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…

2:59:44We have four items for discussion this afternoon

2:59:47and we are starting first with McQuillan's Bridge.

2:59:53We have a staff presentation as well

2:59:56as presentations from members

2:59:58of our Heritage Advisory Committee.

3:00:00And what I will say is that we know

3:00:04we have staff recommendations.

3:00:06We know I've heard of some alternatives as well.

3:00:09It's a bit of a complicated matter.

3:00:11So first what we're going to do

3:00:13is go to staff presentations

3:00:15and then we will get the recommendation on the floor

3:00:20and have a discussion

3:00:22and see how things progress from there.

3:00:24So I'd like to invite staff to start their presentation.

3:00:29And we have, well, I see Kyle Gibson

3:00:33stepping up to the podium.

3:00:36Welcome, Kyle.

3:00:41Welcome and good afternoon, Mayor Guthrie,

3:00:44members of council.

3:00:46My name is Kyle Gibson.

3:00:47I'm the acting general manager

3:00:49of engineering and transportation services.

3:00:52We are pleased to be here today

3:00:54to present the McQuillan's Bridge environmental assessment.

3:00:57At 110 years old, McQuillan's Bridge

3:00:59has been a feature of our municipal infrastructure

3:01:02and has served Guelph residents and businesses

3:01:05for multiple generations.

3:01:07Engineering staff have made the decision

3:01:09to close McQuillan's Bridge in January of 2025

3:01:12following a routine structural condition assessment

3:01:15that determined the bridge was no longer able

3:01:18to support public use.

3:01:21To support community access in the area,

3:01:23city staff established a temporary pedestrian route

3:01:26along Stone Road East by installing concrete jersey barriers

3:01:30and by reducing the speed limit on Stone Road East

3:01:33down to 40 kilometers per hour.

3:01:35These temporary measures will remain in place

3:01:38until a solution for McQuillan's Bridge can be implemented.

3:01:43Due to the findings of the condition assessment,

3:01:45the public use of the area and the urgency needed

3:01:48to identify a solution to move forward,

3:01:51the EA for McQuillan's Bridge was moved ahead

3:01:53in work plans to be completed as quickly as possible.

3:01:58This in conjunction with the Stone Road

3:02:00and Victoria Road EA.

3:02:03At this time, I'll now turn it over to Cape Erie,

3:02:05the city's project manager,

3:02:07to walk you through the environmental assessments,

3:02:09findings and results.

3:02:23McQuillan's Bridge is located in Ward 1

3:02:25south of Stone Road East at the Eremosa River.

3:02:28The land in this area, the floodplain and valley lands

3:02:31of the river have been inhabited by indigenous peoples

3:02:34for thousands of years, is located within the treaty lands

3:02:37of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation

3:02:39and forms part of the city's natural heritage system.

3:02:44The study areas were located entirely

3:02:46within the Grand River watershed

3:02:47and lands regulated by Grand River Conservation Authority.

3:02:52The bridge was built in 1916 and carried vehicle traffic

3:02:55over the Eremosa River for more than 80 years

3:02:57until Stone Road East was realigned

3:03:00and a new road bridge was constructed alongside in 2004.

3:03:05The aerial photo on this slide shows

3:03:07the arched McQuillan's Bridge in the foreground

3:03:10and the largest Stone Road East bridge in the background.

3:03:14The 2002 Stone Road East environmental assessment

3:03:19sought to address the problem

3:03:21that McQuillan's Bridge did not have capacity

3:03:23to carry increasing vehicle traffic.

3:03:26The recommendation of the 2002 environmental assessment

3:03:30was that the road should be realigned

3:03:32and McQuillan's Bridge should be maintained

3:03:34in its existing position to protect its heritage value.

3:03:38Subsequently, McQuillan's Bridge was designated

3:03:41as a cultural heritage resource by City Council in 2004.

3:03:46Following the realignment of Stone Road East in 2004,

3:03:50McQuillan's Bridge served as a pedestrian river crossing route

3:03:52for recreational use,

3:03:55providing an important link

3:03:56in the local third-party trail system

3:03:59used by hikers, cyclists, community groups

3:04:02and educational institutions.

3:04:05In parallel with this study today,

3:04:07a Schedule C environmental assessment is currently underway

3:04:10to identify improvements for Victoria Road South

3:04:13and Stone Road East

3:04:14and is expected to be completed by the end of this year.

3:04:18The preliminary results of that EA

3:04:19have been taken into consideration

3:04:21as part of the McQuillan's Bridge study.

3:04:28McQuillan's Bridge is a single span

3:04:30concrete boasting arched truss bridge

3:04:33and is both an early example

3:04:34and now a rare survivor of this structural form.

3:04:38Due to its age, the bridge is more vulnerable

3:04:40to corrosion from weather

3:04:42and from the many years of road salt use.

3:04:45Structural maintenance has generally been limited

3:04:48to wingwall repairs in 1992,

3:04:51vertical member repairs in 1995

3:04:53and regular structural inspections.

3:04:56A detailed condition assessment was undertaken

3:04:59in October 2025 to inform this EA study work.

3:05:04The condition of the bridge is characterized

3:05:06as paw condition

3:05:08and the photos on this slide

3:05:09exhibits some of the key issues.

3:05:12These include exposed and crowding steel reinforcement

3:05:14and bearing plates

3:05:16and cracking and overturning in the wingwalls.

3:05:19Overall, the arches are in fairer condition

3:05:21than the deck and the hangers.

3:05:27A problem statement was developed

3:05:29to identify the challenge

3:05:30that the EA process needed to resolve.

3:05:32It defines the scope of the project

3:05:34and sets a benchmark to be used

3:05:36in the evaluation of alternative solutions.

3:05:39The problem statement developed for this EA study

3:05:42is to identify a solution from McQuillan's Bridge

3:05:45that allows for safe use by pedestrians

3:05:47and non-motorized transportation

3:05:49and that minimizes environmental, cultural

3:05:51and social impacts while maintaining

3:05:54the bridge's cultural heritage value

3:05:56in accordance with bylaw 2004-17357,

3:06:00to the extent possible.

3:06:03This problem statement reflects the feedback gathered

3:06:05through the community engagement for this study.

3:06:12In proximity to the study area

3:06:14is the Guelph Junction Railway line to the west,

3:06:17the Unveterra reformatory lands to the north

3:06:21and to the south is the Barber Scout Camp.

3:06:24There are several existing trail connections

3:06:25within the study area

3:06:27shown on the map on the left of this slide.

3:06:30The existing hiking trails shown

3:06:33are operated by the Guelph Hiking Trail Club

3:06:36and are not part of a city installed

3:06:38and maintained trail system.

3:06:40The trails are frequented by numerous community user groups.

3:06:45The north-south hiking trail

3:06:46on the east side of the river from York Road

3:06:49is shown in blue on the map.

3:06:51It passes under Stone Road and uses McQuillan's Bridge

3:06:54to cross over the river and connect

3:06:56to the north-south hiking trail

3:06:58on the west side of the river, which is shown in orange.

3:07:02The two hiking trails are included

3:07:03in the city's trail network mapping.

3:07:05The Guelph Trail Master Plan recognises

3:07:07that third-party trails are an important piece

3:07:10of the greater Guelph Trail Network.

3:07:14The Guelph Innovation District Secondary Plan

3:07:16identifies the need for a river crossing at this location

3:07:19to support the future city trail network,

3:07:22shown on the map on the right side of this slide.

3:07:26McQuillan's Bridge connects the existing hiking trail

3:07:29on the east side of the Oramosa River

3:07:31to the future Stone Road to Cooksmo Road Trail,

3:07:35which has been identified as a priority project

3:07:38in the Guelph Trail Master Plan.

3:07:41This desired connection was discussed

3:07:42with city's park and trail development team

3:07:45and trail user groups and is planned

3:07:47as a future city trail segment.

3:07:54Key natural features within the study area

3:07:56include the Oramosa River and its floodplain and valley lands,

3:07:59the Oramosa Springs Creek

3:08:00provincially significant wetland complex,

3:08:03areas of significant woodlands, cool water fish habitat,

3:08:07and species that risk bat habitat.

3:08:10The Oramosa River together with the Speed River

3:08:12are the primary ecological linkages

3:08:15within Guelph's natural heritage system.

3:08:18Most of the study area is below the floodplain elevation

3:08:21and is regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority.

3:08:24The abutments of the existing bridge

3:08:26are positioned within the river channel.

3:08:29This restricts the hydraulic capacity of the river

3:08:31and also affects fluvial processes

3:08:34including sediment transport and erosion.

3:08:38The hydraulic performance of the site

3:08:39is also affected by the downstream Stone Road Bridge.

3:08:43I'll now hand over to Jack Marlon,

3:08:45the city's heritage planner,

3:08:46to speak about the cultural heritage.

3:08:54Thank you, Kate.

3:08:56As was mentioned, City Council designated

3:08:59McQuillan's Bridge in 2004 under part four

3:09:02of the Ontario Heritage Act.

3:09:04Last month, Council further protected the bridge

3:09:07under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act

3:09:09by including it as an attribute

3:09:11of the Ontario Reformatory Heritage Conservation District.

3:09:17The bridge spans the Oramosa River,

3:09:19which was designated as a Canadian Heritage River in 1994.

3:09:24The bridge and the surrounding landscape

3:09:26is considered a significant heritage resource

3:09:29in the city of Guelph.

3:09:31It is known as McQuillan's Bridge

3:09:33because of its proximity to the lots queered

3:09:35and farmed by the McQuillan family.

3:09:38The bridge seen today replaced an older wooden bridge

3:09:41and was constructed in 1916 by Charles Mattiani,

3:09:44a local contractor and a native of Northern Italy

3:09:47who built over 50 bridges in the region.

3:09:51McQuillan's Bridge is the only example

3:09:53of a concrete bowstring truss form

3:09:55within the city of Guelph

3:09:57and is one of only a few remaining examples

3:09:59of this type in the country.

3:10:03As part of this EA, a cultural heritage report

3:10:06and a heritage impact assessment were completed

3:10:08and reviewed by heritage planning staff

3:10:10and the Heritage Advisory Committee.

3:10:14Restoration of the bridge will require a conservation plan

3:10:17to ensure that preservation of the bridge

3:10:19abides by conservation best practice

3:10:22and that heritage attributes are not impacted

3:10:24or are minimally impacted during restoration.

3:10:28The conservation plan will be reviewed

3:10:30by heritage planning staff

3:10:32and shared with the Heritage Advisory Committee.

3:10:37Any significant changes to the heritage attributes identified

3:10:40in the designation bylaw will require a heritage permit

3:10:44which will involve review by staff and the Heritage Committee

3:10:48and approval by the general manager

3:10:49of planning and building.

3:10:52If removal and replacement become necessary,

3:10:55an application to demolish the bridge

3:10:57would need to be submitted to heritage planning

3:11:01for review by staff and consultation

3:11:03with the Heritage Advisory Committee.

3:11:06In accordance with sections 34 and 42

3:11:09of the Ontario Heritage Act,

3:11:11council would have 90 days to consult

3:11:13the Heritage Advisory Committee

3:11:15and approve or refuse a demolition application.

3:11:19If all attributes of the bridge were removed,

3:11:21council would have to repeal the designation bylaw

3:11:24and amend the Ontario Reformatory

3:11:26Heritage Conservation District bylaw.

3:11:29I will now hand it back to Kate.

3:11:42Okay, so given the age of the McEwen's Bridge

3:11:45and its known cultural heritage value,

3:11:47an environmental assessment is required

3:11:49under provincial regulations

3:11:50to guide decision making for the structure.

3:11:54We have followed the municipal class

3:11:56environmental assessment process

3:11:57for Schedule B bridge projects.

3:12:00We have moved through these phases at an accelerated pace,

3:12:03recognizing the need to reach a decision

3:12:05both quickly and carefully.

3:12:07Phase one began with the development

3:12:09of the problem opportunity statement

3:12:10and a public open house in November 2025.

3:12:13This was followed by phase two,

3:12:15evaluating options to identify a preferred alternative,

3:12:19including a second public open house in February this year.

3:12:22We're now at the point of preparing

3:12:24the project file report for public review.

3:12:27Following an approval of the recommended solution

3:12:29by council, the notice of completion will be filed

3:12:32with the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks.

3:12:35This will trigger a 30 day public review period

3:12:38after which the environmental assessment

3:12:40will be considered complete

3:12:42and the project can move forward

3:12:44to the implementation phase.

3:12:49Extensive internal and external consultations

3:12:52have taken place to determine

3:12:53the preferred approach from McEwen's Bridge.

3:12:56Through two public open house events and online engagement,

3:12:59we have heard from residents and community groups,

3:13:02including the Guelph Trail User Committee,

3:13:04the Guelph Outdoor School

3:13:06and the Guelph Historical Society.

3:13:08Through the public engagement activities,

3:13:11we heard concern about the condition of the bridge,

3:13:14interest in preserving the heritage value of the bridge

3:13:17and support for its value as a trail connection

3:13:20across the river.

3:13:22The project team established consultation opportunities

3:13:25with First Nations partners in accordance

3:13:27with the requirements of the municipal class

3:13:29environmental assessment, all city policies

3:13:32and best practices and direction

3:13:35from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment,

3:13:37Conservation and Parks.

3:13:39Consultation included issuing project notification letters,

3:13:43offering meetings to discuss the project

3:13:45and providing copies of relevant reports for review,

3:13:48including a stage one archeological assessment.

3:13:52No significant technical concerns

3:13:54have been identified at this stage of the project.

3:13:57Further engagement and coordination

3:13:59with First Nations will be undertaken

3:14:01throughout the detailed design work.

3:14:04The project team received feedback

3:14:06on the EA preliminary findings

3:14:08from the Heritage Advisory Committee

3:14:10and the Planning, Environment and Water Advisory Committee.

3:14:13We also integrated feedback from internal staff

3:14:17and from review agencies,

3:14:18including the Grand River Conservation Authority

3:14:21and relevant Ontario government ministries.

3:14:29So six alternative solutions were identified

3:14:31from McQuillan's Bridge,

3:14:32and these were presented for feedback

3:14:34as part of the consultation and engagement work.

3:14:37Alternatives which would not meet

3:14:39modern safety and durability requirements

3:14:41were not considered.

3:14:43Alternative one is the do nothing scenario,

3:14:46which we always include in an EA study as a default option.

3:14:49Under this scenario, the existing bridge

3:14:51would continue to age in place

3:14:53and would eventually deteriorate to the point of collapse.

3:14:56This alternative has a lifespan of zero years.

3:15:00Alternative two, rehabilitate and strengthen

3:15:02would preserve the main bridge elements.

3:15:05It would involve reconstructing the bridge elements

3:15:07that have low concrete cover

3:15:09and upgrading the barriers to meet modern design codes.

3:15:13This may alter the appearance of some bridge elements,

3:15:16such as the thickness of vertical members

3:15:18or the height of the railing.

3:15:20This alternative has an estimated lifespan of 30 years.

3:15:25Alternative three encompasses rehabilitating

3:15:28the bridge arches and replacing the deck

3:15:31with a new steel bridge

3:15:32that would sit between the two arches.

3:15:35Under this alternative,

3:15:36the arches would no longer support life loads

3:15:39and would serve a primarily decorative function.

3:15:42In terms of lifespan, it's a hybrid.

3:15:44The estimate is 30 years for the rehabilitated arches

3:15:48and 75 years for the new bridge deck.

3:15:53Alternative four would involve removing the existing bridge

3:15:56and replacing with a prefabricated steel bridge.

3:15:59This alternative has an estimated lifespan of 75 years.

3:16:04Alternative five would replace the existing bridge

3:16:07with a new concrete bowstring arch structure.

3:16:10This alternative also has an estimated lifespan of 75 years.

3:16:14And finally, alternative six would involve removing the bridge

3:16:18and widening the adjacent stone road bridge

3:16:21to provide the river crossing

3:16:22for people walking and cycling.

3:16:24This alternative has an estimated lifespan of 50 years

3:16:27because the existing road bridge is currently 20 years old.

3:16:33As mentioned earlier in the presentation,

3:16:35the city is undertaking a Schedule C

3:16:37environmental assessment for improvements

3:16:40to stone road east adjacent to McQuillan's Bridge.

3:16:43The preliminary findings of the stone road EA

3:16:46have been taken into consideration

3:16:47in the valuation of the alternative solutions

3:16:50for McQuillan's Bridge.

3:17:01So the alternative solutions were compared

3:17:03using natural, cultural, social, financial

3:17:06and technical criteria.

3:17:09Equal weighting was applied to the evaluation categories.

3:17:12No category was prioritized

3:17:14as more important than any other.

3:17:18The evaluation process determined that alternative one,

3:17:21do nothing, should not be carried forward

3:17:23because it did not meet the problem statement

3:17:25and scored poorly for other criteria.

3:17:29Alternatives two, three, four, five and six

3:17:33all met the problem statement and were closely ranked.

3:17:36The alternatives vary in lifespan

3:17:38and that has been taken into consideration

3:17:40in the financial evaluation.

3:17:43I'll highlight some of the key considerations

3:17:45in the scoring for each of the alternatives.

3:17:48Alternative two, rehabilitate and strengthen,

3:17:51scored highest overall in the evaluation.

3:17:54It would preserve more of the heritage features,

3:17:57the designated heritage features of the bridge

3:17:59than any other alternative solution

3:18:02and would maintain trail connectivity.

3:18:04Alternative two has limited opportunities

3:18:06for natural environment improvements

3:18:09and scored lower for financial and technical criteria

3:18:13due to the higher capital costs, shorter lifespan

3:18:16and the complexity of the rehabilitation work.

3:18:19The second highest ranked alternative solution

3:18:22was alternative four, remove and replace

3:18:26with a prefabricated steel truss.

3:18:29The new bridge with a wider span

3:18:30would increase hydraulic capacity for river flow.

3:18:33This alternative offers the most economical solution

3:18:37but would result in the complete loss

3:18:38of the heritage structure.

3:18:41Alternative three, rehabilitate arches,

3:18:44incorporating a new bridge was ranked third overall.

3:18:48Although it would protect the appearance

3:18:49of the main heritage attributes,

3:18:52it would not preserve the full functionality of the arch

3:18:54and has higher costs, shorter lifespan

3:18:57and higher technical complexity.

3:19:00Alternative five, remove and replace

3:19:03with a concrete boasting arch was ranked fourth overall.

3:19:07Although the wider span

3:19:09would increase hydraulic capacity for river flow,

3:19:12this alternative had the second highest overall costs

3:19:16and would result in the complete loss

3:19:18of the heritage structure.

3:19:21The last ranked alternative was alternative six,

3:19:24remove the bridge and widen the adjacent bridge.

3:19:26This alternative presents an opportunity

3:19:29for naturalization of the area

3:19:30and would increase hydraulic capacity.

3:19:33However, alternative six would result

3:19:35in the complete loss of the heritage structure

3:19:38and the trailer user experience would be lower quality

3:19:41due to the grade changes and the proximity to road traffic.

3:19:48So based on that evaluation,

3:19:50the recommended solution from a Quillen's Bridge

3:19:53is alternative two, rehabilitate and strengthen

3:19:56with an estimated project cost of $2.9 million

3:19:59for detailed design and construction

3:20:01and a design life of 30 years.

3:20:04A feasibility study will be required

3:20:06when the bridge is nearing the end of the 30 years

3:20:09to determine future options.

3:20:11Maintenance of the rehabilitated structure

3:20:14is estimated at $5,000 per year

3:20:17for annual cleaning of the structure,

3:20:19routine inspections and periodic concrete repairs

3:20:23and seal and replacement during the remaining service life.

3:20:26The bridge is considered a recreational asset

3:20:30and as such will not receive winter maintenance

3:20:32consistent with the connecting hiking trails.

3:20:36The preferred alternative solution

3:20:38carries technical risks that will need to be managed

3:20:40throughout design and construction.

3:20:42Rehabilitation requires complex design analysis

3:20:45and repair work and involves significant risk

3:20:48to bridge stability during construction.

3:20:52Staging of the construction will be critical

3:20:54to successful rehabilitation.

3:20:56Design engineers and contractors

3:20:58with Heritage Bridge experience are recommended.

3:21:02The scope of work and costs for rehabilitation

3:21:05will increase as the structure continues to deteriorate.

3:21:09The scope of work identified for this recommended solution

3:21:13is valid until September, 2028.

3:21:16After which time the condition of the existing structure

3:21:19and the scope of rehabilitation work

3:21:21would need to be reassessed.

3:21:24Staff will develop an interim maintenance plan

3:21:26for the existing structure

3:21:27to be implemented for the duration of the period

3:21:29until construction starts.

3:21:32The findings of this EA will be confirmed

3:21:35through additional investigations as part of detailed design.

3:21:39If the preferred alternative solution

3:21:41becomes unviable for any reason,

3:21:43the EA study identifies second and third

3:21:46preferred alternatives.

3:21:48These alternatives address the problem statement,

3:21:51but overall were ranked lower than the recommended solution.

3:21:55I'll now hand back to Kyle to conclude the presentation.

3:22:05Thank you, Kate and Jack for that.

3:22:08So the next steps for completing the EA

3:22:10and moving forward to implementation will include,

3:22:14hopefully here today, Council's approval

3:22:15to finalize the project file report

3:22:18and to submit a notice of completion

3:22:20with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks,

3:22:24known as the MECP.

3:22:26The MECP will allow for a 30 day public review

3:22:30following the findings

3:22:31during which the public may comment

3:22:33on the recommended solution.

3:22:36In parallel with the EA completion process,

3:22:39we'll turn our attention to moving forward

3:22:41with detailed design work.

3:22:44This will involve completing a preliminary design work

3:22:47and procuring services for the detailed design

3:22:50with the intentions of undertaking construction in 2028.

3:22:56So today, along with our staff, Kate, Jack and Jennifer,

3:23:01we have invited our consultants from RJ Burnside Associates

3:23:06who are also here to help respond to any questions.

3:23:10So we have our consulting engineer, Jeremy Cober

3:23:13and our consultant environmental planner,

3:23:17Michelle Rizwan, should we have questions for them.

3:23:20And with that, we'd like to conclude our presentation.

3:23:23Next, I'll pass it over to members

3:23:26of our Heritage Advisory Committee,

3:23:29Piper Boyd-Bell and David Camilletti.

3:23:33Thank you.

3:23:34Oh, sorry, thank you, Kyle.

3:23:37I just, before we move forward

3:23:39with the members of our Heritage Advisory Committee,

3:23:42I just wanted to make a note that I did receive notice

3:23:44from Councillor Gibson that he would be called in

3:23:47for this portion of the meeting.

3:23:49And so I just wanted to state that publicly

3:23:52and check in with Councillor Gibson if he's there.

3:23:55And next up to the podium will be David Camilletti.

3:24:00Who's with us here in person?

3:24:10Good afternoon, members of council.

3:24:12I'm David Camilletti.

3:24:13I'm a member of the wealth Heritage Advisory Committee.

3:24:18I just wanted to give a brief background

3:24:20and my colleague Piper will give more of a,

3:24:24looking at the actual details.

3:24:26But Heritage, the Heritage Advisory Committee

3:24:29gave a lot of thought to this very important question.

3:24:34And ultimately we did come up with supporting option two

3:24:38with option three as our backup.

3:24:41What's important, but we'd like to bring to your attention

3:24:46is what the process seems to be,

3:24:49what other communities seem to be doing

3:24:51in this type of situation.

3:24:54The structure that we're dealing with,

3:24:55it's a reinforced, it's technically,

3:24:59it's called a reinforced concrete bow string

3:25:02or truss construction of a bridge.

3:25:05And these were really popular in the 1920s, the 1930s.

3:25:09And what we were very interested to find

3:25:14is that there's a few,

3:25:16there are these types of bridges

3:25:18where they are in surrounding communities.

3:25:21For example, the best example is in London,

3:25:24there's a bridge called the Black Friars Bridge.

3:25:29It was built in 1875.

3:25:31And it was designated by the London Heritage Committee in 1992.

3:25:39And approximately the same amount of time

3:25:42after this designation as we're appearing,

3:25:45that's happening here in roughly 2013,

3:25:50there was a lot of deterioration noticed on the bridge.

3:25:53And what the city of London did

3:25:55was engaged in a rehabilitation project

3:25:59that took a number of years.

3:26:00But rather than replace it,

3:26:02they decided to work with the heritage aspects

3:26:05and with the practical side of preserving the structure

3:26:12and the heritage attributes as much as possible.

3:26:16There was between 2013 and 2017.

3:26:19Now we're 10 years roughly beyond that.

3:26:22But the cost of that was approximately three million.

3:26:26Our neighboring city, Kitchener,

3:26:28has something called the Freeport Bridge.

3:26:30That was built in 1926

3:26:33and designated as a heritage property in 2001.

3:26:39In the past couple of years,

3:26:40they're just a little bit ahead of us.

3:26:42They have looked at rehabilitation as well

3:26:47and it's been decided that they are going to engage

3:26:51in repairing as much of the heritage properties

3:26:54and attributes as they can and preserving that as well.

3:26:58Now the cost for that,

3:27:00which is going to take place between 2027 and 2028,

3:27:05is approximately five million.

3:27:07Brantford, another neighboring city,

3:27:10has something called the Brant Boat String Bridge,

3:27:14built in 1931, designated in 2006.

3:27:18That's probably going to be the next city

3:27:21that's going to have to experience

3:27:23a project like you are experiencing.

3:27:28So what I wanted to do and bring to your attention

3:27:31is that for this type of rare property,

3:27:35the municipalities that have been dealing with this before us

3:27:39are taking the approach that being recommended

3:27:43by the Guelph Heritage Advisory Committee and your staff.

3:27:46So it's a very, what we're asking you to do

3:27:51is not unique.

3:27:54It seems to be what other communities are doing

3:27:56for this rare and very significant type of historical attribute.

3:28:02So I'll hang around for any questions as well, Piper,

3:28:07but I'm going to invite my colleague to address you virtually.

3:28:13Thank you very much, Mr. Camilletti.

3:28:16Do we have Piper Boyd Bell online?

3:28:20Yeah, thank you.

3:28:21Can everyone hear me okay?

3:28:24Yes.

3:28:26Thank you.

3:28:27So in January, the Heritage Advisory Committee

3:28:29had the privilege of receiving a very similar presentation

3:28:32on the environmental assessment of McQuillan's Bridge

3:28:34from project manager Kate Berry.

3:28:36At that time, our committee moved and passed a motion

3:28:38in support of alternative two,

3:28:40and also moved to advise that alternatives one, four,

3:28:42five, and six were not preferred.

3:28:45We are here today to reiterate our firm commitment

3:28:47to the rehabilitation and strengthening

3:28:49of the existing structure.

3:28:51There's a photo of McQuillan's Bridge archived

3:28:53at the Guelph Civic Museum that was taken in 2002

3:28:55for Guelph's 175th anniversary photography competition.

3:29:00So I'm compelled to wonder why,

3:29:01as we approach the bicentennial year in 2027,

3:29:04that the heritage value of the bridge

3:29:05is being so rapidly denigrated.

3:29:08Why should something that was just 24 years ago

3:29:10thought synonymous with the history of the city

3:29:12be cast aside?

3:29:13As discussed, its heritage value was affirmed in 2004

3:29:16under part four, and just three weeks ago,

3:29:18it received part five designation from this council

3:29:21as part of the Ontario Reformatory Heritage

3:29:22Conservation District.

3:29:25The HCD plan made special allowance

3:29:26for the inclusion of McQuillan's Bridge,

3:29:28and before that, Stone Road East was designed around it.

3:29:31For over 20 years, staff and local organizations

3:29:33have protected and valued McQuillan's Bridge

3:29:35as part of the city's heritage.

3:29:37Yet a refrain for the argument of demolition is utility,

3:29:41that the bridge itself is a means to an end.

3:29:43However, I propose that just as a hike through green space

3:29:45can't be replaced by a walk on a treadmill,

3:29:48the bridge that stands today cannot be effectively exchanged

3:29:50for what is proposed as immediate modern convenience.

3:29:54In bright orange lettering at the base of the bridge,

3:29:56the words demolition by neglect were painted in 2024

3:29:59as part of a street art installation.

3:30:01I don't want to mince words in expressing

3:30:03that should demolition be proposed,

3:30:05it would stain the history of the site

3:30:06by affirming that its closure was in fact

3:30:08an act of demolition by neglect.

3:30:10It would be a mistake to historicize the utility

3:30:13of a bridge that has only recently been forced

3:30:14into retirement.

3:30:16Bridges must be maintained.

3:30:17It is a simple and frustrating fact

3:30:19that infrastructure degrades,

3:30:20but the damage already done is not irreparable.

3:30:23The heritage of wealth is carried across

3:30:25McQuillan's Bridge as it is seen by the trail

3:30:26and by the road.

3:30:28As it stands today, the tangible and natural heritage

3:30:30of the site hold within them the opportunity

3:30:32to mutually reinforce one another.

3:30:34So I hope that council will hear our strong support

3:30:36alongside the other voices that are raising today

3:30:38in support of the rehabilitation

3:30:39and strengthening of the existing structure.

3:30:42Thank you.

3:30:45Thank you for your presentation, Piper.

3:30:49Are there any questions for the members

3:30:52of the advisory committee?

3:30:57I am not seeing any.

3:30:58Okay, so what I'd like to do is ask

3:31:03that the recommendation be placed on the floor.

3:31:07Councillor Kerran has agreed to

3:31:09and I've got Councillor Downer,

3:31:11who's beside me willing to second.

3:31:14With that, I'd like to ask my colleagues

3:31:16if you have questions for staff.

3:31:19Mayor Guthrie, Councillor Allt,

3:31:21Councillor Kerran, that Councillor Hauser,

3:31:25Councillor Caton.

3:31:27We'll start with you, Mr. Mayor.

3:31:29Okay, thank you and through you, Madam Chair, to staff.

3:31:33I just really have one question to clarity

3:31:37and I just wanna make sure I'm hearing it right.

3:31:39So about $3 million as the recommendation

3:31:46and that will last about 30 years

3:31:52versus about $1.2 million

3:31:58and it would last 75 years.

3:32:01And both of them would enact the ability

3:32:06to cross over that area.

3:32:13Through you, Chair, to the Mayor,

3:32:15that's a correct, your assessment is correct

3:32:18of those two options.

3:32:19Okay, thank you.

3:32:23Thank you for the question, Councillor Allt.

3:32:27Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

3:32:32I have a number of questions

3:32:34and I'll just direct them to staff generally.

3:32:37A comment was made that this particular bridge

3:32:41would not support public use

3:32:44and I was wondering if that could please be clarified.

3:32:47I was taken on a tour by a structural engineer

3:32:50who does have tremendous experience

3:32:52in concrete and bridges

3:32:54and he made mention that it was not structurally sound

3:32:58or he would not recommend it be structurally sound

3:33:01for automobiles but for pedestrians

3:33:04that it could very much be considered structurally sound

3:33:08but there was work to do.

3:33:10And not being an engineer,

3:33:12I'm hoping you can help me with that.

3:33:19Yeah, through the Chair, to Councillor Allt.

3:33:20I think what I can say is the city does

3:33:23structural inspections of our assets

3:33:25and so with respect to the bridge,

3:33:27we've been doing those

3:33:28through a third party structural engineer

3:33:29and they've done detailed analysis.

3:33:31In fact, for the EA, there was a more detailed analysis

3:33:34done on the bridge's integrity

3:33:36and so we rely on those third party structural engineers

3:33:39to help us inform the decisions

3:33:41on when we should prioritize these types of improvements

3:33:44and that's why the work is here today.

3:33:46And thank you very much

3:33:47and perhaps it is to the outside engineers

3:33:51that I need to address some of these then.

3:33:55Robert, the engineer that I'm talking about

3:33:57made reference to the superstructure

3:33:59and the infrastructure is being relatively sound.

3:34:03I was wondering if perhaps our consultants

3:34:05could comment upon that.

3:34:15Through the Chair to Clerks,

3:34:17can you confirm if our consultants are online?

3:34:22We're looking for Jeremy.

3:34:25Through you, Mr. Mayor,

3:34:26just give me one or two minutes to confirm.

3:34:27I think we can have some folks added in online.

3:34:31I might just need to turn their cameras on

3:34:33in order for us to see them.

3:34:35Thank you.

3:34:36Actually, I'll carry on then with another question.

3:34:38Ms. Berry made reference

3:34:40to Schedule C Environmental Assessment

3:34:42and I was wondering just for the public

3:34:44who are concerned about that,

3:34:45what precisely does a Schedule C Environmental Assessment mean

3:34:50and what are the obligations that are carried with that?

3:34:57Through the Chair to you,

3:34:58Councillor Allt to try to give a concise response,

3:35:02Schedule C

3:35:06is a more extensive process in the EA process.

3:35:09It takes it a further stage.

3:35:11So if you recall,

3:35:12the process diagram I showed you in the presentation,

3:35:16for this EA, we're doing a Schedule B,

3:35:19so we finish at what's,

3:35:22after the first two phases of work,

3:35:24we wrap up with our project report.

3:35:26In a Schedule C,

3:35:27you continue the work further to develop from,

3:35:31once you've chosen the preferred alternative solution,

3:35:34you then look at the options for design concepts

3:35:39and do further evaluation and engagement

3:35:42to determine the preferred design concept.

3:35:44So it takes it further, it does additional studies

3:35:48and you complete with an environmental study report.

3:35:53So the parallel Schedule CEA

3:35:56for the Victoria Road and Stone Road

3:35:58is following that process.

3:36:00It has a slightly longer timeline to reach its conclusion,

3:36:02which we expect at the end of this year.

3:36:05Thank you, that actually helps me as well.

3:36:08There are a couple of government's issues as well that I have.

3:36:12Reference was made to the difference

3:36:14between $1.7 million and $3 million, essentially.

3:36:19From a government's perspective,

3:36:21can we actually accurately predict what the costs of

3:36:26enhanced replacement will be at this point

3:36:30or are there other aspects and considerations

3:36:32that we must have?

3:36:39Through you, Madam Chair.

3:36:43So we have these cost estimates

3:36:45at this stage of study work.

3:36:49Those are all done to the same kind of level of detail,

3:36:53but we would, when we move to detailed design,

3:36:56we do further study work, we develop the design

3:37:00and the cost estimate would evolve

3:37:03and would be updated based on the next stage of work.

3:37:07So this is kind of the estimates that we have

3:37:10are appropriate to this level of study.

3:37:14Thank you very much, I appreciate that.

3:37:17Now, the other issue that is a governance issue

3:37:20is we are somewhat bound, I understand,

3:37:24by parts four and part five,

3:37:25protection under the Ontario Heritage Act.

3:37:28What does that actually mean

3:37:30for what we are doing here right now?

3:37:37Through the mayor, the Heritage Act instructs

3:37:41that council is bound by the guidelines

3:37:45of the Ontario Reformatory Heritage Conservation District.

3:37:51However, council is the approval authority

3:37:54and can make amendments to the district plan

3:37:59as well as approve a heritage permit

3:38:01to alter or demolish a designated structure.

3:38:05So within parts four and parts five,

3:38:09we could actually modify parts four and parts five

3:38:14without affecting parts four and part five

3:38:17and their applicability elsewhere,

3:38:19or do we need to rescind them and do it all over again?

3:38:25Through the mayor, depending on the extent of alteration,

3:38:31for example, if most of the heritage attributes

3:38:36were removed from the bridge,

3:38:37we would have to repeal the part four designation bylaw

3:38:42as well because the bridge is a heritage attribute

3:38:45of the part five bylaw,

3:38:46we would have to amend the Heritage Conservation District Plan

3:38:51which would reopen it to appeal.

3:38:54Just to clarify when you say reopen it,

3:38:56how extensive is that?

3:38:58Is it just a paper actor?

3:39:00Is it something that has a significant process to it?

3:39:05It would significantly impact heritage planning staff's

3:39:08work plan for the remainder of 2026.

3:39:11Thank you.

3:39:12Now the application to demolish contains

3:39:15within a review and a consultation

3:39:17that must occur within 90 days.

3:39:19I believe that's just the consultation

3:39:22and the review must occur within 90 days.

3:39:24Do we have an understanding

3:39:27of what the actual outside estimate is on the timeframe

3:39:30for something like that?

3:39:35If council directed staff to initiate

3:39:39a heritage permit application for demolition today,

3:39:45heritage planning staff could return to council

3:39:48at their September 9th council planning meeting.

3:39:53During the lame duck period.

3:39:55Okay, last question, I believe, Madam Chair.

3:39:59A question came to me from a resident

3:40:01who is somewhat perplexed by the city,

3:40:05requiring residents to adhere to the Ontario,

3:40:09to the heritage designations, but the city might not.

3:40:12I'm wondering if we could get any comment on that,

3:40:15on the veracity of the city actually determining

3:40:20not to adhere to its own heritage requirements

3:40:22when we require residents to do that.

3:40:29Under the Ontario Heritage Act,

3:40:31city council is the approval authority.

3:40:35So you are, you can determine whether or not

3:40:41you want to abide by a designation by law.

3:40:45And finally, then, do you have an opinion

3:40:46on the optics of that,

3:40:47or would you rather leave that for us councilors?

3:40:52No comment, respectfully.

3:40:53Thank you.

3:40:57Moving forward.

3:40:59Excuse me, Madam Chair.

3:41:00Yes. Through you to Councillor Allt.

3:41:03We do have our consultant online now.

3:41:06So if you had that one follow-up question.

3:41:09Thank you.

3:41:12And I don't know whether the consultant heard it,

3:41:15but I had, a person I know who takes great interest in this

3:41:20and is a structural engineer and a concrete and bridge expert

3:41:25believes that the superstructure and the infrastructure

3:41:27is, quote, relatively sound but needs some work,

3:41:30and that the bridge itself actually,

3:41:33while it could not take automobile traffic,

3:41:35is relatively sound with repairs for pedestrian traffic.

3:41:39I was wondering if you could comment on that, please.

3:41:43Good afternoon, Councillor Allt and Council.

3:41:46We concur with that assessment that the bridge itself

3:41:50is relatively sound.

3:41:53The main load carrying capacity being the arches themselves

3:41:56are in relatively good condition.

3:41:59The studies that we did confirm the concrete

3:42:01compressive strength is adequate for the loading

3:42:04that the bridge is expected to experience.

3:42:08The rehabilitation options, option two would look at

3:42:15repairing and replacing the elements that are currently

3:42:20in a state of disrepair, which would help to reestablish

3:42:23the load carrying capacity of the bridge.

3:42:27Thank you very much. And thank you, Chair.

3:42:31Thanks on the speaker's lift.

3:42:32We have Councillor Caron, please.

3:42:34Great, thank you, Madam Chair.

3:42:36A couple of questions and then you entertain comments

3:42:39at this time or should I wait for that?

3:42:41I'll just do my questions first and see how that goes.

3:42:45In the evaluation summary in the EA,

3:42:48option four and five were given points

3:42:50for cultural heritage.

3:42:51And I'm just curious about that if those are options

3:42:55that involve complete removal and no restoration

3:42:58of any elements of the architectural heritage,

3:43:01which is the designated property

3:43:05that we're talking about today.

3:43:07Can you give me an idea why that was given any points at all?

3:43:13Through you, Madam Chair, to Councillor Caron.

3:43:16Yes, I think it becomes more clear

3:43:20if you delve into the report and the appendices

3:43:23with the detailed evaluation matrix

3:43:25because there are several subcriteria

3:43:28that make up the score for cultural heritage.

3:43:32So there are three components.

3:43:34The first is temporary or permanent impact

3:43:37to cultural heritage landscapes.

3:43:40The second is temporary or permanent impact

3:43:42to built heritage resources and heritage value of the bridge.

3:43:47And the third was impact on archaeological resources.

3:43:51So alternatives four and five, the replacement options,

3:43:56they do score very low in terms of

3:44:02they score poorly because they do have impact

3:44:05on heritage landscape and on the heritage value

3:44:08of the bridge, but they score some points

3:44:10in the third category, which was impact

3:44:12on archaeological resources because it's been assessed

3:44:15that there's not expected, it's unlikely

3:44:18that there would be impact.

3:44:19So that's where those options are picking up some points

3:44:23if you like.

3:44:24Okay, that's helpful because I can see

3:44:26where they would get a sliver of points,

3:44:27but in the pie graph it looks like they got a 25% ranking.

3:44:31And yet I understand the heritage landscape for part five,

3:44:35but the part four designation is the structure itself.

3:44:38So I mean, I'm not gonna argue with the EA

3:44:41because that's not my area of expertise.

3:44:44The other thing about option two

3:44:46when you confirm that there was a 35 year horizon,

3:44:49you're not suggesting that the bridge would fail

3:44:52at 35 years, my understanding is that

3:44:54that is when a reassessment would occur

3:44:57given that it is no longer a vehicular bridge,

3:45:00it is a pedestrian bridge,

3:45:02there wouldn't be a suggestion

3:45:04that that's a failure point at 35 years, is that correct?

3:45:08Through you, Madam Chair, that's correct.

3:45:10Yeah, it's just the point at which

3:45:12is a typical service life or a rehabilitated structure

3:45:15of this type at what point it would be appropriate

3:45:17to look at its condition and decide on next steps.

3:45:21Right, including resurfacing.

3:45:24And I don't know if there's anybody here

3:45:26who can speak to this, but for me,

3:45:27it's a question of comparison.

3:45:29So we just spent approximately $6.4 million

3:45:34on the Emma Earl Bridge, and there was no demolition required,

3:45:39there was an EA required,

3:45:42and that was a steel pedestrian bridge.

3:45:45So I just wanna confirm that that is the type of bridge

3:45:48you're talking about in the other options

3:45:50because I think it's described as a steel footbridge.

3:45:54And my understanding is that the difference in span

3:45:57is that Emma Earl was 81 feet,

3:45:59and this span of the river is 70 feet,

3:46:02so we're talking about an 11 foot span difference

3:46:05between the two bridges.

3:46:06Can you help me understand why Emma Earl Bridge

3:46:10would have been 6.38 million?

3:46:14And the option for here is being priced at 1.2, I believe.

3:46:22If it's the same type of bridge with a similar span.

3:46:30Through the chair to Councillor Caron,

3:46:32that's something we could take back

3:46:34and get a little more information on for you

3:46:37off the top of my head.

3:46:39I do believe the spans are quite a bit different.

3:46:43Emma Earl is a two span bridge,

3:46:46or this would be a single.

3:46:47So I think we can take that back

3:46:49and provide some more information on that.

3:46:52Okay, great, I was just using the width of the river,

3:46:55so similar.

3:46:57Those are all my questions.

3:46:59I think I'll finish with comments.

3:47:02Is that okay, or would you rather me wait?

3:47:05Any other questions?

3:47:06Let's do comments after.

3:47:07We've started with questions, if that's okay with you.

3:47:09I would prefer we keep comments till after.

3:47:12Okay, thank you.

3:47:14Next on my speaker's list is Councillor Houser.

3:47:20Thank you, through the chair to staff.

3:47:22I just wanted to clarify one of the presenters' mention

3:47:27of demolition by neglect,

3:47:28and in the presentation from staff,

3:47:31it talks about $5,000 maintenance fee

3:47:33that will, or maintenance that it will cost

3:47:35to maintain the bridge going forward.

3:47:39What is it costing now, or is it costing nothing?

3:47:42Like what is the maintenance that's being done up to date

3:47:47at this point, like yearly?

3:47:54Through the chair to Councillor Houser.

3:47:57So currently we are continuing with

3:48:02bi-annual Housum inspections, regular inspections,

3:48:06to continue to look at and assess the bridge as a whole.

3:48:14When looking at a future maintenance cost,

3:48:18the $5,000 is an estimate.

3:48:20Some years may require more,

3:48:21some years may require less,

3:48:23depending on what work would be required in that given year.

3:48:29What I can say is engineering,

3:48:30working with our operations team

3:48:32has created a service level agreement

3:48:34that we would work together to determine

3:48:38via those Housum inspections

3:48:40what work would be required in those given years

3:48:43and have our operations team do that.

3:48:46Should they be in a position to do that?

3:48:52Thank you.

3:48:55Councillor Katelyn, please.

3:48:58Thank you, through you, Madam Chair.

3:49:01So I'm just gonna address my questions

3:49:03to whomever knows the answer,

3:49:04because you all know better than I will.

3:49:08So I've heard a lot about the 30 years to reassessment.

3:49:12This is like, this is 30 years to the reassessment, right?

3:49:15It's not 30 years till disintegration,

3:49:18it doesn't implode after 30 years.

3:49:20What is happening after the 30 years

3:49:22that we need to be aware of?

3:49:25Through you, Madam Chair,

3:49:27I think that's similar to the question

3:49:29from Councillor Clarana, what happens

3:49:32when we get to the 30 year mark?

3:49:34We don't expect the rehabilitated bridge

3:49:37to suddenly crumble at that point.

3:49:39It's the time when it would be appropriate

3:49:42to assess its condition and check on

3:49:45what is appropriate as next steps,

3:49:48as further rehabilitation needed,

3:49:51or just a few minor repairs.

3:49:55So we see that as an appropriate timeline

3:49:59for when that should happen.

3:50:02Great, it's through the chair.

3:50:05Does the, for the removal option,

3:50:10does the cost for the replacement

3:50:13include the cost for all the heritage planning work

3:50:16and appeals, any other further studies,

3:50:18feedback engagement required,

3:50:21and the demolition of the current bridge?

3:50:25Through you, Madam Chair,

3:50:26no, essentially it does not.

3:50:28The option one, do nothing, was not carried forward.

3:50:33So the sort of detailed financial evaluation

3:50:38was not pursued for that option.

3:50:41It does not meet the...

3:50:42To be clear, this is for the replacement.

3:50:45Oh, sorry.

3:50:46So within the replacement,

3:50:47I've heard that we have to redo all of these other plans,

3:50:51reopen things, do feedback engagement,

3:50:54contact heritage, planning,

3:50:57like our committees, everything else.

3:50:59Like there's a lot of process involved there,

3:51:01and then we can have appeals through citizen groups

3:51:04and other things like that.

3:51:05So I'm wondering, what would be the total cost

3:51:07should we have gone down that path?

3:51:09So that's not included.

3:51:10That's just straight up building the bridge costs.

3:51:16Through you, Madam Chair, that's correct.

3:51:17It does not include all of those what if scenarios.

3:51:23It is based on capital construction costs

3:51:27and future maintenance and replacement

3:51:30or rehabilitation costs and operation and maintenance.

3:51:36Great, thank you.

3:51:37Through the chair, sorry, I got a couple more.

3:51:40What work, you had mentioned that heritage work

3:51:44would be disrupted.

3:51:46So is that the only work that would be disrupted

3:51:48in order to go through all these heritage planning processes

3:51:50because I heard a lot of feedback engagement,

3:51:52I think that there's more teams involved with those.

3:52:04Through the chair, maybe I'll just jump in.

3:52:05I think the spirit of what you're suggesting there,

3:52:07Councillor Caden, is accurate.

3:52:09Certainly we have community engagement staff, HR staff,

3:52:12back of house staff that also have to support the teams.

3:52:15And so I think that's a fair comment.

3:52:18Okay, and with all the additional processes required,

3:52:25should council vote to remove the bridge,

3:52:29including the potential appeals and other things like that.

3:52:33Which of these two paths would be the fastest

3:52:35to regain access for pedestrians?

3:52:44Through the chair to Councillor Caden,

3:52:46I think that's a hard question to answer at the moment

3:52:50because we can't guarantee what sort of appeals

3:52:55or other issues we may run into during design

3:53:01and submission of our class EA,

3:53:04our submission of our heritage designation to remove.

3:53:10So that's a little hard to answer at the moment,

3:53:14not knowing those things.

3:53:16So is it hard to say that there's one path

3:53:19that kind of gives us a good schedule

3:53:21and one that is just kind of unknown?

3:53:23I would agree with that statement.

3:53:27Okay.

3:53:29And through the chair,

3:53:33is this about the same cost as the pedestrian bridge

3:53:37that we discussed in the Allen Street Bridge EA

3:53:40that would be about 15 meters away from the sidewalk

3:53:44that's on Allen Street Bridge?

3:53:52I'm through the chair to Councillor Caden,

3:53:55that might be another takeaway.

3:53:58And I remember being about three million,

3:54:01like so my memory is bad.

3:54:04So if, I don't know if anyone remembers.

3:54:06If I can remember correctly,

3:54:09I believe we're removing the Allen's Bridge and looking.

3:54:13It was a pedestrian bridge.

3:54:15So we're looking at the pedestrian.

3:54:17I think what I can say to that

3:54:19is we're somewhat comparing apples and oranges there.

3:54:22We have a bridge that will be being installed

3:54:26in close proximity to other structures downtown at Allen's.

3:54:31So I believe that would be hard to compare

3:54:33these two bridges at this time.

3:54:36Oh, I'm just looking for the cost.

3:54:41I don't have that available.

3:54:42I can take that back.

3:54:44I'll come back at you in an email.

3:54:46Thank you very much.

3:54:49Thank you, Councillor Caden.

3:54:50Councillor Goller, please.

3:54:53Thank you, and through you chair class in.

3:54:56Well, thank you for all the work that you've done on this.

3:54:59I wanted to ask about the certainty of the cost.

3:55:02The amateur old bridges was previously broad.

3:55:05It was quoted as $3.6 million.

3:55:07I heard from staff that the actual cost to build

3:55:10was $5.1 million.

3:55:11They're about what is the certainty

3:55:13that if we go down the road of $2.9 million for alternative two

3:55:18by the time that it's built,

3:55:20could we be looking at $4.1 million or higher?

3:55:25Through you, Madam chair to Councillor Goller.

3:55:28So the construction cost estimate in the EA study,

3:55:34in the reports and the presentation,

3:55:37those are what we call a class C estimate.

3:55:41And it includes 20% contingency

3:55:45and a further 10% for contract administration

3:55:48and inspection fees.

3:55:50So we do have some contingency built in

3:55:53to that estimate as it stands.

3:55:59I think, and at the moment,

3:56:02we have an approved budget that has some float

3:56:05above that amount, above that current estimate.

3:56:09Okay.

3:56:10Yeah.

3:56:11Okay, thank you for that.

3:56:12So with that in mind on page four of the report,

3:56:14it talks about risk management and it says,

3:56:17preferred alternative number two,

3:56:20second preferred, it's alternative four

3:56:23to remove and replace with the steel bridge for 1.2 million.

3:56:27What is the threshold that it becomes unviable

3:56:31for any reason?

3:56:33Is it that it hits $3.5 million, $4 million?

3:56:36What is that threshold that you go from the preferred

3:56:39alternative that we're approving

3:56:40to the second preferred alternative?

3:56:45Through you, Madam chair,

3:56:46I think the threshold would not,

3:56:51it could be financial, but it could be purely technical

3:56:55and that we find issues through further investigation,

3:57:00through the detailed engineering modeling

3:57:03that would be needed that identify that for some reason,

3:57:08it is no longer feasible to rehabilitate.

3:57:12So we are keeping that scenario in mind

3:57:16in terms of those comments in the report.

3:57:21Okay, so we don't actually have like a firm threshold.

3:57:23So it could be that we're approving $2.9 million

3:57:26for alternative two today and it ends up getting built

3:57:28for six or $8 million and that would still be okay

3:57:32and their alternative two.

3:57:34Through the chair to councillor Goller.

3:57:38As many of you know,

3:57:39we have very robust project management office tools.

3:57:43So if through detailed design,

3:57:45all of a sudden this project staff found

3:57:48that this project was significantly,

3:57:51the proposal was significantly over the cost estimate.

3:57:55At that time we would take further actions

3:57:57which would most likely include coming back to council.

3:58:04If I could add there through the chair,

3:58:06I do think councillor Goller,

3:58:07the uncertainty aspect that you're getting at here

3:58:10also applies to all of the alternatives.

3:58:11And so it's a fair question and line of thinking

3:58:14and we've seen that on some projects in years gone by,

3:58:18maybe an estimate was made,

3:58:19but also we can't control sort of external factors either.

3:58:23So the cost to design and construct a material bridge

3:58:26went up over time as the prices of steel went up

3:58:29or as other things occurred sort of outside

3:58:31of staff's control.

3:58:32Those things would always be monitored,

3:58:34they'd always be brought back to council through budget.

3:58:37And so you'd see those updated estimates,

3:58:38but if additional analysis was done

3:58:41and we found issues with the structural steel,

3:58:43maybe there's more corrosion,

3:58:44maybe there's more degradation

3:58:46than based on the work done now,

3:58:48then staff would have to come back

3:58:49and kind of have those conversations.

3:58:51And that's I think part of what the EA is trying to get at,

3:58:53which is there is a bit of time sensitivity

3:58:56to implement the recommended or preferred solution

3:59:00based on those types of factors.

3:59:02Okay, thank you very much for that.

3:59:05I really appreciate it.

3:59:07And one of my concerns through you, Chair Klassen,

3:59:10is that the city's facing increasing financial challenges

3:59:14for residents.

3:59:16We are actively looking for cost savings.

3:59:18Is this comments or is it a question?

3:59:20It's a question.

3:59:20Okay, excuse me, sorry.

3:59:21Yeah, no, it's good.

3:59:22It's good.

3:59:23We are looking for cost savings

3:59:27and there is a significant difference

3:59:30between alternatives two and three

3:59:33and then alternative four.

3:59:34So as you move forward,

3:59:36do you have opportunities to try to reduce the cost

3:59:39of the $2.9 million or is that really a floor

3:59:43and it can likely go up from there?

3:59:52Through the chair to Councillor Goller,

3:59:55I think given the current cost estimates,

3:59:59that that's what we would expect.

4:00:02Obviously, if we can find cost savings in any project,

4:00:05we would look to reduce those costs.

4:00:08However, given the current studies,

4:00:11this is the best estimate we have at the moment.

4:00:14Okay, thank you.

4:00:15And then my last question to your Chair Klassen.

4:00:18Councillor Caton talked about the potential of us

4:00:20being taken to a tribunal which extends the timelines.

4:00:23From our experience, if there are challenges,

4:00:26if we were to say, not go down the road of alternative two,

4:00:30but say we say we wanna go down the road of alternative four,

4:00:34we have to redo parts of the EA.

4:00:37And if there are challenges,

4:00:38how long in our experience would it delay a project

4:00:42to have to redo that EA?

4:00:45And as I understand it,

4:00:47could you tell me what it would take?

4:00:48Like what work would you need to do on your end?

4:00:51And if there's a challenge,

4:00:53when would we be looking at a bridge being built?

4:00:58Through the chair to Councillor Goller,

4:01:01through our experience as this has not happened,

4:01:04we have not had Council direct us to go back

4:01:07and look at the scoring criteria for our projects.

4:01:11So it is a little difficult to say,

4:01:14but what I can say is we would be looking at

4:01:18further engagement on the new,

4:01:20sorry, we would have to go back

4:01:22and look at the weight in scoring.

4:01:24We would bring that back to Council.

4:01:26If that results in a different alternative,

4:01:29we would have to do further engagement on that

4:01:33prior to submitting our completion notice to the MECP.

4:01:39There are always the potential for appeals

4:01:44through that process.

4:01:46As well as in the meantime,

4:01:48we would have to start the demolition process

4:01:54with our heritage planning staff and work through that.

4:01:58As Jack has indicated,

4:01:59we would bring that back our September 9th meeting,

4:02:04which again, and have Council vote on that,

4:02:07which again opens ourselves up to potential appeals.

4:02:12So not knowing what the outcome of those could be,

4:02:16it's hard to state what the exact timeline to get going

4:02:20on this project would be given

4:02:24if we were to go to a different alternative.

4:02:28I appreciate that,

4:02:29but we have been taken to tribunals in the past.

4:02:31What is the timeline that it usually takes

4:02:33us to resolve those cases?

4:02:36I'm thinking emittorial,

4:02:38that it was delayed by a significant period.

4:02:41Through the Chair to Councillor Goller,

4:02:45receiving information that OLT appeals

4:02:48could probably take six and nine months.

4:02:51Section 16 order from the MECP could take anywhere

4:02:57from six to 12 months.

4:03:01Those are sort of the timelines we would be looking at.

4:03:04Okay, thank you very much.

4:03:05Thank you, Chair.

4:03:06I do have comments for after.

4:03:08Thank you.

4:03:09Next on the speaker's list is Councillor Downer, please.

4:03:13Thank you.

4:03:14So I just want to confirm one thing.

4:03:16So the 1.2 million,

4:03:19and that's an estimate too right now,

4:03:22as well as the one on the preferred.

4:03:25That does not include the demolition

4:03:28of the existing bridge

4:03:29and what you would have to do with those materials.

4:03:38For the steel prefab,

4:03:39I'm talking about the steel prefab one,

4:03:41there's no demolition costs.

4:03:43Do we know what those demolition costs would be?

4:03:45Through the Chair to Councillor Downer,

4:03:48that would just be the design and construction costs.

4:03:52There would be additional demolition costs

4:03:54on top of that.

4:03:57We don't have any costs for that.

4:04:03And dispose of those materials.

4:04:05I don't know if there's kind of...

4:04:06Through the Chair, if our consultant is still on,

4:04:11Jeremy might be able to help us

4:04:14with a closer cost for that.

4:04:19Good afternoon.

4:04:20Demolition costs were included in the estimates

4:04:22for options four and five and six.

4:04:28So those are included.

4:04:30Okay, cause I thought we heard earlier that they were included.

4:04:32Through the Chair, I stand corrected on that.

4:04:34Thank you, Jeremy.

4:04:35Okay, that really does take a big gap then

4:04:37between the 1.2 and the MURL,

4:04:41which is kind of in price,

4:04:44which I think we'd like to hear a bit more about.

4:04:48The other thing, you could help me with this 30 years.

4:04:52So this bridge was built in 1916.

4:04:58Until 2005, which is 90 years,

4:05:01it was taking traffic.

4:05:03I remember in the last quite a few years,

4:05:05it was taking trucks over that bridge.

4:05:08So it lasted 90 years,

4:05:10and we're going to rehabilitate and strengthen it

4:05:16for pedestrians and cyclists.

4:05:20How does that go from 90 years with car and truck traffic

4:05:25to 30 years with people walking over it

4:05:28after it's been rehabilitated and strengthened?

4:05:32And so I just sort of wonder about that.

4:05:37The math is not like working in my head.

4:05:39It's like, okay, I'm gonna rebuild and strengthen my house.

4:05:43That's 100 years old,

4:05:44but it's only gonna last another 30 years.

4:05:47Like I'm just sort of,

4:05:50we're gonna have to reassess it.

4:05:52So are you suggesting that any other bridge

4:05:54we wouldn't reassess for 75 years in our city?

4:05:59Like just this one, if it was rehabilitated and strengthened.

4:06:02So I'm just trying to go from the 90 to 30 years,

4:06:05and it was 90 years with truck traffic and cars,

4:06:09and now at 20 years on top of that

4:06:11with pedestrian and cycle traffic.

4:06:14And now we're saying, oh no, only 30 years.

4:06:17So I'm just trying to think about this assessment issue

4:06:21because I would hope we'd be assessing all of our bridges

4:06:25more regularly than 75 years.

4:06:29Through the chair to Councillor Downer,

4:06:31we do owe some inspections on all of our bridges as required.

4:06:38I believe the length between those

4:06:41are dependent on the age of that infrastructure.

4:06:44So we do regular structure assessment

4:06:50on those structures.

4:06:52I believe, and I'll look to our consultant in a minute

4:06:56to maybe correct me, but I believe,

4:07:01yes, it lasted 90 years.

4:07:03We are not replacing all of the material of that bridge.

4:07:07We are strengthening what is there

4:07:09that 110 year old concrete is still 110 years old.

4:07:14It will continue to degrade over time.

4:07:19It's not that it is brand new,

4:07:21so it does not restart the lifespan of that bridge.

4:07:28So it's not that it's gonna last another 30 years

4:07:33or the other bridges are gonna last another 75 years.

4:07:35It's after 30 years, you will want to assess

4:07:39the concrete in that.

4:07:40Because I suspect the concrete in my house

4:07:42is gonna hopefully last in a heritage house

4:07:46last more than another 30 years.

4:07:48Through the chair to Councillor Downer, yes.

4:07:50So we will continue to owe some inspections

4:07:54on this bridge as required.

4:07:56So it's not as though we would wait 30 years

4:07:59to do another inspection.

4:08:00We will continue to do owe some inspections as required,

4:08:05which those inspections do provide us

4:08:08with some maintenance that may be required.

4:08:13So we will not be waiting the 30 years

4:08:16to do another assessment.

4:08:18And we will would obviously try to keep the material

4:08:25up and rehabilitate throughout as much as possible

4:08:30to extend the life cycle of that material.

4:08:33So this bridge, if we go with this option,

4:08:36could last another 100 years then.

4:08:42Is that possible with proper maintenance?

4:08:46Through the chair, I will defer that potentially

4:08:50to our structural engineer.

4:08:54I'm just thinking of my house with its concrete basement.

4:08:57Like is it gonna last?

4:09:00Because it's over 100 years old.

4:09:03Good afternoon.

4:09:05The 30 year timeline that we're talking about

4:09:09for option two is an idea of when we would need to go in

4:09:15and reassess the bridge for its structural capacity

4:09:21and basically complete another feasibility study to revisit.

4:09:26Is it feasible at that time to complete

4:09:28another set of repairs?

4:09:30Or at that time, has the deterioration got so much worse

4:09:34that that time we would decide,

4:09:36do we need to repair it again

4:09:38or does it need to be replaced at that point of time?

4:09:41That's typical in the bridge world.

4:09:44Around the 30, 35 year mark is when a bridge

4:09:47that's brand new needs to be repaired

4:09:51in order to get your full lifespan out of the structure.

4:09:55So then all the bridges would need to be,

4:09:58rather no matter what option we pick,

4:10:00would need to be reassessed in 30 years

4:10:02is what you're telling me now, is what you're saying.

4:10:05In the future costs for the bridge,

4:10:09for each of the bridge options,

4:10:10there's a cost placed at the 30 to 35 year mark

4:10:14to account for kind of a major rehabilitation to the bridge,

4:10:19major repairs to the bridge.

4:10:21And those costs vary with each different option,

4:10:23but that prices at that 30 to 35 year

4:10:26timespan were included for each option.

4:10:29Okay, so every bridge would need to be reassessed

4:10:32in 30 years.

4:10:34Is that what you're,

4:10:36because that's not what we heard earlier.

4:10:37So I'm just clarifying this

4:10:40because there's a narrative out here

4:10:42that this bridge is only gonna last 30 years

4:10:45and the others are gonna last 75

4:10:48and now we're hearing, well,

4:10:50they're all gonna be assessed at 30 years.

4:10:53And one, like who knows,

4:10:55this one could last another 30 years beyond that

4:10:58with rehabilitation, the other one's the same thing.

4:11:01Is that what I'm hearing?

4:11:10The options with the 75 year design lifespan

4:11:13is based on,

4:11:18it's their design lifespan based on how they've been designed.

4:11:21So they're designed to last for at least 75 years.

4:11:24Every bridge requires repairs

4:11:27and the typical timeline for when repairs are required

4:11:29is that 30 to 35 year mark

4:11:32so that you can get your full 75.

4:11:34If you don't complete your repair at 35 years,

4:11:36it may not last the full 75.

4:11:39So at that 30 to 35 year mark,

4:11:42every bridge should have repairs completed to it.

4:11:45They could be smaller, they could be larger in scope.

4:11:47Right, so the option that's before us,

4:11:50the recommendation, the reassessment at 35 years

4:11:54could mean it could last another,

4:11:56may not last or it could last another 10 to 20

4:11:59to 25 years beyond that, is that correct?

4:12:03Yes.

4:12:03With rehabilitation, okay, good, thank you.

4:12:08Thank you, Councillor Downer.

4:12:10Next I have Councillor Gibson.

4:12:15Thank you, through you, Chair,

4:12:19Claeson, I appreciate it.

4:12:21A couple of questions for staff

4:12:22and I'm gonna take a second to encourage staff to just,

4:12:26I know this debate is around a few subject,

4:12:29I'm just encouraging staff to just give us the answers

4:12:34and don't allow sort of this,

4:12:37I feel like some hurdles are being put in your way

4:12:39and I'm just asking, encouraging you to be courageous

4:12:41and just tell us the facts,

4:12:42because I remember the Allen's Bridge EA

4:12:45and there was a number of councillors that spoke against that

4:12:47and I think they voted against finalizing the EA on that as well.

4:12:52And at the time they were advised this is a gate

4:12:54and again, I accept that this is a gate

4:12:57that council is going through

4:12:58to finalize a notice of completion for an EA.

4:13:02The issue that I will take with this EA is the scoring.

4:13:06So I'm speaking to a planning concern I have

4:13:10and how the evaluations were done.

4:13:12Obviously everyone's talking about the financial

4:13:15and I think the evaluation is fair on life cycle renewal.

4:13:19We've heard it very clearly from staff,

4:13:2130 years and 75 years are the two expected timelines.

4:13:25The financial are apparent, thank you Mayor Guthrie

4:13:28for making that very clear.

4:13:29But my question is on the natural environment

4:13:32and how this was scored in the EA.

4:13:35And I have some concerns about the table

4:13:38that was presented to council

4:13:40and the table that was presented to the public

4:13:42around the hydraulic function of this bridge.

4:13:45And it was very clearly stated from staff

4:13:47that the hydraulic function of the river would improve

4:13:50if we installed a clear spam bridge from bank to bank.

4:13:53Currently the existing bridge creates hydraulic.

4:13:57It constricts the hydraulic function of the river

4:14:01and as such that impacts GRCA flood programming

4:14:05that impacts upstream and downstream hydraulic function.

4:14:08And it was a clear benefit to move

4:14:10to a clear spam bridge option four, bank to bank,

4:14:14which would again, you've stated it twice tonight,

4:14:16it would improve hydraulic function.

4:14:18But why in your table were they scored the same

4:14:21on natural environment?

4:14:22Because one is clearly an improvement over the other

4:14:25and option two, which is the preferred alternative

4:14:27is scored the same as option four.

4:14:30And so I'm struggling with that assessment.

4:14:34I think if you pulled up your table, you could see it.

4:14:36It's, they're both scored three out of four

4:14:38for a natural environment, I believe.

4:14:41Through you, Madam Chair.

4:14:45Thank you for the question, Councillor Gibson.

4:14:49I'm not sure if you've looked at the detailed evaluation table.

4:14:52It's one of the appendices.

4:14:53I have not.

4:14:54The report.

4:14:55So the natural environment criteria has seven

4:14:59sub criteria within it that make up that score.

4:15:03And it is quite an interesting picture

4:15:04because there is a lot of variation

4:15:07across those sub criteria and across the alternatives.

4:15:11But what happens is that the bottom line

4:15:13where it's aggregated, unaveraged,

4:15:16it, you know, we end up with quite similar scores

4:15:21for several of the alternatives.

4:15:23So I think you have to delve into that detailed evaluation

4:15:27to perhaps see the nuance a little bit.

4:15:29One of the criteria is impacts to hydraulic capacity.

4:15:34And so for that sub criteria, yes,

4:15:36the options that keep the existing structure score lower

4:15:41than the options that would replace it

4:15:44and with a wider span for the reasons that you mentioned.

4:15:47So that is captured in the evaluation, but it doesn't,

4:15:52you know, it doesn't tip the overall

4:15:54natural environment score because of the other,

4:15:57the other sub criteria that are being taken

4:16:00into account as well.

4:16:03Okay, so I have to ask the question,

4:16:05what, given the fact that they have the same footprint

4:16:07and the same process, it's the same design

4:16:10and construction timeline,

4:16:12what are the environmental,

4:16:15the natural environment benefits of option two

4:16:18that are superior to option four?

4:16:22Because we've identified one that's clearly superior

4:16:24under option four, but what are the,

4:16:25what are the items that are superior under option two?

4:16:28Because that would have,

4:16:29there would have to be a waiting of that

4:16:32that would equalize, correct?

4:16:34Again, I haven't delved into the detailed evaluation,

4:16:37it just became apparent when I saw your,

4:16:39when I saw the table in the presentation.

4:16:50Through you, Madam Chair, but apologies,

4:16:51I was just taking a glance at the detailed

4:16:55evaluation table here.

4:16:57The categories were alternative to the recommended solution

4:17:02to rehabilitate and strengthen,

4:17:04where it scores slightly higher for natural environment

4:17:09is sub criteria number four,

4:17:11which is temporary or permanent impact

4:17:14on the habitat of species at risk.

4:17:18And also sub criteria number five,

4:17:21which is temporary or permanent impact on aquatic habitat.

4:17:25And so because we're working on the existing structure,

4:17:29we don't need to work in the river channel

4:17:33or make changes to the river channel.

4:17:35We're not having big impacts on the river banks

4:17:39and the habitat there.

4:17:40That's where the rehabilitation options score higher

4:17:44because they have a lower impact.

4:17:51I will respectfully disagree, but that's okay.

4:17:54This is what the exercise is for.

4:17:55This is what the EAs are for.

4:17:58On the design and construction costs,

4:18:00if I can just ask a few more questions,

4:18:02there's been a lot of conversation about the disparity

4:18:05between this project and the Emerald Bridge.

4:18:08Is it possible that this project is slightly more affordable

4:18:12because the design is so simple?

4:18:16Like the Clear Spam Bridge from bank to bank,

4:18:19this is an engineered solution.

4:18:21I challenged staff this morning about this being a design build,

4:18:24whether or not we even needed a detailed design

4:18:26for such a project,

4:18:27we could simply just tender it out to three people

4:18:29and say who could build a bridge

4:18:32and do it a cost effective way.

4:18:34Is there savings in the detailed design

4:18:38and construction aspect that,

4:18:41are there savings in the engineering

4:18:42and the fact that we don't need to over engineer this site

4:18:45because of its simplicity?

4:18:46It's a Clear Spam Bridge from bank to bank under option four.

4:18:55Through the chair to Councillor Gibson.

4:18:59Although the engineering costs

4:19:04to maybe select a pre-designed structure

4:19:10might be cheaper than the other ones,

4:19:12however, we still need to do assessments.

4:19:16So we still would need to do a geotechnical assessment

4:19:20of the site to where we would be placing those footings.

4:19:25We also need to do other sort of design criteria

4:19:31and permitting that would be specific to the site.

4:19:35So we would still have to apply to,

4:19:37let's say the GRCA for permit to fully replace that bridge

4:19:44and that would have to,

4:19:45we would have to show a site detailed design

4:19:48for part of that.

4:19:51Okay, that's fine.

4:19:55I have spoken with staff

4:19:58about the design and construction costs being simplified

4:20:00or being more expedient than the,

4:20:02like the option to preferred option with the restoration,

4:20:06but that's fair.

4:20:06We can agree to disagree on that.

4:20:09On my last comment, the last question, I guess,

4:20:11on the heritage demolition front,

4:20:14there was a situation alluded to by Councillor Allt

4:20:16about a resident speaking to how ironic it is that,

4:20:20we're forcing residents to abide by this rules,

4:20:22we're considering not abiding by it ourselves.

4:20:24And I just wanted to ask the process is the same, correct?

4:20:27If a resident wants to demolish a heritage structure,

4:20:30they put forward a Council application.

4:20:33Staff generally reject it,

4:20:35but it comes to Council anyway for approval.

4:20:38Similarly, if Council wanted to demolish a heritage asset,

4:20:42the same process would take place,

4:20:44it would come to Council for approval.

4:20:45Is that correct?

4:20:47Through the chair, that is correct.

4:20:49Okay, and I appreciate that.

4:20:51I guess what I'm saying is that there are members

4:20:53of this Council that have read over

4:20:57and surmised that a demolition of a heritage asset

4:21:02by a private resident was permissible.

4:21:04I'm one of those people that have voted

4:21:06for the demolition of a heritage asset

4:21:08when a private residence comes forward.

4:21:10So whether it's a private residence or the city

4:21:13making a determination as to what they want to do

4:21:15with an asset, it still comes to Council for approval.

4:21:18So there is no,

4:21:20I just wanted to make sure the public understood

4:21:21there's no disparity in process.

4:21:24If Council wants to do this or for private residence

4:21:26wants to do this, it's the exact same process

4:21:28Council has to decide for ourselves.

4:21:31Those are all my, I guess,

4:21:33I'll save maybe if I mind,

4:21:37Chair Klassen, I'll be very quick with my comments.

4:21:40Can I go to you first?

4:21:42Sure, no problem.

4:21:44After questions, I've got one more

4:21:46on the list of questions.

4:21:48I appreciate it.

4:21:49Okay.

4:21:51Councillor Chew, please.

4:21:56Thank you, through you, Madam Chair.

4:21:59I'm just trying to be very objective

4:22:00with how I look at the options.

4:22:02And personally speaking, I do like option four

4:22:06if we're really trying to preserve that linkage

4:22:09in good faith.

4:22:11I think like respectfully,

4:22:13like if we go through that appeal process

4:22:17and we're successful,

4:22:19it gets us out of some of those heritage obligations

4:22:22and it allows us to find a way to commemorate

4:22:26the built heritage structure in a tasteful way

4:22:28through some options that are presented in that report.

4:22:37I'm just curious, like for the end of the month,

4:22:39would it be possible for staff to give me

4:22:42that cost estimate for the Class C?

4:22:45I'm not sure if I'm able to find it through the EA page,

4:22:48but you can correct me if I'm wrong.

4:22:50So that's my first question, if that's possible.

4:22:57Through you, Madam Chair,

4:23:00could we just ask for clarification

4:23:02on what cost estimate you're looking for?

4:23:06Councillor Chew?

4:23:07Yeah, just for all the options in your evaluation,

4:23:11if there's a way in which we can disseminate that

4:23:13with the information that you guys currently have.

4:23:17Yes, that information is available.

4:23:19The draft project file report

4:23:22and all of the appendices are published

4:23:24on the city's project webpage.

4:23:27We can provide the link to that.

4:23:31So there's a detailed evaluation matrix table.

4:23:33It's one of the appendices.

4:23:34It has some cost information in there.

4:23:37There's also cost information within the body of the report too.

4:23:43And is that pretty much up to date

4:23:45and reflective of this conversation

4:23:48and for the end of this month?

4:23:52It reflects, through you, Madam Chair,

4:23:55reflects everything that we've presented today.

4:23:58It's correct, yeah.

4:24:00And is it possible if it's not done already

4:24:04for there to be a life cycle comparison

4:24:07for the steel bridge and the concrete bridge?

4:24:10I know through the options that it was alluded to

4:24:16through that report,

4:24:17but do you think before the end of the month

4:24:20we could have a bit more insights

4:24:23as it relates to this project?

4:24:27Through you, Madam Chair, to Councillor Chew.

4:24:29Yes, that information is already built into the study.

4:24:32It's part of the report.

4:24:34There is a life cycle analysis

4:24:37within the project file report that you can take a look at.

4:24:40It's fairly detailed.

4:24:43If there's more kind of questions around

4:24:45we can certainly provide more information.

4:24:47But I think I mentioned in the presentation

4:24:49that we have alternatives that have different lifespans.

4:24:53But that is built into the financial criteria evaluation.

4:24:59Okay, yeah, I'll take a closer look.

4:25:00You don't get that to you by the end of the month.

4:25:03Thank you.

4:25:04Thank you, Councillor Chew.

4:25:05Councillor Billings, please.

4:25:08To you, Madam Chair.

4:25:11I'm still struggling with respect to this lifespan issue.

4:25:15So the comment was, it doesn't matter, 30, 35 years

4:25:20we could have technical issues

4:25:22and it would be no longer able to rehabilitate this bridge.

4:25:27So for example, in the report it says,

4:25:30okay, the bridge footings will remain the same

4:25:33and no work in the water.

4:25:35So do we know technically

4:25:39how long can these footings last for?

4:25:42And then we hear about, well,

4:25:43the concrete is gonna continue to deteriorate.

4:25:47So are we really looking at whether 30, 35, 40 years

4:25:52we would have to demolish this bridge

4:25:55because it just would cost too much to replace?

4:26:02Through you, Madam Chair, to Councillor Billings,

4:26:04I think it's difficult for us to forecast the future

4:26:09of where we would be at that point in time,

4:26:11but I will defer to structural engineer Jeremy

4:26:15of whether he has any comment to add on that

4:26:18in terms of what we might expect

4:26:22for the lifespan of the structure

4:26:24and beyond that 30 year mark.

4:26:31Thanks, Kate.

4:26:34Beyond the 30 year mark,

4:26:37it is possible that the bridge could be renewed

4:26:41and repaired at that point in time

4:26:43to get us another 30 year period.

4:26:47It's just unknown what those costs could be at that time.

4:26:52And then so do you now, through you, Madam Chair,

4:26:55again, the concrete, more of the footings,

4:26:58a typical bridge like this,

4:27:00how long would those footings actually last?

4:27:05Typically the footings are not of concern

4:27:09on a bridge like this because the concrete

4:27:14is strictly in compression in those areas

4:27:18to get a little technical.

4:27:21The concern with these bridges is the art shape itself.

4:27:25And as long as that art shape stays intact,

4:27:29the bridge is...

4:27:36Okay, so then what you said...

4:27:38Sorry, Jeremy, I don't know if you cut out,

4:27:40I didn't catch that last part.

4:27:43Sorry, I think I was muted, I apologize.

4:27:50Would you please, Jeremy,

4:27:52just clarify what your last sentence was

4:27:54just once again for us, please?

4:27:57I apologize.

4:27:59As long as the arch part of the bridge maintains,

4:28:03its shape and its condition,

4:28:06the bridge would be re-able,

4:28:08it's possible to re-able it for another 30 years

4:28:11beyond the 30-year period.

4:28:15Okay, and so at that point then,

4:28:17because the concrete keeps deteriorating,

4:28:20so it could possibly be then in 30 years,

4:28:23we would have to put a few more million into that arch.

4:28:27Is that what you're saying?

4:28:29Yes, but yeah, just that cost is unknown at this point in time,

4:28:35but we would be in 30 years,

4:28:37we could potentially be back at where we are today.

4:28:40Okay, thank you for that, Jeremy, appreciate that.

4:28:46Thank you, Councillor Billings.

4:28:48I'm just looking around at my colleagues

4:28:50to see if there's any more questions.

4:28:53No, okay, and to quote Cam,

4:28:56lucky you, it is now my turn.

4:28:59Okay, my first question,

4:29:06I have two questions with regard

4:29:11to the heritage designation of the bridge.

4:29:17The first question is with regard to,

4:29:19some of my colleagues just have brought up

4:29:21some of the concerns with regard to

4:29:25de-heritaging the bridge,

4:29:29and I made up that word and you can add it to your dictionaries,

4:29:34but my concern here is,

4:29:36we've talked a little bit about the impact

4:29:39of what that would mean for our work plan,

4:29:43but I just wanted to go a little bit further with that

4:29:47and ask about the staff implications.

4:29:49So a couple of weeks ago,

4:29:51passed a motion to ask the provincial government

4:29:55if they could extend our timeline

4:29:57for heritage designations

4:29:59to allow our staff to have more capacity to complete those.

4:30:03We don't know if that will be extended or not,

4:30:05but the problem remains that we asked for it

4:30:09because we need the timing.

4:30:10So I just wanted to clarify

4:30:12what the staff implications would be,

4:30:15not just for this project,

4:30:16but for all of our other heritage projects that are in queue.

4:30:23Through the chair,

4:30:25I think I can confidently say that

4:30:27because this would require a heritage permit

4:30:30as well as repeal of a part four designation

4:30:34and amendment of a part five designation,

4:30:36that we would likely not be able to work

4:30:38on any more individual designations

4:30:40until this matter was resolved.

4:30:46Okay, thank you for that.

4:30:48And then my next question, I hope, is appropriate,

4:30:52but I just had a question

4:30:53with regard to the maintenance of McWilliams Bridge,

4:30:55and with regard to the timing of...

4:31:00Did we stop maintaining the bridge

4:31:02after it was decommissioned as a vehicular traffic bridge?

4:31:17To the chair.

4:31:20After...

4:31:22Let me, I apologize.

4:31:24Let me just ensure I have my dates correctly.

4:31:26But after the bridge in 2002, 2004,

4:31:34when Stoner was reconstructed,

4:31:37the bridge was no longer part of an active roadway

4:31:40and therefore was not part of our necessity

4:31:50to continue to maintain to the same level

4:31:55as a bridge in an active roadway.

4:31:57However, we did continue to do OSIM inspections

4:32:04to see in some ad hoc minor repairs as necessary.

4:32:09Throughout the years.

4:32:13Okay, thank you for that.

4:32:15And I just, I'd like to go back to a question

4:32:19that counselor Hauser had asked earlier,

4:32:23just because I wasn't sure if there was a number.

4:32:27So the question was regarding the cost to maintain it.

4:32:31So I'm guessing that based on your answer,

4:32:33there has been some ad hoc repairs.

4:32:34So is there a number with regard to how much it costs

4:32:39to maintain, I guess it's not been maintained,

4:32:41maintain it currently?

4:32:45Sorry, can you please, to the chair,

4:32:47can you please clarify, are you talking to maintain

4:32:50until we get to a point of reconstruction

4:32:53or are you talking about once we've reconstructed,

4:32:56what is that maintenance cost?

4:32:59The current costs annually.

4:33:05Currently, I apologize, I don't have the exact budget

4:33:11at this moment, but we could get that

4:33:15in conjunction with our operations team

4:33:17and get some, get a number back to you.

4:33:22Okay, thank you.

4:33:25All right, that is my, those are my questions.

4:33:30And now I'd like to move on to comments.

4:33:33And I know that there were quite a few that had comments.

4:33:37I did have counselor Gibson already on my list,

4:33:40but I would also like to ask my colleagues

4:33:43who else would like to comment at this time.

4:33:46Counselor Gowler, looking up at the screen,

4:33:50Counselor Katen.

4:33:54Also, Counselor Billings and Counselor Gibson,

4:33:57I don't see you up on the screen,

4:33:58but I just wanted to check with regard to comments

4:34:02if you wanna be on the list.

4:34:08Yes, no, okay.

4:34:09Yes, please, yes, please.

4:34:11And how's there and Quran?

4:34:17Let's start with Counselor Gibson.

4:34:20I really appreciate it.

4:34:20Thank you, Chair.

4:34:22My final two comments are my number one priority

4:34:26through this process is aligned with a secondary priority

4:34:30of the project, which is to improve the corridor itself.

4:34:34Currently right now, I don't believe the corridor

4:34:36is functioning properly along Stone Road.

4:34:38I've stated, I think publicly that I think

4:34:40it's a bit of a speed trap as you come over the hill

4:34:42on Stone Road and down into the valley,

4:34:43you go from a 60 down to a 40 very easily.

4:34:47We all know what it means to go 75 and a 60.

4:34:49You are speeding, but in this case,

4:34:52over about a 50 foot section of road,

4:34:54a 40 kilometer an hour sign pops up.

4:34:56And if you are speeding at 75 miles an hour,

4:34:59you're almost going twice the speed limit immediately.

4:35:02And the biggest story that I had was a gentleman lost.

4:35:05The suspended license was fired from his job

4:35:08all because he was making delivery at four in the morning

4:35:10to one of the plants out there

4:35:11and was pulled over for stunt driving.

4:35:15That was the designation at the time.

4:35:17So I do have a deep concern about this corridor.

4:35:19I want it fixed and I believe that option four

4:35:23is the most expedient way from a design,

4:35:26detailed design and construction methodology perspective.

4:35:29I think it can be faster.

4:35:30Although staff have told me that both option two

4:35:32and option four would follow a similar timeline.

4:35:3527 budget, 28 construction.

4:35:38So in closing, my last comment is,

4:35:40I think in the most professional way possible,

4:35:43I'm going to disagree with staff

4:35:44and their evaluation of the alternatives.

4:35:48I think financial evaluation needs to be given

4:35:51a little bit more weight.

4:35:53And I also believe from an environmental performance

4:35:55perspective on hydrology,

4:35:56and we all know how important flood water

4:35:58and flood maintenance and prevention is,

4:36:00being able to create a clear span bridge

4:36:03is a clear win over a constriction in a riverway.

4:36:06So I believe that that should have been evaluated

4:36:09a little bit further in option four.

4:36:11If the motion recommendation fails,

4:36:14I will put forward a motion to either defer

4:36:18or reconsider to staff other evaluation of the process.

4:36:23But I will wait to see how council votes on this motion.

4:36:27Thank you.

4:36:29Thank you, Councillor Gibson.

4:36:31Let me just quickly find my list.

4:36:33I lost it for a second.

4:36:36Madam chair. Councillor Goller, please.

4:36:37Sorry, Madam chair, do you mind if I just add a comment

4:36:41in response to a couple of things

4:36:42I've just heard in the last little bit.

4:36:43Just want to clarify, we do through state's FCA work,

4:36:46we have equal weighting on all the categories

4:36:48in terms of the way that the EA was applied.

4:36:50So I just want to say that out loud.

4:36:52The other thing I just want to clarify,

4:36:53just kind of picking up on the threads

4:36:55of some of the questions and comments is,

4:36:57we have done maintenance on this bridge

4:36:59over the course of time.

4:37:00And our operations department

4:37:01certainly does do minor maintenance work.

4:37:03When we talk about maintenance,

4:37:04there's different categories.

4:37:05The more major sort of structural rehabilitation

4:37:08type maintenance is different

4:37:09than maybe more routine maintenance.

4:37:12And so that routine maintenance certainly

4:37:13has occurred over the years.

4:37:14Our operations department is out there

4:37:17doing that work each year.

4:37:19So whether that's, you know, maybe there's some cracks

4:37:21or maybe there's some graffiti removal.

4:37:23Maybe there's some cleaning to do,

4:37:24whatever the case may be, we do do that work.

4:37:26And so I just want to make that comment out loud publicly

4:37:28that certainly the city has been doing maintenance

4:37:31on the McClune bridge.

4:37:34Thank you. DCG.

4:37:37Councillor Goller, please your next fair comments.

4:37:40Thank you, chair.

4:37:41And if you beg my leave,

4:37:43may I ask one more question of staff?

4:37:47Okay. Thank you.

4:37:49Staff, I just want to clarification

4:37:51because we're considering possibly like,

4:37:53what if we go with alternative four under alternative four?

4:37:57There was a sentence that said

4:37:58that it would have the new school structure

4:38:01could integrate some heritage considerations

4:38:04through sympathetic design.

4:38:06Could you tell me what that means?

4:38:15Through you, Madam Chair.

4:38:18I think, and Jack, I will look over to you

4:38:21after I've made some comments.

4:38:24The sympathetic design would be in terms of echoing

4:38:27the shape of the existing bridge, right?

4:38:30You have that opportunity to do that

4:38:33with a steel trust could be a straight rectangular shape.

4:38:36It could be arched.

4:38:39You have the opportunity.

4:38:41But I think what we've seen in the

4:38:44heritage impact assessment for this study

4:38:46is that you can't replicate the,

4:38:49there's no ability to replicate the heritage features

4:38:53of the bridge in a steel material.

4:38:55So it would really be only kind of honoring

4:38:58the shape of the structure.

4:39:00Jack, do you want to add anything to that?

4:39:02You're happy with that? Great. Thank you.

4:39:05Okay. So before clarifying,

4:39:07it could be a bow style bridge.

4:39:10It would just be made of steel

4:39:11instead of the historic cement.

4:39:14Okay. Correct. Yeah.

4:39:16Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.

4:39:19This is very, very difficult decision.

4:39:22I put it out on our newsletter on Friday

4:39:25to get some more feedback from our constituents.

4:39:28And I did, at that time here at about a ratio of four to one

4:39:32that my constituents asked me to maintain

4:39:36that historic bridge because of the impact

4:39:40to the culture of the city.

4:39:41And I do listen to that.

4:39:43I also heard from many of my constituents

4:39:45who are concerned about the cost increases

4:39:47to our community and the affordability.

4:39:50So I think at this time I am really torn.

4:39:53I will be voting in favor of the staff recommendation

4:39:57this time, but just to, yeah, thank you.

4:40:00Thank you for that.

4:40:01It is a difficult decision,

4:40:03but I think that I may change my mind later on.

4:40:07This will come back to us at the end of the month.

4:40:09Is that correct? Okay. Correct.

4:40:11So I will.

4:40:12And if I hear significantly different from my constituents

4:40:14between now and the end of the month,

4:40:15I may change my mind on that.

4:40:17Thank you.

4:40:19Thank you, Councillor Goller.

4:40:20Councillor Caiten, please.

4:40:24Thank you. Through you.

4:40:27So considering for me the speed to completion,

4:40:31which includes all processes and appeals,

4:40:34the environmental impact to the habitats,

4:40:36which would occur in all the options

4:40:38that involve rebuilding the base,

4:40:40the cost stall, the departments and impact to workflow,

4:40:44if we were to go the demolition route,

4:40:46risking our heritage plan,

4:40:48which is on a sprint right now,

4:40:49just to meet the provincial deadline,

4:40:52consistency of adherence to our heritage policies,

4:40:54the fact that we unanimously passed

4:40:57our part five designation on this just very, very recently.

4:41:01And the guarantee of the yearly maintenance funding.

4:41:05And also I attended the public feedback

4:41:07and the engagement that our group did.

4:41:11And it was really great.

4:41:12Like it was really well done.

4:41:14And everybody who walked through there

4:41:16wanted the bridge rehabilitated.

4:41:18And finally, just as a ward one Councillor,

4:41:20we deserve nice things too.

4:41:22We deserve some heritage.

4:41:24And the rest of the heritage covered under the policy

4:41:27we passed is owned by the province.

4:41:28And we saw how that went with the bridge

4:41:30that they just demolished in this area.

4:41:33So I'm very, very happy to support

4:41:37the staff recommendation and all the great work

4:41:39that you've all done.

4:41:40Thank you.

4:41:42Thank you, Councillor Caton.

4:41:44Councillor Hauser, please.

4:41:47Thank you.

4:41:48I would just like to echo Councillor Caton's

4:41:50mostly summed up what I was gonna say.

4:41:53What I really think is very valuable is,

4:41:55like this is 110 years old.

4:41:57It's very literally a bridge to history.

4:42:00The brand new bridge that we're gonna build,

4:42:01we're looking at longevity of 70 years.

4:42:04This one's already 100.

4:42:05And that's pretty remarkable.

4:42:06So I will be supporting as well.

4:42:09Thank you, Councillor Hauser.

4:42:10Councillor Caron, please.

4:42:12Yes, thank you.

4:42:14And I really, I appreciate the discussion.

4:42:17I know that there's been a discussion in the community.

4:42:19I know that their Councillor Goller initiated the question

4:42:23of whether the financial acumen balances out

4:42:28with all the other community aspirations.

4:42:30So I really appreciate that discussion.

4:42:32For me, this is a file that goes back

4:42:34so long and it won't come as a surprise

4:42:38that I'm passionately asking my Councillor colleagues

4:42:41to support preservation.

4:42:44This started for me in 2004.

4:42:46I wasn't even on council at that time,

4:42:48but I was the chair of Heritage Guelph

4:42:50at the time when this was designated.

4:42:52And the designation was at a time when, again,

4:42:55the reformatory lands were also being decommissioned

4:43:00or had already been decommissioned.

4:43:02There were some stone gates on Stone Road

4:43:04that led to this bridge that have since disappeared.

4:43:08I recall vividly standing at this bridge

4:43:12with members of Puslench Township Heritage Committee

4:43:16where we talked about this being their heritage

4:43:19because this was the township line

4:43:24prior to city boundaries expanding

4:43:27and a conversation about our obligation

4:43:29to protect their heritage as much as our own.

4:43:33In 2005, we had our Trails Master Plan

4:43:35identifying this connection.

4:43:37In 2016, again, the Trails Master Plan.

4:43:412004, I have an email from staff

4:43:44which I've circulated to members of council

4:43:47with a commitment to preserve.

4:43:49In 2019, we had our stranded asset report first tabled

4:43:53where a commitment to preserve was embedded in that.

4:43:56We've had commitments through three different CAOs

4:43:59that our heritage assets would be conserved.

4:44:02So for me, this is very much a matter of credibility.

4:44:05We have property standards bylaws for heritage assets.

4:44:09We have our part four and part five.

4:44:12There's very few individual structures like this

4:44:14that have both protections under the Heritage Act.

4:44:18I think we've created a community expectation

4:44:21when we passed those designations

4:44:23that preservation would be our priority.

4:44:26I wasn't gonna call a point of order,

4:44:28but I did hear my counselor colleague Gibson stating

4:44:32that counselors were somehow putting hurdles

4:44:36in the way of our professional staff

4:44:38and questioning the expertise of our structural engineer

4:44:42who's with us online and our professional staff here

4:44:45in the council chambers with us

4:44:49and questioning their assessment

4:44:51of their expert engineering advice.

4:44:52So I just want to point out that I have full confidence

4:44:55in your abilities and your advice

4:44:57as professional engineers in the delivery of this AEA to us

4:45:02and the final recommendation of option two

4:45:07was thoroughly assessed

4:45:08with lots of different parameters including financial

4:45:11and that maintaining the heritage rose above all of that,

4:45:15even including those financial.

4:45:17We've already lost the Trestle Bridge on the GID lands,

4:45:21losing a second bridge is just,

4:45:25when there's no need for that,

4:45:26there is no other opportunity for us

4:45:29to restore this once it's gone.

4:45:32I am sensitive to the financial limitations

4:45:35and I don't want anyone to believe

4:45:38that that isn't a factor in my decision making as well,

4:45:42but I know that this is a long game.

4:45:44I know that it has been a long game for 110 years,

4:45:49but I'm confident that we have a future generation

4:45:54well beyond us who will be able to enjoy this bridge

4:45:57just as earlier generations before we were born,

4:45:59unless any of us were born before 1916,

4:46:03that the stewardship of this asset

4:46:06will last well beyond our lifetime

4:46:09and that we have an obligation

4:46:10and I've heard the word obligation

4:46:12from many counselors including Councillor Chew,

4:46:16Councillor Goller, Councillor Gibson,

4:46:18I've heard the word obligations

4:46:20in a number of our narratives today,

4:46:22and so for me this obligation of stewardship

4:46:26extends well beyond the next term of council

4:46:29and into the next generation, so thanks.

4:46:32Thank you, Councillor Caron.

4:46:34Councillor Allt, please.

4:46:38Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

4:46:40First of all, I would like to thank staff

4:46:42for the tremendous work that is being done

4:46:45on this particular issue.

4:46:47Certainly your professional credentials

4:46:49and your integrity should not come into question on this.

4:46:52I believe that you have worked very solidly on this.

4:46:55Whether a heritage attribute is downtown

4:47:00in the inner city, word four, five, or six,

4:47:02I think it's incumbent upon us to research

4:47:04all of these to determine what the value is

4:47:07of preserving them.

4:47:08Similarly, I think we have a governance issue here as well.

4:47:11We have identified that this bridge is protected

4:47:14under the parts four and five

4:47:17of our heritage determination.

4:47:21I also note that I got an email from a bridge lover

4:47:26from Nova Scotia, pointing out that a preliminary search

4:47:30of the web has shown that this is the second oldest bridge

4:47:33of this type in Ontario.

4:47:36Now that begs two questions.

4:47:38Where is the oldest bridge, and why is it still standing?

4:47:42Should it not have come down as well?

4:47:44I also reflect on something that I'll bet you

4:47:47that most people here, I think maybe everybody except

4:47:50for me is too young to remember,

4:47:53and that's the monkey bridge on the Speed River,

4:47:56which is very similar that came down a long time ago,

4:47:59just below the dam.

4:48:01This particular bridge was lamented by many people my age

4:48:05because it was known as the monkey bridge

4:48:06because we hung off it and jumped into the river,

4:48:09which was pretty stupid, but we did it anyway.

4:48:12And I don't wanna see another one go.

4:48:15I'm gonna support the staff recommendation.

4:48:17I thank you for your work.

4:48:19I'm certainly gonna hold your feet to the fire

4:48:20on things like cost, but in terms of your professional

4:48:23integrity, I appreciate that, and I know that we will hear

4:48:27more from you as we look for heritage attributes

4:48:30in structures in word four, word six, word one,

4:48:35and elsewhere in Guelph, heritage is worth considering

4:48:39and preserving.

4:48:42Thank you, Councillor Allt.

4:48:43Councillor Chew, please.

4:48:48Yeah, through you, Madam Chair,

4:48:50thank you for facilitating this discussion.

4:48:53For me, I appreciate staff being able to point me

4:48:56to some of their work.

4:48:59$2,000 a year versus $5,000 a year.

4:49:03It's not about not spending money, it's about wearing how,

4:49:06and we're looking at an investment for a product

4:49:09that can last much longer than this concrete structure

4:49:12to maintain.

4:49:13So for me, it's very clear what the path is,

4:49:16but I also think there are very tasteful ways

4:49:19to preserve heritage and pay homage to the history.

4:49:24And I also value, I do see value in this linkage

4:49:27being preserved, and for those reasons,

4:49:30I personally would like to support options for,

4:49:33but I also see kind of where the world council is

4:49:36at the moment, so I'm just gonna leave my comments there

4:49:39and also say I won't be supporting the staff recommendations

4:49:42just for those reasons.

4:49:43Thank you.

4:49:45Councillor Downer, please.

4:49:48Thanks.

4:49:49So again, thanks to staff for the work

4:49:51that they've done on this and respecting

4:49:54and the way it was weighted and the criteria,

4:49:58taking into account the strong engagement that was had

4:50:05with people and their preference to keeping this bridge.

4:50:08So it went through a lot of public engagement,

4:50:10a fair amount to see what the community felt about it

4:50:15and the community recognized that the cultural value

4:50:18of this bridge that, and some of us may think,

4:50:21well, it's on the edge of town, it's not, you know,

4:50:24nobody sees it, all those types of things.

4:50:26You gotta remember there's 5,000, I forget if it's 5,000,

4:50:29but there's thousands of people moving into the GID lens,

4:50:32probably within the next 10 to 20 years.

4:50:35And these types of structures,

4:50:40these sense of place is important to a lot of communities.

4:50:44It ties us to our rural background

4:50:47and where we've been and where we've come.

4:50:50And those are very difficult to replicate.

4:50:54And the 30 years versus 75,

4:50:57it's kind of hypothetical in some ways

4:50:59because we don't know really in 30 years

4:51:01what this building would be like.

4:51:03I like to think that my house, my 100-year-old,

4:51:06110-year-old house is not done in 30 years

4:51:08when somebody does a reassessment of it.

4:51:11So, I mean, and that may happen, that maybe it will be,

4:51:16but I do think it's valuable to the community.

4:51:25And so I do think it's worth us preserving

4:51:27that heritage feature in that part of the city,

4:51:31where we're gonna have a growing population

4:51:33moving out that way as well.

4:51:35And not to say that people are not using it today,

4:51:38which sounds like it's getting a lot of use.

4:51:40People, the emails we're getting are recognizing

4:51:44and saying that we value this.

4:51:46We value it as a crossing,

4:51:47but we also value it as a heritage structure.

4:51:52Thank you, Councillor Kedana.

4:51:53Councillor Boustele, please.

4:51:56Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair,

4:51:58thank you for this report and also echo my colleagues.

4:52:01Thank you to the staff for this.

4:52:02I think as I've gone through the anniversary

4:52:05of the city of Guelph as a West Ender, Ward 4,

4:52:08I echo Councillor Catons, we like nice things too

4:52:12in Ward 4, and it would be nice to have some cultural,

4:52:15historical context there for the residents.

4:52:18What I take away from this, and I come from Italy,

4:52:20so Emilio Romagna, Porto De Fechio,

4:52:23and all those kinds of things,

4:52:24those are Christopher Columbus's doorknob on his house.

4:52:28History is really important in developing the culture

4:52:30of our community.

4:52:32And so what I heard is that this bridge is significant.

4:52:36It's one of the few remaining in the country.

4:52:38It's a heritage bridge on the Ontario formatory

4:52:41heritage district over a heritage river,

4:52:44like how much more.

4:52:46And to me, it screams of speaking our story

4:52:50in this community.

4:52:52So it's important to me,

4:52:53and I think it's important to future generations.

4:52:56So thank you to staff.

4:52:57I will be supporting the staff recommendation.

4:53:01Thank you, Councillor Abustel.

4:53:04Are there any comments from anyone who hasn't spoken yet?

4:53:08Councillor Gatheery again, but no, Mayor Gatheery.

4:53:14Excuse me.

4:53:15It's okay.

4:53:17Thank you.

4:53:18Yeah, I wasn't going to speak, but maybe I think I will.

4:53:21I appreciate it with Councillor Caron said right off the top,

4:53:24about like it's nice to have the discussion.

4:53:26And it is a passionate discussion.

4:53:28We're passionate in different areas.

4:53:30Like I'm not upset that this looks to me

4:53:32like it's going to pass and that's fine.

4:53:34Not an issue.

4:53:36But I, some people are passionate really heavily

4:53:40into the heritage side of things.

4:53:41I don't think it would be a surprise if people knew

4:53:43that I'm pretty passionate on their trying to save money

4:53:45side of things as well.

4:53:47And I feel that there is an option in front of us here

4:53:50where we can have a bridge that can be made,

4:53:54that gives attributes to the heritage and the history,

4:53:58and literally saves $1.8 million.

4:54:02That to me seems like the win that I would take,

4:54:06but I understand and respect the passionate debate

4:54:09on the other side of it,

4:54:10even though we're on two different sides of a bridge,

4:54:13I guess on this one.

4:54:15So just another thing too is that the decision to preserve

4:54:23is a budget decision.

4:54:25So every year at budget time,

4:54:30there is the backlog of asset renewal

4:54:33and assets that we have on the books.

4:54:35Any one of us has the opportunity to present

4:54:39an option to council to increase or shift

4:54:43or move other things around to accommodate

4:54:46the priorities that we're all passionate about.

4:54:49So that never happened on this one,

4:54:51which is why we're now here with a replacement

4:54:53versus restore sort of debate as well.

4:54:59I do feel like this is way too much money for what it is.

4:55:04And to me, it comes down to just the,

4:55:07to me, it's the issue of what are we trying to solve?

4:55:11It's to get from one side of the bank

4:55:13or the river to the other.

4:55:14That's where I'm at on this,

4:55:16and to do it in the cheapest way possible.

4:55:20I think this is a bridge too far for the taxpayers.

4:55:23And it concerns me, I've seen this sort of,

4:55:30historically I've seen when there's options

4:55:32in front of us, of council in the past,

4:55:35that sometimes it just feels like we're always kind of going

4:55:38for the more expensive options all the time.

4:55:42And this is just another one.

4:55:44And so to me, and maybe our CFO can correct me

4:55:49at the end of the month,

4:55:49but the differential in costs here is 0.5%

4:55:55of a tax increase.

4:55:59So that's what the differential in cost is.

4:56:021.8 million, 3.6 is equal to one approximately.

4:56:06So point, you know, we're,

4:56:08you just, the decision today,

4:56:12as much as people want to call it a cultural

4:56:14or a heritage decision is a budget decision.

4:56:19And I would rather do it at a new bridge

4:56:24that gives homage to the old one,

4:56:27at a way less cost and way less operating costs.

4:56:33And I guarantee a cost, it's going to last longer.

4:56:41It's going to last longer.

4:56:42So that's where I land.

4:56:44That's my passion on this side.

4:56:46And I appreciate you letting me kind of jump in

4:56:50on those reasons why I certainly will not support what this is.

4:56:55And frankly, you know, when engagement happens

4:57:00on these types of things, and it is good engagement,

4:57:02don't get me wrong, it is very good engagement

4:57:04with the public, but there, I don't think like actual costs

4:57:08are told at the time, right?

4:57:11Am I right, sorry, am I right on that?

4:57:13When engagement is happening on EAs and such,

4:57:16when you're doing the open houses,

4:57:18like do you also say to the public,

4:57:19and by the way, it might cost X or it might cost Y,

4:57:22is that stated, I can't remember?

4:57:26Through you, Madam Chair, I'm trying to recall

4:57:29if we had cost values in the most recent public open house,

4:57:34we certainly had the evaluation summary

4:57:36with the scoring for cost and financial criteria.

4:57:40So certainly for sure that was presented,

4:57:43we'd have to get back to you and check on.

4:57:45No problem, no problem.

4:57:46What I'm trying to say is that since this report

4:57:48has come out, you know, and we all have kind of different

4:57:51groups that might be closer to us, right?

4:57:53I'm hearing from kind of a bigger portion of the city

4:57:56saying, really, you're gonna spend that much money

4:57:59when there's an alternative option

4:58:01that's like under half of the price.

4:58:03So that's kind of, that's the consistency

4:58:05and the feedback that I'm receiving so far to date on this.

4:58:10So with that, you know, I appreciate the dialogue

4:58:14and appreciate wherever,

4:58:15I wanna respect wherever council wants to go on this,

4:58:18but I'm really concerned about the costs here,

4:58:23as you can tell.

4:58:24Thank you very much.

4:58:26Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

4:58:28Well, that brings us to the end

4:58:31of a very passionate discussion.

4:58:35And I just, I would like to really thank staff

4:58:38for all of your effort in the EA

4:58:41and in preparation for this discussion.

4:58:44I spent a little bit of that time with you,

4:58:47and I know that that was just the tip of the iceberg

4:58:51when it comes to everything that you did,

4:58:53discussions with the public, discussions with staff,

4:58:56and all of the consultants.

4:58:58I really appreciate everything that goes into this,

4:59:00especially when it's a complex issue,

4:59:03when there are a lot of differing opinions

4:59:05around the horseshoe.

4:59:06I also wanted to just acknowledge that, you know,

4:59:10it is really good when we disagree on these issues.

4:59:14I think that it makes for a fulsome conversation,

4:59:17and it's part of this work as well.

4:59:20And so I just wanted to thank all of my colleagues.

4:59:23I had some interesting conversations

4:59:25with those of you who are interested in option number four,

4:59:28and those of you who are interested in option number two.

4:59:30And I thought there were some very compelling arguments

4:59:33on both sides, some of which were made here today.

4:59:36So I just wanted to say thank you

4:59:37for those respectful conversations.

4:59:39I also wanted to add that as far as,

4:59:44I don't want to add anything new.

4:59:45I think that we had some very compelling arguments today,

4:59:48especially with some of the knowledge and history keepers

4:59:51that are here on council who know about our city's past.

4:59:55And I really want to acknowledge, you know, that as well.

5:00:00I think that really adds to the storytelling of this place.

5:00:04I want to talk about value for money.

5:00:07As a city, we invest in economic development,

5:00:10wayfinding, and tourism.

5:00:12And part of those cultural assets include our down,

5:00:16we recently designated our downtown.

5:00:19We're looking at designating our ward west.

5:00:22As a council and as a community, we have identified

5:00:26that these are some of the reasons that make Guelph Guelph.

5:00:29And when I think about cultural heritage assets

5:00:33and infrastructure, sometimes I think

5:00:35that they are a bit at all.

5:00:37Because infrastructure needs to serve a purpose,

5:00:39which is typically to help us get from place to place.

5:00:42And old infrastructure sometimes needs to be replaced.

5:00:46And so I appreciate that the nuance in that discussion.

5:00:51But I want to go back to the investments

5:00:53that we're putting into tourism.

5:00:55Recently, I saw a grant that was available

5:00:57for cycle tourism.

5:00:59We're investing in various ways of getting people

5:01:02to commute, to visit, to see our city.

5:01:05And it is a big component of why people choose to live here,

5:01:08but then also why they choose to come here and to visit.

5:01:12And as we grow as a city, I think that we need to look

5:01:14at these as investments and not as expenses.

5:01:19And so I will be supporting the staff recommendation.

5:01:23And with that, I would like to call the vote.

5:01:26So I have Councillor Gibson who is phoned in.

5:01:30So first, I'd like to ask Councillor Gibson

5:01:34if you support, if you are for or against

5:01:37the staff recommendation.

5:01:39Thank you, Councillor Clausson.

5:01:41I'm against.

5:01:43Thank you, Councillor Gibson.

5:01:45And now for the rest of council,

5:01:48I would like to ask if you are,

5:01:50if anybody is against the recommendation.

5:01:54And I will call out the names Mayor Guthrie,

5:01:58Councillor Richardson, Councillor Billings,

5:02:01Councillor Chew, and that is all.

5:02:05We have four voting against, five voting against, thank you.

5:02:11And so that passes.

5:02:14Thank you everyone for the discussion.

5:02:16And we are now going to take about a 30 minute break

5:02:20for dinner and we'll come back to discuss

5:02:22the three remaining items on the IDE agenda.

5:02:26Thank you and we'll be back here at 6.15.

5:34:26Welcome back everybody.

5:34:28It is 6.15 and we are going to get started

5:34:31with the rest of our agenda items.

5:34:33So next up on the agenda is our outside water use bylaw.

5:34:42So before we get started, I would like to just take a moment

5:34:46to reflect on our role as responsible stewards

5:34:49of our community's water resources

5:34:51and thank staff for bringing this bylaw update forward to us.

5:34:56Before we get started on everything else,

5:35:00we've got a presentation from Heather Yates.

5:35:02So Heather, welcome to the podium.

5:35:05Thank you and good evening Chair class

5:35:12and members of City Council.

5:35:13My name is Heather Yates.

5:35:14I'm the manager of compliance, programs and performance

5:35:17in environmental services.

5:35:19It's my pleasure to present the details of the update

5:35:22to the outside water use bylaw.

5:35:24City of Guelph has long been an early adopter

5:35:32and lead in municipal water demand.

5:35:34As a groundwater based community, with finite supply,

5:35:37Guelph's success in managing seasonal water demand

5:35:40has assisted in securing water servicing capacity

5:35:43and ensuring compliance with our permitted water takings.

5:35:46With support from GEI Consultants Canada,

5:35:49staff initiated a review of the 2014 outside water use bylaw.

5:35:54This was to ensure alignment with updated regulation,

5:35:57policies and environmental protection since 2014.

5:36:00Most notably an update on our local water use bylaw

5:36:03and update on our local water bylaws

5:36:05for sewer use bylaw and water bylaw,

5:36:08as well as our source water protection

5:36:10and water quantity policies.

5:36:12We also needed to assess fee structure

5:36:14and enforcement practices to verify present day needs.

5:36:19We wanted to consider feedback of community members,

5:36:22including some of the feedback received

5:36:24on ease of use of the current structure

5:36:27and evaluate some of the comparator practices

5:36:29that exist since 2014,

5:36:31as well as our water changes in water using patterns

5:36:35since that time.

5:36:41You're likely familiar with the image you see before you.

5:36:44These are our current program levels

5:36:45associated with the outside water use bylaw.

5:36:48For context of the update,

5:36:50I'd like to describe the current bylaws program

5:36:52and how staff use data to support changes in the levels.

5:36:57Staff monitor and analyze several conditions

5:37:00that determine whether more cautious water use

5:37:02is required or appropriate.

5:37:04These conditions include temperature

5:37:06and quantity of rain,

5:37:08surface water body levels provided

5:37:09by the Grand River Conservation Authority,

5:37:13and overall tracking of water production.

5:37:15Water production is that of the amount

5:37:18of water water services pumps,

5:37:20treats and distributes in total

5:37:21to the drinking water system per day.

5:37:24Based on these factors,

5:37:25staff produce a weekly condition report

5:37:28indicating what level of outside water use is appropriate,

5:37:32protecting the supply within the parameters

5:37:35of our permits to take water.

5:37:38When a combination of factors are met or exceeded,

5:37:41staff make the data-driven decision

5:37:43to elevate or de-escalate a level.

5:37:46The levels have predetermined outside water

5:37:47using activities that are permitted or constrained

5:37:50based on the severity of local water conditions.

5:37:53Staff use our various communication channels,

5:37:56including the city's webpage, social,

5:37:58and the city's infamous roadside signs

5:38:00to inform residents and businesses