Now hold a meeting that is closed to the public, pursuant to The Municipal Act…

13:12listed on the open agenda.

13:15And

13:17it is titled

13:19Corporate Cyber Security Assessment. It's under sections 2392a,

13:25the security of the property of the municipality or local board.

13:30Before I call the vote on that, is there any disclosure of pecuniary interest or any general nature there of before moving into that closed item?

13:37Don't hear any and I did get

13:40regrets for now from council Richardson just so it's noted.

13:45With that, would someone be willing to move

13:47Cron and Alt will move to go into closed on that item. Anything further on that?

13:55Nothing. I'll call the vote. Is anyone against that?

13:58Nobody. That's unanimous. Okay. We'll move into closed session on that item and come back out when we are done. Thank you

49:55All right. I'm just going to call the meeting back to order in open session and just to start with

50:00the closed meeting summary as was listed on the agenda.

50:04We went into an in-camera discussion on one topic corporate

50:08cybersecurity assessment

50:10and all that came of that was a good discussion with staff and

50:14council to brief us on that that work and we gave direction

50:19to staff and that was it.

50:22So with that, we're going to now kick off our open portion of the agenda

50:27and we're going to start by asking everyone if they're able, if they could please stand as we have our national anthem.

50:32Great. Thank you. And now just for a moment of silent reflection.

52:14Great. Thank you and our territorial acknowledgement.

52:17As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in Guelph, a city built over rich indigenous histories.

52:24We are guests here and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land, the people who live here today and the generations to come.

52:32If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude.

52:38This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically

52:46the Aniwanderach and the Holnashoni.

52:48This land is held as the treaty lands and

52:52territory with Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation

52:55and Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman tract, which is part of a long established traditional hunting grounds for the six nations of the Grand River.

53:04Many First Nations, Inuit, Métis people who have come from across Turtle Island call Guelph home today.

53:14Is there any disclosure of pecuniary interest or any general nature for the items in front of us today?

53:19Hearing and seeing none. Musical chairs time.

53:24Chair Caron is coming over here. Thank you.

53:48Thank you. We're here today bringing forward the property tax

53:52policy for 2024.

53:55It's the only item on consent

53:57for the corporate services agenda.

54:00I'll just give a brief summary and I'll ask if anyone wants to pull it. Um, as you all know, we passed a

54:05$324 million plus budget.

54:08At the end of last year, and this is the second part of that very important important process.

54:13And the three things we're doing today is we're approving the 2024 tax ratios and the tax rates.

54:19We're continuing the mandatory low income seniors and low income disabled tax relief program.

54:25And we're continuing the charitable tax rebate program. Um, for which we end budget annually. Does anyone want to pull this report?

54:35I don't see. Oh, I do. I see, uh, uh, counselor billings. Counselor Billings. The floor is yours.

54:43To you, Madam Chair, just one quick question in the report. So in 2023 and 2024 in the report,

54:51we're using the, um, medium in order to calculate the

54:56assessment whereas before that, we would always use, um, the average.

55:00So I was just wondering if staff looked at the average assessment

55:04because in the report, we have the median.

55:07So I was just wondering if staff looked at the average and if we did, is it, does that make the assessment the

55:13higher or lower

55:17for the single family detached?

55:22Okay. Turning that over to staff.

55:24Yeah, uh, through you, Chair Caron.

55:28Um, the median is the value that we

55:32have historically used the past few years. The median is the value that M pack

55:39provides municipalities and the median is the value that

55:43opt uses from a calculation perspective also.

55:48So it's historically been the median.

55:51Okay. So in 23 and 24 report, it's the medium and before that, it was the average. So I apologize.

55:58I missed it. Did you say M pack uses the medium or they use the average for assessment?

56:05M pack reports the median. Okay. Okay.

56:10Thank you.

56:13Any further questions from council?

56:16No one on screen. I'll need a mover for the report.

56:19Councillor, our work seconded by Mayor Guthrie. Oh question. Okay. Councillor, our work.

56:25Thanks.

56:26Through you, uh, chair, Cron to Mr. Crowder. Is it possible to get the number based on the average?

56:32Because I'd be curious to know that as well.

56:37It doesn't have to be today.

56:41So through you, chair, Cron, we can

56:45calculate an average of 20,000 residential properties.

56:51For sure. I don't think the average though provides sort of the correct distribution.

56:58And that's why that median is used so that median is the middle, obviously,

57:04of all properties in the range. So it won't be skewed by a property that is

57:11say $4 million, et cetera. So that medium provides that better

57:17data point from a statistical perspective.

57:20Okay. Well, that's helpful. Thank you.

57:23Further questions. I did ask if you there was a mover and acknowledged councillor

57:28work, are you willing to move the report and Mayor Guthrie willing to second? Okay.

57:33I'll call the vote then. Anyone opposed?

57:38And that carries unanimously. This concludes the corporate services committee agenda.

57:46Note by musical chairs again. Okay. We're on to public services.

58:35And we're going to talk about the private tree protection bylaw update. The key issues and options.

58:41Trees, my favorite subject. So I'm really excited to see this on the agenda.

58:46As I'm sure our staff know. So we have a presentation first and then we have one

58:51delegation and you'll see some there's also correspondence.

58:55And I think another piece of correspondence came in over the weekend. Okay. So time here.

59:09Speak up. Okay.

59:11All good. Hello everyone.

59:15Mayor and councilors, welcome to the private tree protection bylaw update.

59:24Where's my, oh sorry, where's my clicker? It's been a while since I've been here.

59:28Oh, oh, this is new. Sorry. How do I, this is new.

59:39Oh, sorry about that. This is brand new to me. All good. Okay. So

59:46the presentation today is going to be about why we're here today.

59:51The alignment of the private tree bylaw with the strategic plan,

59:56the progress and overview of the project, the key findings of the background review,

1:00:01the data analysis and community engagement, the four recommended update options for the

1:00:07private tree bylaw, the estimated potential costs and resourcing required for each option.

1:00:13And next steps to get us to a final private tree bylaw. So today specifically,

1:00:21we're here to seek support to proceed with the recommendations in the key issues and options

1:00:27report, including the four recommended options for updating the private tree bylaw, which would

1:00:34be part of the second phase of the community engagement. With regards to the city strategic

1:00:44plan, Guelph aims to be a leader in climate action. An updated private tree protection bylaw

1:00:51will help to increase the canopy cover and mitigate the impacts of climate change

1:00:55through effective regulation of the destruction and injuring of trees.

1:01:00And the effective regulation is supported by the update of the private tree bylaw.

1:01:09So we're about halfway through the update of the bylaw. We've completed the background

1:01:14research, the data analysis, the first phase of community engagement, and we're here to present

1:01:20the key issues and options report. And we're heading into the second phase of community

1:01:27engagement where we'll be looking for feedback and input on the update options.

1:01:39So the key findings of the background review of the the background review, the tree canopy data,

1:01:45and the community engagement are that Guelph's tree canopy cover provides valuable services.

1:01:51That's not new to all of us. Oops. Oops, there we go. Guelph's private tree bylaw is an important

1:01:58tool for protecting and maintaining the tree canopy cover. There are some overarching best

1:02:04practices for private tree bylaws. The current private tree bylaw is not fully resourced.

1:02:12Most of Guelph's trees are relatively small or young. It's almost 80 percent,

1:02:17or less than 20 centimeters in diameter. More than two-thirds of Guelph's canopy is on private

1:02:24land. Half of the canopy in Guelph is currently is regulated by the current private tree bylaw.

1:02:32And but expanding the scope of the private tree bylaw would potentially regulate up to 69 percent

1:02:38of the tree canopy cover. With regards to engagement with the community, there's broad support

1:02:46for the efforts to protect and preserve trees, but with differing perspectives on the approach to

1:02:52that. And lastly, there there was a lack of knowledge in the community about the private tree

1:02:58bylaw itself. So once we had the key findings, we developed a list of six screening criteria that

1:03:09we felt were transparent and demonstrated a balanced approach to evaluating different alternatives.

1:03:16And so we used these criteria to score a list of alternatives for the scope of the updated

1:03:23private tree bylaw. The six screening criteria that we ended up with was the proportion of trees

1:03:29regulated, the proportion of tree canopy cover regulated, the level of protection compared

1:03:36to the current private tree bylaw because we didn't want to end up with something that was less

1:03:41effective at regulating the canopy. Alignment with community perspectives, of course, the level of

1:03:48complexity. So we want something that's going to be easy to communicate, implement, and to understand.

1:03:54And lastly, the impact on city resources. So based on the scoring of the alternatives,

1:04:04three came out on top, and the fourth was considered as a combination of alternatives

1:04:10that were scored. So the first option being the current private tree bylaw that we're all familiar

1:04:17with, but improved with additional resourcing and some other pieces to it. Option two being similar

1:04:28in terms of the tree size, where it would still be the current tree size of 10 centimeters in

1:04:34diameter, but on lots greater than 0.1 hectares rather than 0.2 hectares of the current bylaw.