City Council approve the deconstruction of the Rutherford Conservatory at 37 Christie Lane on the condition that salvageable steel be retained and conserved for future use…

7:54:28because of the risk identified

7:54:29in the Tacoma Engineering Report posed by snow loads

7:54:32on the conservatory structure.

7:54:35As per council's direction at the November 13th

7:54:37council meeting, the notice of intention to designate

7:54:39was issued on November 21st,

7:54:42with solvable steel elements of the conservatory

7:54:45listed as the heritage attribute.

7:54:48Since then, heritage planning staff have been collaborating

7:54:51with the University on a path forward.

7:54:53As part of this application, the University has submitted

7:54:56a report by an engineer who is a member

7:54:58of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals

7:55:01that describes a plan for the careful dismantlement

7:55:04of the conservatory, the identification of solvable steel,

7:55:08and the retention of steel for future reuse

7:55:10in a commemorative structure.

7:55:13Heritage planning staff are satisfied that this report

7:55:16aligns with council's direction

7:55:18and anticipate continued collaboration

7:55:20with the University on commemoration

7:55:22of this heritage structure.

7:55:25Thank you, that's all.

7:55:27Okay, well thank you very much.

7:55:29And Alex, did you want to also just say a few words

7:55:33on behalf of Heritage Guelph?

7:55:35And go right ahead whenever you're ready.

7:55:37Thank you, yeah.

7:55:38I'm mainly here as a resource to answer any questions

7:55:43that you have regarding Heritage Guelph meetings to date

7:55:47and the discussions that have happened around this file

7:55:50and to clarify any part of the motion

7:55:52that came out of our recent meeting.

7:55:56That being said, I do wish to provide some context

7:55:59to that motion that is from us before you.

7:56:03So a very brief recap as this has been a long night.

7:56:07The history of this file as it pertains

7:56:08to Heritage Guelph is involvement.

7:56:11So in January, this was identified as top priority.

7:56:16So in July, we received our Heritage Evaluation Report

7:56:19from staff and the Heritage Attributes.

7:56:23Through the research provided at that time, again,

7:56:26as you know, we, this conservatory met eight of nine criteria

7:56:30which is a very high standard to hit.

7:56:36We requested as a committee that staff bring forward

7:56:40a more detailed list of Heritage Attributes

7:56:42at our September meeting and urge staff

7:56:44to continue the conversation with the University

7:56:47on conservation efforts.

7:56:49I will note that there were delegates from the University

7:56:52and the architect at that meeting and to quote them,

7:56:54there was no pressure at that time.

7:56:57They wanted to see the process kind of move forward.

7:57:00So in that September meeting,

7:57:02Heritage Guelph received the revised Heritage Attributes

7:57:05and finding them satisfactory past the motion recommending

7:57:08Council give notice of intention to designate under part four.

7:57:13The University and the architect and engineers

7:57:16were present as delegates

7:57:19and it was at that meeting that Heritage Guelph

7:57:21was informed of their intention to oppose

7:57:25or their opposition to the intention to designate,

7:57:29to not really spend resources on conservation

7:57:32and to ultimately file for a demolition.

7:57:36I just want to be clear though,

7:57:39that as far as Heritage Guelph is concerned,

7:57:42procedurally for that agenda,

7:57:43we were there to discuss Heritage Attributes

7:57:45and provide Council advice with regards to designation.

7:57:50So there wasn't a conversation at that meeting

7:57:52with regards to potential demolition application.

7:57:58We're here as you're well aware to advise Council

7:58:00on whether a building is deserving of designation or not

7:58:05and the OHA does not instruct us to consider site conditions

7:58:09or property owner financial situation.

7:58:14We're simply there to look at the values

7:58:17that that structure has

7:58:19and what attributes contribute to that.

7:58:24In the December 2nd meeting,

7:58:26we discussed the outcomes

7:58:28of the November 13th Council Planning Meeting

7:58:31and received for comments the application

7:58:33to deconstruct and salvage 37 Christie Lane.

7:58:38We were also asked to review Council's direction

7:58:42to limit the part four designation

7:58:46to just consider the salvageable steel

7:58:49as heritage attribute

7:58:51and that the deconstruction for the purpose

7:58:53of future commemoration may be permitted.

7:58:57So just to clarify again,

7:58:59so we have all the pieces together,

7:59:00we received the staff report,

7:59:02the deconstruction and salvage report

7:59:04written by Tacoma Engineering

7:59:06and the university's letter of repurposing intent.

7:59:10But I will note and just factually

7:59:14that the university, nor the engineer or the architect

7:59:17were present at that meeting.

7:59:19So the committee was unable to clarify anything with them

7:59:23before anybody jumps in.

7:59:24I'm well aware that there is no requirement

7:59:27for the university to delegate at our meetings,

7:59:32but we do welcome having them there

7:59:34to have an open conversation about things.

7:59:39So Heritage Golf provided Council

7:59:45with quite a long motion, which is maybe unusual.

7:59:50I think Council should take this as an attempt

7:59:53to try and get as much stuff out onto the table

7:59:58given how fast things have been moving with this file.

8:00:03It may be helpful to take the first three parts

8:00:05of that motion and look at them specifically,

8:00:08not that the others aren't important as well,

8:00:10but I wanna just be very clear

8:00:13for coming from Heritage Golf that fundamentally

8:00:17we do not support demolition or deconstruction.

8:00:21It runs contrary to the outcome of our September meeting,

8:00:25which was establishing that this property

8:00:29meets a high level of criteria

8:00:31and is well deserving of designation.

8:00:38I'll touch on this in a moment,

8:00:40but there's also functionally

8:00:43a bit of an issue with even sort of limiting

8:00:46the heritage attributes to just one,

8:00:49but I'll talk about that in a moment.

8:00:51Finally, we just advise or urge Council

8:00:54to consider providing more time for public input

8:00:58or for the potential alternative solutions

8:01:01that might arise from the public given this file.

8:01:04We did receive a delegation at that meeting from the public

8:01:07and there was a conversation about

8:01:10how going into the November 13th meeting,

8:01:13we had a building that had a high level of criteria

8:01:15that it met, seemed a sure thing for designation,

8:01:19but came out of that meeting with a potential demolition.

8:01:24Excuse me.

8:01:27I just will reflect very simply on the designation process

8:01:31as this might provide some context

8:01:33to again, the motion as before you.

8:01:38When we identify a building

8:01:40as having potential for designation,

8:01:43we do the research, the staff does the research

8:01:46and they did a very good job at that.

8:01:48Out of that research, we learn a rich history

8:01:50of that building and staff have to then

8:01:54condense that down into a statement

8:01:57of cultural heritage value.

8:01:59And it does so by looking at the Ontario Heritage Act

8:02:01and the criteria that are there.

8:02:05Also we have to provide for heritage attributes

8:02:08and those heritage attributes correspond to the criteria.

8:02:12They help build up and make everything tight, right?

8:02:18They are kind of like, I'm amazed.

8:02:20So they're kind of like the bricks or stones

8:02:22to the walls which are the criteria

8:02:24and altogether you have a structure, you have a building.

8:02:31The OHA does not provide

8:02:34really a process for deconstruction or salvage.

8:02:39I mean, it sort of establishes

8:02:41whether or not a building has value or it doesn't.

8:02:45However, understanding how heritage attributes

8:02:48contribute to an understanding of the statement

8:02:50of cultural heritage value does provide some picture

8:02:55or paint a picture for what could be understood

8:02:59in the conversation of deconstruction.

8:03:04I'll just finish off by saying that

8:03:08like Heritage Guelph had to consider

8:03:10and what council now has to consider

8:03:12is does this property have value?

8:03:16What elements of the structure communicate that value?

8:03:20What would be the impact to the value of this property

8:03:23if there are changes?

8:03:25And how do those values that we've identified,

8:03:29how do they change if commemoration moves forward?

8:03:34And what are the realistic outcomes of commemoration?

8:03:39Again, Heritage Guelph is gonna stick by

8:03:42its original intention that this building meets

8:03:46is well deserving of designation.

8:03:50And that all the heritage attributes

8:03:53that were outlined in that September meeting

8:03:55contribute to that understanding.

8:03:58When you start to pull apart individual attributes

8:04:02like those bricks out of the walls of a building,

8:04:05the brick itself doesn't tell you what the building is.

8:04:09It's just a part of it.

8:04:11And if you pull too much of the structure apart,

8:04:14suddenly it begs the question, what is their left?

8:04:17That actually speaks towards a statement of cultural value.

8:04:23I think council should consider what the outcome of

8:04:28identifying just the steel has in the future.

8:04:32I mean, you may be just left with steel.

8:04:37I'll leave it at that.

8:04:39Thank you, Alex.

8:04:41We appreciate it.

8:04:43And we do have some delegations

8:04:45that I've been waiting a long time.

8:04:47So we're gonna kick it off right away.

8:04:50Is Ami Puthan, Betsy Puthan here?

8:04:53I know it's very nice to see some.

8:04:59Some old faces.

8:05:08Hi, how are you?

8:05:09Thank you for waiting.

8:05:11Long night.

8:05:12Yes.

8:05:13You feel like your heritage all of a sudden now.

8:05:15Been waiting so long.

8:05:17So you as well, five minutes for all the delegates tonight.

8:05:20Okay, so you'll hear their chime at the four minutes,

8:05:2230 second mark and please go right ahead.

8:05:24Okay.

8:05:26Hello, Mr. Mayor, counselors and staff.

8:05:29Thank you for having me as a delegate today.

8:05:32I'm here to voice my concern about the proposed demolition

8:05:36of the Rutherford Conservatory.

8:05:39I'm a grad of U of G, a third generation Guelphite

8:05:43and an individual who cares deeply about our community.

8:05:48What is the significance of the structure?

8:05:51The conservatory is one of the remaining examples

8:05:54of the few Pagoda style greenhouses in North America.

8:05:59The structure is emblematic of the U of G's roots in history

8:06:04as Ontario's agricultural college.

8:06:07It is an iconic U of G building that predates the founding

8:06:12of the university as we know it in 1964.

8:06:16U of G's plan.

8:06:18The U of G plans to demolish the structure.

8:06:22In some correspondence, they refer to it as deconstruction.

8:06:27This irreplaceable asset was recently awarded eight

8:06:31of the nine provincially prescribed criteria

8:06:34for determining cultural heritage value.

8:06:39I just learned that few, if any,

8:06:42other Guelph structures have received an eight

8:06:45of nine ranking for their historical importance.

8:06:49As the city of Guelph report notes,

8:06:52this structural asset offers unique design

8:06:56and physical value, historical and associative value

8:07:00and contextual value.

8:07:03This asset is irreplaceable.

8:07:06The proposal to demolish and salvage parts

8:07:09of the skeleton does nothing

8:07:11to preserve the living history.

8:07:15The city of Guelph has endured many regrettable losses

8:07:18through demolition of its historical structures.

8:07:22Example, Guelph's Carnegie library,

8:07:25which at the time of demolition was attributed

8:07:28to financial efficiencies.

8:07:31Can you imagine other world renowned

8:07:34and globally recognized academic institutions

8:07:38demolishing important historic,

8:07:41prominent buildings on their campus?

8:07:45There is a grassroots petition to raise the profile

8:07:49of this demolition plan and comments reflect

8:07:52this sentiment to this historic structure.

8:07:55As well, alumni are posting to social media,

8:07:59their grad picks, wedding picks, engagement picks

8:08:03in front of this glass greenhouse.

8:08:07I urge the leadership of this council

8:08:10and at the university to have the courage

8:08:14to lead the preservation and protection

8:08:18of this important, irreplaceable

8:08:21and historical asset for future generations.

8:08:25I urge the council to refuse the application

8:08:30for demolition.

8:08:32This is a legacy decision.

8:08:35Thank you.

8:08:37Thank you very much.

8:08:38And is there a question as a follow up at all?

8:08:43There isn't.

8:08:43Thank you.

8:08:45You've stayed this long, so stick around to the end.

8:08:48All right, thank you very much.

8:08:51Betsy, come on down.

8:09:01It's odd me being here, but it's very nice to see you.

8:09:04Yeah, nice to see all of you.

8:09:06Yeah.

8:09:07Welcome back.

8:09:08My remarks say good afternoon,

8:09:09but I might have to change that.

8:09:11So.

8:09:14I'll turn it over to you, Betsy,

8:09:15whenever you're ready.

8:09:16All right, well, thank you.

8:09:18And good evening, Mr. Mayor, councillors, staff

8:09:22and community members.

8:09:24My name is Betsy Puthon.

8:09:26I'm a Gua'a Fight, also a University of Gua'a Grad.

8:09:30And I cherish our community and all that makes it special.

8:09:34Thank you for this opportunity to comment

8:09:37about the University of Gua'a's application

8:09:40to demolish the iconic glass greenhouse known

8:09:42as the DM Rutherford Family Conservatory.

8:09:47The glass greenhouse has been a productive community builder

8:09:51for the university.

8:09:53It has brought people together as a classroom

8:09:56for research, as public space, as a fundraising focus.

8:10:01It's listed on the student's favorite campus study spots

8:10:05from this spring even, and is a favorite grad photo setting.

8:10:09This greenhouse is iconic on campus,

8:10:12and the Bacota design is rare in North America.

8:10:17The petition launched less than two weeks ago,

8:10:22with over 1,400 signatories checked earlier today,

8:10:28has brought a lot of comments forward,

8:10:30including people are questioning a building

8:10:34of this significance with its own endowment

8:10:37established by alumni for upkeep and perpetuity.

8:10:41How is it permitted to fall into disrepair

8:10:44and ultimately a state of demolition by neglect?

8:10:48That's the point we arrive at today.

8:10:50It is very important to note, as it has been noted,

8:10:54that a property may be designated

8:10:56under the Ontario Heritage Act

8:10:58if it meets two or more of the nine criteria

8:11:01for determining cultural heritage value or interest,

8:11:05as prescribed under the Ontario regulations.

8:11:08According to the report prepared

8:11:10by this council's own Heritage Committee,

8:11:13the DM Rutherford Family Conservatory

8:11:16meets eight of the nine criteria.

8:11:20It's not surprising that the Heritage Committee

8:11:22recommended that this greenhouse be designated

8:11:25as a heritage property.

8:11:27But let me get to the point.

8:11:29If council won't protect a heritage building

8:11:32matching eight of nine provincial criteria,

8:11:36I really wonder what will this council protect?

8:11:40Demolition of a heritage building

8:11:42that meets eight of nine provincial criteria

8:11:45is just plainly a bad idea.

8:11:49I respectfully remind council

8:11:51that you're the stewards of our history

8:11:54and that this is a gem in our crown.

8:11:57Demolition of historic assets

8:11:59is always an irreplaceable loss

8:12:02to local and national architecture.

8:12:04And in this instance, a loss for the university's

8:12:07founding history in agriculture and food.

8:12:11Similar unique glass greenhouses

8:12:14are being restored in Ontario.

8:12:16The City of Toronto is preserving the Palm House

8:12:20at Allen Gardens, and the City of Oshawa

8:12:23recently restored the Parkwoods greenhouses.

8:12:26And they did not spend $5 million to do so.

8:12:30In closing, this decision is a big responsibility,

8:12:35but with big responsibility comes opportunity.

8:12:39I urge council to seize this opportunity

8:12:42and to protect a treasured asset of our community

8:12:46by denying the university's demolition application.

8:12:50Thank you.

8:12:52Great, thank you Betsy.

8:12:53And is there any follow up for her at all?

8:12:58I do have a question.

8:13:00Sorry to put you on the spot,

8:13:01but you said something about an endowment fund.

8:13:06Do you know any history on that?

8:13:08Can you explain that?

8:13:09When this building was rebuilt in the 90s,

8:13:15it was funded by alumni

8:13:18and the alumni put together an endowment fund

8:13:22which has grown to $800,000.

8:13:25So they do have funds that were intended

8:13:28for the annual and regular upkeep of this building.

8:13:34And under your recollection or your knowledge today,

8:13:38that money is available?

8:13:41Yes, the endowment capital is retained

8:13:44by the university in perpetuity.

8:13:46And they have an investment and release of funds formula.

8:13:50And I'm sure there are always opportunities

8:13:54to make adjustments as things do change.

8:13:57But at this point from what I've read,

8:13:59they have $800,000.

8:14:01And if you think more on money,

8:14:03the university has said it has a million dollars

8:14:07to put towards the demolition,

8:14:09$250,000 to demolish, $750,000 to create

8:14:15some sort of greenscape.

8:14:19So if you do the math is what you're saying

8:14:22and add it all up, I understand.

8:14:24Thank you for that clarity.

8:14:25If I could just add to that,

8:14:26every person that has contacted me

8:14:30has offered to write a check.

8:14:32There is money willing to be spent,

8:14:35to be brought forward to help this building

8:14:37continue to be part of our history.

8:14:40Okay, thank you.

8:14:42Thank you very much.

8:14:44Oh, sorry Betsy,

8:14:45I do have a follow up from council or work.

8:14:49Thanks, Mary Guthrie, through you to Ms. Puthon.

8:14:51Have you had a conversation with the university

8:14:53about the potential use of that endowment fund?

8:14:58The university has not replied to any inquiries.

8:15:02Okay, thank you.

8:15:05We'll ask them later.

8:15:07Thank you for the clarity.

8:15:09You can go for real this time.

8:15:10Thank you.

8:15:12Okay, and is Susan Watson here again?

8:15:19Okay, no.

8:15:20Alex Smith, come on up.

8:15:24And then Harry Baker from the university,

8:15:27Guelph will join us by video as the last delegation.

8:15:30So thank you very much for waiting and go right ahead.

8:15:33Well, thank you for your patience throughout this.

8:15:35Your honor and members of council, or sorry, your worship.

8:15:40Your honor.

8:15:42Your worship members of council and staff.

8:15:45At the November 13th council planning meeting,

8:15:48staff presented a very straightforward report

8:15:51recommending the designation of 37 Kristy Lane.

8:15:55Everything changed when staff advised council that night

8:16:00that creative solutions,

8:16:01including demolition of the building

8:16:03and using the steel elements

8:16:05to build a commemorative structure,

8:16:07could be found if the property was designated

8:16:10and the heritage attributes were limited

8:16:12to the salvageable steel elements.

8:16:16Heritage Guelph and the public had no say in this solution

8:16:19because they had no notice that staff would take that position.

8:16:23Council devised a plan on the fly

8:16:25without the benefit of any council consultation

8:16:29or sober second thought.

8:16:31That plan will leave you with a vacant lot

8:16:35as the designated property

8:16:37and a pile of steel as the heritage attributes.

8:16:42At best, the Heritage Act may permit you to exercise

8:16:48some control over the pile of steel

8:16:50by requiring a heritage permit to change that pile of steel.

8:16:55But the city has no authority under the Heritage Act

8:16:58to require that pile of steel

8:17:01be used to build a commemorative structure.

8:17:04It gets worse.

8:17:07Staff take the position that the university's commitments

8:17:12align with council's direction

8:17:14from the November 13th council meeting.

8:17:17I beg to differ.

8:17:19The university proposes that first of all,

8:17:23the determination of the salvageable steel

8:17:26will be performed by Arlen Otto, their nominee.

8:17:30And second, the any quantities of salvageable steel

8:17:34not repurposed in the construction

8:17:37of the commemorative gardens

8:17:39will be disposed post construction.

8:17:43In other words, the university decides

8:17:45how much steel is salvageable

8:17:48and how much of the salvage steel, if any,

8:17:52gets used in a commemorative garden.

8:17:55These provisions make the designation of the property

8:17:59moderately meaningless.

8:18:01As effectively Ms. Walkie pointed out

8:18:04in response to councillor Orr-Rooks proposed amendment

8:18:07to the motion on November the 13th.

8:18:12The university has expanded a lot of effort

8:18:14and money lobbying for the demolition

8:18:17of one of the most important heritage buildings in the city.

8:18:20It's unfortunate they did not make a similar effort

8:18:23to find ways to save the conservatory.

8:18:27Look for instance at the Palm House in Arlen Gardens

8:18:30which is being restored largely through private donations.

8:18:34The city of Toronto, if you look at their site,

8:18:38is bragging about the effort they're making

8:18:41to save an important public asset.

8:18:44In closing, I would just like to say

8:18:47I recognize the good faith effort

8:18:49made by members of council and staff

8:18:52to find a compromised solution.

8:18:55But in my respectful submission,

8:18:57that solution leaves you with nothing

8:19:01but a designated pile of steel

8:19:04with no leverage to influence

8:19:07what the university does with that steel.

8:19:10In other words, all you have accomplished

8:19:13is to permit the demolition of the building.

8:19:15Thank you.

8:19:17Great, and thank you very much for your take on it.

8:19:20I don't think there's a follow up.

8:19:22There isn't, keep walking.

8:19:24You're good, yep, thank you.

8:19:27And then Harry Baker from the University of Guelph

8:19:30is gonna join us by video.

8:19:45Good evening, my apologies.

8:19:47I'm not sure if my video is working

8:19:49so you might be stuck with audio tonight, so I apologize.

8:19:54Good evening and thank you for the opportunity

8:19:55to speak with you tonight.

8:19:57My name is Harry Backer

8:19:58and I am the Associate Vice President of Physical Resources

8:20:01at the University of Guelph.

8:20:03You may recall I attended with the delegation

8:20:06that spoke at the November 13th Council Planning Meeting

8:20:09where we were pleased that the University and City

8:20:11came to a win-win solution

8:20:13for the DM Rutherford Family Conservatories

8:20:16in the next life cycle.

8:20:18Aligned with the university's plan

8:20:20to honor the history of the Conservatory Council,

8:20:23unanimously passed a motion

8:20:25to designate the salvageable steel.

8:20:27Since that time, the university's worked with our consultants

8:20:30to develop a plan for conservation

8:20:32and outline the next steps

8:20:33to advance our commemorative garden.

8:20:36These materials were shared with city staff

8:20:38that was mentioned

8:20:39and are part of the request being considered today.

8:20:43We're now at stage where we urgently require a permit

8:20:46to begin deconstructing the Conservatory

8:20:48and make the site safe and secure

8:20:50for our community and the public.

8:20:52We're committed to working with the city

8:20:54and being a collaborative partner

8:20:55as we design and install a commemorative garden

8:20:58that will honor the legacy of the building,

8:21:01which is why we are disappointed

8:21:02to see Heritage Gull foot forward

8:21:04a number of motions at its meeting on December 2nd

8:21:06that would jeopardize our plans to make the site safe.

8:21:10Moreover, these recommendations are not in keeping

8:21:12with the letter of Council's previous motion

8:21:14or are they aligned with the collaborative spirit

8:21:16in which Council and the university found a path forward.

8:21:21We're asking Council to support the city staff recommendation

8:21:24and allow U of G to begin to methodically dismantle

8:21:26the Conservatory and remove what is publicly

8:21:29or what is presently a safety hazard.

8:21:32As outlined in our conservation plan,

8:21:35we intend to repurpose the salvageable steel

8:21:37to be reused in a form and quantity informed

8:21:40through a design competition

8:21:41for our landscape architecture students.

8:21:44The competition presents a chance for U of G students

8:21:47to contribute meaningfully to the university's history

8:21:51while exercising their creativity and expertise

8:21:53to determine best way to reuse the salvageable steel.

8:21:57We must start this work as soon as possible.

8:22:00Our independent structural engineers

8:22:01highly recommended we start deconstruction work

8:22:04before winter weather sets in.

8:22:06With snow have already fallen,

8:22:09further delay will not only exacerbate

8:22:11the current safety risk,

8:22:13it will also increase the risk that any materials

8:22:15that we're hoping to save will not be salvageable.

8:22:19The delay of this work in the manner recommended

8:22:21by Heritage Guelph would be contrary

8:22:23to Council's prior direction

8:22:24the city staff's own recommendations.

8:22:27We care deeply about preserving the spirit

8:22:29of the conservatory and maintaining the space

8:22:31as a public garden accessible to all.

8:22:34We're pleased to work with the city to make this a reality

8:22:37but we're discouraged that we seem to be falling

8:22:39at the first stumbling block.

8:22:41This gives us great pausing concerning how we move forward

8:22:44from here especially as U of G is committed

8:22:46to repurposing material from the conservatory

8:22:49and doesn't require a heritage designation to do so.

8:22:53We ask that the council support the recommendations

8:22:55from city staff and work with us

8:22:57to remove the urgent safety risk

8:22:59by allowing deconstruction to start.

8:23:02Our hope is for this to be the first step

8:23:04in our collaborative process to restore the site

8:23:06to the public and realize the next life cycle

8:23:09for some important agricultural or horticultural space.

8:23:13Thank you for your time.

8:23:17Well, thank you, Harry, for joining us in your presentation.

8:23:22Let me just see if there's any questions at all for anybody.

8:23:26So I see Clausson and then Boussatil.

8:23:30So, Councillor Cousin, go ahead.

8:23:35Mr. Mayor to the delegate, thanks for your presentation.

8:23:40I had a question and it kind of relates

8:23:42to previous delegates' remarks regarding alumni.

8:23:48My first question is, has there been an effort

8:23:51to work with alumni to potentially,

8:23:55I know where we're at, the conversations

8:23:58have probably halted, but were there any discussions

8:24:02that you had with the alumni group

8:24:05who initially funded this renovation

8:24:10to potentially continue maintaining it?

8:24:14And then the second part of this question is,

8:24:15is that Ms. Puthon spoke about an endowment

8:24:19to maintain this building.

8:24:21And I was wondering if you could elaborate

8:24:23on what that endowment is, thanks.

8:24:27So I might have to ask you to remind me

8:24:30about the second question,

8:24:31in the first question, our alumni and advancement team

8:24:36did speak with the donor family,

8:24:38the rather first family and other donors,

8:24:41and many of them are alumni.

8:24:43And they understood that the reinvestment costs

8:24:46to rebuild or replicate to conservatory was

8:24:52fairly extensive and really not in keeping

8:24:54with the priorities that the university has

8:24:58for advancing strategic academic and research initiatives.

8:25:03If you can appreciate this,

8:25:04this is a ornamental building

8:25:07that does not have a current academic and or research use.

8:25:13On the second question, on the endowment,

8:25:19my understanding is that the amount

8:25:21that was contributing into this piece

8:25:24is something that could be used

8:25:27for some minor routine maintenance,

8:25:29but as you can sort of see the costs

8:25:33to really sort of at this stage in an annualized process

8:25:37would be about $200,000 a year.

8:25:39And so that endowment would not cover

8:25:43maintaining that building out of pristine condition

8:25:45over a life cycle.

8:25:51Thank you.

8:25:55Thank you.

8:25:56Councillor Boussettil has a question for you.

8:25:59Thank you and through the mayor to the delegate.

8:26:01Thank you for your presentation.

8:26:02My questions were similar to Councillor Klossens

8:26:05about the endowment and the ability

8:26:08to sustain the building going forward.

8:26:11You did say that the building was ornamental in nature

8:26:14and I was surprised to hear that,

8:26:16that there wasn't any historical value

8:26:18that you were referencing.

8:26:23I guess did the university not consider

8:26:26any kind of repurposing and incorporating

8:26:30the historical structure and the historical value

8:26:33into the university of Guelph?

8:26:36So if you recall when President

8:26:39or Interim President Van Aker spoke to this,

8:26:46the investment into this was looked into,

8:26:49but there are other higher impressing priorities

8:26:53that need investment.

8:26:54So I think there was some conversation

8:26:57about the deferred capital renewal and major maintenance

8:27:01within the university is about in excess of $400 million.

8:27:06So when you look at how much is available,

8:27:08if I take it on a square foot basis,

8:27:10that's probably about $12,000 a year

8:27:13towards the conservatory.

8:27:15And if that was readily available,

8:27:17but the need on an annual basis really needs to go to

8:27:22many other buildings that are active

8:27:25for academic and research mission

8:27:28and need to take that priority.

8:27:29So it really is a challenge to look at

8:27:34how the buildings are prioritized.

8:27:40And this one just didn't make the priority

8:27:41for that kind of investment.

8:27:45We have to take a reasonable approach

8:27:47to what's available for funding.

8:27:50And it just doesn't hit the bar.

8:27:56Thank you.

8:27:56My second question,

8:27:57and I wasn't in attendance on the November 13th meeting.

8:28:00So I appreciate you taking the time to expand a bit.

8:28:04The second question is around the metal,

8:28:07the steel structure.

8:28:09Heritage wealth has listed

8:28:11that there are a number of other attributes.

8:28:12Can you comment on why those other attributes

8:28:15were not considered in this construction

8:28:20of some kind of a commemorative structure?

8:28:24Because the wood is significantly rotted.

8:28:34And in looking to rebuild the piece,

8:28:37if you recall, one of the fundamental challenges

8:28:40would be that the use that the building has seen

8:28:46is an assembly occupancy use

8:28:48that requires major modifications

8:28:51to make it life safety systems

8:28:54and energy systems to accommodate an assembly occupancy.

8:29:00Prior, the building really was designed

8:29:03for an agricultural use

8:29:05where there was very limited access.

8:29:08And that isn't the way it was being used.

8:29:12And we need to change that if we're going to do something.

8:29:15And that's why we're talking about a significant amount

8:29:18of investment to rebuild or replicate it.

8:29:24Thank you, that's all.

8:29:27Thank you.

8:29:28And just stick with this,

8:29:29Councillor Downer has a question.

8:29:32Thank you.

8:29:32Through you, Mr. Mayor, the limestone wasn't designated.

8:29:41And I'm just wondering, would that,

8:29:43it would be my assumption that in any landscape design

8:29:47that you would be asking them in the competition

8:29:52to use the limestone, that would be my assumption.

8:29:56I don't know, but I mean,

8:29:57that's such a great material for that type of work.

8:30:01That's a great assumption.

8:30:03And we would leave it to the students

8:30:06to look at how we might reform

8:30:08and utilize that in a design piece.

8:30:12And yeah, it's something that would be left to the students

8:30:16to use their creativity and some of the expertise

8:30:20as to how we would reform it.

8:30:22Okay. And you would work, continue to work

8:30:24with city staff on that?

8:30:27Yes.

8:30:31Thank you.

8:30:34Okay, Councillor Goller.

8:30:37Thank you through your worship to Mr. Piccar.

8:30:43Thank you for being here today.

8:30:46When Councillor Caron declared her conflict of interest,

8:30:49it was because some of the funds were tied to student housing.

8:30:54Could you help me understand what the connection is

8:30:56between the university's potential cost

8:31:03to maintain the rather work conservatory

8:31:08if we were to change our previous decision

8:31:10and how that ties into student housing?

8:31:14I believe the comment that interim president

8:31:17and actor mentioned that, again,

8:31:19as we consider the priorities for the university

8:31:21moving forward in primary academic and research mission,

8:31:25one of the areas as you've seen a couple of announcements

8:31:29where we're really looking towards advancing student housing.

8:31:33And that one is one of the priorities

8:31:35that as we look at where we make reinvestment,

8:31:40that's one of the priorities for the reinvestment.

8:31:44And to be clear, if Council were to change

8:31:49our previous direction and put the university in a position

8:31:54where you would have to maintain the building,

8:31:56that would then eat into your ability

8:31:59to build new student housing?

8:32:01Well, it would certainly make us rethink our decision

8:32:05about the designation and consider all of our options.

8:32:11Okay, thank you for that.

8:32:12Thank you, worship.

8:32:19Thank you.

8:32:20It looks like that might be all of the questions that we have.

8:32:25So thank you very much for joining us tonight

8:32:29and thank you for your presentation.

8:32:31Thank you.

8:32:32We can.

8:32:36Okay, thank you.

8:32:39Okay, so Council, we have a staff recommendation

8:32:43in front of us here for the approval,

8:32:49which is almost like a ratification

8:32:53of what our position was last time,

8:32:55but it's just part of the process.

8:32:57So is there someone that's willing to table

8:33:01the recommendation from staff,

8:33:03which is that City Council approve the deconstruction

8:33:05of the Rutherford Conservatory at 37 Christy Lane

8:33:09on the condition that salvageable steel be retained

8:33:12and conserved for future use in a commemorative structure?

8:33:18Some of you are willing to move that for me.

8:33:22Okay, Rourke, we'll move it.

8:33:24Is someone willing to second it for me?

8:33:26Okay, two.

8:33:28Okay, is there any questions of staff?

8:33:31Alt.

8:33:33Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie.

8:33:34Through you to City staff.

8:33:36The recommendation before us,

8:33:38I believe arises out of the city

8:33:41having designated this particular structure

8:33:44and it states that the City Council approved

8:33:46the deconstruction of the Rutherford Conservatory

8:33:49with steel and so on being preserved

8:33:54for a commemorative structure.

8:33:56The way that I read this,

8:33:59if we were to reject this, nothing happens.

8:34:04We have not removed the heritage designation.

8:34:07We have not done anything with the heritage designation.

8:34:09We've just done nothing.

8:34:10Is that correct?

8:34:13Through the Mayor to the Councillor, that's correct.

8:34:15Thank you.

8:34:19Thank you.

8:34:20And just as a follow-up then,

8:34:21what would the recourse be of the University of Guelph?

8:34:25Have they indicated what the recourse would be

8:34:27if Council did do what Councillor Allt suggested

8:34:31and we ended up with nothing?

8:34:33What is their next steps of a process?

8:34:37I'm not trying to suggest that you know

8:34:38what they're gonna do, but what is available

8:34:40to them as next steps?

8:34:45As the University alluded to in their presentation,

8:34:48there is still the option to object to the designation

8:34:52to preserve the salvageable steel.

8:34:55The date in which they have to file an objection

8:34:58is by December 20th.

8:35:00So there is still the opportunity that that could happen.

8:35:04And just for clarity to you, Christa,

8:35:06is that just, is that just a filing?

8:35:10We haven't had a lot of these

8:35:10so I'm just trying to understand the process.

8:35:13It's just a filing with the clerk's department

8:35:15or with the planning department

8:35:16and it's registered and then what?

8:35:20So it is a letter that they would submit and file.

8:35:24Then we will be back before Council again

8:35:26to advise them of the objection at that time

8:35:29similar to 106 Carden Street tonight.

8:35:32Council has a decision to keep moving forward

8:35:36with the designation or to change their mind.

8:35:41Yeah.

8:35:43Okay, thanks for the clarity on that.

8:35:44Appreciate it.

8:35:45Councillor Goller, did you have a question?

8:35:49Yes, your worship.

8:35:50Just a process question to clerks.

8:35:53Seeing as Council gave a direction

8:35:55to designate the steel aspects of this,

8:36:00if we were to change that decision today,

8:36:03would that require a super majority?

8:36:06I just, I'm concerned that if this gets voted down,

8:36:09we can just leave it at nothing.

8:36:10But if we were to go back as suggested by Heritage Guelph

8:36:16and actually change our mind on our previous decision,

8:36:19is that possible at this point?

8:36:24So thank you and through you, Mr. Mayor to Councillor Goller.

8:36:28Would check in with staff to see if there's any legislation

8:36:30that we need to be aware of making adjustments

8:36:34to a current designation, but in the clerk's opinion,

8:36:37we're not in the process of a reconsideration at this point.

8:36:41Again, would want to check with staff on any specifics

8:36:44for those designation and the timing of that.

8:37:02Sorry for the delay.

8:37:05So Council could withdraw the notice of intention

8:37:08to designate and when that's where we'd ask clerks

8:37:10if that's a reconsideration of a motion

8:37:13because it's already done,

8:37:14but that is what they could put forward.

8:37:20So thank you.

8:37:21And then based off that information,

8:37:21if that's part of a normal process,

8:37:23that is not considered a reconsideration.

8:37:25Okay.

8:37:26At this point, it's not the normal process.

8:37:29So Council would have to consider that previous motion

8:37:34and if they wanted to change the designation or not.

8:37:42Okay.

8:37:42Okay.

8:37:43That is helpful to understand

8:37:44what the process could be in the next steps.

8:37:46I appreciate it.

8:37:49Thank you.

8:37:51Sorry, I'm not trying to keep anyone here late.

8:37:54My curiosity is because I'm taking this seriously

8:37:57just to be honest with you.

8:37:58So I just, I'm looking at some of the language

8:38:02in the University of Guelph letter

8:38:05where it's indicating sort of like

8:38:08this isn't appropriate under the OHA.

8:38:12This particular issue that was brought up

8:38:16by Heritage Guelph is also not appropriate under the OHA.

8:38:20That type of language.

8:38:22And I'm just wondering

8:38:23from a completely administrative position

8:38:27or almost like a logistical position

8:38:32is those assumptions

8:38:36in that language correct by the University of Guelph

8:38:41where what Heritage Guelph positioned themselves in

8:38:45and did all these different type of motions.

8:38:48Are they out of scope compared to what's allowed?

8:39:00Through the mayor.

8:39:03I would not say that Heritage Guelph's motion

8:39:06does not abide by the OHA as we noted

8:39:10to do what Heritage Guelph is asking

8:39:13Council could withdraw the noid and reissue the noid

8:39:15and that would fall within the bounds of the OHA.

8:39:21However, the motion to do further public consultation

8:39:27that is out of the scope of the committee.

8:39:29And I'm not sure what form that would take

8:39:33or how that would look.

8:39:38And by the way, the autonomy of the Heritage Committee

8:39:42I want to respect that.

8:39:43I wasn't putting that down whatsoever.

8:39:46I just wanted to know are they in or out of the lane

8:39:49that they're supposed to be in?

8:39:51And so I appreciate that answer.

8:39:55It looks like we're bouncing around a little bit

8:39:57but to over to Councillor Holt.

8:39:59Thank you again, Mayor Guthrie through you to staff

8:40:03following this one to its logical possible conclusion.

8:40:07I'm not saying it's going to go there.

8:40:09If we were to vote this motion down

8:40:11and then someone were to bring another motion

8:40:15to remove the Heritage designation,

8:40:18then I understand the university is free to do

8:40:21with this building whatever it wants.

8:40:23So the Heritage designation preserved

8:40:27the integrity of the structure.

8:40:30But there was an understanding that the structure

8:40:32could only be slightly preserved.

8:40:36Certain aspects of it could be preserved for heritage.

8:40:40So we would be doing a disservice to both Heritage Guelph

8:40:44and to any notion of heritage preservation

8:40:48if we kept going backwards on this,

8:40:51I'm presuming from what I'm hearing people saying right now.

8:41:04Through the Mayor to the Councillor,

8:41:05the designation as passed by Council on November 13th

8:41:09ensures the careful deconstruction of the conservatory

8:41:13and the commemoration of the conservatory.

8:41:16So it does fulfill those goals.

8:41:20And then if we were to rescind that,

8:41:23which I have no intention at this point

8:41:25of even considering the university

8:41:28because it is autonomous,

8:41:30has the authority to do whatever it wishes

8:41:31with that building, is that correct?

8:41:34Through the Mayor to the Councillor, that's correct.

8:41:38Thank you for asking that, Councillor Allt.

8:41:40I really appreciate that.

8:41:42Put that in the minutes that the Mayor said,

8:41:45you appreciate Councillor Allt's questions.

8:41:48I appreciate that.

8:41:50And maybe that speaks a little bit

8:41:52to sort of the collaborative approach

8:41:54that the University of Guelph was trying to talk about

8:41:56that's been incorporated really into what we already passed

8:42:00as a motion.

8:42:01So, okay, well, sorry, I'll go to Councillor Busuttil

8:42:05and then to Klosson.

8:42:07And then I'll look to call a vote, okay?

8:42:10Thank you.

8:42:11I wasn't here on the 13th,

8:42:12but I do wanna share some comments that I feel

8:42:17that this historical building,

8:42:19and it's more for me than ornamental,

8:42:21was neglected by the University of Guelph,

8:42:23and I'm really disappointed by that.

8:42:26And especially the alumni,

8:42:29and I'm an alumni twice over as well,

8:42:31quite disappointed by that and that choice of,

8:42:34it was an intentional choice not to preserve the building.

8:42:37I also have to say personally,

8:42:39I don't have a lot of confidence

8:42:41in commemorative structures.

8:42:43I think about Mitchell Farm,

8:42:45and I'm still holding my breath

8:42:46and waiting for the materials to show up

8:42:48and this commemorative structure to show up.

8:42:51So I have very little confidence in that.

8:42:54I know there's gonna be a competition allegedly and so on,

8:42:57but I'm extremely disappointed.

8:42:59This is a building of significance.

8:43:01So that's it for my comments.

8:43:05Thank you.

8:43:06And Councillor Klosson, please, and then Chiu.

8:43:11Thank you.

8:43:12Through you, Mr. Mayor, I did have a question.

8:43:13Just all of the process questions

8:43:16were extremely helpful,

8:43:17but I just wanted to make one point of clarity,

8:43:21just looking at the heritage Guelph motions.

8:43:25They were requesting the preservation of the limestone,

8:43:29which the university delegate did touch upon,

8:43:33but there was also the request to preserve the glass,

8:43:38which in the report is going to be,

8:43:41is gonna be basically put into the landfill.

8:43:45So I'm just wondering,

8:43:46I'm sorry to ask another process question,

8:43:48but at this point,

8:43:52is there any way to preserve those additional materials?

8:44:04Through the mayor to the Councillor,

8:44:06that is not the direction staff were given

8:44:08at the November 13th council meeting.

8:44:11We can encourage salvage of the glass,

8:44:15but we cannot require it.

8:44:19Okay, thank you.

8:44:21Sorry.

8:44:22Oh, sorry, Kim.

8:44:24Sorry, Mr. Mayor.

8:44:26I'm so sorry.

8:44:26I thought you were done, Councillor Clausson.

8:44:28I was just gonna ask,

8:44:30like, what is it appropriate for council

8:44:33to consider a motion to encourage that council encourage?

8:44:38So if we approved this,

8:44:39but then added another motion that said,

8:44:42that council encourage the reuse of the limestone

8:44:48and glass as appropriate,

8:44:52like is that it might not be subject to,

8:44:57you know, the actual legality of everything,

8:45:00but is that something that we could at least add

8:45:03as a separate motion to send a message a little bit

8:45:06that we feel that that's important?

8:45:07I mean, Councillor Clausson could maybe even move that.

8:45:12Yes, council could.

8:45:15Yes.

8:45:16Okay.

8:45:17Councillor Clausson, I'll give you back the floor.

8:45:19I'm sorry, I thought you were done,

8:45:20but there you go, it's all yours.

8:45:22Oh, thank you.

8:45:24I will all send something through

8:45:27in case the motion passes.

8:45:31I will just say, I did feel that our previous decision

8:45:34was a bit rushed by only designating, you know,

8:45:37out of all of the heritage properties

8:45:39that we've designated this year,

8:45:42this one certainly has more heritage attributes

8:45:44than many of the others.

8:45:46And has until recently been functional.

8:45:49And as many of you may have received emails explaining,

8:45:54you know, people got their wedding photos taken there

8:45:56and it's been a special place.

8:45:58And it does have cultural significance to many people

8:46:01in the university and the Guelph community.

8:46:04So I am a bit disappointed that we are where we are.

8:46:09I would really, you know,

8:46:11throw it around those words, collaboration and community.

8:46:14And I really thought that the designation of this property

8:46:20spoke to the collaboration that would entail,

8:46:24like keeping something that is sacred for the community.

8:46:28Like we've learned, we don't know if the university

8:46:32will actually preserve this commemorative garden.

8:46:37So I'll send some wording over to staff

8:46:41to try to at least salvage some of more of the materials

8:46:44if this is to pass this evening.

8:46:47Thanks.

8:46:51Thank you.

8:46:52And I'll just go to councillor Ororque.

8:46:55Oh, sorry, Chu first and then Ororque.

8:47:01Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor.

8:47:04Yeah, I just want to make an appeal to my colleagues

8:47:07here tonight and even the university.

8:47:10Like I came here to this, the city really from the university

8:47:16and most of my time has been spent on campus.

8:47:19So I can just share a little bit about how traditions are made

8:47:23and how spaces are upkept.

8:47:26And like it is unfortunate.

8:47:28I don't think we can go back and do some revisionist history

8:47:30on why the spaces weren't kept up

8:47:34since the renovation back in the 70s.

8:47:38But like I just wanted to appeal,

8:47:41like just to the pragmatic side of council

8:47:43and think there's-

8:47:44Point of order, it was renovated in the 90s.

8:47:47Sorry.

8:47:48Sorry, I stand corrected the 90s.

8:47:53So it's been a long time since the space has seen any ownership

8:47:57from the alum group.

8:47:59And I just think there is a cohort

8:48:02that's coming out of COVID right now.

8:48:04There's the first ones that just haven't experienced COVID.

8:48:09And this would be a really big generational project

8:48:11for the OAC community and for the design school as well.

8:48:17And this is like firsthand learning experience

8:48:20that the students will be able to participate in.

8:48:23And I also would just urge everyone as well

8:48:27to consider the relationship building process

8:48:30that we have here.

8:48:31Because if we don't go with this,

8:48:37it's likely that this will be escalated to an OLT hearing.

8:48:45And I just don't think that's really worth the relationship.

8:48:49And I don't think it's really worth our staff's time

8:48:53and capacity as well.

8:48:54And I just want to urge everyone to consider too,

8:48:57like heritage shouldn't just be preserved

8:48:59for the sake of aesthetics and preservation.

8:49:01I know everyone has their intrinsic value

8:49:07that they see and perceive the space.

8:49:09But the bottom line is the main group

8:49:12that was there in the 90s

8:49:16isn't taking full ownership anymore.

8:49:18And that's just with the passage of time, right?

8:49:21Being the way it is.

8:49:22And there's an opportunity now to have students like myself

8:49:28just create some memories.

8:49:32And maybe there's opportunities as well

8:49:35for the kids to consider Guelph-Home

8:49:38past their time on campus.

8:49:41Because that's kind of the testimony

8:49:43of why the scientists stick around as well, right?

8:49:47I think there's a lot of merit to what's being proposed.

8:49:50And yes, the history of the space being the way it is now.

8:49:58Like it's like, I don't like it either,

8:50:01but there's an opportunity to reconcile that relationship.

8:50:04And I do think we need to show a little bit of goodwill

8:50:09as a gesture to the relationship

8:50:11that we're trying to do better, right?

8:50:15Like the university as well,

8:50:16they've as a whole,

8:50:18they've decided that they're going to do

8:50:24on-campus housing, right?

8:50:25They've made a big announcement this December and September.

8:50:30And there's a lot of intricate planning

8:50:31that went behind that as well.

8:50:33So sometimes it also feels like our concerns

8:50:36aren't being heard from the leadership.

8:50:38I understand that, but there are people

8:50:41within the organization that are taking notice

8:50:44and are very sincere in their posture, right?

8:50:48And I think that we have to assess those relationships as well.

8:50:52And this is just my personal testimony

8:50:54from my relationships with folks

8:50:57that I'm trying to cultivate as a new counselor

8:51:01and as an alum.

8:51:03And I hope maybe that there's some resonance in that

8:51:06here at this chamber tonight.

8:51:08So yeah, thank you for having me there.

8:51:11There's voices on my feelings.

8:51:13I'll just leave it at that.

8:51:15That's okay.

8:51:16Thank you.

8:51:17Thank you very much.

8:51:19Okay, Councillor Cossin, did you want to,

8:51:24can we just take a minute and then we'll go to comments?

8:51:28Yeah, go ahead.

8:51:28Sorry, I'm just adjusting the wording slightly

8:51:32and I'll have it in one minute back to everyone.

8:51:34I'll go to Councillor O'Rourke first then

8:51:37and then we'll just take care of yours to wrap this up.

8:51:39Go ahead.

8:51:40Thanks, Mayor Guthrie.

8:51:41Through you to staff, I'm just curious,

8:51:44why could we not require preservation

8:51:46of the limestone at this point?

8:51:48Why can't we just move an amendment and require it?

8:51:51Why do we have to respectfully request?

8:51:55Through the mayor to Councillor O'Rourke,

8:51:57we can only require what is listed as a heritage attribute

8:52:00in the designation bylaw.

8:52:02So we would have to withdraw the notice of intention,

8:52:06then edit it and then re-issue a new one

8:52:09and restart the 30 day objection period.

8:52:12Gotcha.

8:52:13Okay, understood.

8:52:15Thank you.

8:52:16So I would just like to say,

8:52:17I take no pleasure in tabling the motion.

8:52:20It's a gorgeous building.

8:52:22Everyone would love to save it if we could.

8:52:25And I know there are a lot of people who are of the opinion

8:52:27that we could.

8:52:30The university's report says that even if they were

8:52:34to restore it, it would have a relatively short life cycle

8:52:37of 25 to 30 years.

8:52:40They have the float glass that's broken or displaced

8:52:43in several locations and there's a risk of falling glass.

8:52:46And then they say, you know, so I don't think it's an opinion

8:52:50that they can't restore this.

8:52:52They're saying all three, three,

8:52:54independent structural engineering assessments

8:52:57of the conservatory are aligned regarding

8:52:59the widespread structural issues and have concluded

8:53:02that the conservatory would have to be rebuilt

8:53:05at a cost of over 5 million with annualized maintenance costs

8:53:08of 200,000 to 250,000.

8:53:11And that it's not financially feasible for the university.

8:53:15So I've supported other heritage designations,

8:53:19usually with private developers who have the capital

8:53:22and wherewithal to do something with it.

8:53:27But I'm seeing it black and white on the report in front of me

8:53:31that this is not a feasible project for the university.

8:53:34And so I think it's a gorgeous building.

8:53:38And I think what the university is proposing

8:53:40is sort of their next best option.

8:53:44And that's what I'll support.

8:53:48Okay, thank you.

8:53:49Councillor Klassen, did you send that into the clerks?

8:53:57Councillor Klassen, I think you're muted.

8:53:58Did you send that into the clerks?

8:54:00Yeah, sorry, I just put up my thumb, but yes.

8:54:02Okay, I'm sorry, I didn't see.

8:54:06My adjustment is incorporating a little bit more

8:54:09of the language from the list of motions.

8:54:13So to reuse and salvage to the best of their abilities

8:54:17because perhaps not all of the material will be reusable.

8:54:22So cut it up on the screen.

8:54:25Can we get up on the screen, clerks?

8:54:31Your ward mate is willing to second that for you,

8:54:34our Councillor Klassen.

8:54:35So I'll just read it out loud.

8:54:37Everyone just be aware here,

8:54:39we do need to wrap this up before 12 o'clock

8:54:42because we'd have to do another motion to extend,

8:54:45actually more than that, suspend procedural bylaws

8:54:49and all this kind of stuff.

8:54:50So we do need to wrap this up.

8:54:52So that council encouraged the university of Guelph

8:54:53to retain to the best of their ability

8:54:55as much of the salvage material from 37 Christie Lane

8:54:58and include and incorporate limestone and glass

8:55:01into the redeveloped commemorative garden.

8:55:03You okay with that, seconder?

8:55:04Councillor Goller?

8:55:05Okay.

8:55:07So I'm gonna call the vote on that, okay?

8:55:09Is anyone against that motion?

8:55:13Nobody, okay, so that's unanimous.

8:55:16And so now we're back to the main motion, okay?

8:55:19And I'm gonna call the vote on that one.

8:55:22So is anyone against that recommendation?

8:55:27Okay, so that's unanimous as well.

8:55:30Okay, so thank you and thank you.

8:55:32Thank you to everyone that came by the way and delegated.

8:55:35We appreciate that.

8:55:37There is bylaws in front of us here.