific project is not quite accurate

3:29:07If there's money

3:29:09Allocated in a capital reserve to support the most important capital priorities of council

3:29:14And we'll be bringing forward recommendations through the next update. Does that help clarify?

3:29:20It does so this then would be competing for those resources with every other

3:29:26project in the the billion dollars of

3:29:28Capital backlog that we have is that correct?

3:29:31Through the chair. Yes, that is

3:29:34Okay, okay. Thank you. And so so just so that i'm perfectly clear

3:29:38It's not that it's going to be new tax dollars, but it's going to be that

3:29:42We have to shift other projects and and put this one in their place

3:29:48So through the chair this one is already part of the plan

3:29:52So it's already part of the plan. It's just it has to be it will be considered in

3:29:57comparison with all the other projects in terms of the

3:30:01Updating of that plan so so I understand how could it already be part of the plan when we didn't actually know what the dollar value

3:30:08Would be until two months ago

3:30:12Through the chair. So there was an estimate and an allocation and the engineering team can

3:30:17Speak to that in more detail and how they do that but those those

3:30:22Plans become more precise as this type of work is done and as design progresses over time

3:30:27Okay, okay. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. I just wanted to get totally clear that that we're not

3:30:34Increasing property taxes to pay for this, but we're just prioritizing between different projects. Thank you. That is helpful

3:30:42Is there anyone else okay, so I have a question

3:30:47So in the memo we received so this is around the cost at the public engagement

3:30:52So the the memo receives as the information presented at the open house number two did not include the detailed cost estimates

3:31:00But it did describe estimated relative costs for each alternative in terms of high

3:31:05Moderate and low so was this already given told to the public that this would be one of the higher cost options

3:31:15Through the through you chair to the chair

3:31:18To counselor down. Yes, that's right. So

3:31:22We had an information board for each option it provided

3:31:27The the scores in each of the criteria

3:31:29So it had to score for the financial criteria and it had some notes to explain

3:31:34How the option compared to the others in terms of it being higher or lower

3:31:38Yeah, so people knew at that open house that it was going to be a higher cost

3:31:42The other thing I just I have to correct

3:31:46Whether it's around hypocrisy or not around the conservatory

3:31:50So I just want to correct some of the the history of that because I was greatly involved

3:31:56So we didn't end up designating the whole building. We designated components of it

3:32:02because

3:32:05Because of it was in such bad shape. So we had to

3:32:10We reduced the features that were designated to the steel and certain certain other things

3:32:18And that they were to be incorporated into

3:32:21Some design in it. So the conservatory itself was not

3:32:25um

3:32:29Designated sort of in situ as it was that it could be rehabilitated at what was going to have to be taken apart anyway

3:32:36um, so I did want to just sort of correct that history and whether it's hypocrisy or not. I mean it

3:32:43The word is offensive sometimes to something so I I hear that I would say the bridge is

3:32:49significantly different in that it is

3:32:53um

3:32:54It's had a part five and it had a part four and it has an Ontario designation on it as well

3:33:01So I'm going to go to the vote now because I'm not going to circle around anymore on this issue

3:33:07um

3:33:11Are those who are opposed?

3:33:13Can you put up your hand?

3:33:17so mayor guthrie

3:33:19counselor gibson counselor chu

3:33:22counselor billings and counselor richardson

3:33:26so that is

3:33:30Through you madam chair that book carries eight to five five eight to five so that path this motion passes

3:33:38Okay, that concludes that and now we're going to go to the bylaws and counselor gibson

3:33:44Would you bring forward the bylaws?

3:33:50Thank you very much. I was just reaching for my agenda again

3:33:54The bylaws 2026 21216

3:33:582026 21241 2026 21245

3:34:032026 21249 2026 21253

3:34:09uh 2026 21265 2026 21266

3:34:142026

3:34:1621269 2026 21273 and 26 2026 21274 would be approved

3:34:24subject to section 284

3:34:272111 subsection 4 of the municipal

3:34:30law

3:34:31And do we have a seconder?

3:34:34Councillor busichail

3:34:35any comments questions

3:34:38Anyone opposed that carries so we just made it to the

3:34:44A couple of minutes before 11

3:34:47We need to adjourn really fast because I have a motion to adjourn

3:34:50Counselor all seconded by counselor how is her we are no adjourned. Thank you everybody and thank you for your patience