Staff to salvage, retain, and conserve the steel railing system and salvageable elements of the superstructure of Allan’s Bridge for functional or commemorative re-use in the…

2:19:50assessment of the the notice of completion we've got one two three four

2:19:55we got five delegations one did remove themselves we got five a little bit of

2:19:59correspondence then after that we got the elect respect pledge that

2:20:03councillor Clauss is going to bring forward for us and then that will wrap it

2:20:06up for us so let's go with the first one MacDonell and Allen structure

2:20:10environmental assessment the completion report and just a note I mean it says it

2:20:17in the agenda but the memos have been attached to the revised agenda too

2:20:20Michael Darman from Guelph community for active transportation is coming forward

2:20:26and then is Alex Swamy here sorry don't my glasses okay hi Alex you're gonna be

2:20:31in the wings okay so Mike come on up perfect Alex you're in the wings Arlene

2:20:38are you here Arlene Arlene not here and what about Ian Panabaker yes Ian's here

2:20:47and is Evan here perfect okay it's five minutes you should all know the drill

2:20:55four minutes and 30 seconds you will hear a chime that's your 30 second

2:21:00warning the mic will be turned off at the five minute mark don't get there okay

2:21:04Mike it's over to you I'm Eric Garthory counselors and city staff my name is

2:21:08Mike Darman and I'm co-chair of GCAT advocacy committee the ward to downtown

2:21:13bridge along with wider MacDonell bridge will greatly improve safety and for

2:21:17pedestrians and cyclists so we're very pleased to see them included in the EA

2:21:22recommendations as previously mentioned in my last and other delegations the

2:21:26ward bridges the most significant element of the AT design for safety and

2:21:30enjoyment because it encourages people to walk and cycle as it separates you away

2:21:34from traffic into desired line of travel on a beautiful trail this is how we

2:21:39encourage families who are afraid to bike on roads and try to embrace this

2:21:42more affordable active lifestyle this is not just a downtown project as the ward

2:21:47bridge will connect residents to the extension of the Trans Canada trail from

2:21:50Riverside Park area through our downtown and to existing ward neighborhoods and

2:21:54new neighborhoods like the Woods to development with 700 units a future

2:21:58possible imico development and the GID on Victoria Road with around 10,000 people

2:22:05is one of the most important AT connections for continuous active

2:22:09transportation network pathway into an outside downtown connecting people to

2:22:14places of work shopping food and play but all of the recommendations recommended

2:22:19AT improvements are needed to accommodate safe cycling for the cycling policy and

2:22:25cycling master plans the wider MacDonell bridge will not accommodate safe

2:22:29cycling infrastructure on the south side due to property and infrastructure

2:22:32restrictions on its maximum width sorry and the north side MUP will only

2:22:40accommodate cycling in certain directions regarding the spillway dam and

2:22:44underpass trail the recommended alternative of rebuilding the dam quote was

2:22:48selected as the most cost effective alternative and quote while feasible from

2:22:52an engineering perspective and underpass would involve significant rehabilitation

2:22:55or removal of the spillway plus read work end quote the underpass is desirable for

2:23:01AT and vehicular traffic flow I believe staff have indicated that dam removal

2:23:05would be in the 2 million dollar range however there may be also a future cost

2:23:08savings to infrastructure life cycle replacement if full or partial dam

2:23:13removal is considered on my many site visits with the late Councillor Bob bell

2:23:17who also represented Council on the GRCA our discussions included the

2:23:21advantages of an underpass and moving the spillway dam upstream but the

2:23:25advantages would also include partial or complete removal of the spillway dam

2:23:29including better flood control and increased flow under the bridge, lower risk to GJR infrastructure

2:23:35in the area, less long-term damage of water undermining the foundation and structure of

2:23:41the GO train supports, and a potentially shorter and less expensive bridge length due to increased

2:23:46flow capacity, less risk to residential developments in the flood fringe areas, and inline with

2:23:52GRCA goals to remove dams and naturalize river valleys. And should we also be planning for climate

2:23:57adaptation and mitigation, the conclusions and next steps in the hydraulic analysis report in the

2:24:02AA raised concerns about the dam and its impacts due to uncertainty about flood risks due to the

2:24:08ongoing but uncompleted GRCA modeling exercise. Quote, Furthermore, as the dam,

2:24:13Alan's dam sluice way spillway is not currently modeled as a separate control structure within

2:24:18the GRCA's HEC RAS model, the hydraulic function of the dam on the speed river cannot be quantified

2:24:24at this time. So due to the uncertainty and risk associated more frequent intense flooding,

2:24:30I'm asking that after the GRCA modeling studies are completed, that staff inform council and the

2:24:37public at the detailed design stage to show how the new information has informed decision on the

2:24:43bridge and dam final design. We'll be installing an underpass at the speed veiled bridge soon.

2:24:49And to be clear, given budget restraints, I'm not asking for an underpass now nor did I during

2:24:54my last delegation, but only keeping our option open to future underpass. The GCAT vision is for

2:25:00a more sustainable and continuous active transportation network from the north end of the

2:25:04city at Riverside Park to and through our downtown to the GID offering an enjoyable equitable and

2:25:10safe trail like experience with minimal on street crossings of busy arterial roads by utilizing

2:25:15underpasses and other protected infrastructure. I hope this is your vision for a more sustainable

2:25:21equitable and livable future for our citizens. Thanks. Thank you very much, Mike. Really appreciate.

2:25:30Did you have, I'm just wondering, I just saw that one slide up there like the whole time.

2:25:35Was it supposed to be scrolling for other things? I was actually hoping to do that, but I never used

2:25:41this before. Sorry. No, no problem. It's okay. I think we're going to show the ward downtown

2:25:48bridge on that slide. So, okay, I think everybody understood. We saw it. Okay. Thank you. I just

2:25:52wanted to make sure we weren't. Thanks. Okay. Councillor, all this has a quick follow up question.

2:25:57Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie, through you to the delegate. Mr. Darman, you said something

2:26:04that I will ask staff about as well, but I wanted to get clarification in case I misjudge you.

2:26:09You said a wider Mac than L Street bridge will not accommodate bike traffic. Is that correct?

2:26:15What I heard. Yeah. On the north side, there's going to be a multi-use pathway for bike traffic,

2:26:21but on the south side, there will be no infrastructure on that side of it. So,

2:26:25that's why the ward downtown bridge has been used as a way to get around the corner

2:26:30onto Elizabeth Street and Arthur Street. Okay. Thank you. I said a lot of staff. The same question.

2:26:40Seeing nothing further, Mike, thank you very much. Thanks. Take care. Thank you.

2:26:45So, Alex, come on down. That was Arlene here again. Okay. So, Ian, you're in the wings.

2:26:54Hi, Alex. And welcome. Thank you for joining us so you can start whenever you're ready. Okay.

2:27:09Hello, everyone. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and fellow Councillors. My name is Alex Swami,

2:27:15and I'm a grade 11 IBDP one student at GCVI. And today I am showcasing youth involvement

2:27:21and leadership within sustainability. And I'm here to say that I firmly support,

2:27:25emerge on their efforts and commitment today on inquiring about, on doing a hydraulic study on

2:27:31Allensdam. Today, I will be voicing my concerns about if the dam were to stay up and if the city

2:27:37does not decide to do a hydraulic study. In the case that the city does not decide to do a hydraulic

2:27:42study and a flood were to happen, roughly 80 properties are at risk of flooding due to the

2:27:48proximity of the properties to the river. In the case of flooding, over 200 citizens would be greatly

2:27:53impacted and their quality of life would be diminished. Although I do not live on the flood

2:27:58plane, I understand the effects of flooding very importantly because in the past couple years,

2:28:04due to high millimeters of rain, my house's basement ended up flooding. And this caused a

2:28:09major amount of economic and social strain on my family. And because of that, it caused a lot of

2:28:15difficulties in my future. Though I ask has a youth within Guelph to do the hydraulic tests on

2:28:20Allensdam so that no other family will have to go through such horrendous experiences.

2:28:25Finally, the last thing I would like to fully preface is the support of youth on this endeavor.

2:28:31Not only myself, but I am sure many other youth, if given the opportunity, would love to help you

2:28:36on this endeavor in going forward. Finally, has stated in the recommendation section of page eight,

2:28:43if necessary, and they will create a committee, I would love to work on this committee going

2:28:48forward because I truly believe this is a great cause for city, the city's sustainability goals,

2:28:53but also just in general. Thank you all so much for your time and I hope you consider my support

2:28:58and my ongoing support for this endeavor and you merge this proposal. Thank you.

2:29:04Thank you. Alex, this is your first time in front of us here. Yeah, you did a great job.

2:29:09All right. Good job. Is there any follow up for Alex at this time?

2:29:14There isn't. That means you did a great job when there's no follow up. Okay. So we appreciate

2:29:18you coming down. Hopefully it was easy for you so you can do it the second time and the third

2:29:21time and so on. Okay. All right. Thank you very much for coming. Appreciate it. Okay, Ian, come on

2:29:26down and then Evan, you're going to be last. Okay. Welcome Ian. Over to you whenever you're ready.

2:29:35Great. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, members of council, staff and fellow citizens, my name's

2:29:41Ian Pantabaker. I'm the vice president of development for the wood development group,

2:29:46local property and development company here in Guelph and as you're likely aware, we are actively

2:29:51consulting on the redevelopment of what we call plant number two, the former WC wood plant between

2:29:56Duke and Huron Street. And so the EA area is kind of our neighbor to our project. And so we have

2:30:04keen interest in it and in the decisions being made tonight. The EA was complicated because it had

2:30:10so many variables in it, but we do think that it's distilled down to the right kind of combination

2:30:16of elements, but they did want to touch base on two things, but the wards downtown bridge and

2:30:23Allen's dam, if I could, the plant extension of the rail aligned Guelph Junction Rail trail from

2:30:29downtown through the ward onto the Guelph Innovation District and beyond actually runs right through

2:30:34the center of plant number two. And so it's a key piece of mobility infrastructure for us. We're

2:30:39actually basing a lot of the plans around its effectiveness and its vitality, but we're not

2:30:46the only one. So this links your site, Emiko, it links other redevelopment sites in the ward and

2:30:52beyond. And so it's a key piece of infrastructure for us to see done to the best it can be.

2:30:59We have noted that critics identified that there's a maybe different way of doing this,

2:31:03that it's good enough just to achieve routes around the intersection on other infrastructure.

2:31:09And we just wanted to comment that we don't think those are actually equivalent, that

2:31:13the route that comes on the Guelph Junction Rail corridor is a regional kind of line that cuts

2:31:19through the area. It's very important that it flows correctly and that the information that

2:31:25staff have provided for the intersection redesigns of MacDenell and Elizabeth always showed the

2:31:31active transportation on a MacDenell bridge being on the north side. And so trail users would actually

2:31:37have to do multiple street crossings to navigate their way through this intersection, fight out of

2:31:43the way, and that kind of defeats the purpose of this infrastructure. So I just wanted to reiterate

2:31:51that it's very important to us that this be approved tonight. The other thing I wanted to

2:31:57comment on tonight was about the Allen Stam. And through our own work at plant number two,

2:32:03we've actually been working with the GRCA flood model to understand the flood fringe impacts on

2:32:10our property and how we could mitigate that for the neighborhood. And that's actually quite exciting

2:32:16and we're going to be really excited to show it to you as the Urban Design Master Plant comes forward.

2:32:21But it got us looking at the model itself and we can concur with the EA's report that the GRCA

2:32:29model as it stands today is pretty inadequate for answering the question about removing the dam or

2:32:35not. It's just it's not good enough. It's from the age of the lunar landings if you see it in real

2:32:41life. So we understand how they got to that conclusion that the hydraulic function of the

2:32:47Allen Stam couldn't be quantified at this point. But that doesn't answer the question for the EA,

2:32:53should it be removed or not? And so it's a case of knowing that we don't know the answer. What would

2:33:01be the role of removing the dam? Would it have actually improved elevations of flood control

2:33:08through the area or not? We just don't know because we don't have the tools. And while I would have

2:33:14loved to have a big discussion of through the EA about rewilding the speed, I mean it's a fascinating

2:33:20idea, the model's not there yet. And we've also been chasing GRCA on this update that they're doing

2:33:28through the whole area. It affects many properties. So what do we do? What I just wanted to get across

2:33:34to Council tonight was the idea that I think it'd be prudent for Council to recognize that that was

2:33:40a question that didn't have all the answers. And that somehow if you could note that and

2:33:46potentially direct staff to keep you engaged in the design of Mac-Tanell Bridge, which actually

2:33:52involves the analysis of Allen's dam, and they will have to use the updated GRCA model to begin

2:33:58with to answer the dam questions or probably answer the bridge questions, there will be more

2:34:04information coming forward as staff designers. So that would be my second recommendation.

2:34:11Thank you, Ian. Anything further then from what Ian has brought forward right now?

2:34:17Ken, sorry, Ken, Councillor Chew, go ahead. Ken works too.

2:34:23Through you, Mr. Mayor. Hi, Ian. You mentioned the GRCA flood modeling. Did you guys request that

2:34:31from GRCA as part of your scope of work? Yes, we've been given the 1D model, the existing model

2:34:40which Harvey Anderson also used in their hydraulic reports that's attached to the EA

2:34:48documents, and that's the ancient one. What we're all waiting for is this two-dimension model that

2:34:55has taken significant time to develop, which gives you much more insight into the way that the flows

2:35:01and the spills that will actually happen, and you can start to manipulate that in a way that you

2:35:06can't with the existing model that we have. And when did you request this? Oh, we got it when we

2:35:12needed it. It wasn't held up if that's the question. Was it a while ago? I mean, I'm just trying to

2:35:17understand like how old the model is and when you requested it for your purposes. That may be a

2:35:22question better for staff, Mr. Mayor. I don't know exactly how old it is, but it's okay. It informed

2:35:27the original flood planning for the city and for the whole GRCA area. Okay. Thank you. I'm not

2:35:34sorry. I'm not joking that it's from the lunar landing era.

2:35:42All right. Thank you. That was a conspiracy joke, right? Come on. Did that did even happen?

2:35:51No, the study happened. The lunar. I'm making a joke about the lunar.

2:35:57All right. Thank you, Ian. There's nothing further. We appreciate your time. Thank you.

2:36:01Arlene, you just walked in at the right time. I skipped over you twice.

2:36:07So awesome. You made it just in time. Thank you for coming. And just so you know, five minutes.

2:36:17Don't go over that. You know how it works. You can start whenever you're ready. Okay. Sure. And

2:36:21thanks. Apologies, everyone, if I had the wrong time down. So good evening, council. My name is

2:36:26Arlene Slokum. I'm speaking today as executive director of Water Watchers, a Guelph-based justice

2:36:32organization dedicated to the protecting of groundwater and the living systems that make

2:36:37up our shared watershed. But I also speak here as a human in relationship with this land,

2:36:43with this river, and with the more than human communities who have always known how to flow

2:36:47together. And I just want to point out that at this point in time, as we, you know, worked around

2:36:53honoring this river and the indigenous relationships that have held it for countless generations,

2:36:58at this time, I still don't know the name of this river in Anishinaabe Moan. And I know the name

2:37:05of the year, most of it, not the speed, and despite lots of research, it's unknown to me. So I also,

2:37:09in this context of this, would love to encourage more research and partnership with indigenous

2:37:14knowledge keepers in order for us to learn the name of this river. I want to express our support

2:37:20for the submission made by Emerge and join their call for a pause in the current process until a full

2:37:25joint hydraulic study commissioned by the city and the GRCA can be completed. The study would

2:37:31explicitly model multiple scenarios for Allens Dam, including maintaining it as is, modifying or

2:37:38notching the structure, and fully removing it. It would assess not only downstream and upstream

2:37:43flood profiles under both historical and contemporary extreme rainfall scenarios,

2:37:48including events like the GTA 2024 and heroin 1988 and 89, but also quantify the dam's impact on

2:37:56public safety, infrastructure risk, and ecological function. So why does this matter? Because the

2:38:02last hydraulic analysis in the reports we've read only examined impacts of retaining the dam.

2:38:08It did not analyze alternatives, which means council is being asked to make decisions based on

2:38:13incomplete information. We also know that during April 2025 rainfall, water levels upstream of the

2:38:20dam surged a full meter above summer flow in just 30 hours, reaching within inches of the

2:38:26Macdonnell Street bridge. The system held barely, but what happens when next larger storms arrive?

2:38:33The GRCA's own flood mapping work shows that up to 200 people in 80 homes are within the

2:38:38designated floodplain upstream. Yet the flood risks posed by the dam itself, through its backwatering

2:38:44and flow constraints, have never been publicly modeled. We cannot afford to move forward with

2:38:49partial data when the stakes are this high. And the risks don't stop with flooding. The scientific

2:38:54literature is clear. Small dams in urban rivers often raise downstream temperatures, disrupt,

2:39:00dissolve oxygen levels, block fish passage, and alter the riparian function of the ecosystem.

2:39:07In summer, when rivers are already stressed by heat, these effects compound, leading to algal

2:39:12blooms, degraded habitat, and declining water quality. We are asking the river to function

2:39:17with concrete collar around its neck. We also note that modern flood control for Guelph doesn't come

2:39:23from in channel dams like Allens. It comes from Guelph Lake Dam, Shand, and Conestoga, the GRCA's

2:39:30multi-purpose reservoirs. Allens Dam does not serve that function. Its purpose is historical,

2:39:35not hydrological. So yes, we support a pause and a study not to delay, but to deepen, and not just

2:39:41to mitigate risk, but to reveal opportunity. Because beyond the numbers, beyond the models,

2:39:47this is a moment to align infrastructure decisions with our climate adaptation goals,

2:39:52with best ecological practices, and with values that center life over legacy. Other communities

2:39:58have done this. Waterloo's Laurel Creek and Silver Lake Restoration integrated hydraulic

2:40:03modeling with fish passage, channel naturalization, and improved public access. New Hamburg Snyder's

2:40:11Flats and ongoing work across the watershed show this kind of transition is possible and powerful.

2:40:17Let Guelph be part of that shift. So I ask you to pause, commission the study, let the data be complete,

2:40:25let the river be heard, let this decision reflect not just engineering precision,

2:40:30but ecological and ethical clarity. Because sometimes the most responsible infrastructure

2:40:36is removal. Thank you. Thank you, Earlene, for your presentation. Is there any follow-up at all?

2:40:45There is not. So thank you very much. Okay, thank you. And for real this time, Evan, come on down.

2:40:51Thank you for waiting. Right. So is it a joint? Five minutes.

2:41:13Yep. And of course, I know who you are. But just for the public record, if you could state your name.

2:41:21Yeah. Yeah. So I'm Ansho Xia and I'm currently studying at the University of Waterloo and I'm

2:41:26here to speak on behalf of Emerge. Okay. So you are going to do a joint together with Evan. Okay.

2:41:32Well, I'll allow that. Counsel, you're okay? Okay. Go for it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of

2:41:38Counsel. My name is Ansho Xia and I'm here today on behalf of Emerge to speak on requesting a hydraulic

2:41:45study regarding Allen's Dam. This is not just about infrastructure. It's about restoring our

2:41:51natural heritage, protecting lives of wealth citizens, and protecting property and infrastructure.

2:41:57So first, our natural heritage. The Speed River has long been a defining part of wealth's landscape

2:42:04and is a living system that supports biodiversity, recreation, and our community next to the nature.

2:42:12So Allen's Dam has been disrupting that. It has altered natural river flow, trapped sediments,

2:42:19raised water temperature, and this is harming the aquatic lives. And because of the raised

2:42:24temperatures, we're getting an increase in algae blooms, so which is also destroying natural habitats

2:42:29that are along the river. So by removing Allen's Dam, we give the river a chance to heal itself.

2:42:36And we're allowing the fish to migrate freely. We're giving wetlands a chance to recover and water

2:42:42quality to improve. Restoring the river isn't about erasing history. It's about honoring the land we

2:42:49live on and the life it sustains. Secondly, we're going to talk about life and safety. Allen's Dam

2:42:56no longer serves a functional purpose. It's lost to a relic of a different era, but however, even an

2:43:02inactive dam is very dangerous. Over time, the structure can weaken, which costs the city to

2:43:08invest more, and sediments build up causing for water to fluctuate. So with climate change also

2:43:15increasing, we're going to be seeing heavier rainfall and unpredictable weather as seen in

2:43:20October. We've gotten so many hot days and then we go straight back to cold. So the risk is only

2:43:26growing and conducting a hydraulic study will help understanding these risks and help take action to

2:43:32remove it safely. Finally, community and property. The stagnant water that is behind Allen's Dam has

2:43:39led towards an increase in algae blooms for water quality and has decreased the ecological health.

2:43:45And these are conditions that harm the vegetation and those that surround the Speed River. A free

2:43:51flowing Speed River would create a cleaner water, healthier ecosystem and create greener public spaces.

2:44:01Mr. Mayor, I'd like to start just by saying that my heart goes out to staff that are working on

2:44:05this project. I can't believe how complicated this thing is, and I think this is just one piece of

2:44:10the puzzle of that area. There's so many moving parts associated with it. We have altered our

2:44:16final comments based on additional information from our colleagues at the Ontario River Alliance.

2:44:22Council doesn't have the information you need to make an informed decision today. The only way to

2:44:27know for sure is to complete a hydraulic study that will model the impacts of removing the dam.

2:44:32We believe that this should take less than a couple of months and is not as onerous a task to

2:44:37complete given the work that's already been accomplished. There are 200 lives, as you've

2:44:41already heard, 280 residential properties upstream of the dam that are at risk. These properties lie

2:44:47in the GRCA floodplain and are highly likely to flood during extreme weather. Removing the dam

2:44:52will greatly reduce these risks, lower flooding on McDonnell Street Bridge and possibly cut costs and

2:45:02risks when the bridge is rebuilt. Our understanding, again, is that the GRCA no longer sees the dam

2:45:07as fulfilling any flood control or flow augmentation rule. In 2018, according to the City's EA, a

2:45:13visual inspection report of the dam area was completed. It was impossible from our perspective

2:45:19to discern which, if any, concerns specifically related to the dam itself, other than the fact

2:45:25that the dam was built in 1938. There were a few details mentioned specifically on the

2:45:33sluiceway rather in this billway, but no specific information specifically on the condition of

2:45:40the 87-year-old dam. It appears to be unclear how or if the McDonnell Street Bridge is sitting on

2:45:48top of the dam, adjacent to it or part of it, or how that affects the structural integrity of the

2:45:54dam. There would be no reason to incur costs associated with looking at doing a potential

2:45:59additional safety review at this time if indeed the City first completes the hydraulic study

2:46:05and understand the implications of having it removed. Thank you. Thank you both. Appreciate it.

2:46:13And is there a follow-up right now at this time? Councillor All. Thank you, Margarit. Through you

2:46:19to Mr. Ferrari and Mr. Shaw. And again, preface the same that I did before. I'll ask the staff

2:46:26similar questions. The statement you made was the only way to know as a hydraulic study.

2:46:34Part of my problem here is when I look at the recommendations, the recommendations for all

2:46:38intents and purposes focus on the bridge, arts, and cultural advisory, not on the dam at all.

2:46:44And true confession. I'm not a fan of the dam. I'm not a fan of the pond. I consider it to be

2:46:49utrophic. But there are a number of different factors that I need to get my head around.

2:46:55So the question for you is really, really simple. You said the only way to know is a hydraulic study.

2:47:01Can you give me a breakdown of what the specifics of the content would be and what you might

2:47:07estimate as the cost of that and therefore a tiny frame as well? Yeah. Through you, Mr. Mayor,

2:47:14to Councillor All. The hydraulic analysis, not the study, but the hydraulic analysis,

2:47:21I believe it was section six in the package that you received as part of the EA specifically did

2:47:28hydraulic analysis. What they looked at is specifically where the water level, this was

2:47:35in a two-dimensional model, but where the water would flow relative to the existing

2:47:41Macdonnell Street bridge, as well as the older Allens Bridge, where would the water flow in

2:47:50higher precipitation events? It did nothing to evaluate the upstream impact of it. Obviously,

2:48:00the fact that the bridge exists doesn't peed water and slows it. From our perspective, what we

2:48:08feel needs to happen is, number one, confirm that where the existing floodlines exist. What

2:48:17that floodline looks like today is, if you can imagine the homes on Arthur Street, that the

2:48:23floodline essentially exists on the homes that back onto the river currently, the floodline exists

2:48:31in the middle of Arthur Street, for most of the section from upstreet of the dam, almost all the

2:48:36way up until the Norwich Bridge or close to that. In some instances, the floodline exists on the

2:48:43properties across the street from some of those homes along Arthur Street. On April 6th, that's

2:48:51already been mentioned this year and that was in our report and on our submission, rather,

2:48:57you'll notice that with that 60 millimeters, that there was a one meter over 30 hours, that there

2:49:04was a one meter increase in the water level that did cause flooding in a number of the backyards.

2:49:10This isn't an infrequent thing, but the modeling suggests that what they're modeling it for today

2:49:17of that line that that floodline looks like is actually for 200 millimeters of rain within

2:49:23approximately the same, I believe within the same amount of time, which is a significantly greater

2:49:28amount. So what we'd like to know is what happens to that floodline that I must say that technically

2:49:36literally goes around the building of the Riverrun Center, because if my memory serves me correctly,

2:49:44that when the Riverrun was being built, they actually raised it slightly to make sure that it

2:49:48was going to be above above the floodline. So when you look at that mapping that's readily

2:49:52available online, you could see that line going completely around it. Now, having said that,

2:49:59once our belief that once we remove the dam from a modeling perspective, we'll understand what

2:50:05happens to those lines. If indeed there's a big open space for the water to now get out of and

2:50:11it's not being blocked, our belief is that that that floodline could have a significantly positive

2:50:17impact on those 200 people and those 80 properties upstream. So really it's looking at the floodline,

2:50:27the current existing floodline, and what the impact would be of taking that dam out on impacting

2:50:35that floodline. What we expected to do is to show that a significantly reduced risk,

2:50:41does it completely take the risk away from those homes? I don't know and I mean part of it would be

2:50:47that we would have to look at the study and understand where it's going to be. Your other

2:50:51part of the question was the cost and in speaking with one hydrologist about it, he suggested that

2:50:56it should be well under $10,000 and it shouldn't take more than a couple of months at most based

2:51:01on the fact that there's already a certain amount of information out there and that the GRCA has an

2:51:07awful lot of this, a lot of the preliminary data that's out there that would add value to that

2:51:13kind of a study. Thank you. One quick question. I don't know that you know the answer to this,

2:51:18but I'll ask staff as well. Somebody a couple of weeks ago said to me that the bridge that will

2:51:24replace the McDonnell Bridge could not be actually installed at the same height that it is present

2:51:32that new environmental standards require it to be constructed higher. Are you aware of that

2:51:38and does that factor into your concerns? The fact that the new dam would be that the bottom portion

2:51:47of the new dam would be in and around the same elevation as the existing one concerns me. I

2:51:52find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be some kind of pressure to raise it, to raise the

2:51:57level of that bridge, but the reality of that would mean that you'd have to also raise the railroad.

2:52:03You'd also have to raise all of the roadways around it and I'm not an engineer, but I would have

2:52:10to admit I would have to suggest that that could be like significant millions of dollars associated

2:52:15with it. So what we're saying is that don't raise the bridge, lower the water. Anyway, thank you very

2:52:25much. I will ask staff the same thing. I didn't even think of the railroad, so I'll have to ask that as

2:52:30well. Thank you. Great. Nothing further to you both. Thank you so very much. Thank you. Thank you.

2:52:37And that's it for our delegations, everybody. So it is back to us. We do have the recommendations

2:52:44that were pushed forward from the Committee of the Whole to us here as Council tonight.

2:52:50They're up on the screen for everybody and wondering if we can at least have the regular

2:52:54motions tabled. Yes. Okay. Phil, yes. Sure. So Councillor Allt and Councillor Downer will move in

2:53:05second. I've had a request to split some of the voting up front, so we'll get through some way

2:53:10through, no pun intended, way through the waters of some of the questions that we have in front of us

2:53:16and then we'll go from there. So Ault and then I see a hand up here. Galler and we'll start with

2:53:23those two right now. Okay. Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie. I've heard a lot about the Macdonald

2:53:31Street Bridge tonight and I'm a bit concerned about that. The first thing that I'm concerned about is

2:53:36the assertion that the Macdonald Street Bridge, when it is reconstructed, will be inadequate for bike and

2:53:45additional non-motorized transportation. Is that to be our understanding?

2:53:57Through you, the Mayor, to Councillor Allt. So the approach we're taking to designing the wider

2:54:03Macdonald Bridge is there will be a multi-use path on the north side of the road, which will allow

2:54:09bi-directional travel for both pedestrians and cyclists. On the south side of the bridge, there

2:54:15will just be a standard sidewalk, so pedestrian access only, no bikes on the south side of the road.

2:54:22The intention is that the ward to downtown bridge would allow for cycling connection

2:54:28in that sort of desire path going southward towards Elizabeth Street or down Duke Street.

2:54:37Meanwhile, the multi-use path on the north side is more intended for connections

2:54:42up Arthur Street to the north and over to the St. George's neighborhood. There likely will be some

2:54:49amount of connectivity around the Macdonald-Arthur-Elizabeth intersection. However, as mentioned,

2:54:56that does require several road crossings to be able to make that. And considering the complexity

2:55:02of the geometry, the preferred approach is to minimize the amount of active transportation

2:55:09that's being directed through that intersection, as it's also a truck route, complex geography,

2:55:14and so on and so forth. Thank you. I understand from other cities that it is standard practice to have

2:55:23bi-directional bike lanes on one side of a road. Am I right or wrong in that?

2:55:32Through the mayor, Councillor, I'll, yeah, you're correct. Multi-use paths do tend to be bi-directional

2:55:38for both pedestrians and cyclists. Thank you very much. Oh, thank you very much.

2:55:52No, through you, Mayor Guthrie, to staff, the height of the bridge has been a concern,

2:55:58and we're hearing about the possibility that it could be potentially threatened by

2:56:04large volumes of water. Somebody told me, I don't know if the person was an expert,

2:56:09that the Macdonald Street Bridge would have to be built higher. I know nothing about engineering.

2:56:14I was wondering if staff could please comment on that. I'm just going to interject for a second,

2:56:20and I just want staff to confirm something, and just so that we can all be on the same page before

2:56:26we move forward. Is it relevant to be talking about detailed design issues, like height of bridges

2:56:35and things like that, when we are here today to approve the completion of an EA? So I just want

2:56:45to make sure that we're not getting into the weeds, no pun intended again, about certain, like, what's

2:56:51the width of a bridge, or what's it going to look like? Like, I just want to make sure that we're

2:56:57not veering off into areas that, like, is not applicable to the completion of an EA report

2:57:05that is in front of us. If I'm wrong, please tell me right away, like, I'm wrong, just tell me I'm

2:57:10wrong. But I just want to make sure, what are you looking for from a question and answer point of

2:57:15view in conjunction with the report that is actually in front of us? Just so we can set the stage

2:57:20and the foundation before we move forward with the rest of the questions, okay? Anybody?

2:57:24Yeah, so to you, Mayor Guthrie, if you can indulge me here. So you're right in the sense that EA

2:57:29is done at a certain level of detail, and it's a regulatory process. City staff have to follow in

2:57:34these types of situations with this specific type of infrastructure. So after an EA is completed,

2:57:39councillor would direct staff to file the notice of completion, then we move forward to detailed

2:57:43design of that preferred solution. In detailed design is exactly where we make adjustments and do

2:57:49analysis for things like, what's the height of the bridge? How do you factor in safety for things

2:57:53like flood control, that kind of thing. And so that's work that staff would always do. That's

2:57:57exactly what the professional engineering field would be here for. And so those are future steps

2:58:03in the process. Okay, so back to councillor Alts question, which I'm actually curious myself.

2:58:08Yeah, I do have a point of order. And I'm quite happy if you say that I'm wrong. But because the

2:58:16issues that we've heard from the delegates tonight, and that I understand there's a potential motion

2:58:21coming forward, focus on the dam and floodway. My question, I do believe is quite germane to what's

2:58:29being discussed and will be discussed later on. That's my concern. But as I said, I'm prepared

2:58:35to accept what you're, what you're. Yeah, I would suggest if we could keep it at this time, and you

2:58:41still have the floor, absolutely councillor Alts, keep it this time in reference to the completion

2:58:45of the EA report, sort of that regulatory moment that we are in, in this, in this process and project.

2:58:52And then if anything kind of starts to come forward around detail design, then let's

2:58:56save our questions for that moment first. And then we can wade through it then. Is that okay?

2:59:00It's quite all right. And as I said, I'm prepared to accept your decision on this.

2:59:07The question, yeah, and the question then stems from the motions that are in front of us. The

2:59:12motions speak particularly about the bridges and not about the dam. And I am wondering whether,

2:59:20in fact, much of this discussion is then out of order and we need to focus on the dam at some

2:59:25other point. And I would look to you for some decision on that. Well, how about I just parse,

2:59:33thank you. I think that's a valid question. How about I just parcel it out right now?

2:59:37And I know that you're on the list, councillor Gower, and I'm going to get to you and not going to cut

2:59:40that off at all. But can we just scope any questions to the EA? If there's none, then we can maybe

2:59:47move to the other questions that might be coming about. But I just want to, I don't want us to start

2:59:53wandering into other areas of detail design work that we know comes next. And I just, I think

3:00:02that's where I just want to make sure that we're focused. Councillor Downer, did you want to speak

3:00:05up for a second and then back to you, councillor? So I think that's the question I sort of want to ask.

3:00:12So this hydraulic analysis that would be done, should that be done at this point in an EA or is

3:00:22that done later in the design portion and process? And if it's done in the design process and it's

3:00:31determined that the dam should be removed, does that happen? And that's sort of what I want to know.

3:00:36Like sort of what happens, people are saying pause it, because we need to do it now. And I'm one,

3:00:43but I'm hearing from staff know that this is done later. So can you sort of clarify that

3:00:48for us how, from what staff's perspective and process would be? And I think that would help us

3:00:53ask our questions about what is in the EA and what's later and what information we as a council

3:00:59might want to have later when that work is done. So I'll allow that to happen, then I am going to

3:01:05move the floor back to councillor Allt. Okay. So go ahead. Through the mayor to councillor Downer. So

3:01:10with respect to the EA, the EA takes a look at the long list and short list of options to solve the

3:01:15problem. And then what it does is it compares those options against a set of criteria, social,

3:01:20fiscal, environmental criteria. And so on the balance of all of the criteria that are in the EA,

3:01:25each option is analyzed and the ultimate best option is selected. And so the level of detail

3:01:31provided with respect to every single option is not at the level of granularity of detail design.

3:01:37That's only for the recommended options of the EA. If we were to do that on every single

3:01:42aspect, the EA covers this, the cost and time to complete the work would be substantially higher.

3:01:48The project work would be substantially delayed. And that's just not the form and function of the

3:01:53EA. The EA is the feasibility study and it spits out sort of what the right path is from there.

3:02:05So the second part of that question was if that work is done later and there are complications or

3:02:12it's understanding what the worries that people are bringing to us and the concerns is then that

3:02:20brought back or things modified, would you ever come back with a recommendation that, you know,

3:02:26okay, there's something, you know, that we need to do in the design to mitigate this or change it?

3:02:32Yes. So through the mayor to you, Councillor Downer, so again, the EA right now suggests

3:02:37recommends rehabilitation as the main option. That's the option we'll pursue. If we were in

3:02:41detailed design of that option and we found complications that required us to maybe pivot

3:02:46and change course, you know, sort of depending on the nature of that, we certainly may be back

3:02:49in front of council. Perhaps we would have to have an amendment to the EA depending on those

3:02:52outcomes. So that is the kind of thing that can happen in the future if that adds more clarity.

3:02:59Okay. Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie because I'm sorry, sorry, everybody.

3:03:04No, I'm still trying to construct the the the issue here. The I'm trying to figure out what is

3:03:11the problem we're trying to solve? Are we trying to solve the problem of the bridge and or bridges?

3:03:16Are we trying to solve the problem of the dam and the river? Or are we trying to solve both?

3:03:22And because when I look at these motions, these motions very clearly identify that we're dealing

3:03:27with the bridge. And that's why I'm struggling with this. And if that's the case, then any of the

3:03:33discussion of the dam, in my opinion, is out of order at this point, unless it has an impact on the

3:03:41bridges. When to order your worship? I'll sorry, I'll allow the point of order, but I wouldn't mind

3:03:49staff also answering councillor Alts question. But you have a point of order. You go ahead.

3:03:54Just quickly, page one of the of the staff report says that the EA has four points. Point number two

3:04:04is that Alan's bridge be removed. When we approve the first motion today, we are also approving,

3:04:11giving direction for staff to remove the Alan's bridge number three to remove the Alan's dam,

3:04:18or sorry, to rehabilitate the Alan's dam. So I think by talking about the first motion,

3:04:23we're talking about the rehabilitation of Alan's dam.

3:04:29Okay. Thank you. Let's just see what staff say to that question, because they might say exactly

3:04:34what you just said. So staff, do you need their question?

3:04:41Yeah, through you, mayor. Councillor Aude, if you may just repeat your question one more time.

3:04:45The motions that we have in front of us relate directly to the bridges. There's nothing in there

3:04:51that references the dams. The question I have is what is the problem that we are trying to solve

3:04:57today? The bridges or the dam and the river or the bridges and the dam and the river? That's

3:05:06the crux of the issue. Right. So through you, mayor, go through to councillor Aude. The first

3:05:09recommendation in the staff report is for all of the associated infrastructure that is described in

3:05:14EA. So that would include the dam, the highway, the bridge, the pedestrian bridge, etc.

3:05:19Thank you very much. Now I think we can discuss things.

3:05:23Thank you. Thanks, everybody. Appreciate that. Councillor Aude, thank you for your patience.

3:05:26You're up next. Go ahead. Thank you through your worship to staff. First of all, thank you for

3:05:35this immense body of work. I do understand that you need to scope the project. Otherwise,

3:05:42there would be tremendous scope creep. So that I am clear, as you move ahead with the

3:05:50recommendations as presented here, would you do an exploration, as the community members have

3:05:57requested, of the impacts of preserving the dam and the impacts on the properties that are upstream

3:06:04from the dam? Through you, mayor, to councillor Goller, through detailed design, excuse me,

3:06:20we would look at all those impacts. You would be looking at it because here we're giving direction

3:06:28for the dam to be rehabilitated and the community members are saying, well, you should be removing

3:06:34it. So as I understand it, back and forth, we would have to give you direction to actively explore

3:06:42removing the dam. So I'm just trying to understand whether you would be looking at

3:06:46councillor Downer said, would you be looking at those options regardless of any direction from

3:06:52council or not? Through you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Mayor, I'll take this one. So as we move forward,

3:07:03the rehabilitation of the dam would include in hydraulic analysis. That was going to be done

3:07:08regardless. That hydraulic analysis was going to be focused on making sure that we can manage the

3:07:15100-year storm or the regional storm under the future Macdonnell bridge and that could be accomplished

3:07:22through a number of different means. One of them is going to be refined modeling. We've already

3:07:26heard that the model we have is not that accurate and we will be, we've heard the same from the

3:07:33from the Grand River Conservation Authority. We will be refining that model and focusing on

3:07:40the Macdonnell bridge and the Allen spillway. We'll also call it the dam. It's the same thing. It's

3:07:46the spillway. It's the same structure. So between that refined modeling, we will also look at options

3:07:56to raise the underside of the bridge as much as we can. That might include raising the deck to the

3:08:02point where Maxim is able to to work with the various intersections. And it'll also include,

3:08:09we may trim the top of that weir to create a little more elevation to make sure that we can

3:08:15control the storm and get it over the top. And what that trimming may look like, we'll have to

3:08:20investigate it because if that the complications of removing that weir, the spillway or the dam,

3:08:28as we want to call it, is how does that support the appointments for the existing in the future

3:08:35Macdonnell bridge? How does it support the the piers for the Metrolinx viaduct? You know, Metrolinx

3:08:44will have a significant impact on what we do here. So that sort of structural and hydraulic analysis

3:08:53would be done. So back to the original question. The intent wasn't necessarily to do a full analysis

3:09:00of what the removal would be like. We would do enough hydraulic analysis to make sure that we

3:09:05could manage the storm. The floodplain work upstream of the bridge really is Grand River

3:09:13Conservation Authority turf. And it's work that they should be working on and they are because

3:09:19they're refining their model too. So I just wanted to raise a couple of those points.

3:09:25And the other thing we could work on is how does that sluice gate operate during a high

3:09:30high water event? You know, is there something automatic or is it a manual type of, we have

3:09:36options that we will explore during final design to make sure we can control the hunter gear in

3:09:42the regional storm event, which is the concern here. Thank you for that. If I may, we received a

3:09:49couple of letters in the last couple of days, one from Emerge and one from the Ontario Rivers

3:09:55Association. Could I ask you to please respond to each of those? They raised somewhat different,

3:10:02but similar concerns and they were focused not so much as you said. The focus has been on the

3:10:08impact of the dam on the new bridge that you're going to build. They talked about the impact of

3:10:14the dam on the property's upstream and also on the health of the river up and downstream.

3:10:20If I could ask you to talk to those? Certainly, through you, Mr. Mayor. We did look at the impacts

3:10:28of full removal. Now, a lot of valid points have been raised by the delegates, but however, as

3:10:37Acting Deputy CAO Gaiman has pointed out, EAs, we don't work to have perfect information. We gather

3:10:45enough information to understand are we confident in the decision moving forward and we are. Now,

3:10:53fine tuning of that information will get decided through the detailed design phase.

3:10:59The question about the impact of full removal of the weir, yeah, we can do the hydraulic studies.

3:11:06Can it be done in a couple of months? I don't know which consultants ever give me that or 10. No.

3:11:12We'd be into some significant undertaking to revise the model and get that updated as well.

3:11:20You pointed out that the sediment was raised by one of our delegates. A significant amount of work

3:11:27to understand how we would remove the sediments and deal with it so that we're not damaging the

3:11:34natural environment. And honestly, there's going to be contamination in there as well.

3:11:39So that that is something we will have to understand as well if we are going to consider removing

3:11:47that structure. And I got the floor. We will also be significant engagement that will have to be

3:11:56undertaken. Even though we've heard from very intelligent folks tonight, well presented arguments

3:12:03on why the dam should not be there. There is many in the community that will

3:12:09wish to retain the mill pond out of cultural recreational heritage importance. So there will

3:12:17be that discussion to have as well. Thank you for that. Your worship. I have two motions that I

3:12:29would like to add as well as the three on the floor. If I could ask the clerk to please bring them up.

3:12:36Based on what I heard, I want to thank our delegates. Mr Panamakir, Mr Diamond, Mr

3:12:44Swami. Thank you for being here today. And Evan, and thank you so much, everyone. I'm listening

3:12:52to your concerns. I've read the letters and I've worked with staff on these motions. Although

3:12:58they are not supportive because they they're comfortable that the they as presented satisfies

3:13:05the safety of the bridge. This is what would be required to really explore the removal of the dam.

3:13:15Now, I'll read them out loud. That staff be directed to conduct the necessary technical

3:13:21studies to evaluate the removal of island stem during the detailed design of the Macdonnell

3:13:26and Island structures subject to the inclusion of 750,000 to expand the scope of capital project

3:13:33at the Macdonnell Bridge Island dam structural upgrades in the 2026 budget. And that staff report

3:13:39back to council on the outcomes of the island stem technical analysis, including appropriate next

3:13:45steps. I'll ask if I have a seconder from council on this. Just Quran. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank

3:13:55you. And council Quran. And we've we've heard that there would be more studies needed. This is what

3:14:03our staff team has said that would be the the scope and the dollar amount to really explore

3:14:08the removal of that dam. So I would ask my council colleagues to to consider this. We've heard from

3:14:15the community from many folks that have a lot of information. And I just wanted to ask staff

3:14:20if the first question on the motions that 750,000 dollar addition to the capital,

3:14:28could you give me a little bit of an understanding of how that would be spent? Would it be that first

3:14:33you do the hydraulic modeling? And then if you determine that there are benefits to removing

3:14:38the dam, then you do other studies. I'm just trying to understand whether we would commit to

3:14:43spending all of that or it would be up to that amount. And at some point you might say actually,

3:14:48we're not going to spend that much. Yeah, through the mayor to councillor Goller. So certainly that

3:14:52that's a conservative number given the sort of time which staff had to prepare and think through

3:14:58scope. And so, you know, detailed scopes matter, we need to do that work for good reason. And so

3:15:03the the concern is certainly with this is once you start to peel back sort of the layers of the

3:15:08onion, so to speak, that there could be, you know, much more to this. We have to think about things

3:15:13like structural integrity as well of metro links infrastructure, all the permitting that may be

3:15:17associated with that studies, they may require things of that nature that are just not part of

3:15:22the assignment scope of this environmental assessment. Again, that's why staff have the

3:15:27environmental assessment process here with the recommendation and in the original report.

3:15:32And so it does feel a bit like an open ended moment here if council goes down this path,

3:15:38and I certainly wouldn't recommend that. But that's where that funding comes from.

3:15:45Okay, is there any other questions just on this before I call the vote on both of these?

3:15:49Yep, Downer and then Billings, Gibson and Katen, okay.

3:15:56So, so through you, Mr. Mayor, so it's not necessarily a question, it's just my understanding

3:16:02is that that all the concerns the concerns we've heard is around risk upstream.

3:16:11And staff told us around, had told us how they're, they're going to deal with that through the

3:16:17studies and if it comes back, that's the issue that the community has raised is risk.

3:16:25So I don't know why we would go ahead and remove it, decide to remove it

3:16:31without having those extra studies done. Is that what, so maybe my question to staff is sort of

3:16:38that what I'm sort of hearing that if those risks were realized through extra study and the GRCAs

3:16:44extra studies, then we would start entertaining that. But at this point, the recommendation is

3:16:50because there's other risks in what you've identified in actually removing it as well.

3:16:55Through you, Mr. Mayor, to councillor, right now we're recommending rehabilitation. If we got into

3:17:03those other studies and we came back with council with, you know, here's the impacts of removal,

3:17:12then there would have to be a decision made on basis of risks for the community by council.

3:17:18Okay. Thank you. Okay, so we might get to what councillor

3:17:23Gowler's motion is down the road, but at this point, like I just, for me, it's just, this is

3:17:28premature, this motion. I would prefer to see a motion to come back maybe with information

3:17:36whenever that work is done and then, you know, we can maybe, you know, if there's significant risks

3:17:41at that time, we can just deal with it. But this is premature from my perspective and it

3:17:48sounds like we don't completely have all the costs and the risk because staff have just sort of

3:17:53looked at this, you know, we're hearing about this in the last couple of days. So I just think it's

3:17:59anyway premature. So I won't be supporting the motion. I understand the intent of it, but

3:18:03I'm not prepared to move that motion today. Okay. So moving right along, I have Billings,

3:18:11Gibson, Kate and Chew and Ault. Unless your question has just been answered.

3:18:20So through you, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to ask Mr. Gaiman, so help me out with this,

3:18:25because I think you mentioned and correct me if I'm wrong, that even if council were to support

3:18:30this motion up to spending 750,000 on a technical analysis, that you feel that your recommendation

3:18:38would not change. If that's correct, can you explain why? Or is it your answer was peeling

3:18:45back the onion and look at everything that happened? Like just explain it to me.

3:18:49Through the mayor to council Billings, yes. Certainly I expect if we did do that analysis,

3:18:53we're going to find, you know, a certain level of complexity and potentially additional costs. And

3:18:57again, from a staff's perspective, the recommendation in the EA is to rehabilitate the structure,

3:19:02right? And that again, it was balanced on the affordability criteria, the social criteria,

3:19:06the environmental criteria in that regulated process. And so I continue to say you should be

3:19:11pointing yourselves back to that point in our report and our recommendation. The additional

3:19:16funds can get you more information on another option, but staff would still be at the position that

3:19:22the rehabilitation is preferred method. We would need further council direction in the future,

3:19:27based on all of that additional work. If you actually want us to switch gears and do a different

3:19:31solution there, which again, at this point, I wouldn't recommend. Okay. And then also through

3:19:36you, Mr. Mayor, I wanted to ask, and I guess this is just clarity, would not the GRCA have to

3:19:44approve the removal of the dam? Like it sounds like council wants to direct this after studies are

3:19:52done. But at the end of the day, would it not have to be the GRCA that gets the approval for

3:19:58their removal? Through the mayor to councillor Billings, there are absolutely permitting processes

3:20:03required here. So GRCA, potentially MNRF and Metrolinx as well, depending on what the outcome

3:20:08is, right? So we don't have that solution prepared through the lack of the work that would be done

3:20:15to get to that moment. But there could be a number of different permitting processes.

3:20:19Okay. But then also it was mentioned that the GRCA is working on extra modeling as well. Do you

3:20:26know how far along they are in their process in this specific area? So through the mayor to council

3:20:33Billings, staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but I know the GRCA has gone through their update. I

3:20:37think some of that draft modeling may be in as recently within the last week or two. But

3:20:41either way, as we go through detailed design, we'll always work with them and work with the most

3:20:45updated information that we can get with respect to the modeling. Typically models like that start

3:20:49conservative and sometimes tighten with better data and better information. That's not necessarily

3:20:54the case, but that may be a no-come. Okay. And then last question. Last question. I promise, Mr.

3:21:00So through you, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Let's just let's just say hypothetically studies are done

3:21:05and it's determined that we remove the dam. Is this something that the city of Guam would be 100%

3:21:12financially responsible for or partly the GRCA would pay for some of this removal as well?

3:21:21To the mayor to council buildings, if you just give me one second, I just want to confirm. I

3:21:29believe staff through the EA work dam ownership confirmed with the city, right? Just saying I'm

3:21:35seeing heads not. So I think that gives you your answer, councillor buildings, that would be city

3:21:38cost. Thank you. Okay. Gibson, then Kate. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So just going to walk

3:21:46through my thought process and I'll ask a question to Mr. Game as well. We're here today to ratify

3:21:55the EA as it's gone through. It's found ourselves a preferred alternative, a preferred solution.

3:22:02We are voting on that so that the staff city can issue our notice of completion.

3:22:09I struggle with the idea of carrying, is it, I mean, does it open up our,

3:22:15doesn't open up the city to criticism if we are carrying effectively two solutions

3:22:20forward from the EA? Like, does it limit you, your ability to file a notice of completion if you

3:22:24actually haven't come? Like this motion kind of opens up a second option. So we're kind of

3:22:30investigating two alternatives still. So are we able to file the notice of completion if we're

3:22:36going to carry this motion forward? Because we're not really sure what we're doing yet. So maybe

3:22:41I'll just turn a view. Does it, does it cloud the ability to sort of close the book on the EA

3:22:46and keep moving forward on detailed design? Through Mr. Mayor and Councillor Gibson. So certainly

3:22:50that's what's, that's in a way what I was getting at with respect to we'd still need direction in

3:22:55the future if we were to switch from the recommendation in the EA. So the recommendation

3:22:59is to rehabilitate the dam in its loose way. And so if that were to change based on further analysis,

3:23:06we'd have to come back to council, we'd have to get that direction, we'd have to amend the EA

3:23:09in the future because the EA when you tell us to file the notice of completion is going to say

3:23:13rehabilitate. Okay. So I will, I will support the EA process that we are finalizing our preferred

3:23:21option moving forward so that staff can file a notice of completion. All the while understanding

3:23:27that through detailed design, other things may come to light in which staff need to come back and

3:23:33ask for an amendment to the EA. But for the purposes of today's meeting, we'll move forward into

3:23:38detailed design with a preferred alternative that was chosen through the EA process. I appreciate

3:23:43staff's effort on this and I look forward to learning more. Thanks, Kate and then Chief.

3:23:52Thank you. Through you Mr. Mayor. Acting DCO Gaming, can you please remind me what the cost was

3:24:00for or the estimated cost because I know you don't have all the complete details

3:24:05for removal versus rehabilitation of the dam in this loose way?

3:24:11Through the mayor to Councillor Caton. Actually I might look to our project engineer Andrew Miller

3:24:16to see if he has the numbers on hand. I don't want to misquote them for you. I think I could do it

3:24:20right now but I'll let Andrew confirm. Through you the mayor to Councillor Caton. Yes, the removal

3:24:28option for the Owens Dam as the capital infrastructure only or capital removal of

3:24:36the exact dam structure without all the additional aspects that will have to be considered was $2

3:24:41million and rehabilitation of the dam was at $415,000. Okay, through the mayor. So

3:24:57like Councillor Downer, I feel that a lot of the issues that were presented were about

3:25:04risk of flooding and I heard from staff that there are ways to mitigate that via

3:25:12shaving some off the top and other things like that. So I'm comfortable with that.

3:25:17And there is also mention of habitats further down the line and I remember when we were doing our

3:25:24walkie that it was brought up that within the pond structure there are new habitats that have been

3:25:31created because that's been there so long. When you've got two competing habitats like that,

3:25:39how do you how do you pick between them? Through you, Mr. Mayor, it's that one got poked at me

3:25:52to answer that question and that comes back to the question of

3:26:00I totally agree there will be pros and cons to each of these decisions. There is an established

3:26:05ecosystem upstream and downstream of the spill right now, spillway right now that will be disturbed.

3:26:13The question that staff and council will have to wrestle is which is the greater benefit

3:26:20if indeed we move down the path of investigating full removal. Okay, so right now I'm leaning

3:26:29similar to Councillor Downer thinking that this is just a little bit premature and that

3:26:34a lot of the things that I was concerned with that folks have brought up can be mitigated

3:26:40and that staff will come back to us if there's something that is dire or exceeds the risk level.

3:26:47Thank you.

3:26:49To you then, Alt.

3:26:52Through you, Mr. Mayor, just the staff and I guess I'll provide some preamble.

3:27:01Like I'm just concerned financially long term what the cost of keeping the dam would be

3:27:10if we kept it. So this kind of just goes back to my concern. I guess my question first would be

3:27:19annually how roughly how much does it cost to maintain the sluice? Do we know do we have that

3:27:25figure or just roughly?

3:27:27Through you, Mr. Mayor, to Councillor Chew, on an annual operating basis we don't have

3:27:36a regular maintenance cost for the dam. We are proposing $415,000 for rehabilitation

3:27:44which should last for a number of decades but beyond that I can't break it down to an annual

3:27:51maintenance cost. Okay and for me like I'm just acknowledging Councillor Gibson's comments about

3:28:01being able to file that notice of completion. Like this is a municipal EA so it's within our

3:28:09purview at that end of the day what decisions Council ought to make and even in detail design

3:28:16if there is some direction is that correct? Like we can provide some direction if we wanted

3:28:27hypothetically. Through the municipal class EA we've undertaken a fulsome process that

3:28:36documents it all the way along and you have in front of you a preferred recommendation.

3:28:43I would not suggest Council pick one different than that just go with it. We would ultimately

3:28:48have to recall back out to the public and gather the input and come back with Council. I would

3:28:56not recommend Council make a decision to change the recommendation then issue a notice of completion.

3:29:02Okay I guess I'll provide some comments then.

3:29:06Like this has been a long and ongoing conversation I believe since 1993

3:29:13whether to remove the dam or not because it's no longer serving its purpose being a dam for the mill

3:29:21which is no longer in commission obviously and my thinking is we have an opportunity right now

3:29:29with all this expensive work to make that decision whether we're going to remove it or not and if we

3:29:35don't do it if we don't have a opportunity to provide a touch point during the detail design

3:29:43we're ready making that decision as it is to rehabilitate.

3:29:51And I guess what would speak to the comfort of Council is if we had some opportunity

3:29:58just for a minor touch point of sorts so we can make the decision with more information

3:30:05whether we actually want to only up with the the monies to remove the dam but obviously right

3:30:12now we don't want to make that financial commitment because we don't have that information

3:30:17and also this EA in scope is very broad by nature. There are three action items and the one that

3:30:24we're focused on tonight is whether we want to remove or rehabilitate the sluay and spillway

3:30:31in which is outside of the scope of this current EA right I think so that's the conflict that we

3:30:37have we'd like a touch point but we also want to ensure the notice of completion can move ahead

3:30:42so I'm just wondering if there's a way in which we can reconcile that and if something as simple as

3:30:47an info report could do the job sorry that was a lot but. So yeah so through the mayor to Councillor

3:30:57Chu, through the mayor to Councillor Chew you know I appreciate you know the sentiment of the comments

3:31:03that you just made here I mean the process is exactly that the council's being asked to make a

3:31:07decision on an environmental assessment it's fully baked out it's fully informed by community feedback

3:31:13and a regulatory process and it's got an outcome. The detailed design and detailed engineering work

3:31:17on every project that we do from a capital perspective then takes those things and turns them into

3:31:22reality there's public information centers or open houses during those detailed designs so

3:31:28there's moments where public can come and get informed, councilors can come and get informed,

3:31:32provide feedback, ask questions, do that kind of thing through those channels of means. I don't

3:31:36recommend that staff start coming back with information reports with respect to detailed

3:31:40designs I think that that is you know added work for staff that have capacity challenges in the

3:31:45first place with respect to delivering on the overall capital portfolio and so that would be my

3:31:50preference is to just let the detailed design process play out as per usual get involved in

3:31:55those those ways that we normally have for the community and for yourselves and then budget is

3:32:00always another conversation in the future where we will be talking about those projects.

3:32:05Okay just one final question then during the public open houses and the community engagement

3:32:12and would there be opportunity for you at staff level to contemplate whether

3:32:20or not we want to go ahead and remove the dam if all the information leads that would be the most

3:32:30prudent and cost effective solution to be to consider obviously it deviates a lot from the

3:32:36rehabilitation but would there be opportunity for you guys to make that decision or is it

3:32:41decision already made here tonight based on the direction we're going to provide to you?

3:32:47So through the mayor to council to the decision in the EA is to rehabilitate

3:32:53the structures and so with that direction and with the notice of completion that's the work we

3:32:56would seek out to do if during the detailed design work of that preferred alternative we ran into

3:33:01complications that would require us to come back to council then that would be how that process

3:33:05would play out perhaps at that point we would say we now would recommend you know sort of the

3:33:10item that finished in second place in the EA and maybe funding to evaluate that further but

3:33:15we would be doing the work on the preferred alternative and recommendation in the EA only.

3:33:24Good councillor Chew. Okay we are we are starting to circle because my list is just growing and

3:33:33growing and growing I need a dam to stop the list so I got alt then boost until then downer

3:33:44then back to caller I'm sorry on the amendment yeah and class

3:33:53guys I want to want to wrap this up on the amendment please I want to okay I really want to wrap it

3:33:58up so I am going to alt. Thank you Mayor Guthrie and this is on the amendment it is through you two

3:34:07staff as I've said I do favor the the elimination of the dam I'll be quite honest there's a number

3:34:14of different reasons geese being one of them the eutrophication of that particular pond

3:34:19the seasonal nature of there's there's no doubt in my mind but our first principles here are about

3:34:25replacing a bridge and so that's a significant concern to me I can't answer the questions about

3:34:32Metrolinx and federal jurisdictions but I'm hoping that staff can please address the challenges that

3:34:39we might have as a consequence of delays when it comes to extending the lifespan of the current

3:34:46mcdonald bridge if as a consequence of much of what we're talking about right now leads to significant

3:34:52delays through the mayor to councillor Allt so I think you've raised a valid point with respect to

3:34:57timelines we we have um condition assessments we do on the mcdonald bridge there's the limited

3:35:02lifespan with respect to that infrastructure and so we we continue to inspect it on an annual basis

3:35:09there is a point in time at which that bridge structural integrity

3:35:12may be in jeopardy where we may for example have to load restrict the bridge if you get into load

3:35:16restrictions you're getting into things like impacts to emergency services transit goods movement all

3:35:20kinds of impacts with respect to how the community transportation network functions so certainly

3:35:26I would be avoiding those delays from the professional engineering perspective

3:35:33and again these these studies this additional sort of contemplated scope of work could could

3:35:39grow quite substantively so I don't think we have a sense right now of the timelines you know you

3:35:44you make one decision and move to another one and another one and another one and all of a sudden

3:35:48you could be two years three years five years before we're even done a detailed design and and so

3:35:53maybe by that point we're we're in a different situation with the mcdonald bridge thank you as

3:35:58per Councillor Downer I do believe what we were talking about is somewhat premature I will

3:36:04absolutely commit to listening to all of the concerns about the spillway and listening to my

3:36:11my reason colleagues who are very concerned about the river because I am too but at this point I

3:36:16believe this is premature it's consequently I can't support the amendment who's it till then downer

3:36:22thank you I will be very brief I have listened to the delegations and read the materials as well

3:36:28I would agree with Councillor Caton Downer alt and succinctly said by Councillor Gibson I think

3:36:36we need to focus on the EA getting it approved file the notice of completion and get staff working

3:36:42on the detailed design as soon as possible with more community engagement which comes later so I

3:36:47agree that this is premature and I will not be supporting the amendment thank you downer is

3:36:53said doesn't need to continue so go ahead and class in please thank you worship just comments on this

3:37:08um I just going to appeal to my my council colleagues you know when community groups come

3:37:14and advocate when the water watchers would emerge when GCAT they come and and ask us for something

3:37:21I've been listening I've gotten about 60 emails yesterday and today about this I think that we

3:37:27need to be very clear if we do not support these additional motions staff will not do an in-depth

3:37:35review of the removal of the dam we are telling them go ahead and rehabilitate it and that is where

3:37:40they're going to scope their work so saying that it's premature this is the last touch point that we

3:37:46have to ask staff to seriously explore the removal of the dam it could very well come back that they

3:37:54it's not a good idea that it would cost too much and we would have the second motion that staff

3:38:00report back to council on the outcomes of the island dams technical analysis including appropriate

3:38:05next steps and that's the touch point for us but and if we vote these two down we are saying no to

3:38:11the exploring the removing of the dam so I'm going to vote in favor of this and I appeal to my council

3:38:18colleagues to please consider supporting this and listen to what the community is telling us that

3:38:24is important to them thank you thank you Cawson yes thank you and I appreciate all of my colleagues

3:38:33questions to staff and it might be repeating it in a different way so please bear with me

3:38:41it's it is about process and I've got an email in front of me from somebody who lives on Arthur

3:38:45Street and this person has been complaint has made a complaint about the fact that there was a

3:38:52blockage on the sluice way and her backyard was filled with water and she was the person who called

3:38:58called it in and so you know there's a real concern there that in a drop of a hat your backyard can

3:39:04can be flooded so that considered you know I'm looking I'm doing some math quick math here so

3:39:12um two million for the removal four hundred and fifteen for the rehab that's a differential of

3:39:18just over one point five million but if let's say in the next thirty years there's a major

3:39:26flood um and all of the homes along Arthur Street are all of a sudden full of water

3:39:32and then that could be millions of dollars worth of damage um so my concern is is going back to

3:39:40these emails and saying it's the hydraulic analysis did not look at modeling the impacts

3:39:45that removing the dam would have on the 200 and people in 80 homes upstream of the dam so

3:39:51my question is with regard to the process so we approve this you take it away I think I heard

3:39:59that there's still hydraulic analysis coming and that some GRCA modeling would be considered

3:40:05so if at that point it's it's clear to you that the dam is is a problem would you come back to us

3:40:15or would you would you remove it I guess that's where where where where does the decision point

3:40:21like where does that come into play because right now we're from my understanding we're

3:40:26approving an EA with an option that says we prefer the cheaper you know let's fix it for now and

3:40:35like deal with it maybe later down the road or fix it again or potentially you know there might be

3:40:42a point where we can actually make a change I just I want to be really clear about when

3:40:47when that when that problem is going to be looked at um and when council might hear about it

3:40:54so through the mayor to councillor classon again to sort of paraphrase earlier responses

3:41:01the EA direct staff to do the rehabilitation preferred alternative if through their detailed

3:41:08design work we determine that that's not a feasible solution anymore then that's when we would come

3:41:13back to council seeking different direction but if the solution is designed and and constructable

3:41:19and and so on then we would continue moving forward against subject to future budget approvals

3:41:26okay thank you for making it really clear you would come back thanks okay um I don't think I

3:41:38have anything more am I good okay um I will then can you just put those motions up on the screen

3:41:47for the amendments please so I will call the vote anyone against please raise your hand okay

3:42:05so it's probably easier just for me to say um that it's only Koran and Gullard that are in favor

3:42:12okay so it is uh that's failed and um I we're going to move back to the main motions

3:42:20that have been tabled already uh is there any comments before I call the vote or anything further

3:42:27no okay then uh you you have an amendment okay go oh okay is it gonna come up on the screen yeah

3:42:38okay go ahead councillor too okay and then just ask for a seconder okay yeah uh through you mr. mayor

3:42:47so council just needs a touch point essentially that can come back to us as a mechanism to evaluate

3:42:55down the road whether we want to make that decision to go with the second option which is to remove the

3:43:02dam obviously the EA and what we're proposing today is to look into and prioritize the rehabilitation

3:43:10but you know once the hydraulic modeling is done and some of the consultation is done for the

3:43:16detailed design perhaps staff can come back to us with that info report and if one of us after

3:43:23reading the info report is compelled to bring it back to council for further budget for further

3:43:29budget commitment we have the opportunity to do that for me this is a pure financial analysis

3:43:38this this dam is no longer needed it's not necessary according to the history of it

3:43:45and it might be the most optimal thing financially if we were to get rid of it but it's not conclusive

3:43:51because we don't have all the right information which is what the public is petitioning us on

3:43:57so i think this is a fair compromise it doesn't commit us to anything prematurely but we have this

3:44:05conversation public needs to have an opportunity to evaluate whether we want to remove it and commit

3:44:13to that removal and i guess i just want to apologize too that this conversation is happening

3:44:20this late i think we would have liked it if it was late earlier but this is an important decision

3:44:27that we can't just pass away right now so that's just where my my thought is

3:44:34i hope you i think it's up to council right now to decide whether we want to move forward with it

3:44:39and this motion essentially does that for us so okay let's get a seconder for the let me see if

3:44:45there's a second error for this is there one clausen thank you okay um is there any questions on

3:44:53the amendment okay i have one myself oh sorry alt go ahead thank you maric got three three you to

3:45:01the mover uh within the the three motions that we have where does that amendment go

3:45:08we'll be number four thank you yeah it would be a standalone as i would see it um okay i'll just

3:45:19i see another hand quote just you can't okay councillor Downer just procedurally i mean

3:45:28staff have said that if there's a people that come forward with the concern about risk

3:45:34and they've already been through a public process and there have been people that want the damn

3:45:39rehabilitated as well so that's people have said that too i just wonder if we're it see if you get

3:45:47to that point where you're bringing if staff are bringing something forward and they they haven't

3:45:53identified any risk or problems through their further study then it would actually be a reconsideration

3:45:59of council because then it's not something that staff are bringing back and recommending it's

3:46:06something oh i'm going to pull this report and do a motion to remove it even though there's no

3:46:10recommendation because we're through the ea process that's my understanding of the process here yeah

3:46:17like i i'm comfortable that staff are going to bring back something if if there's these risks

3:46:21that the community is worried about yeah i so i would concur that that's procedurally that's

3:46:28probably where we would be sitting which would need a um a super majority of council to agree for

3:46:33an opening of a reconsideration um if you don't mind me just just saying because it's moved and

3:46:38seconded on on the floor right now um i have a little bit of a problem with just the last part

3:46:46of the motion um i i i would feel more comfortable but i need i need staff and my colleagues to

3:46:54maybe jump in but i would feel more comfortable if the last part of the motion was can you put it

3:46:58back up on the screen i know i'm doing this on the fly everybody so give me some grace but

3:47:10you know the staff be directed to report back to council with an information report during the

3:47:14detailed design phase following the public open houses i like all of that i'm wondering if the

3:47:21ending should be um uh something to the effect of if information deviates from the council approved

3:47:30ea um completion like in other words like if it's if it's deviating what from what we're doing today

3:47:41then then maybe that's when it comes forward but here's here's my question to staff is that

3:47:48usually in that case a staff led report of any deviation would not need a notion a motion of

3:47:55reconsideration because it's led by staff so they would be compelled they'd actually be compelled

3:48:02they wouldn't even worry about an information report they would be compelled to have to bring

3:48:07something back to us as a full council report and when it's led by staff there's no motion notice

3:48:12of motion process required yeah exactly yeah exactly so i just i just want us to be careful

3:48:22and i'll go to you through our ceo but you know this whole thing about addressing feedback and

3:48:29alan's dam and structures to me floats to a position of what councillor downer just said which is like

3:48:35well then any councillor can just pull the information report and bring it forward

3:48:39to have a discussion which would then have to trigger a notice of reconsideration

3:48:42process um but if we instead had it that it had to like if the information and the detailed design

3:48:49work and the modeling and all this kind of stuff comes back where it's completely deviating from

3:48:54what we're what what we're doing as a process today i feel an information report might not even be

3:49:00required they would just come back yeah so to our ceo yeah so thanks mr mayor for the opportunity to

3:49:09comment on the the language above i i believe it's unnecessary uh to direct staff to report back

3:49:17there will be and i'm just confirming again we've we've heard everything here today um

3:49:22as we go through detailed design we are we have a risk management lens if there is a risk problem

3:49:29flooding or otherwise we will absolutely be back in front of council to advise

3:49:36next steps we'll you know we have an engagement process uh policy we we always provide kind of

3:49:46the summary of of engagement throughout the the detailed design and leading into construction

3:49:52and then i just also want to remind council that along the way through our pmo and our project

3:49:58management office like this is a tier one capital project it will be there will be lots of public

3:50:05like posting like monthly updates quarterly updates on our construction website you'll be able to follow

3:50:11along the process of this this project as well so i just there are so many opportunities here that

3:50:17this is not the last touch point um on this on this file um and and just also uh you know these are

3:50:25processes that typically we are not in front of council with because they are very regulatory in

3:50:31nature uh the process and then you know moving into the the detailed design and you really usually

3:50:37see this the touch point with council being at budget i would say generally but because of the

3:50:42complexity we really thought this was an important one to have in front of of and have an open

3:50:48discussion and about it so i think it's all been really great discussion we hear the feedback

3:50:54but but the the added uh report back is in my opinion not necessary so thank you

3:51:02thanks thank you uh to our CAO um so based on that uh coming back from our CAO that response

3:51:10to both the mover and the seconder would you like to still maintain your motion and require

3:51:15a vote of council or would you like to consider removing it sure through you mr. mayor i think the

3:51:25broader decision is not so much about the risk i think like staff would have been confident already

3:51:32with the rehabilitation doing their due diligence about the risk already the question is more so

3:51:38do we want the dam or not in the future and do we want to have that opportunity make that decision

3:51:43down the road i think that's the decision we have to make tonight or else staff is going to go ahead

3:51:48you correct me if i'm wrong too with going ahead with the rehabilitation

3:51:53and assessing risk and if there is that risk that outweighs rehabilitation then they'll come back

3:51:59to us but as far as i'm concerned it's very much a matter of do we want the dam or not

3:52:04or and do we or do we want to have that opportunity to make that decision to have the dam or not

3:52:10down the road so that's why i felt the information report would be the simplest and cleatest way

3:52:16to do it without burdening staff with with more work so that's just my comments and no it's okay

3:52:22councillor true no it's you're fine you're allowed to you're allowed to have that that's fine do you

3:52:26want to maintain the motion the amendment on the floor or did you want it's okay i'm not trying to

3:52:31pressure you you have every right did you want to leave it on the floor for a vote or did you want

3:52:35to remove it do you remind me about the notice of reconsideration that you're talking about earlier

3:52:42sure if you may so so we have we have a process most most councils do that if if you have any

3:52:49item that we have made a decision on anything whatever pick pick an item um and we've made

3:52:56that decision then a member of council that was in the affirmative to move forward on something

3:53:01has the right to do what's called a notice of motion on a reconsideration they would come forward

3:53:07and say like look i made this decision on this with the majority but i changed my mind these are

3:53:12my reasons why i want to have a discussion of it at council but it requires a super majority of two

3:53:18thirds of council to agree to even reopen the discussion of that item if that's achieved then

3:53:26it says if you kind of go back in time before the decision was made and you actually rehash that

3:53:31decision and you can go in a different direction as long as you get a majority of council to agree

3:53:36with that if you don't achieve the super majority to reopen the discussion of it at all then it dies

3:53:41on the floor and the previous decision is maintained i think in this situation i think i just want to

3:53:46echo what the ceo has said okay this conversation has been valid it's totally we're not not

3:53:52invalidating what's happened at all um our staff have said i think in four or five different ways

3:53:59the same thing which is they're going to do to the detail design they're going to be looking at risk

3:54:03they're going to be looking at any mitigation that might come up or pop up during that process

3:54:09if something comes of a nature that is requiring a deviation from what we're voting on tonight

3:54:15they are compelled to come to council not an information report they're compelled to come

3:54:20to council with an actual report and so i i kind of feel like if we um if that happens then the

3:54:27trust is that they will come back and we will have that conversation at that time but you too are

3:54:32also correct that if we are approving what's in front of us today we are saying the preferred

3:54:38preferred way we're going is rehabilitation that is the preferred way that where you're going with

3:54:43the ea being done and they're going to work on that unless something deviates from that that pops

3:54:49up down the road okay so i i believe that the information report personally is now not required

3:54:56even though i think it was a valid idea because of the because of the trust that staff have said

3:55:03verbally and publicly here tonight that they would come back and and say something to us if

3:55:07something deviated and it would be a report not even an information report but you're the mover so

3:55:13i again there's no pressure you have every right to move an amendment so you just you let me know

3:55:18if you want me to call the vote on it or if you'd like to uh to remove it yeah i think i i really

3:55:24appreciate that breakdown thank you for that for me because of the decision this is more so a decision

3:55:31for us down the road if we want to pull this and then we trigger that process a member of council

3:55:41in the future can do that and i think with the timing of everything i think that's more than fair

3:55:46because it has come up kind of as a last minute item but i think it's important that we have the

3:55:53ability to bring this discussion up at the table down the road so i think i'm going to put this on

3:55:59the table for council to decide tonight and then we can we can go from there yeah you have every

3:56:05right it's never yeah yeah no problem everybody look on i'd really like to call the vote on the

3:56:10amendment but do i need to go to you gibson and alt still yes gibson and then i'm going to call the

3:56:15vote on the amendment okay just just from my council colleagues and i respect everyone's opinion

3:56:19if you are thinking in the future you may want to reconsider this decision you need to vote for

3:56:25the staff recommendation tonight if you vote against the staff recommendation tonight you've

3:56:29already voted against so you you would need to go to a member of council that has voted for the

3:56:34staff recommendation and is open to reconsider their decision as far as i understand the bylaws

3:56:39so if you are against it this evening tonight councillor two you won't be able to bring back

3:56:43a notice of reconsideration in the future just as a i just want to make sure i'm being respectful

3:56:48what councillor two and all are considering if you want to have that conversation in the future

3:56:52you should be voting for the staff recommendation tonight or else you really you lose that right to

3:56:56bring forward a reconsideration thanks great thank you you are correct procedurally on that by the way

3:57:04alt and then i'm going to call the thank you mayor guthram sorry i will be voting against

3:57:07councillor chew's motion because i believe that the principles held within councillor chew's motion

3:57:12have been expressed very well by ceo baker and in fact i do not want a supermajority to

3:57:19imperil the possibility of reconsidering at some point in the future that we might need to change

3:57:25our minds okay thank you so much um thank you councillor Allt it's great that your your amendment's

3:57:32here we're going to call the vote on it okay um so i too am not going to vote in favor of it

3:57:36i think i was kind of like 80 percent there it's just the last kind of wording on it that didn't

3:57:41sit with me but that's okay we'll call the vote so i think okay we'll have it put back up on the

3:57:47screen and then i'll call the vote okay so all those against please raise your hand sorry carly

3:58:04or use your hand up or down sorry just doing your hair okay all right so it's a karan and

3:58:11clausen and galler and chew that have voted in favor of it so it does fail okay thank you

3:58:19so we're back to the main motion everybody okay is there anything more before i please call the vote

3:58:25and i've been asked to split and that's that's totally fine so i'm gonna just if you don't mind

3:58:30i haven't said anything yet on this so i'm just gonna just say a couple things um if there's anyone

3:58:36that thinks that this whole process has been complex it's encapsulated in tonight's conversation

3:58:41and so rightly so it is complex like just even the area is complex so rightly so

3:58:48it should translate into complex discussions and we just had that like it's fair so i just

3:58:54want to also acknowledge some of the uh correspondence and delegations countercaller

3:58:59yourself bringing forward furthering the discussion as well i don't want to dismiss that at all

3:59:03i don't think it's been dismissed by anybody sitting at this horseshoe at all i also heard

3:59:08several times many different members of staff also acknowledge the complexity and the stuff

3:59:13that's been said by delegations as well i mean they said it they it's not ignored in fact i think

3:59:19i heard you read say there's some of the issues that were brought up or valid enough like like

3:59:23nothing's being dismissed here at all so i just want to make sure that that's captured and i

3:59:28appreciate that um i took a tour of the actual i took a tour with staff just last week i it was

3:59:36complicated enough for me that i had to ask for an onsite tour that i know some of you have also

3:59:40gone on before as well by the way so not just me but i just happened to be me down there and um

3:59:46it just it really i thank you staff so much because it really put into perspective like

3:59:50look actually walking and pointing at the things that need to be happening and the risks and the

3:59:55liability of what this does and that does and i just wanted to talk a little bit about just as a

4:00:00because it was a fluke that it happened um the pedestrian bridge beside the railroad tracks um

4:00:06you know i was asking about that that question and uh as we were talking about that a lady walked

4:00:13across the railroad tracks in a distance and um the the issue there um of having that trail

4:00:22like the the pedestrian cycling bridge to the side of there was no more evident to me than

4:00:28in that very moment when i saw the lady like not very well walking across that bridge we it

4:00:35human nature is that you're going to take sort of the the quickest way to get where you want to go

4:00:41and i think um having that pedestrian cycling bridge there is actually a very

4:00:46prudent thing for us to have um and i needed to see it in person i had to see it in person to

4:00:51understand that and so i know it's a complicated thing but um i'm so glad councillor Allt as well

4:00:58brought up the question just about like just the structure of the bridge and and like how's it going

4:01:03with engineering and and the safety of that and whatnot as well and i was confirmed in that you

4:01:09know there are our staff are doing engineered reports on it year over year over year but like

4:01:13we have a responsibility to make sure that we are maintaining these assets and this that whole

4:01:19complex of that intersection in that corner is um it it has to be fixed like it has to be fixed

4:01:26so i just want to say thank you to staff and thank you to everyone that's been involved in this but

4:01:29i am very much in favor of what's in front of us here today with the caveat that if anything happens

4:01:35future i'm sure we will absolutely know okay so i'll call the vote on a split can you just put

4:01:41them up on the screen for me one more time and i'll go through one two and three so the first

4:01:45one is that the assessment be approved and that staff be directed to issue the municipal class

4:01:50environmental assessment notice of completion so i'll call the vote on that is there anyone against

4:01:54that just gollar okay thank you and number two is that staff be directed to salvage retain and

4:02:02conserve the steel railing system and the salvageable elements of the superstructure of alan's bridge

4:02:07for functional or commemorative reuse and the vicinity of alan's bridge so if anyone's against

4:02:14that please raise your hand oh i didn't know you'd be like that okay councillor Allt and myself so that

4:02:20passes um and then number three is that staff be directed to engage with the arts and culture

4:02:25advisory committee heritage advisory committee to identify opportunities for historical commemoration

4:02:30placemaking and heritage conservation within the project area during the design processes so

4:02:35that anyone against that please raise your hand nobody that's unanimous as well okay we're done

4:02:42thank you very much everybody we appreciate it we are at our last item and i'm going to turn it over

4:02:49to uh councillor Klassen who's bringing forward uh this called elect respect