Planning, Environment and Water Advisory Committee

0:02privileged to live and work in Guelph, a city built over rich indigenous histories.

0:07We are guests here, we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land.

0:11People live here today and the generations to come.

0:14If our actions take and move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and

0:18make those decisions with attention and gratitude.

0:24This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples

0:28over time, but more specifically the Adirwanderunk and the Haudenosaunee.

0:36This land is held as the treaty lands and territory of the Mississauga's accredited First Nation.

0:42Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldun track and is part of a long-established

0:46traditional hunting ground for the six nations of the Grand River.

0:50Many First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples have come across turtle island called Guelph

0:55home today. Does any members disclose any pecarynery interest? Seeing none.

1:12Next item is the approval minutes from meeting of January 12th.

1:19Any questions, errors or omissions? Seeing none, would somebody like to move the adoption of the

1:26minutes? All right, seconder? Karen, all in favor? How is she in favor? She is good.

1:38The next item is a consent agenda item and it's an update

1:51and the recommendation is the February 9th, 26th planning environment work

1:56advisory committee consent agenda. That's the corporate climate change action plan update

2:04which Brian has provided to us. Do we have any questions for Brian?

2:14If not, I just want to thank Brian for taking the time and effort to do that because it really

2:19helps us sort of close the loop. I know you've come to us more than well two maybe three times

2:25to share the progress of the of the strategy and the update and we really appreciate you

2:33making the effort to sort of let us know how it's all been wrapped up and I know that

2:39the work that has been integrated into the green development guidelines

2:43strongly reflects the priority given to climate change mitigation and that's probably one of the

2:52most strongest elements of that whole piece of work and I'm sure you've had a lot to do with

2:57that too. So thank you very much for your input and sharing that with us today. It's all from the group.

3:08Three things at once. The next item, the committee item. Sorry, I've seen a mover and a

3:16seconder and then I'd call the vote. Even though it's concerning. Yeah. Okay. We want to adopt

3:22the excuse, move adoption of the consent agenda item. Janice, seconder,

3:34watch. All in favor. Here, thank you. Okay, now on to committee items.

3:44McQuillen's Bridge Environmental Assessment. We have a presentation from Cate Berry, Project

3:49Manager. Take it away, Cate. Hi, thank you. How's my sound? Can you all hear me okay?

3:56Good. Yeah. Excellent. Okay, thank you. I think we have some slides. Is anyone in the room able

4:03to share those or otherwise we can do that? Yep, I can pull them up for you now. Okay. You'll just

4:09have to remind me when you want to go to the next slide. I will, thank you. Oh, that's great.

4:16Okay. Yeah. And I won't be able to see you while I'm talking because I'm going to look at my notes.

4:20So please just, just shout out if I need to stop for any reason, if anything stops working.

4:28Okay. So good evening, committee members. Thanks very much for receiving our presentation today.

4:34So my name is Cate Berry. I'm a Project Manager for the McQuillen's Bridge Environmental Assessment

4:40Study. At the City of Guelph, I work in the Transportation Planning Team. That's within the

4:47Engineering and Transportation Services Department. And with me today is my colleague Nancy Hoy.

4:53So I'm going to talk about McQuillen's Bridge tonight, but I think Nancy will probably be back

4:59to this committee in two or three months from now to talk to you about the road elements of

5:05the EA work that we're doing. So Nancy's here too. We can go to the next slide.

5:12So in order for us to move forward with the solution for McQuillen's Bridge, we're required

5:16under provincial legislation to complete an environmental assessment due to the age and

5:21heritage value of the structure. We're following the municipal class environmental assessment

5:27process, which is provincially regulated and is designed to ensure that all reasonable options

5:32are considered and that input from interest holders is taken into consideration. The EA

5:37process also seeks to reduce impacts on the natural, cultural, social and economic environment.

5:44The diagram that's on this slide shows the three steps that are part of the McQuillen's Bridge,

5:49which is a Schedule B EA Study. We've already completed Phase 1 work to develop a problem

5:56opportunity statement, and we're now in the Phase 2 work evaluating options to identify the

6:03preferred alternative for the bridge. Our third and final step in the EA process will be to compile

6:09all of the study findings and recommendations into a project file report, and we're aiming to

6:14present that to City Council in June of this year. And so then once the EA study is complete,

6:22we then plan to develop a preliminary design by the end of this year, and that will really

6:27mark the end of this current project, and it will set the stage for the City to proceed with

6:32detailed design in 2027 and construction in 2028 is how it's laid out in the City's Capital Budget.

6:41Next slide, please. The Study for McQuillen's Bridge is part of the City's broader project that

6:48is studying improvements to the roads and structures in the vicinity of the future Guelph

6:52Innovation District. The map on this slide shows the overall study area, and that includes Victoria

6:59Road South between York Road and Stone Road, including Road Bridge 115 on the Aramosa River.

7:10It also includes Stone Road East between Victoria Road and Watson Parkway South,

7:15and that includes the Road Bridge 117 also for the Aramosa River. And finally,

7:20Pedestrian Bridge Structure 116, which is more commonly known as McQuillen's Bridge.

7:27We can go to the next slide. So McQuillen's Bridge crosses the Aramosa River on the south side

7:34of Stone Road East. To the west of the bridge is the Guelph Junction Railway. To the north is the

7:40Ontario Reformatory Lands, and to the south is the Barbas Scout Camp and lands that are used by

7:45the Guelph Outdoor School. There are several Guelph Hiking Club trails that run through the

7:51valley of the Aramosa River and connect to McQuillen's Bridge. The hiking trails are not

7:56maintained by the city of Guelph, so they're predominantly on private lands and privately

8:02operated by the hiking club. McQuillen's Bridge was constructed in 1960 and carried vehicle traffic

8:08for more than 80 years until Stone Road East was realigned to a new road bridge back in 2005.

8:15Next slide please. So McQuillen's Bridge has quite a distinctive design form with that

8:25bowed arch and the vertical hangers. It was a very popular style of bridge in the first

8:30half of the 20th century, but nowadays it's a fairly rare survivor. This is the only one in the

8:36city of Guelph municipality. At the time that McQuillen's Bridge was constructed, design standards

8:42were quite different compared to modern structures. The railing height and the gaps don't meet current

8:48standards and really the concrete that was used back in 1916 had more limited resistance to salt

8:56corrosion and it has a thinner depth of cover over the steel reinforcement within. So those

9:03kind of features limit the durability. Overall the bridge has a span of 22.7 meters. The abutments

9:14at each end of the bridge do sit within the river channel and the width of the bridge deck and the

9:20abutments is about five meters. So in terms of length of river channel, it takes up about five

9:26meters as its footprint. Next slide please. In terms of natural environment considerations,

9:37obviously the Eramosa River is a key natural feature in this study area including the rivers

9:43associated floodplain, valley slopes and wetlands. The Eramosa River Blue Springs Creek

9:49provincially significant wetland is located right adjacent to McQuillen's Bridge.

9:54And in terms of notable habitat within the study area, there is woodland that's identified as

9:59species at risk bat habitat and there's fish habitat within the Eramosa River and its tributaries.

10:07This study will consider opportunities to enhance the natural environment, for example through

10:12native plantings. Next slide please. McQuillen's Bridge was designated as being of cultural heritage

10:23value in 2004 under the Ontario Heritage Act. The designation notes the bridge is listed in the

10:29Ontario Heritage Bridge program, spans a designated Canadian heritage river route and is considered

10:35to be an early and rare surviving example of concrete bow string trust construction

10:40in local provincial and national context. Under the Act, a heritage permit will be required for

10:47any solution that would alter or remove the heritage features of the bridge. The bridge is also

10:53located within the proposed Ontario Reformatory Heritage Conservation District and it's identified

10:59as a heritage attribute for the district. As part of this EA study, a cultural heritage report and

11:06a heritage impact assessment will be completed. So we have those drafted at this stage and we

11:12presented those to the Heritage Advisory Committee in January for feedback. Once we have identified

11:19the preferred solution and that's been confirmed for the bridge, the need for a heritage permit

11:25will be fully determined and a conservation plan will be developed. Next slide please.

11:33McQuillen's Bridge is currently closed to public use as a precautionary measure due to its structural

11:39deficiencies. The existing condition of the bridge is generally characterised as poor condition,

11:45fair to poor condition in the most recent inspections by the city and some of the photos on

11:51this slide just exhibit some of the key issues for the bridge. This includes exposed and corroding

11:59steel reinforcement and bearing plates, cracking and overturning in the wing walls

12:04and some erosion of the embankment. But overall the arches are in fairer condition than the deck

12:11and the hangers. The concrete in the arches does retain reasonably good strength but it remains

12:19vulnerable to kind of freeze thought action and salts. Next slide please. So this is the

12:29problem opportunity statement developed for this EA study. I'll just read it out. The purpose of this

12:36class EA study is to identify a solution from McQuillen's Bridge that allows for safe use by

12:41pedestrians and non-motorised transportation and that minimises environmental, cultural and social

12:47impacts while maintaining the bridge's cultural heritage value in accordance with Bylaw 2004-17357

12:56to the extent possible. The study strives to uphold the city's official plan by seeking to

13:02achieve no negative impacts to natural heritage system and to cultural and archaeological resources.

13:11Next slide please. So the evaluation process for the EA study. We've got five main categories of

13:21criteria that are being used to evaluate alternative solutions from McQuillen's Bridge.

13:26So we have natural environment, cultural heritage, social environment, financial and technical.

13:32I'm not going to read through all of the sort of bullets within those criteria but I did want to

13:38highlight that the natural environment category includes woodland impacts, wetland impacts,

13:45species at risk habitat impacts, impacts on hydraulic capacity of the river and climate

13:51change resiliency and adaptation. Next slide please. So this slide is the one where I'm going to do

14:04a lot of talking. I'll be on this slide for a while. I'm going to talk through the alternatives

14:10that have been considered for the bridge. So this table provides an overview of the six

14:16solutions being considered. Alternatives that would not meet modern safety standards or durability

14:22requirements have not been considered. I'm going to walk through these one by one to give you a

14:28brief summary of what each would involve. I'm really eager to hear the committee's advice and

14:34opinion on each of these six alternatives. The order that they appear on the slide does not

14:40infer any ranking or prioritization and the lifespan amount that you see in the second column

14:48is the estimated number of years that the solution would be expected to be functional in service

14:54before any significant repair, rehabilitation or replacement would be required. Okay so alternative

15:02one is the do nothing scenario which we always include in an EA study as a default option.

15:07Under this scenario the existing bridge would continue to age in place and would

15:11eventually deteriorate to the point of collapse. Falling debris would negatively impact the

15:17natural environment and the hydraulic capacity of the river and essentially would reduce climate

15:23change resiliency. This alternative has a lifespan of zero years and it's not considered to be a

15:29potential preferred alternative. Alternative two is to rehabilitate and strengthen the existing

15:38bridge so it would preserve the main bridge elements. It would involve reconstructing the

15:44bridge elements that have low concrete cover and also upgrading the railings, the barriers to

15:49meet modern design codes. So this option would likely alter the appearance of some of the elements

15:56of the bridge such as like you know some of the vertical members might become a little bit thicker

16:01through that rehabilitation work and we'd see the height of the railing lifted slightly as well.

16:07So this alternative has a lifespan of 30 years. Alternative three is a variation on that. It's

16:17alternative three encompasses rehabilitating the bridge arches but replacing the deck with a new

16:23steel superstructure within the arches. So keep the arches but remove the deck and insert kind of a

16:31new steel steel bridge deck. So the new structure would meet modern design codes. The arches would

16:38no longer actually be supporting you know the loads of the bridge anymore so they become really

16:43more of a decorative function. So under this alternative three less of the heritage attributes

16:49of the bridge are retained. However it addresses the par condition of the existing bridge while

16:56avoiding its you know complete demolition. And in terms of lifespan this alternative three has a

17:02hybrid, has 30 year lifespan for the rehabilitated arches and 75 years for the new bridge deck.

17:10So alternatives two and three are both involved you know retaining the existing bridge,

17:15rehabilitating it in different ways and so they both have quite similar evaluations for natural

17:21environment criteria. And in some of the positive terms no removal of woodland is required and

17:30wetland is unlikely to be affected. There would be some opportunity for native plantings along the

17:35waterway. And in terms of impacts there would be temporary impacts to bird nesting opportunities

17:43during construction periods. There wouldn't really be any improvement for wildlife crossing over the

17:48river and the hydraulic capacity of the river would not be improved and there isn't really

17:54any much opportunity for naturalization of the channel at the location of the bridge.

18:01Okay so then let's look at alternatives four and five. They both involve removing the existing

18:08bridge and replacing with a new structure. So they both have a lifespan of around 75 years.

18:14Both of these alternatives are in the loss of the bridge. Alternative four would replace with a

18:20prefabricated steel bridge and that new structure could it could integrate some heritage considerations

18:26through sympathetic design and in prefabricated steel you know it could kind of mimic the shape of

18:32the original bridge. But a lot of the architectural reveals that are identified as heritage attributes

18:40for like the vertical hangers for example they'd be difficult to reconstruct and steal.

18:47Alternative five would replace with a new concrete boasting arch structure so very much

18:53you know a new version of the same style of structure, same design. So certainly the design

19:00could integrate some heritage considerations through kind of sympathetic boasting and use of

19:07you know concrete materials. Both alternatives four and five would have a longer span

19:15so we'd have the opportunity to set the new abutments further back so that they're

19:19in the riverbank rather than in the channel. And both of them have a very similar evaluation for

19:25nitrile environment criteria so that evaluation identified that vegetation removals that would

19:33be needed for the new construction could be compensated with some new woodland plantings,

19:40some wetland restoration to ensure that there's no overall net impacts. The new bridge could

19:48the opportunity to improve wildlife crossing could be kind of incorporated into the abutment

19:54and the bridge design and also having a larger span could increase the hydraulic capacity of the

19:59river. The construction would likely result in some minor loss of a portion of significant woodland

20:09and minor temporary impacts to wetland and woodland and so we'd be looking at planting as the

20:14compensation for that. And similar to the other option you know the bison temporary disruption

20:20to the nest danger in construction. So that's alternative four and five and then finally

20:26alternative six it would involve removing the existing bridge and widening the adjacent stone

20:33road bridge to provide the place for people to cross the river for walking and cycling.

20:39Alternative six has an estimated lifespan of 50 years because the existing road bridge is already

20:4520 years old. In terms of natural environment impacts and opportunities for alternative six

20:54again we it's been evaluated that any vegetation removals necessary could be compensated for with

21:01new woodland plantings. There is obviously the opportunity with alternative six for naturalization

21:08of the river channel from the removal of the existing structure and some wetland restoration.

21:16This could be a slight improvement in ability for wildlife to cross as part of the

21:21bridge improved road bridge improvements and removal of the existing macaulins bridge could

21:28increase the hydraulic capacity of the river. But I think the main kind of negative impact noted

21:36for this alternative six was that any potential nesting sites on the existing bridge would be

21:41removed. So of all of those six that I just quickly went through the evaluation to date identifies

21:52alternative two rehabilitate and strengthen as being the preliminary preferred alternative for

21:59this A study and we do I should mention we do have as part of we did a public open house last week

22:07and as part of those materials we do have individual information boards for each of these

22:11alternatives so if it's something you're interested to kind of look at in more depth

22:16you know later on after this meeting we can share the link to those materials

22:22and kind of looking at the overall matrix of the evaluation. But alternative two is the preliminary

22:28preferred alternative however it did rank very closely to alternatives three, four, five and six

22:36in the preliminary evaluation so they all compete quite closely and so I feel that you know input

22:44from this advisory committee and other interest holders is really important to inform the evaluation.

22:51So hopefully that gave you a reasonable overview and I just have a couple more slides and then we

22:57chat through questions and discuss your thoughts. So if we go to the next slide I think it's

23:03my penultimate slide. So just to conclude these are the next steps for the EA study from

23:10McClellan's bridge. We're going to be continuing to work on the evaluation of the alternatives.

23:16We're gathering public feedback right now as part of public open house number two.

23:22So the materials are available on the heavy state page and the online survey remains open until

23:27February 26th. All of the feedback we gather from interest holders will be used to confirm

23:34and refine the recommended alternative for McClellan's bridge and we will document all of that

23:39into a project file report that will go to city council for review and decision. We're targeting

23:45June for that city council meeting and then as a final step the project file report will be

23:51published for 30 day public review. We're then, as I think as I mentioned the beginning,

24:00proceeding through design and construction with construction scheduled for 2028.

24:07Okay so we'll just move to the last slide which I think just opens it up for questions and feedback.

24:14Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your time and attention. We're very happy to

24:21feel questions and welcome your feedback on each of those six alternatives being considered.

24:29Thank you very much for your presentation, Kate. Maybe before we get into the details,

24:34just maybe a background question related to the Heritage Advisory Committee.

24:41To what extent have you consulted with them and can you briefly summarize the response you've seen

24:47from them so far? Yeah for sure. So we attended their January meeting, I think it was January 15th.

24:55I can look up, perhaps while we're chatting I can look up on Nancy might be able to find the

25:00motions that they passed but essentially they recommended alternative to as their preferred

25:11solution. They then identified alternative three as their second preferred alternative if

25:20there was a scenario where alternative two became unfeasible. Further down the road they identified

25:27their second preference and then they also had a motion where they identified the other alternatives

25:33as being not preferred, just kind of record their opinion on each of the six essentially.

25:44I think they also had one motion that was about a specific request relating to rehabilitation of

25:54features of the bridge of how that would be done. I'll have a look for the wording for that because

26:00we could share it in the chat here. If it's helpful to the committee I do have the

26:06Heritage Advisory Committee minutes up if you would like to see the relation that they...

26:11Well I think Kate summarized it nicely for us we don't need to get into too much of that detail.

26:19But okay thank you for that. So any specific questions out from any of the members? Laura.

26:26Yeah I have a question. How do these options rank in terms of the cost to implement? I know

26:35that's one of the criteria. I was curious to know if there's a big difference between alternative two

26:40and three knowing that you get a whole lot more useful life out of alternative three but at a cost

26:48I'm sure is it a substantial difference? I don't think there's actually a significant difference

26:55between two and three in terms of cost. Overall the options range from around 1.5 million to

27:04around 3.5 million it's that kind of scale of estimated construction costs. But then the financial

27:13criteria also considers future operation and maintenance and future rehabilitation as well

27:20because when you've got those shorter lifespan options there's going to if you choose that

27:26solution there's going to be a need for further work in the future further you know another

27:31round of rehabilitation in the future. So of the six options with that range in mind

27:41options two and three the rehabilitation sit kind of in the middle they're in the sort of mid

27:472 million you know so between two and 2.5 million kind of costs. The highest cost capital cost is

27:57alternative five which would be the replacement concrete bolstering arch and that's primarily

28:04because it's a it's a fairly complex structure and we don't build new ones like that very often so

28:10it's kind of a more specialized project and I think the lowest cost option was alternative four

28:19replacement with a steel a steel bridge because a steel truss bridge is a quite a common simple

28:26structure so it's fairly it's a fairly straightforward project. So I hope that gives you kind of an

28:35idea certainly alternatives two and three where we're rehabilitating the structure. The assessment

28:41is that that is feasible to do but it is a complex kind of a technically complex and and somewhat

28:51risky task to the nature of how the structure functions to be able to you know reconstruct

29:00parts of it while keeping it stable as is complex and would need a lot of care and like

29:07careful modeling and so on in advance to you know protect the structure during the work.

29:16Yeah how does that help Laura do you have any sort of follow-up thoughts? Yeah knowing some more

29:22information there I do like alternative three I know there's some complexity but the fact that

29:28you're not relying on that arch or structural support has to be some peace of mind. I know there's

29:35lots of people using that right I mean I'm sure any of these options would be safe to use in the

29:41final construction it just seems like there's less risks associated with putting in a steel deck

29:46you can still maintain like a primary cultural heritage elements and just the lifespan not having

29:53to go back and replace it again in a shorter time frame. That is another note I knowing I actually

30:02use that bridge on a regular basis and I know a lot of children that use the bridge for the

30:06outdoor school and right now you have to kind of go all the way up to the road to cross the bridge

30:11and come down again they like the final option in alt six or you just widening stone road I would

30:17say that comes at the bottom of the list in terms of like you'd have to go all the way up the

30:22entrance driveway to get across that just to get to the entrance of the outdoor school so from a

30:27social perspective definitely that one would score the lowest. Yeah so alternative six in terms of

30:32like user experiences yeah not preferred yeah. Any other questions? Sure yeah I just curious about

30:51the context of so okay you had the the Victoria road hashed off and then stone road and the

31:00structures that are involved so the context of the Collins bridge and I don't know if you have an

31:07answer to it but what is anticipated for stone road? What's anticipated? Stone road itself yeah if

31:13that's going to be expanded or widened or whatnot and then how that fits with the bridge. Yeah

31:20yeah so the I guess the study of the road corridors is a little bit in a way like going at a slower

31:28pace than the bridge study we're moving fairly quickly on the bridge study because of its condition

31:34and you know there's a lot of obviously a lot of public and political interest to make a decision

31:39and get on with with the preferred solution so we have been somewhat accelerating the bridge work

31:47but the road evaluation is running in parallel so we've been assessing you know the kind of

31:55we've done a lot of the traffic impact study that looks at the need for widening of the roads

32:02and the preliminary results from that are that confirms the transportation master plan's recommendation

32:09for Victoria road in terms of it needing four lanes of traffic on Victoria road so

32:15the expectation is to widen Victoria road fully from York to stone but for stone road

32:22the traffic modeling at the moment is showing there isn't really a driver to widen stone road

32:30our current like a time frame that we're looking at is until the year 2051 and in that time frame

32:35there isn't the need to widen stone road in terms of traffic capacity but we do want to widen it

32:42we expect to widen it on the frontage of what will be the GID lands so that would be you know

32:50the most westerly portion from Victoria road to somewhere a bit before the railway line

32:58so that section we expect is likely to be recommended for widening but beyond that

33:03that it can retain a two lane two vehicle lane kind of cross section does that fully answer your

33:11question yeah gives the context is it's all kind of linked I guess yeah yeah yeah and we we try to

33:22the reason that we're looking at all of them together is obviously they're adjacent to one

33:26another and it's good practice with an EA study to you know run these at the same time so we're

33:32you know considering all of the interrelated factors together and obviously it's kind of

33:39more economical too for the city to do these studies together and in terms of all of the

33:45field work and and those kind of evaluations that need to happen thanks Laura did you have

33:52another question oh I was just gonna yeah say I mean if there was road road widening plan for

33:59that part of the road then I could see how that last alternative would be more favorable if it's

34:04not anticipated to be widened it just kind of confirms my original stance on that we do want to

34:13I mean the options for the road we do want to strive towards what's called a complete streets

34:23approach so the city adopted complete street design guidelines sort of in the summer of last year

34:31and that's an approach to street design that seeks to balance the you the balance all road

34:37users whether it vehicles trucks cyclists people walking trees you know at snow storage space for

34:46utilities all of the things that happen within a street corridor so as part of striving towards

34:53that for stone road we we will be looking at how to provide pedestrian and cycling facilities on

35:00stone road and maybe that you know maybe that would require some widening to achieve that

35:09because that would be the ideal for the people who are using the stone road corridor and passing

35:14through the area I think obviously it's a big consideration this location that you have that

35:18grade difference the McQuillan's bridge and the hiking trails are down at riverbank level and the

35:24road bridge is higher and Laura as you mentioned you know with the temporary arrangements in place

35:29that's a challenge right for people having to go up and back back down again but certainly we're

35:36still going to be looking you know this further work to be done in terms of looking at the stone

35:40road stone road corridor and the and the road bridge at that location

35:47just a question yes first of all very glad to hear that you're looking in the complete streets

35:55I know that's kind of an aside but I think it's kind of a high time thing to be looking at

36:04I was just thinking among the options similar to what Laura mentioned it the options that extend

36:12lifespan the most definitely have a level of appeal the 30-year full lifespan kind of feels

36:22almost like you're kicking the can down the road a little bit I'm imagining then say an option 3

36:30where there is an element of restoration with kind of that shorter lifespan I would imagine that the

36:37restoration work that would have to be done say in 30 years or so would be minimized compared to

36:44say an option 2 is that correct potentially it's hard to say but certainly if you're more

36:53you're relying on the new steel structure as being you're carrying the loads and being the

36:58structural component then you know so if you're maintaining that in good condition then it has

37:05that expected 75 year lifespan and perhaps longer if it's well maintained and the arches yes they

37:13would they would become more like decorative features they are in you know fairer condition

37:20right now than the rest of the structure and so I would hope that that you know gives them

37:28it puts them in good you know good stead to have an ongoing lifespan when they're

37:33rehabilitated you know so I think that would address a lot of the maybe cracks or things

37:38that allow water to get into the arches so I can't really say you know how much longer they

37:45could ever last for but certainly we're not relying on them to carry you know to carry the weight of

37:53the structure or to carry the weight of people crossing the river so I guess that gives us some

37:59if you like kind of structural redundancy that we're not dependent on them yeah but but I'll say

38:05they have that heritage value and that's kind of what we want to preserve. Hey I wanted to ask a

38:13question about oh Raj you have a question. Thanks Mike so I think this is really insightful and

38:24I would second everything that Laura and Justin have said in terms of the options and for those

38:32reasons I'm inclined towards three as well considering the lifespan would be maximized

38:38with with minimum I'll say financial inputs if that's typically yes the cost-benefit analysis

38:46kind of a scenario that I was looking at but I was just thinking of do we have existing or

38:54historical context where such similar bridges have been restored and and they have been refurbished

39:02kind of so do we have historical context that this is something that's going to be feasible

39:08considering even two million is is substantial investment that the city would be making that's

39:13the first thing and my second question was just just a little more technical related to do we do

39:20like a complete life cycle assessment kind of a feasibility study of of such restorative work

39:28of existing structures. Thanks Raj can you just expand on your second question a little more are you

39:37saying a life cycle assessment of other structures or the options for this one? Yeah so so if we say

39:45we go for option three where we rehabilitate the arches and and the bridge structure itself

39:51or the base of the bridges is a new structure so so do we have any historical context that there are

39:58existing bridges that have you know we've done some LCA studies of of those bridges and and they

40:05have successfully extended the lifespan of bridges that we can rely on? Yes to give us kind of some

40:14certainty that that's will we get 30 years or would we get 20 or yes yeah I mean obviously that that

40:21number is an estimate it's it's based on we've been working with a consultant called RJ Burnside

40:28Associates to to to support this EA study so this is their you know evaluation from their bridge

40:34engineers who do have experience of a rehabilitation of this type of bridge so one of the bridge

40:42engineers on this project is one of the few bridge engineers who are kind of registered as a heritage

40:49structure structures person so they did give us some examples of ones that they've worked on before

40:59I'll try and look those up while we're talking we do also have a member of staff in our engineering

41:05team who has worked on projects like this in other municipalities so they've given me an example too

41:13I'll find it in a moment so certainly we've seen some examples where they have been successfully

41:19rehabilitated but I think there's always that caveat that it is a complicated complex

41:29you know thing to undertake and there is there is some risk involved in it I guess there is a

41:35there is going to be a risk that as you start to work on the structure that you find issues that

41:41haven't been identified yet and could make it unfeasible but we've done as part of the study

41:48we've done like a detailed condition assessment with a with a bridge structure specialist like a

41:53sub consultant firm and and they're you know so they did all like core samples and things like that

41:59to to kind of interrogate that recommendation and check the feasibility of this as rehabilitation

42:12as an option so I think we feel as confident as we can at this stage that it is viable

42:20but obviously it does it does have risks associated with it I'm not aware of in terms of like your

42:27second question I'm not aware of those life cycle assessments of like similar existing

42:33structures to kind of see how they have formed post rehabilitation I think that would be really

42:39good for us to look into and see whether that that's available from some of the examples that

42:46have been mentioned to us because it could be interesting I guess most of them have happened

42:50within perhaps the last five to ten years and so they're but certainly it'd be good to know how

42:58they've performed you know so far since they've been rehabilitated I'll have a look while we're

43:04chatting just for the examples because we could bring them up on screen sure thanks what do you

43:12like okay just back in here to see if you can find the reference okay just bear with me

43:46um sorry the example

43:59that my um if I can I share my screen so okay I can also put this location into the chat to

44:11okay so I'm just on google street view so this is clock street in clock spurg Ontario

44:19and this was a a boasting

44:24arch trust bridge that was rehabilitated so this was the one that um our colleague

44:30in the engineering team was involved in in the past so you can kind of see this is in its

44:36rehabilitated state I think they had to make some adjustments to to railings and they added this

44:43um pedestrian facility on the kind of on the outside of the structure

44:51um I don't really I don't know a lot of details about how it was done or what it involved but

44:55that was an example that was a little bit similar to um the McQuillan's bridge structure

45:04if that's helpful to give you a bit of a visual so that would be your um alternative to solution

45:13um an alternative three in terms of inserting a steel structure between the arches

45:23that would definitely have a bit of an impact on the sort of aesthetics of the bridge

45:29because you'd insert that new steel um it wouldn't just be a flat deck it would have some

45:36some component of sides to it to create the rigidity of a trust to carry loads across the bridge

45:46but you know from the view from stone road bridge for example would still you would still see the

45:52arches so the arches are quite tall so they would still be fairly prominent but it would be aesthetically

45:59different obviously to than the existing condition I'll stop sharing that one for now okay um yeah

46:15I have just a couple of questions I guess um in terms of the sort of backing up a little bit

46:22now the evaluation criteria um in the um slide that you uh showed us with the natural environment

46:31considerations fisheries was mentioned but I don't see it as part of the evaluation criteria and I

46:38just assume that anything that's going to be in or around the channel is going to require fisheries

46:43approvals um is it encapsulated somewhere else or that's a good question um Mike I don't know what

46:53would be required in in terms of any permitting for that um it certainly we I could look into that and

47:00get back to your committee with with a note on that um this follow-up okay maybe related question then

47:07is if with the um the two options that we're sort of leaning towards I guess two and three would they

47:16be relying on existing abut abutments or would no abutments be constructed two and three would both

47:22retain the existing abutments yeah that certainly minimizes the potential for impact but any work

47:30on the uh on the deck itself you have to protect to ensure that there's no debris that drops into

47:36the channel I suspect that there's going to be fisheries concerns it will vary I guess depending

47:42on the option selected of course yeah so it's all like pollution control measures essentially

47:49for the construction construction work yeah and I guess I guess Mike that would um apply you know

47:57to the demolition options too because you'd be taking apart that structure and I think that would

48:02be quite complex to do as well and make sure that you're controlling all the materials and so on

48:07yeah that would be a substantial increase to project cost that's about as well um

48:16and well I guess we'll have to call for a vote specifically on which one we want to recommend

48:21um but um from my perspective it's I guess I would sort of go along with the heritage advisory

48:28committee and that option two and three seem to be preferred the other three options four five and

48:34six obviously remove any of the heritage values really I mean there's some reconstruction of

48:41heritage but really we lose sort of that the original history of the bridge and you know most

48:47respects so my tendency would be also I guess to to lean towards two and three I like the idea if

48:55you can do three with the existing apartments and give it a longer longer life that that would seem

49:02to be uh we'd spend you know sufficient spending of public dollars getting a bit more life out of

49:11that the new structure any um any other questions comments from anyone okay so maybe I'll call that

49:21question then do we want to have a show of hands for which alternative we prefer as a committee

49:28um Laura sort of took the lead on that I think you're saying you prefer two or three

49:38I think I would prefer three three okay yeah I'm kind of along those lines as well uh anybody

49:45else want to share their thoughts on that? That work between two and three I really appreciate the

49:52argument for the longer life of the um that proposal um but I'm a little concerned about

50:00the aesthetic impacts of changing the deck um you know it would preserve some of that heritage

50:09in terms of maintaining the arches but I'm wondering how much that would be diminished

50:16by adding the steel deck and the additional structures so I'm I'm a bit torn and it might be

50:23I may be inclined to defer to the heritage committee's selection just you know based on

50:29their expertise in that area so Aaron any thoughts um I think my preference would be number two as well

50:47um online Justin yes um I guess I just was thought of one quick question as well

50:57even say if we're looking at option two um bringing things up to kind of an AODA standard

51:04um especially around the railings I'm guessing would we be looking at installing another railing

51:09within on the inside is it something like that um the bridge engineer that we're working with

51:16when they've done similar projects to this one for rehabilitation they've had quite um

51:24clever technique of uh lifting the railing kind of extending the base kind of lifting the whole

51:29railing and extending giving them like a a base under the railing to lift the existing one

51:36so that you get the higher top rail but you still have all of the kind of original design features

51:42um and maybe there's just like a footing or um something at the bottom that bumps the height up

51:50and that one with the pictures they've shown us you know that tends to blend in quite well

51:54that often people don't really notice that there has been a change it's just like you've taken the

51:59whole thing railing and and you know put a block under it almost to lift the whole thing if that

52:06makes sense so I think I think there's ways that it can be done in quite um a sensitive way to the

52:12you know to the heritage value of the railing and the appearance without just you know just

52:17sticking another railing on the inside of them or something like that so I think that's you know

52:21that's the kind of thing that um would be looked at closely through detailed design and we obviously

52:28have to pursue a heritage permit for the work as well so yeah okay um that that kind of clears that

52:37up I was just wondering if if we were just looking at sticking another railing within there we I was

52:43just thinking that way we'd almost be looking at kind of creating some larger impacts no matter what

52:49option but it sounds like that would make option two still feel quite similar that being said

52:56yeah I kind of I'm floating between option two and option three myself um yeah I don't I don't

53:04really know if I have a preference specifically between the two okay brother yeah um I'm leaning

53:17more towards option three just considering that the lifespan of of the bridge can be maximized

53:25somewhere between 30 to 75 so that's that's my inclination thanks well I think we have three for

53:35three three for two that's the danger of having only three committee members versus excuse me

53:43six committee members in attendance this evening okay I think the split reflects you know the

53:52challenges around these two options they are they are similar they both reflect the natural the

54:00cultural heritage aspects of the design and I think back to Kate's summary of the position that the

54:09Heritage Advisory Committee has taken they're willing to consider either one as well thinking

54:16that option two probably would be the place to start and if it's possible to maintain as much of

54:24the original structure as possible that would be their preference if that's doesn't make enough sense

54:30then they would be prepared to accept option three and I just wondered if maybe us as a committee

54:37um bearing in mind that cultural heritage is a little outside of our mandate to begin with

54:45I mean we're talking about the social impacts we're talking about the cultural impacts and

54:50we've touched on the environmental impacts and the long term financial viability which is all

54:56very relevant but I just wondered if maybe it might make sense for us to sort of take a position

55:03similar to that of the cultural heritage advisory committee or we can let staff and

55:13council know that our position was split that we were not able to reach a consensus I'm open to

55:20having further discussion on that I guess like since yeah we bring like a different perspective

55:29that's not necessarily the cultural heritage perspective here in this committee and so

55:33thinking more for like an engineer and a fiscally responsible citizen I do see like the risk

55:40litigation associated with option three um I mean there's multiple criteria obviously that

55:46we're looking at through this study so yeah not to like put all like the majority weighting on

55:53cultural heritage it's definitely an important component but the other pieces are important too

55:58but yeah I guess having a split phone

56:02again maybe is what we have to leave and I ask Kate um when you were describing that some of the

56:09differences and similarities between option two and three um you mentioned some of the environmental

56:14impacts in my mind and from what I understand just as somebody on the committee or it that lives in

56:21town um that uses that bridge I think option two would probably have less of an impact to

56:28refurbish it to get in there to refurbish it unlike bringing a big prefabricated steel replacement

56:35in the middle but I could be wrong so I think from an environmental perspective my my leaning

56:40is still towards two which complements the other committees in terms of the scoring Kate um from

56:53an environmental point of view um how has two and three scored up so far sorry for minute from

57:03natural environment criteria yes um let me just quickly have a look and I can tell you um I really

57:16I mean they basically have the same score um we use the um the evaluation uses you know like

57:26pies like quarters of a pie to kind of score um how how an option performs in each of those

57:34criteria so both alternative two and three both score three quarters of a pie um it doesn't mean

57:41that there isn't any differences between them but kind of overall in the costness of the evaluation

57:48they end up with the same um three out of four score um so they are considered to be pretty similar

57:57and I think that maybe is because there's the evaluation that any temporary impacts during

58:04the construction phase could be compensated for you know through through planting um planting of

58:12woodland or planting of you know wetland or river channel and so I think that's how although there

58:20would be some difference in in the construction work involved that's how they end up with having

58:25the same overall score for natural environment and is that there's probably more compensation

58:33number three versus number two um I don't have that information available in in front of me I

58:40only have sort of the very summary notes of you know kind of the pros and cons of of each option

58:47we could certainly look into that a bit more um and get back to you to have a bit more information

58:54about that um if that's of interest I would say um in terms of the natural environment criteria

59:03across all of the six options except so let's drop the do nothing option so if the other five

59:11two three four five and six they all end up with um the same three out of four score for

59:18uh natural environment um even though they have different um pros and cons and variations between

59:26them it aggregates to having the same score um you know that's one of the kind of tricky things

59:33with EA studies and how how granular should it go in terms of um the criteria it it evens out to the

59:42same same number yeah that's that's that's surprising that they can be all that close

59:52but um I guess for construction access two and three would be very similar they both have the

59:58same they're both maintaining the existing abundance so in channel works would be limited

1:00:05but um with option three having to remove the existing bridge deck over the channel means that

1:00:11there's a higher risk of uh of issues I would think compared to uh option two both could be

1:00:19mitigated no doubt but the risk is higher with three um except that um not sure if I'm going to go

1:00:33I think I think I think what I'm trying to bring up just to be a bit clearer is that

1:00:38um having a compensation isn't the is should not be considered as a part of the package because

1:00:46that's that that a planting of a tree now isn't the same as having that tree there as is in 30

1:00:55years or in 40 years and perhaps past us city town folk and counselors making decisions we

1:01:05didn't take care of the bridge uh so if we take care of it now it's meant to last for 30 years if

1:01:12it's important important enough to be classified as a cultural feature we should start taking care of

1:01:18it as is if we start to fix it and have to remove trees to get in there to do the construction

1:01:27or have any sort of um mitigation techniques around the waterways I think that's um

1:01:35I don't think that really you can't compare those things for the cost of the bridge down the road

1:01:42yeah that makes sense to me um so it in a way could I summarize that as saying that um

1:01:51obviously for options that minimize impacts to natural environment that have the least

1:02:00least impact to the natural environment yes regardless of whether that impact is mitigated

1:02:05or not yeah yeah that's a lens I'd like to sprinkle in there for for this yeah I mean obviously I

1:02:15don't have a lot of experience of a kind of drafting um motions or recommendations for

1:02:23committee but you know we we're just certainly keen to capture your opinions and preferences

1:02:31and recommendations um I'm definitely not pressuring you to choose one single alternative

1:02:37as you prefer Jay from my point of view as a staff member you could choose more than one

1:02:44as being options that you'd be consider viable or um I mean I'm also interested in you know

1:02:52your opinions on the other options of whether you feel that you know they shouldn't be considered

1:02:57not preferred or kind of they could be but you prefer you know kind of giving a bit of a sense

1:03:04of how you feel about all of them would be um you know ideal from my perspective to have

1:03:10for us to kind of capture that and be able to take that into consideration in the

1:03:16remaining work all right so why don't we um before we decide on on the recommendation

1:03:24comments from from members on the other options as well anybody want to lead up on that

1:03:32well I don't know if we can share that slide with all the options that may be

1:03:42okay anyone have any comments um I assume

1:04:30over primarily in four five and six it's fine I don't know like the number five we

1:04:44bear it to number four if you're going to be replacing the bridge anyways has it really

1:04:49made sense to spend a much more money on like a new version of something that's trying to copy

1:04:55something that used to exist um I'd say four is probably better than five people with a similar

1:05:02neither of them are as preferred they kind of be lower on lower ranking six I still think is the

1:05:08bottom of the list for me yeah I would I would echo um that myself I agree um it feels like a

1:05:18lot of extra money um and a lot of concrete um to do um a concrete post string completely from scratch

1:05:27um just to say oh this is kind of what I'm reflecting what was there if if we're looking

1:05:34at fully building a new bridge we can build a you know a bow string truss steel bridge

1:05:40and you know with some you know interpretive elements and stuff to talk about how that this

1:05:44is still kind of honoring what was there um if we had to go down that route um which while still

1:05:52having I think some pretty significant savings over doing the concrete one um and yeah I agree I

1:05:58think number six would be the kind of the least preferred option um even with a complete streets

1:06:03approach um I think having a fully separate bridge will provide a better experience and more safety

1:06:11than sharing the same bridge um with traffic. Why is it? Anyone else? I agree one with what

1:06:28Justin said it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense and I guess Laura's basically saying the

1:06:32same thing it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to reconstruct at the considerable expense I suspect

1:06:40something that was there already um and the new bridge new structure not having any real

1:06:45heritage value at least not today. Yeah so again and also option six I think is

1:06:55really not desired so back to the question um two or three um if nobody has changed their opinions

1:07:08on that then I think maybe what we'll do is um indicate in our recommendation that the committee

1:07:18um supports both options um and um we don't have a preference basically as a committee

1:07:31I think well I shouldn't put it that way maybe that's not really accurate um would the members

1:07:37who prefer option two object if the city went ahead with option three having fully evaluated

1:07:46option two yeah I would say that's acceptable yeah we could all live with that then okay

1:07:56yeah it's probably like just what I'm hearing yeah I'm hearing like a series of

1:08:05if that is possible series of a series of motions yes so four five six don't sound like

1:08:12a tiny good so that's one motion in my opinion what I'm hearing for the reasons that weren't

1:08:19taking that route two and three there's a split but like I think you guys are kind of migrating to

1:08:30um they're kind of the shortlisted options and they're for these reasons and then you can kind

1:08:38of stay that way and then leave it leave it kind of like that so then people are saying okay well

1:08:43we think based on the information that's provided at this preliminary level

1:08:48there may be some benefits of longer lifespan and financial or physical potentially physical

1:08:55management the one you know seeing the environmental the lower environmental impact or potential for

1:09:02mitigated environmental impact by using this and and then and then maybe that's it and then

1:09:08at least it's I think there's value to take to hear that articulated response and then be able to

1:09:17apply that to the a work that she's doing I that's all I'm hearing so I if I'm totally out of turn

1:09:24let me know um but yeah I was wondering if we could insert a whereas

1:09:34well I didn't have that much data so yeah so options two and three have very similar environmental

1:09:42impacts um the committee supports either option pending further

1:09:58further evaluation I guess then um number two we have the following comments be provided

1:10:15staff and council for the consideration um the committee recommends against

1:10:23choosing options one four five or six yeah I'll show my screen if I was taking notes and um

1:10:50yeah if it change language and um similar to so Heritage Gould passed a motion that the preferred

1:11:01option was two but then they passed another motion that the plant that the Heritage Advisory Committee

1:11:07recommends alternative number three as a preferred second alternative solution should um if the alternative

1:11:16two was an infeasible option so that's the type of language that Heritage did so just keeping that

1:11:22in mind we can we can work with that we can make it our own um but I will share my screen

1:11:30okay there's like a duplicate of I was saying notes at the bottom so you can see

1:11:37so the uh second motion I think what I was trying to capture um what chair you were you were saying

1:11:46so we can just again get rid of one you can edit as you see fit um yeah I just kept one in there

1:12:09because that was the language provided or that was the recommended language provided by staff but

1:12:13we can use um you know seeing as those environmental impacts were kind of the the central

1:12:22theme to our conversations tonight we can include that yeah and I mean consideration for construction

1:12:38impacts um I'm assuming we'll be identified in the project file report so like being a little more

1:12:44clear on like if you do have the recommended option be number three for example like clearly like what

1:12:52mitigation measures would have to be incorporated in the design and construction of that to protect

1:12:58the river I mean that's part of the process do you want that do you want me to add that I don't know

1:13:06I can add it as a I mean maybe that's just yeah that's just assumed that that's going to happen but

1:13:11I mean it's it hey there's no we can include it just for

1:13:15sure so just that's done consider yeah the construction impacts

1:13:39what about instead of construction how about environmental impacts because that's what we're

1:13:46focused on here so whether it's construction or no construction alternative zero nothing happens

1:13:53or six it's like what what is the impact we know that they're scoring all three out of four but if

1:14:00you go to the next you know deeper dive which one has least impact to the nature and environment

1:14:09that's right there not just um yeah how to get the construction project finished but um

1:14:19and then plant the trees that then will eventually grow but you know the least amount of impact

1:14:26to come to a solution here because I don't think it's about the for me it's not about the construction

1:14:34it's more like we're gonna have to pay for this either way as a you know as a resident but there's

1:14:42some things that you can't really fast track to get to get that environmental benefit

1:14:51or could we add something about construction impacts on the environment or were you thinking more

1:14:57about the main differentiating factor on environmental impacts between two and three was

1:15:02related to the construction and like the river impacts because I think either of them we're

1:15:05going to have significant like woodland tree removals from my understanding they might have some

1:15:11like minor impacts on like nesting areas I think that's what I heard um but it'll be almost

1:15:18the same just to get to whatever they even for number two but there would be like

1:15:23like mobilization I need some kind of like rehab work that's being done so it might be equipment

1:15:28that's brought on site so I guess that was just my understanding the main impact on national

1:15:33environment would be during construction okay so we could add that in then the wording the national

1:15:38staff because like construction impacts could be more than just natural environment it could also

1:15:43be on like um the other people using that site I mean it's makes it a little more broad because it

1:15:49could be social impacts too always construction impacts the quality it sort of begs the question

1:16:00though impacts on what right yeah so on the users of that site the and the natural environment

1:16:09but the users are being excluded right now right it's not some publicly accessible

1:16:15well it's still like the parking lot is right there that the outdoor school uses

1:16:19so the broader construction area yeah like they'll still need to be able to access the

1:16:22outdoor school during that time so only users natural environment

1:16:29of the southern site users well okay so is it natural and social environment then yeah yeah

1:16:34okay all right then back up to the top can we wait at first I am wondering um if we keep number one

1:16:57get rid of two do number three and then we say whereas options two and three are the preferred

1:17:08alternatives

1:17:13the committee provides the these additional comments or something and then those ones are

1:17:20kind of just our comments specifically about kind of what we think between those two options

1:17:27if that makes sense seeing as kind of that's what

1:17:29it everything except for part i there are kind of just discussing our opinions between kind of

1:17:38two and three um I don't know if that makes sense it was point one and point two are very similar

1:17:56so we only like one or point two but we could just rephrase them two and three equally like

1:18:04so one of the two people one or two we're just like there's a tie I prefer to keep two pretty

1:18:09much as it is and three down as to other comments all right so two becomes one and is very clear

1:18:17what our recommendation is to the extent that that's clear and then the other is sort of additional

1:18:24comments it's not not a recommendation we're just saying we don't like it basically and here's the

1:18:29other things you need to be concluding going forward so now number two put it as put it as a

1:18:35bullet underneath yeah the following comments yeah got it Brian is that sort of what you're yeah

1:18:53that kind of covers what you were saying too to get us started on this conversation

1:18:58does that work for you Justin yep no that that kind of covers the same the same kind of thing

1:19:03with being even easier so thank you all right so any other comments suggestions through the way it is

1:19:15okay can I get a motion to kind of motion to move forward the the recommendation

1:19:30anybody want to second that Raj all in favor thank you periods okay thank you very much Kate

1:19:44for bearing with us through all this bit of a challenge for us but I appreciate your input

1:19:51and your presentation thank you no thank you that was excellent and I really appreciate you

1:19:57taking the time to really you know consider all of those options and share your share your

1:20:02perspectives it's very helpful so we look forward to receiving your motion and and we'll keep moving

1:20:11forward to this study and we'll be putting together the full project file report as the

1:20:17documentation of and record of everything as we go forwards so thank yeah thank you all for your time

1:20:24and I know we look forward to getting the details of the other components of the overall project

1:20:28from from Nancy I guess and a couple of months or so yeah yeah great thank you thanks um

1:20:37Chair and staff announcements um one of the things I just wanted to mention um it came as a result

1:20:43of the conversation at the last meeting which obviously I wasn't in attendance but Raj shared

1:20:50with me some discussion that occurred around the region water lose water supply challenges and

1:20:59I think Wayne at that time said that he was going to keep an eye on it fortunately Wayne's not with

1:21:05us this evening not able to participate in the meeting so Raj I'm going to suggest that maybe we

1:21:11defer discussion on that till to the next meeting and hopefully Wayne can participate

1:21:17unless there's some other staff here that are up to speed on that like to provide comment

1:21:26okay so I will sorry I just see Lucas's hand that well Lucas yes

1:21:34fine definitely not the expertise that Wayne can offer but I do know that just at the beginning

1:21:41of this month um he did bring the use it or lose it policy which I know has he's brought to this

1:21:48committee uh before and there was some discussion with council about the potential impacts that

1:21:54what's happening in water the region may have on that so um you can certainly watch watch that council

1:22:01presentation if if you're interested in in learning more but certainly when when Wayne's back next

1:22:07time he can speak to it a little bit better but in the interim if you're looking for something

1:22:12from now until next month I would suggest watching that to that council presentation

1:22:18okay thank you any other announcements from any staff Brian yeah I have a couple um

1:22:29should start um I'm currently working on an information report council

1:22:39that is going to be going at the end of this month but I just thought I'd share

1:22:43at least some insight on it to the folks here it's really just an update on our existing

1:22:49well-bearing homes program which is an energy retrofit program for residential

1:22:57for property homeowners and wealth where they get their own just loans to do energy retrofits in

1:23:02their home and then also a loan coming also a grant we're not yet sunsetting but we are getting to

1:23:11the tail end of the program and it's really just due for an update to just give statistics on how much

1:23:16money has been invested into the community, age, impact as well as some of the feedback that we've

1:23:25gotten from users and then also kind of next steps as we're looking to explore can we consider

1:23:32resilience measures in another rendition of the program as well as potential for well like

1:23:41exploring other financial alternatives take some time so that's that's one of them so

1:23:52it's due February I'm actually scrambling to write it so that's what I'm going to share

1:23:59but yeah just to give you the look and feel and you can see that as it comes along

1:24:03and then I guess my second one some are related so I mentioned that there is a low-income household

1:24:08grant portion of it this feeds into the other body of work that we will be coming back to the

1:24:15advisory committee with so we're looking the initiative is is termed our advancing energy

1:24:21equity within wealth really looking at making sure everyone can afford the energy needs to

1:24:32either heat and cool their home from a resilience perspective adaptation perspective

1:24:37affordability perspective and so that was kind of the thinking in the Gwelford in our homes as we

1:24:42developed the grant program that you know we wanted people to be able to participate in

1:24:50in the call to climate action and reducing their emissions their footprint that it isn't just for

1:24:56although the program was for property owners but it isn't just for those that can afford

1:25:02cash flowing projects like this stuff too so that's why we have a low-income grant and so through

1:25:08that body of work and then through other requirements not necessarily requirements but kind of

1:25:19motivations to look at energy equity across the community that's where we've taken on a bunch of

1:25:24stakeholders to inform this body of work ultimately what it is is there are some measures that are

1:25:30coming out of our research as we're working with the wealth labs in terms of action items for the

1:25:36community at large stake on we'll present those to the advisory committee to to get their inputs on

1:25:44that and then we'll ultimately be going to council in in in June so just giving the update to the

1:25:52committee or do okay well great thanks we'll be forward to that um in a Lucas yeah one one more

1:26:04for me on a little bit of a of a personal note I will be on paternity leave most likely starting

1:26:11in April to about June so I'll miss likely the April May and June um PUAQ meetings but you will

1:26:22certainly have planning coverage from from one of my colleagues in the department so they'll be able

1:26:27to provide support to you but next month might be my last at least just for for a little while but

1:26:33then I'll be I'll be right back to it most likely in July so Lucas are you a new father now or is it

1:26:40on the horizon on the horizon on the horizon the due date is uh the 16th of April and and it's not

1:26:49just one it's two it's twins you know works off this just inform me of that congratulations thank you

1:26:58thank you very much awesome anything else that seeing any okay we need a motion to adjourn

1:27:12who would like to move a motion to adjourn Luke or Justin sorry

1:27:16me

1:27:17seconder Shannon all in favor hey thanks everyone we'll see you next month and all you do is uh march

1:27:31night