Committee of the Whole

21:08All right, good afternoon everyone.

21:12Thank you for joining our committee of the whole meeting

21:14for Tuesday, June the second.

21:17It's one o'clock.

21:19And right off the top, we are looking to move

21:22into a closed session on a couple of items

21:24as disclosed on our open agenda.

21:29And the first one is Handlin Creek Business Park

21:32disposition update as per section 239-2C

21:37with the Municipal Act regarding a proposed

21:39or pending acquisition or disposition of land

21:42by the municipality or local board.

21:45And the second is the authority to take steps

21:47in legal proceeding as per section 239-2E

21:51and F of the Municipal Act regarding litigation

21:55or potential litigation, including matters

21:57before administrative tribunals affecting

21:59the municipality or local board.

22:01And advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege,

22:04including communications necessary for that purpose.

22:07Now, before I call the vote out here on that,

22:10is there any disclosure of pecuniary interest,

22:12any general nature there for those two items

22:14before we look to move to go into closed?

22:18Don't hear or see anybody.

22:19So would somebody be willing just to move a motion

22:22to go into closed for me on that?

22:25Yeah, thank you.

22:26Bousatil and Hauser, okay.

22:29Thank you.

22:30Anything further, anyone?

22:33No, okay, I'll call the vote then,

22:34is anyone against moving into closed on those two items?

22:40Nobody, that's unanimous.

22:42So we will move in on those items.

22:45And as usual, I'll do a high level summary

22:48when we come out of closed session,

22:50but I'll do that at the beginning

22:51of the two o'clock open session meeting, okay.

22:55Thank you so much.

22:56All right, good afternoon everybody.

1:18:47I'd like to call the meeting to order,

1:18:50if you don't mind.

1:18:51So welcome to our committee of the whole meeting

1:18:53for June the second, 2026.

1:18:56And we're kicking things off right at two o'clock.

1:19:01Before we go into the rest of the open agenda,

1:19:04as we start, I do have a summary of the closed session

1:19:10that council did go into earlier, just around one o'clock.

1:19:16We were actually, it was quite quick.

1:19:18We were out just before 1.30,

1:19:21so there was the two items as disclosed on the open agenda.

1:19:26The first one was titled,

1:19:27Handling Creek Business Park Disposition Update.

1:19:32And we did give direction to staff on that item.

1:19:37And on the second one,

1:19:39which was called authority to take steps

1:19:41in illegal proceeding,

1:19:42we as well gave direction to staff

1:19:45in regards to that matter too, okay.

1:19:47And that's all for the summary

1:19:50of the closed session at this time.

1:19:53So thank you.

1:19:54And with that, we are now gonna start our open session meeting

1:20:00and with the open agenda,

1:20:01which asks everyone if you're able to please stand

1:20:04as we recognize our national anthem.

1:21:35Great, thanks everyone.

1:21:36Just as we continue now, a moment of silent reflection.

1:21:53Great, thank you.

1:21:54And now our territorial acknowledgement.

1:21:56As we gather, let us take time to reflect

1:21:58on our privilege to live and work here in Guelph,

1:22:00a city that's built over rich indigenous histories.

1:22:04As guests here, we should reflect upon the responsibility

1:22:07to care for this land and the people who live here today

1:22:10and the generations to come.

1:22:12If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation,

1:22:15we should take pause and make those decisions

1:22:17with intention and gratitude.

1:22:20This place we call Guelph is served as traditional lands

1:22:22in a place of refuge for many peoples over time,

1:22:25but more specifically, the Anwarak and the Honolashoni.

1:22:29And this land is held as the treaty lands and territory

1:22:32with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

1:22:34This webinar is being transcribed and summarized.

1:22:38Sounds good.

1:22:39Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman track

1:22:43and is part of the long established traditional hunting grounds

1:22:45for the six nations of the Grand River.

1:22:48Many First Nations, Inuit and Métis people

1:22:51who have come from across Turtle Island

1:22:52called Guelph home today.

1:22:56Are we good clerks?

1:22:59Found the mute button.

1:23:01Excellent, all right.

1:23:03Is there any disclosure of pecuniary interest

1:23:05and general nature thereof for any of the items?

1:23:09I don't hear or see anybody jumping up and down on that one.

1:23:12So that matter is closed.

1:23:15And we got a full house today for staff recognitions.

1:23:20Well done, everybody.

1:23:22A lot of them kind of fall under chair quassan

1:23:27from our IDE department.

1:23:30So I will turn it over to chair quassan at this time.

1:23:36Hi, everybody.

1:23:37Good afternoon and thank you for being here.

1:23:40I've got a few pages.

1:23:42So I'm excited to share them with you.

1:23:45So on behalf of council,

1:23:46it's my pleasure to recognize the following

1:23:49infrastructure development environment staff

1:23:51for their fantastic professional developments

1:23:53and award achievements.

1:23:55First up, I'd like to congratulate Scott Plont.

1:23:58Is Scott in the room?

1:24:00Hi, Scott.

1:24:02Project manager planning development

1:24:04for successfully passing the professional standard boards

1:24:08professional examination in March of this year.

1:24:11Passing this rigorous exam is the final step

1:24:14in meeting the PSB's eligibility criteria

1:24:16for professional certification.

1:24:18Scott achieved an outstanding score

1:24:20that exceeded the 80% pass criterion.

1:24:24This major milestone makes Scott eligible

1:24:26for certified membership

1:24:28with the Canadian Institute of Planners

1:24:30and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute.

1:24:33Scott will hold the prestigious registered professional planner

1:24:36and member of the Canadian Institute of Planners designations.

1:24:40These designations recognize a planner's high standard

1:24:43of practice, ethical conduct,

1:24:45and commitment to shaping safe,

1:24:47sustainable and vibrant communities.

1:24:50Congratulations, Scott, on this milestone achievement

1:24:52and dedication to professional excellence.

1:25:02I'll also note that we will go down and do photos

1:25:05after I read out all of the acknowledgements.

1:25:09So next up, I'm pleased to congratulate Alicia Butler,

1:25:13project manager at the city's facilities

1:25:16and energy management department.

1:25:17Alicia.

1:25:19Hi, Alicia.

1:25:20Thanks for putting up your hand.

1:25:24And so congratulations for attaining

1:25:26the construction law certificate

1:25:27through Osgoode Law School.

1:25:30Achieving this certificate demonstrates

1:25:32advanced expertise in construction law

1:25:34and a strong commitment to professional development.

1:25:37The program provides specialized knowledge in contracts,

1:25:40risk management, and dispute resolution

1:25:42within the construction industry.

1:25:44Congratulations, Alicia, on this fantastic achievement.

1:25:53Today, we're also extending our congratulations

1:25:56to Stephanie Guy.

1:25:57Stephanie, hello right beside Alicia.

1:26:00Hello, Stephanie.

1:26:01Acting manager of facility design and construction

1:26:04for achieving her master of business administration, MBA,

1:26:09degree from Wilfred Laurier University in June 2025.

1:26:13This academic achievement reflects Stephanie's

1:26:15strong commitment to professional excellence,

1:26:18leadership development, and effective decision making,

1:26:20further strengthening her ability

1:26:22to lead complex infrastructure and facilities initiatives.

1:26:25Wilfred Laurier's university MBA program

1:26:28is recognized for its emphasis on strategic leadership,

1:26:31applied management skills, and real world decision making,

1:26:34preparing graduates to lead in complex

1:26:36and dynamic organizational environments.

1:26:38Congratulations, Stephanie.

1:26:40I'm achieving this significant professional development.

1:26:49In addition to these professional development achievements,

1:26:51staff and IDE have received two impressive awards recently

1:26:56that I would like to highlight.

1:26:58The Water Environment Association of Ontario

1:27:01hosts an annual wastewater operations challenge

1:27:04that recognizes excellence in wastewater operations

1:27:08through a rigorous hands-on competition designed

1:27:11to test real world operational skills, safety practices,

1:27:15teamwork, and technical knowledge.

1:27:17Bringing together top performing teams

1:27:19from across the province, this competition

1:27:21is often described as the wastewater sectors equivalent

1:27:26of the Olympics.

1:27:28The City of Guelph's Royal Sludge team

1:27:31placed third overall amongst by winning

1:27:35the process control event, a remarkable achievement

1:27:37that places our staff amongst the very best

1:27:39wastewater professionals in Ontario.

1:27:42The team was made up of Art Nastas,

1:27:45lead hand wastewater treatment.

1:27:47Art, are you?

1:27:48Hi, Art.

1:27:49Thank you for putting up your hand.

1:27:50Thomas Vendike over here too,

1:27:53wastewater collection operator.

1:27:57Michael Whittle, Wittwell, excuse me,

1:28:01Wittwell, hi, Michael.

1:28:03Lead hand wastewater collection,

1:28:05Andre Charlebois, lead hand wastewater maintenance,

1:28:08and team coach Jared Carr, supervisor wastewater treatment.

1:28:14Months of dedication, teamwork, and preparation

1:28:17led up to this competition's win

1:28:18in Niagara Falls this past April.

1:28:21While the Royal Sludge team was training and competing,

1:28:24wastewater colleagues stepped up to ensure

1:28:26the seamless continuation of all services and daily tasks.

1:28:29Thus, the recognition is also shared

1:28:31with the entire wastewater services team.

1:28:34So thank you all.

1:28:41And finally, so congratulations to everyone.

1:28:44There's a little summary here,

1:28:45but I think we did our clap for you all, so thank you.

1:28:47And finally, I'm thrilled to recognize

1:28:50the Boat House Retaining Wall Rehabilitation Project team.

1:28:55Anindita, okay, anindita, anindita, did I get it right?

1:29:00Anindita.

1:29:01Anindita, okay, thank you very much, Data.

1:29:04Supervisor of compliance, Jackie Kay,

1:29:06acting manager of construction services,

1:29:08Steven Schingler, construction inspector,

1:29:10and Marco Derrick, construction contract administrator.

1:29:14On being awarded the 2026 Ontario Public Works

1:29:16Association Award for structures,

1:29:19less than $2 million category.

1:29:21The structures award was established

1:29:23to promote excellence in the management

1:29:24and administration of public works projects

1:29:27by recognizing the alliance of public works projects.

1:29:32Excuse me.

1:29:34Between the managing agency,

1:29:35the consultant architect engineer,

1:29:37and the contractor who working together

1:29:39complete public works projects together.

1:29:42Congratulations to the whole team

1:29:44on this fantastic achievement.

1:29:46And to all of our staff today

1:29:47for being recognized on your accomplishments

1:29:49and ongoing commitment to professional development.

1:29:57And if I can call all of the recipients down,

1:30:03we'll take some photos down at the backdrop.

1:30:08Does that sound good?

1:37:03Okay, everybody.

1:37:05Well, that was great.

1:37:05Those are always good moments.

1:37:07So thank you again to our staff

1:37:09and the great leadership and work that they do in the city.

1:37:12We sincerely appreciate it.

1:37:15We're heading right into the service areas.

1:37:18And the first one is mine, which is governance.

1:37:22And there's a consent agenda with the two items on there.

1:37:26The first one being the appointment

1:37:28of the closed meeting investigator.

1:37:30The second being the closed meeting investigation report.

1:37:33So I am gonna actually ask for both of these

1:37:35to be pulled if you don't mind.

1:37:37And then yeah, then I can maybe go to you if you don't mind.

1:37:39But on the first one, just if I could have a mover

1:37:44and a seconder for the staff recommendation,

1:37:47Councillor Allt, you said you would do that.

1:37:48Richardson will second that.

1:37:51And I'll just call the vote.

1:37:52Is there anything on that before I continue?

1:37:54I'll just call the vote on those.

1:37:56Okay, I'll call the vote.

1:37:57Is anyone against those three recommendations?

1:38:01Nobody, okay, great.

1:38:03And then tied to this one,

1:38:06I've asked Councillor Caron who was interested as well

1:38:11in bringing something forward in regards

1:38:15to recommendation of a review

1:38:20of our closed meeting protocol, best practices.

1:38:24And at the beginning of every term of Council,

1:38:27we have an opportunity to look at our procedural bylaw

1:38:31and other items that kind of revolve around that.

1:38:34So the best place time for that would be

1:38:38in the new term of Council,

1:38:40which is literally around the corner.

1:38:43It's been a while since a review of best practices

1:38:46and other opportunities has been done

1:38:48on that anyway.

1:38:49So it's kind of good timing that this is on here.

1:38:52So Councillor Caron, would you mind moving that?

1:38:56And maybe would you mind reading the motion for everyone?

1:38:59Sure, sure, Mr. Mayor.

1:39:01And thank you for bringing this to Council

1:39:04because I do think that as an organization,

1:39:07it's always a good idea to be identifying best practices

1:39:11and reviewing our procedures.

1:39:12So the motion is that the city clerk be directed

1:39:15to review the closed meeting protocol,

1:39:17the procedural bylaw, any related policies and procedures

1:39:20and best practices and the management

1:39:22of municipal closed meetings to identify opportunities

1:39:25to increase transparency and reporting

1:39:27as part of the 2027 governance review.

1:39:29So happy to table that looking for a seconder.

1:39:33Great, thank you.

1:39:34And is there a seconder?

1:39:35Sorry, Councillor Elz was bringing my ear.

1:39:37So thank you.

1:39:38You strategically placed yourself here so I could hear you.

1:39:41So that's perfect.

1:39:42Is there anything more on that?

1:39:45No, okay, I'll just call the vote on that additional motion.

1:39:48Is anyone against that?

1:39:51Nobody, that's unanimous.

1:39:53Thanks everybody for that.

1:39:55And then the second one is the closed meeting investigation

1:39:58report, the motion on that one for recommendation

1:40:01is to be received.

1:40:03Would someone be willing to move that one for me?

1:40:06Thank you, Downer and Hauser.

1:40:08We'll second that, thank you.

1:40:10I would like to actually take the time

1:40:13to just recognize that it's nice to see that this report,

1:40:18which is done by a third party,

1:40:21indicated that we did follow all of the procedures.

1:40:25We did follow all of our rules in regards to

1:40:30that those allegations.

1:40:33This is something that I just wanted to publicly state

1:40:36that we as a team here, as the elected officials

1:40:42and as our staff, we do take this very, very seriously.

1:40:47For lack of a better term, we police ourselves

1:40:53very well in regards to the why we're going back there

1:40:59and making sure we are staying on topic

1:41:03and we do everything correct.

1:41:06And so when, you know, this is now,

1:41:08the clerks can maybe correct me.

1:41:11I think this is the third closed meeting investigation,

1:41:15I believe in the last three terms.

1:41:18And every single one has come back,

1:41:21indicating that we have followed

1:41:23all the procedures correctly, every single one.

1:41:26So I'm very proud of the members of council on this team

1:41:31and staff that take this very seriously.

1:41:35And just as a reminder, you know,

1:41:37I remember before I became the mayor,

1:41:40we never even started an open session of council

1:41:47to deliver why we were thinking about going in camera,

1:41:51a vote of council as to why we were going into camera

1:41:55to then go into camera, have the meeting,

1:41:57and then we never ever did even summaries at all.

1:42:02We used to just have our meetings

1:42:04where they just started in camera.

1:42:06And then there was no summary.

1:42:08So there has been a lot of movement

1:42:10in regards to the transparency, the processes,

1:42:13and the procedures that we've done

1:42:15in regards to going into closed session.

1:42:18And it is frankly a team effort,

1:42:21and I'm just thankful very much to my colleagues,

1:42:24both past and present on this council

1:42:27for taking this very, very seriously.

1:42:30And it was nice to see that this report validated that.

1:42:35So with that, I'll call the vote.

1:42:38Is anyone against receiving of that information,

1:42:41of that investigation report?

1:42:44Nobody, that's unanimous as well, thank you.

1:42:47So there's no other service area chair

1:42:50or staff announcements really from my end of it

1:42:52from the governance side of it.

1:42:54And so this is the time now

1:42:56where we'll just take a couple of minutes

1:42:58where councillor Kerron, I'm sorry, chair Kerron

1:43:01will actually come and sit here and we'll take her seat

1:43:04and we will switch the chair for that next service.

1:43:10Through you, Mr. Mayor,

1:43:10there is one consent agenda item for public services.

1:43:14It's the last item on the agenda.

1:43:15And perhaps if that is likely to be passed on consent,

1:43:18that could be considered now too.

1:43:21Oh yeah, that would make sense

1:43:23just because of staff being here or whatever.

1:43:25If that's okay, chair Downer,

1:43:27do you mind if I just chair that portion?

1:43:29Thank you.

1:43:30Thank you to the clerk as well.

1:43:32If we go right to section 17 and 17.1,

1:43:37it is the Ontario Health Multi-Sector Service Accountability

1:43:40Agreement Declaration of Compliance

1:43:42that the mayor be authorized to sign

1:43:44the Declaration of Compliance

1:43:45for the Ontario Health Multi-Sector Service Accountability

1:43:48Agreement for the period of April 1st, 2025

1:43:51to March 31st, 2026.

1:43:53Is someone willing to move the consent on that one?

1:43:56Okay, we'll go chair Downer and we'll go Pusatil,

1:44:01Councillor Pusatil.

1:44:02Is there anything further on that one, anybody?

1:44:05No, okay, I'll call the vote on that consent.

1:44:08Is anyone against that?

1:44:12That's unanimous as well.

1:44:13Thank you to the clerks.

1:44:13Anything else?

1:44:15No?

1:44:15All right, so just give us 30 seconds to a minute

1:44:18as we switch the chairs.

1:44:19Thank you.

1:44:52Good afternoon and welcome to the Corporate Services

1:44:55Committee the whole meeting of June the 2nd, 2026.

1:45:00We have three exciting agenda items this afternoon.

1:45:02I know everybody's part of city business

1:45:04is corporate services.

1:45:06All three agenda items have presentations.

1:45:08So we're gonna move right into our first agenda item

1:45:11with a presentation, which is the

1:45:15Community Investment Strategy Update.

1:45:20We have a presentation from Alex Goss.

1:45:23Welcome Mr. Goss.

1:45:24The microphone is yours.

1:45:27Anytime you're ready.

1:45:32Great, thank you everybody for the opportunity

1:45:36to share this Community Investment Update with you

1:45:40to ensure the city's grant programs continue to support

1:45:43community needs across a range of priorities and sectors.

1:45:48The Community Benefit Agreement program was reviewed last year

1:45:51and this update is a follow up to that

1:45:53as we turn our focus to the grant programs.

1:45:56I'm here today joined by Dallas Baker,

1:45:59who is our Community Investment Specialist

1:46:02and will be presenting the proposed changes to you today.

1:46:05And we'll start with Gals.

1:46:10Thanks Alex.

1:46:12So to start the Community Investment Strategy,

1:46:16or sorry, do I control the slides?

1:46:18Or the, sorry, forgive, it's my first call.

1:46:22Thank you.

1:46:24Sorry about that.

1:46:26The Community Investment Strategy or CIS

1:46:28is the city's framework for how we invest in and partner

1:46:31with the nonprofit sector to address community needs.

1:46:34It provides a clear and consistent approach

1:46:37to direct funding and resources,

1:46:38primarily through grant programs,

1:46:40such as the Community Grant,

1:46:42that align with the city priorities,

1:46:44while also strengthening accountability,

1:46:46transparency and relationships with community

1:46:49and the local nonprofit sector.

1:46:56The CIS was last updated in 2019.

1:47:00Community Investment Determined it was time for an update

1:47:02when considering changes in community needs,

1:47:05increased demand on city funding programs,

1:47:08evolving city priorities,

1:47:10and pressures on the local nonprofit sector

1:47:12to meet rising demands.

1:47:13By updating now, the CIS is well-prepared

1:47:16and evidence-driven to support

1:47:18the next strategic planning cycle and council.

1:47:25The strategy update was led by an external consultancy

1:47:29who engaged both the current recipients

1:47:32and unsuccessful applicants, along with city staff,

1:47:35to better understand key strengths and challenges

1:47:38with grant programs within the current strategy.

1:47:41Overall, some key themes emerged.

1:47:43Since 2024, there has been a 26% increase

1:47:47in residents accessing services funded through the program.

1:47:51Organizations are facing rising costs

1:47:54and reported a roughly 25% decline

1:47:57in additional funding leveraged,

1:47:59alongside pressures related to staffing,

1:48:01space and overall capacity.

1:48:04Equity-deserving groups continue to face barriers

1:48:06in accessing funding and services,

1:48:09highlighting the need for more inclusive,

1:48:10easy to access and culturally appropriate processes.

1:48:14Both staff and applicants identified confusion

1:48:17around current CIS priorities

1:48:19and how they connect to broader city goals,

1:48:21making it difficult to align applications

1:48:23and demonstrate impact.

1:48:25There was strong feedback on the importance

1:48:27of low barrier flexible funding

1:48:29with simpler application and reporting processes

1:48:32that can better respond to emerging needs.

1:48:34Recipients consistently highlighted the value

1:48:37of staff support and helping organizations

1:48:39navigate challenge and opportunities.

1:48:42Multi-year funding remains a key stabilizing factor,

1:48:45supporting longer term planning and service delivery

1:48:48as demand increases and other funding sources

1:48:51become more limited.

1:48:52Some programs such as microgrants were identified

1:48:55as a strong tool for engaging grassroots

1:48:57and community led initiatives with their low barrier design

1:49:01and enabling broader and more timely access to funding.

1:49:05Based on the review findings,

1:49:06we have developed some proposed updates to our priorities.

1:49:10Grant programs and how we do this work

1:49:12and I'll pass it back to Alex to walk you through those.

1:49:14Thank you.

1:49:21Great, thank you Dallas.

1:49:26The new priorities shift CIS

1:49:28from being solely centered around the community plan

1:49:32toward a more integrated intersectional framework

1:49:35that is aligned with multiple city strategic documents

1:49:38that include the community plan,

1:49:40the equity anti-racism action plan

1:49:43and upcoming community safety wellbeing plan.

1:49:46In the report, the language utilized in the priorities

1:49:49shift CIS away from being focused on outputs

1:49:53to more outcomes focused

1:49:55on improving the lives of Guelph residents.

1:49:57Priorities are viewed as intersectional.

1:50:00Many organizations may find they align

1:50:02with more than one priority.

1:50:04Overall, the CIS priorities shift the city

1:50:07to a more focused outcomes driven approach,

1:50:10one that is better aligned with community needs,

1:50:12advances equity and provides clear direction

1:50:15on how investments are to be made and measured.

1:50:21Under the proposed CIS,

1:50:22there are changes to the current program structure

1:50:24that are recommended.

1:50:26And the proposed grant programs are designed

1:50:29to respond to what we heard throughout the review,

1:50:31particularly the need for greater flexibility,

1:50:34access to programs, stability across nonprofit sector.

1:50:39At the core is the community priorities grant,

1:50:42which provides multi-year, more sustainable funding,

1:50:46aligned to the new CIS priorities

1:50:48and would effectively replace

1:50:49the current community grant program.

1:50:53The in-kind resource program would shift

1:50:54to become a distinct offering,

1:50:57expanding access beyond just community grant applicants.

1:51:01This reflects a shift towards recognizing

1:51:03not all organizational needs are funding based

1:51:05and access to resources and equipment

1:51:08can also play an important role in supporting the sector.

1:51:13We're also proposing to formalize

1:51:14and expand new flexible targeted funding streams.

1:51:17Funding for these new programs will come back to you

1:51:21through the budget process.

1:51:23The micro grant program has been successfully piloted

1:51:27and put forward as a permanent funding stream,

1:51:30ensuring continued access to low barrier funding

1:51:32for residents, collectives, nonprofit organizations

1:51:35to support community-led, highly localized initiatives.

1:51:40The organizational change grant would provide

1:51:42targeted short-term project funding

1:51:44to help organizations adapt to shifting needs or pressures,

1:51:48including strengthening operations, governance

1:51:50or service delivery to prepare for the future.

1:51:54The city fee grant will reduce financial barriers

1:51:57by covering costs associated with accessing

1:52:00city-owned spaces and services

1:52:02and improving access to community organizations and groups.

1:52:07Together, this approach creates

1:52:08a more balanced response to the funding model,

1:52:10one that improves access, support, sustainability

1:52:13and better aligns with diverse needs

1:52:15of the nonprofit sector.

1:52:19Aside from proposed changes

1:52:21to the community investment grant programs,

1:52:23the recommended updated strategy

1:52:24also considers operational and process changes.

1:52:28A key shift is towards greater stability

1:52:32through stronger emphasis on multi-year funding,

1:52:36aligned to clear priorities,

1:52:38which support longer term planning and impact.

1:52:41We're also proposing an increase

1:52:43in the funding request cap from currently $15,000

1:52:46to $20,000, while prioritizing funding

1:52:50smaller organizations with budgets under a million.

1:52:54There's also focus on reducing barriers,

1:52:56especially for grassroots equity-deserving groups,

1:52:59by simplifying processes and offering more flexible ways

1:53:02to apply and to report.

1:53:05We're exploring also how to directly fund grassroots groups,

1:53:09opening up more opportunities for them through the process.

1:53:14We are strengthening clarity and consistency

1:53:16through clearer criteria, improved feedback

1:53:18and more transparent decision-making,

1:53:21which will support both applicants and city oversight.

1:53:26The new strategy also shifts to an outcome measurement

1:53:28framework, and in doing so, community and staff alike

1:53:31would better understand the return on investment

1:53:33from such grant initiatives and direct impact

1:53:36that has resulted in the community.

1:53:40Finally, these changes place a stronger emphasis

1:53:43on relationship management and coordination.

1:53:46A particular emphasis is on better cross-departmental

1:53:49collaboration when it comes to managing

1:53:51nonprofit relationships with the city.

1:53:57So thank you again for your time today,

1:53:59and going through the proposed changes,

1:54:02we're happy to respond to any questions you may have

1:54:04at this time.

1:54:06Thank you so much for the presentation.

1:54:08We have questions from members of council,

1:54:11Councillor Allt and Councillor Clauss.

1:54:13Thank you very much, Chair Caron.

1:54:15I will be happy to move the report.

1:54:20Through you to Mr. Goss, you made reference

1:54:23to sustainability clear priorities

1:54:25in funding request grants.

1:54:29Can you outline what we mean by sustainability

1:54:32and clear priorities?

1:54:34Grant writing is obviously a challenge for many, many groups,

1:54:38and I'd like to get some sense of what we mean.

1:54:43You started before you answered.

1:54:46You moved the motion.

1:54:46I moved the motion.

1:54:47I seconded by Councillor Merr-Guthrey.

1:54:50Apologies.

1:54:51Yep, no worries.

1:54:52Did you get the gist of the question?

1:54:54I believe so.

1:54:55So thinking about the priorities.

1:54:58Yeah, sustainability and clear priorities.

1:55:00What do we mean by that?

1:55:01Yeah, so what we, through the chair to Councillor,

1:55:05so what we heard through the review process

1:55:07was challenges in the nonprofit sector

1:55:10around stability and sustainability,

1:55:13in terms of being able to continue their operations

1:55:16and meet increasing demands with limited funding.

1:55:20So part of what is included in the review

1:55:22is looking at multi-year funding

1:55:24and a few other measures that can help with that sustainability

1:55:27and stability for those organizations.

1:55:30And thank you, because I think that's incredibly important

1:55:32to many, many groups.

1:55:33Two other questions.

1:55:34A stronger relationship and coordination

1:55:37between the city and the nonprofit sector.

1:55:39I completely support that,

1:55:41but I'm also looking for specifics.

1:55:43Are there any specifics to which we can point

1:55:46to identify what it is that we mean by that?

1:55:49Yeah, through the chair to the council,

1:55:51that's a great question.

1:55:55When we work with nonprofit organizations,

1:55:57we find that often there are multiple points of contact

1:56:00across the city through multiple departments.

1:56:03And what we're looking at here is finding a way

1:56:06to collaborate and to align some of those relationships

1:56:10so that we're able to connect and be consistent

1:56:13in how we work with those organizations.

1:56:15Just a slight follow-up to that.

1:56:17Have we in the recent past discovered that

1:56:22after we have had a relationship with some

1:56:25of these nonprofits, we're not exactly on the same page

1:56:29or we're completely off base.

1:56:30I realize it's a delicate question,

1:56:33but I'm not asking for names.

1:56:36Yeah, I think the nature of relationships

1:56:38can evolve over time.

1:56:40I think some of that coordination and collaboration

1:56:43across departments can help with that clarity

1:56:46for those organizations.

1:56:47Finally, we made reference to the return on the investment.

1:56:51So I have three parts to it.

1:56:52Are we talking money, people, community, all three, and how?

1:56:58Yeah, so we are looking at return on investment

1:57:02in a couple different ways.

1:57:04And we'll obviously expand on it as once before

1:57:07we'll get approval here and start to operationalize it.

1:57:10We will look at the amount of funding that city funds

1:57:14are able to leverage from underfunding sources.

1:57:16So there is a financial return on investment there.

1:57:20But also really looking at the impact on the community

1:57:22and the impact that this work is having

1:57:24on the new priorities that are put forward.

1:57:27And by looking at those outcomes that people are measuring

1:57:32that hopefully we'll be able to show a better return

1:57:35for the investment for people and for the community.

1:57:38And thank you very much.

1:57:39Quite happy to move this

1:57:41and to support outcomes based granting.

1:57:45Thanks very much.

1:57:46We have a question from Councillor Klosson

1:57:48and then Councillor Keaton.

1:57:51Yes, thank you through you, Chair Caron.

1:57:53Also, I'm happy to support the recommendations from staff.

1:57:57I, so much value is delivered to our community

1:58:00through these grants.

1:58:03Just looking at the list recently came out

1:58:05of all of the recipients

1:58:07and those organizations deliver so much good

1:58:11to our community.

1:58:11So thank you for your work on this.

1:58:14I did have a question.

1:58:16I think it was alluded to a little bit

1:58:18but I'd maybe like to just circle,

1:58:20I don't wanna say circle back,

1:58:21but go back to the outcome measurement framework.

1:58:24And I was going to ask if you could just speak

1:58:26to that a little bit more

1:58:28and what some of those expectations

1:58:30will be for the organizations.

1:58:34Through the chair to the Councillor,

1:58:35thanks for that question.

1:58:37Yeah, I think we're really looking at a distinction

1:58:39between outputs to outcomes.

1:58:42So often how we ask people to report right now

1:58:46is they report on outputs.

1:58:48So we ran these five programs

1:58:51and a thousand people participated.

1:58:54And that sounds great.

1:58:55And I think what we're looking to do here

1:58:57is shift to outcomes.

1:58:58So a thousand people participated in five programs

1:59:01and now what changed as a result of that?

1:59:05How did that impact those 1,000 people?

1:59:08So we can dig a little bit deeper into just the surface level.

1:59:12Wow, that looks great too.

1:59:13What does that actually mean for people

1:59:15that were involved in that work?

1:59:19Thank you.

1:59:20And through you chair,

1:59:21Karan, if I can ask one more.

1:59:25I had a question with regard to the targeted short-term rollout

1:59:27of the future budget.

1:59:30So in 2028 is when the budgetary change comes in.

1:59:37And I'm just curious about how that's going to roll out

1:59:39to the future council.

1:59:42Through the chair to the Councillor Klassen.

1:59:45We anticipate having more conversations

1:59:47about community investment

1:59:48as part of the strategic plan refresh

1:59:51and then sort of through councils prioritization

1:59:53of that work amongst others

1:59:55as part of the strategic plan refresh.

1:59:57We hope to embed it as part of the multi-year budget

2:00:00that will come back to you.

2:00:01So lots of opportunity.

2:00:03And of course should council wish to,

2:00:04closer to the budget update period,

2:00:06have a more detailed discussion

2:00:07about what's proposed here.

2:00:08We're happy to do that.

2:00:11Thank you for that response.

2:00:12And may I make a quick comment?

2:00:16I already said it,

2:00:17but I do think that the community grant program

2:00:20has delivered so much to our community.

2:00:22And I am excited about the changes that will be coming,

2:00:26especially through the outcome measurement framework.

2:00:29I'd like to see that when they're available.

2:00:32And I would also like to say,

2:00:34I would love to see further investment

2:00:36with the future council

2:00:39as they do strap planning for community investment.

2:00:41Our nonprofits in our community

2:00:43and our grassroots organizations

2:00:45contribute so much to the landscape of our community

2:00:49and caring for the people and the environment

2:00:52that we live in.

2:00:53So thank you for your work on this.

2:00:56And I'll look forward to hearing about it in the future.

2:01:02Well said, Councillor Keaton.

2:01:06Thank you, through you, Madam Chair.

2:01:08I only have comments,

2:01:09but similar to Councillor Cussin,

2:01:11I'm just really, really proud of all this work.

2:01:13I'm especially happy with the micro grants

2:01:17that allows groups that don't have the ability

2:01:20to be nonprofits, to actually go out and do their work

2:01:23and small community groups, mutual aid groups

2:01:26to go out and feed people, have block parties.

2:01:31And a lot of the grants that we're enabling

2:01:36actually allow a lot of affordability.

2:01:39And I know that we've had arts festivals

2:01:41that have been able to make their whole festival free.

2:01:44So everybody can join in because of these grants.

2:01:47So I think that this is tremendous work

2:01:50and it has such a huge trickle down effect.

2:01:52So thank you very much to all the staff

2:01:55that have been working on this.

2:01:57Thank you.

2:02:00Councillor Boussatel.

2:02:02Yes, thank you to the staff.

2:02:04I too will be supporting the recommendations.

2:02:06I actually have a question about,

2:02:08it's on page three in reference to the consultants report,

2:02:13looking kind of the environmental scan

2:02:15and the feedback from recipients.

2:02:17It's a third budget and I've raised this in the past

2:02:19in a different setting around not-for-profit kind of space.

2:02:24And what I'm hearing is there's two things.

2:02:26I've got boardroom that could be rented out

2:02:29to help us with revenue and availability.

2:02:32And so my question is, are there plans and discussions?

2:02:36I mentioned City of Toronto,

2:02:37Toronto Social Planning Council did this report

2:02:43a number of years ago of a scan of what is happening

2:02:47to these groups, are they all leaving City of Toronto?

2:02:50Here, perhaps to put on your work plan

2:02:53or with the consultants to figure out

2:02:55where are these groups going?

2:02:56For example, are they still downtown?

2:02:58Are they being pushed out of downtown and so on?

2:03:00And at the same time working with the City of Guelph,

2:03:03Economic James Goodrum around, we have factories.

2:03:08And I'm in ward four, we have factories,

2:03:10big huge spaces that are empty.

2:03:13So just some conversation around space

2:03:16as a charitable not-for-profit issue,

2:03:19not suggesting we take it on

2:03:20because Toronto is its own province

2:03:22and they have their own property management development thing.

2:03:26But if this is an issue, because it's part of our neighborhoods

2:03:29and part of our service delivery,

2:03:32just surprised that it was referenced there

2:03:34and suggesting that in future

2:03:36that this be carried forward with Social Planning,

2:03:41United Way, some of the other agencies around,

2:03:43what exactly is the need as we grow as a city?

2:03:46I did have one comment, if I may, through you, Madam Chair,

2:03:50big on outcomes versus outputs.

2:03:53And I just finished doing all of us,

2:03:57Ministry of Sport after school kind of providers,

2:04:00and we looked at, it's not about the number of children and youth,

2:04:04but it's about the impact to them

2:04:06and how many are feeling healthy, are eating healthy,

2:04:09are engaged in other kinds, and that is the value for me in this.

2:04:13Thank you for your work.

2:04:16Thanks for those comments.

2:04:18Marika, through you next.

2:04:20Thank you, Chair, and through you.

2:04:22Just a quick question.

2:04:24I was wondering if there's any effort

2:04:27to be amplifying the stories

2:04:30that are coming out throughout the year about the impacts.

2:04:34We tend to, so we have this moment,

2:04:37we have a budget moment, or we have an annual report,

2:04:41but there's lots of good happening throughout the whole year

2:04:44because of these grants.

2:04:46Where are we trying to either partner with

2:04:49or encourage these groups to tell the story of the impact

2:04:55more in the moment so that we are not only

2:05:00leveraging the decisions that we've made here,

2:05:02but we're also amplifying the good work

2:05:03that a lot of these organizations are doing in the moment.

2:05:08Yeah, through the Chair to the Mayor.

2:05:11That's a great question.

2:05:12I think coming to more of an outcomes focus

2:05:15will naturally help with some of the storytelling aspects

2:05:19that are coming through,

2:05:20but that is a piece that we'll be looking at as well

2:05:24is how do we do a better job with that storytelling?

2:05:27And that could be something we look at building

2:05:29into even the application process of sense of timing,

2:05:34how can we help amplify some of those,

2:05:37that work that's going on.

2:05:40Great, thank you.

2:05:41And that last part is where I was gonna go next,

2:05:43which is I hear about some of the money

2:05:46going to these groups and they're doing events.

2:05:51Is there any way that the city could partner

2:05:53to help amplify?

2:05:54Because we technically are like almost like a sponsor, right?

2:05:57So is there a way that we could help amplify

2:05:59through our own channels these events that are happening

2:06:02to help again, these groups maybe get the people

2:06:06or other resources for the things

2:06:08that they're putting on in the community?

2:06:11Yeah, so through the Chair to the Mayor,

2:06:13that's a great suggestion.

2:06:14Definitely something we can look into.

2:06:18And then my only comment just at the end,

2:06:20Chair, thank you, is I just wanted to say thank you so much

2:06:23for putting in the report the in kind resources portion.

2:06:28I know it's minor, but I think it was my first term

2:06:32that we brought forward the idea of in kind resources.

2:06:36Like sometimes people don't need the money at the moment,

2:06:40but they need some desks or they need some chairs

2:06:44or they need something of a tech or something like that.

2:06:49And from an asset management perspective

2:06:53and surplus assets that we have in our own facilities,

2:06:58where all of a sudden a nonprofit or charitable group

2:07:01can have access to those things.

2:07:03I mean, that goes a long way just as much as money

2:07:06for an event or money for other programming happens.

2:07:09Sometimes they just really need a little bit

2:07:11on the equipment side.

2:07:13And so just to see it highlighted here,

2:07:16I was very appreciative of that.

2:07:18And I wanted to take the moment just to amplify that as well

2:07:22because I often am talking to a lot of charitable groups

2:07:25and I can see that they are in need of some

2:07:29of those very things and to have it now known publicly

2:07:32in this report that that is an option

2:07:34for people to grasp is really great.

2:07:37So amongst everything else,

2:07:39I just wanted to highlight that part.

2:07:40So thank you for doing that.

2:07:43Thanks, Mayor Guthrie.

2:07:44Councillor Gibson.

2:07:46Thank you.

2:07:47Through you, Chair Caron.

2:07:48I was just wondering if we could have the presentation

2:07:50come back up.

2:07:51I think it was slide seven.

2:07:52You just, you mentioned something about

2:07:57access to city owned facilities.

2:08:01And I just wanted to unpack that a little bit

2:08:05if the presentation could come back up.

2:08:14Maybe it was seven or maybe it was six.

2:08:17I can't remember.

2:08:18You did mention getting in kind resources.

2:08:21That's where it was,

2:08:23the free access to city owned facilities.

2:08:26And I just wanted to talk about

2:08:31the genuine competitive nature of our city facilities

2:08:35and how much demand there is already for them.

2:08:38And I wanted to ask your thoughts on how to

2:08:43integrate these groups with the paying customers

2:08:47that we have now in what is a finite resource

2:08:50city facilities.

2:08:57I think we just had a conversation

2:08:59about a month and a half ago about

2:09:01surplus Sleiman center time for ICE.

2:09:03And we heard the voices from the community

2:09:07talk about how much demand there is for that ICE time.

2:09:10I just wanted to broaden that conversation a little bit.

2:09:15Yeah, so through the chair to the councillor,

2:09:18thanks for the question.

2:09:20I think it looks like you're referring to the

2:09:22city fee grant program that is being proposed.

2:09:26It is one that was, we were able to pilot

2:09:30and it looks at providing some additional resources

2:09:33to organizations that spend a substantial amount of money

2:09:38on accessing city spaces primarily,

2:09:41but other city fees potentially as well.

2:09:44So that's the program that we're looking at.

2:09:47And it would, we're looking at potentially increasing

2:09:50that size of that pot as well to support those organizations.

2:09:55Thank you.

2:09:56So maybe I'm just looking for a little bit more practical

2:10:00example of how that might take place.

2:10:04Is it gallery time?

2:10:07Is it river run center time?

2:10:09Is it performing arts?

2:10:11Is it sports, soccer fields, baseball diamonds, ice rinks?

2:10:16What, where are the fee and loo or fee for rental?

2:10:21Where is that coming from?

2:10:24Not the money.

2:10:25I understand where the money's coming from,

2:10:27but where are the facilities for those things coming from?

2:10:31And are we potentially displacing paying customers

2:10:35for this pilot project or for this project?

2:10:39Through the chair to councillor Gibson,

2:10:42certainly it's all of those things as you've described them.

2:10:45And we work closely with the culture and recreation team

2:10:49on the first iteration of the pilot of this project.

2:10:54And again, if it's funded for us to reintroduce this program,

2:11:01these users don't displace paying customers.

2:11:05They are part of the system.

2:11:06They go through the intake process

2:11:08and the culture and recreation team really manages that

2:11:11separate from the community investment team.

2:11:13The community investment team is really just the funding

2:11:15source to facilitate the access to that space.

2:11:19For groups who may not otherwise be able to access it.

2:11:22Okay, so if just to be clear, thank you for that clarification.

2:11:26So this would be the city paying the fee,

2:11:31paying the rental fee for the organization

2:11:33at the facility, correct?

2:11:35So the facility would still be collecting the revenue

2:11:38from the rentals, but it would be the city

2:11:42supplying the funds to rent the facility.

2:11:46If I could, that might be public services.

2:11:48Colleen's already prepared.

2:11:49Yes, through chair Kron.

2:11:51Yes, so, Councillor Gibson, you've articulated it correctly.

2:11:53So it isn't that we are waiving the fees

2:11:56is that the fees are being covered through this program.

2:11:58And so they are in essence still paying customers

2:12:00and the revenue that comes into our recreation

2:12:03and culture team remains whole.

2:12:05Okay, so the conflict between paying customers,

2:12:08non paying customers, it doesn't exist.

2:12:10It's really the paying customers and grant recipients.

2:12:12That's what I'm hearing.

2:12:15Through the chair, yes.

2:12:15And it's, we don't just reserve it

2:12:17for sort of surplus time.

2:12:19We work with the organizations to try to make sure

2:12:21that they're able to access our facilities,

2:12:23but in this circumstance, it's through this funding mechanism.

2:12:26Thank you.

2:12:28Any other comments or questions on this?

2:12:30Oh, Councillor.

2:12:32Sure, I've been called worse.

2:12:33It's all of it through you, chair.

2:12:35It's a company.

2:12:36I'm sorry, I have one quick question.

2:12:38I like the multi-year factor that you're embedding in this.

2:12:42So I just have, is this the right place to ask this?

2:12:45I don't know, here we go.

2:12:46There are organizations that we know

2:12:49have an event every year.

2:12:51So let's think about Rotary Ribfest, right?

2:12:55Like we know it happens pretty much every year.

2:12:58So there are costs for them to rent Riverside Park

2:13:07and have those things done every year.

2:13:11Do they fit under here, under this multi-year

2:13:14sort of program, or is there a separate type of program

2:13:18that we should be thinking about

2:13:20for these historical, all-the-time community groups

2:13:26that are always doing these types of events

2:13:29that we just always kind of help cover that off?

2:13:32Because especially I think about Rotary and Ribfest,

2:13:35like we know all the money that's raised there

2:13:38comes right back into our community anyways, right?

2:13:41So I'm just wondering how you're addressing that type of,

2:13:50how are you addressing that?

2:13:54Yeah, through the chair to the mayor.

2:13:56So the multi-year program, that is the intention,

2:14:01is to support some of this work that does happen

2:14:04fairly consistently, that there's good work happening,

2:14:07there's good confidence that it will produce results

2:14:11year after year.

2:14:13And yeah, just a quick reminder too,

2:14:15that those decisions right now are made

2:14:17through a working group of residents with expertise

2:14:20across a number of different areas.

2:14:23So they're the ones that will be looking at this to say,

2:14:25yeah, that's a good multi-year application

2:14:28for up to that three years of funding.

2:14:30Okay, so is there, just as a follow-up,

2:14:33has there been any thought for this working group

2:14:35to be given the parameters to think through a lens

2:14:39like a rotary rib fest, which could be a five year

2:14:43or seven or eight or nine or 10,

2:14:45it happens every year, or the multicultural festival,

2:14:49it happens every year.

2:14:50You know, like, so what is there,

2:14:53does the working group have the delegated authority

2:14:55to go above and beyond the three-year span,

2:14:58or are they tied to that?

2:15:03So through the chair to the mayor,

2:15:06right now the plan would be to tie them to three years

2:15:09to allow for, make sure that there's some good consistency

2:15:12in reporting and that if anything's changed

2:15:15after that three-year period,

2:15:16that's a good time to revisit that conversation.

2:15:18Okay, that's great, thank you.

2:15:20I just wanna make sure that they're captured

2:15:22and maybe on the next round of review,

2:15:25it can, for these types of events

2:15:27and programming that happens,

2:15:28it can be considered to maybe be changed,

2:15:30but three years is great.

2:15:32I mean, I think that's gonna be a big win

2:15:34for those types of groups, so thank you.

2:15:36And for real, I'm done, thank you.

2:15:38All right, thanks, Merck Guthrie.

2:15:40Any other comments or questions?

2:15:42Councillor Billings.

2:15:44Through you, Madam Chair.

2:15:47Clause one is to approve.

2:15:49Clause two, so I don't wanna talk about

2:15:52inflationary adjustments, but that implementation

2:15:55of future grant programs,

2:15:56states are subject to being added

2:15:58through the future budget updates,

2:16:00given how staff has answered some of the questions.

2:16:04So that leads me to believe that it'll just be

2:16:07for the future funding streams,

2:16:09it'll just be embedded in the budget updates.

2:16:12It won't be a separate motion required by council

2:16:15to add it to the budget,

2:16:18because it is an increase to the budget.

2:16:22Am I correct?

2:16:24Through the chair to Councillor Billings,

2:16:27anything in the multi-year budget forecast

2:16:30will be a council prioritization decision

2:16:32through the strategic plan and multi-year budgeting.

2:16:34Currently, we increase at the rate of inflation.

2:16:37We may bring you recommendations beyond that,

2:16:39depending on the need in any given year,

2:16:41but certainly we would follow the budget update process.

2:16:44These enhancements will not be automatic.

2:16:48They will not, like I understand,

2:16:49that's why I said I don't wanna talk

2:16:51about the inflationary, I understand that.

2:16:53It was the new funding streams,

2:16:55does it require a separate motion,

2:16:58like an expansion package to increase the budget?

2:17:02Just wanted to be clear on that,

2:17:03not the inflationary amount.

2:17:05Through the chair, we're not asking council

2:17:07to make any commitments today

2:17:09about any expansion of the community investment strategy

2:17:11or grant programs.

2:17:13Those will come back to you through the budget process.

2:17:15So there's nothing here today that's a commitment

2:17:18beyond our existing community grant program

2:17:21that has multi-year commitments,

2:17:23but any of the new investments to be perfectly clear

2:17:25will come back through an appropriate budget

2:17:28conversation in the future.

2:17:29Yes, and require council a separate motion

2:17:33to add it to the budget, correct?

2:17:35I need you to say that.

2:17:37Through the chair, correct.

2:17:39Okay, thank you, thank you for your help.

2:17:41That's it, Madam Chair.

2:17:43Okay, I don't see any other questions or comments.

2:17:46Just to wrap up, I echo my colleagues' statements

2:17:50about the value in the community of this work,

2:17:52and thank you to staff for bringing this forward.

2:17:55Truly takes a village, and we are both the villagers

2:17:58and the village enablers,

2:18:00so congratulations to everyone behind this report.

2:18:03So I'll call the vote to anyone against the recommendations,

2:18:07and I don't see any, which makes it unanimous.

2:18:10Thank you.

2:18:11Moving on to item number two,

2:18:13we have the procurement bylaw update,

2:18:15and we have Savan Harsh coming down to give us a presentation,

2:18:21and we have one recommendation following the presentation.

2:18:35Thank you, and it's a new face at the podium.

2:18:40So welcome, and I don't think we've seen you

2:18:42present to Council before,

2:18:43so welcome if this is your first time,

2:18:44and the floor is yours.

2:18:46Thank you so much.

2:18:48Good afternoon, Mayor Gatri and member of Council.

2:18:51My name is Savan Harsh.

2:18:53I'm the manager of procurement

2:18:54within the Finance Department.

2:18:58Today's presentation supports the staff report

2:19:01seeking approval of the updated procurement bylaw.

2:19:11The first purpose of today's presentation

2:19:14is to seek council approval

2:19:15for updated procurement bylaw

2:19:18with the bylaw coming into effect

2:19:19on September 1st, 2026.

2:19:22Second, to provide governance context

2:19:25on the city's procurement framework,

2:19:27trade agreement obligations,

2:19:29and why the city cannot apply a broad local preference.

2:19:33Third, to summarize the key update to the bylaw.

2:19:37Finally, to provide an overview of the Bio-Ontario Act,

2:19:41including new requirements for fleet

2:19:43and capital infrastructure procurements.

2:19:53The procurement bylaw is the city's core policy framework

2:19:57for how we acquire goods, services, and construction.

2:20:01It is a control framework

2:20:03for how public funds are spent.

2:20:06Council Oversights sets overall procurement policy

2:20:10through bylaw, approves budget,

2:20:13and provides a high level governance.

2:20:15Staff execution runs the procurement process end to end

2:20:19within delegated authority, manages contracts,

2:20:23and ensures compliance with legislative,

2:20:25trade, and internal requirements.

2:20:28The intent of this update is to keep the bylaw

2:20:32at the governance level

2:20:33and maintain detailed administrative procedures

2:20:36through internal policies, guidelines, and templates.

2:20:42The framework is also saved by,

2:20:47sorry, it's a wrong slide.

2:20:52The framework is also saved by legislation,

2:20:55the city's signing authority structure,

2:20:57conflict of interest requirements,

2:20:59and trade agreements such as the Canadian Free Trade Agreement,

2:21:02CFTA, and Canadian, Canada-European Union,

2:21:07Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreements, CETA.

2:21:17A common question is why the city cannot apply

2:21:20a broad local preference.

2:21:23Covered procurement under the CFTA and CETA,

2:21:26where applicable, must be conducted through fair, open,

2:21:31transparent, and non-discriminatory processes.

2:21:34A broad local preference can restrict supplier access

2:21:38based on geography and make conflict

2:21:41with trade agreement obligations.

2:21:44The city can still support local and community outcomes

2:21:47through compliant tools such as

2:21:49invitational procurements, where permitted,

2:21:52and provincial directives that apply to specific categories.

2:21:57Bio-Ontario is different from a general local preference.

2:22:02It is a provincial direction for specific procurement categories

2:22:06and requires evaluation, documentation, and prescribed methods.

2:22:18The current procurement bylaw was approved in 2018

2:22:22and is due for a review.

2:22:24Since then, procurement practices, market conditions,

2:22:28technology, internal processes, trade thresholds,

2:22:32and provincial policy direction have changed.

2:22:35Threshold branch marking has been updated

2:22:37to better reflect current market conditions

2:22:40and trade thresholds.

2:22:42Low value limit increases from $35,000 to $50,000,

2:22:47and medium value from $100,000 to $139,000,

2:22:51aligning with the current CFTA thresholds.

2:22:55The bylaw introduces additional flexibility

2:22:58for medium value procurements through open

2:23:00and invitational procurement options.

2:23:03While continuing to prohibit the splitting

2:23:06and structuring of purchases to avoid approval thresholds,

2:23:10procurement requirements, or trade obligations.

2:23:14Governance and authority clarity is improved

2:23:17by aligning procurement approvals

2:23:19with the delegation of financial signing authority

2:23:22and clarifying the separation between the council's governance,

2:23:26governance role, and staff administrative responsibilities.

2:23:31Administrative controls are strengthened

2:23:33through post-emergency procurement reporting,

2:23:36Peter communication controls

2:23:38through the designated procurement contact,

2:23:41debriefing timelines,

2:23:42and stronger documentation expectations.

2:23:45Program improvements to support supplier performance,

2:23:48sustainability, or circular economy,

2:23:51sole source validation, and exemption has been updated.

2:23:56Supplier performance provisions are now consolidated

2:23:59within the Schedule F, allowing the city

2:24:02to further develop a more structured supplier

2:24:04performance program over time.

2:24:13The Bio-Ontario Act provides the legislative framework

2:24:16for the province to issue procurement directives

2:24:19requiring a public sector entities to prioritize Ontario

2:24:24and Canadian goods and services in specified procurements.

2:24:28For municipalities, the municipal

2:24:30by Ontario procurement directive is now in effect.

2:24:35The fleet vehicle requirements apply to municipalities

2:24:38as of April 13th, 2026.

2:24:41The capital infrastructure requirements apply

2:24:44to municipalities as of May 15, 2026.

2:24:48Local boards and municipal service corporations

2:24:50are subject to the relevant requirements

2:24:52as of June 1st, 2026.

2:24:56The directive has two main categories,

2:24:59light duty passenger fleet vehicles,

2:25:01and capital infrastructure.

2:25:04This is not a blanket local preference.

2:25:07It is a category specific, and it requires

2:25:09a process design, vendor evidence, documentation,

2:25:13and records that can support compliance if reviewed later.

2:25:17Staff are treating this as a compliance priority.

2:25:21However, there is a still interpretation issues,

2:25:25particularly around how provincial requirements

2:25:28interact with the trade obligations,

2:25:30federal funding conditions,

2:25:31and different project delivery models.

2:25:35For fleet procurements,

2:25:37the requirements apply to all new purchases or leases

2:25:41of new light duty passenger fleet vehicles,

2:25:44regardless of procurement value and methods.

2:25:48The sequence is to assess made in Ontario vehicle first.

2:25:52If those are not available or operationally feasible,

2:25:55the city then assess vehicle from Ontario

2:25:58vehicle producers, only where those options

2:26:01cannot meet the operation requirements,

2:26:04would the city proceed to other vehicle options.

2:26:08Capital infrastructure procurements are more complex.

2:26:12The requirements apply to all new capital infrastructure

2:26:15procurements, regardless of value,

2:26:17including construction and related major goods

2:26:20and services identified for the procurement.

2:26:23The compliance tool is the domestic supply and chain plan.

2:26:28Beaders identify the origin and value

2:26:31of major goods and services.

2:26:33Depending on the procurement,

2:26:35staff may use an evaluated approach,

2:26:37commitment-based approach,

2:26:38and approved alternative method

2:26:40where domestic supply chain plan is not feasible.

2:26:50The key message is that implementation involves

2:26:53more than simply adding a clause

2:26:55into procurement documents.

2:26:57Capital infrastructure procurements

2:26:59require project by project assessment

2:27:01before the procurement is issued.

2:27:04Staff must determine whether the directive applies,

2:27:08which goods and services considered major,

2:27:10which evaluation or commitment approach is appropriate,

2:27:13and how the final award recommendation

2:27:16remains defensible and compliant.

2:27:19There are also budget and schedule risk.

2:27:22Evaluation outcomes may not always align

2:27:25with the lowest bid, particularly where

2:27:28domestic content requirements affect scoring

2:27:30or award decisions.

2:27:33Supplier capacity, pricing, and project timelines

2:27:36may also be affected as municipalities across the province

2:27:40and other public sector agencies

2:27:42implement the same requirements.

2:27:45There is significant administrative work associated

2:27:48with the implementation, including market research,

2:27:51update to internal documents and tools, and templates.

2:27:56Non-compliance may create oversight and funding risk,

2:28:01including provincial record requests,

2:28:03compliance reviews, and potential impact

2:28:05on grant or funding.

2:28:12Internal implementation guidelines has been prepared

2:28:15to support fleet and capital infrastructure procurements.

2:28:19Templates and tools are being updated,

2:28:22including solicitation language, vendor declarations,

2:28:25domestic supply chain plan templates,

2:28:27evaluation tools, approval records,

2:28:30and reporting documentation.

2:28:32For ongoing updates, staff will continue

2:28:34monitoring provincial guidance and municipal best practices

2:28:38as interpretation and implementation

2:28:40evolves across the sector.

2:28:43In summary, the proposed procurement bylaw

2:28:46modernizes city's procurement framework

2:28:48while maintaining accountability, transparency,

2:28:51fairness, and value for money.

2:28:54The update improves operational flexibility,

2:28:57aligns the framework with the current trade thresholds

2:29:00and provincial direction, and strengthens

2:29:02the administrative and governance controls.

2:29:05Bio-anterior implementation is a significant

2:29:08and evolving compliance requirement,

2:29:11and staff will continue refining internal guidelines,

2:29:14templates, and practices.

2:29:16That concludes the presentation,

2:29:17and we are happy to take any questions.

2:29:21Okay, thank you.

2:29:22Great presentation, very thorough.

2:29:25Any questions or comments?

2:29:26Councillor Goller, Councillor Ciarce.

2:29:28Happy to move the boarder.

2:29:30Okay, do we have a seconder?

2:29:31Councillor Halt.

2:29:32Thank you, Chair Caron.

2:29:34Thank you so much for the presentation.

2:29:36I'm very excited to see the Bio-anterior Act

2:29:39being implemented here.

2:29:41There is the question of the shortages.

2:29:43Could you help me understand how,

2:29:46what is that threshold?

2:29:47At what point do we say this project

2:29:49is going to be delayed because there's a shortage,

2:29:51or we're actually going to go and procure the vehicles

2:29:55or the construction equipment from outside of Ontario?

2:29:58How do we balance that?

2:30:04Through the Chair and Councillor,

2:30:07for Bio-anterior Act vehicle requirement,

2:30:10there is no particular threshold.

2:30:11It applies to all irrespective of procurement type

2:30:15and procurement value.

2:30:18That award decision is based on the two steps.

2:30:22First is assessing based on the market research

2:30:25that any Ontario-made vehicle is available or not,

2:30:31or if it is operationally feasible based on the requirement.

2:30:36If it is not operationally feasible or not available,

2:30:39then assessing that Ontario producers.

2:30:41So there is a particular definition

2:30:43that which company would be falls under that Ontario producers.

2:30:49So if there is only Ontario producer vehicle available,

2:30:53then the second priority would be that.

2:30:56And if that is not operationally feasible or not available,

2:30:59and then only there will be alternative options.

2:31:04Okay, so we have to satisfy that we've checked

2:31:07to see if there is availability locally

2:31:09for Ontario-made vehicles and Ontario-made materials.

2:31:13And if they're not currently available,

2:31:15we don't actually have to wait on the projects

2:31:17or wait on the purchases.

2:31:19At that point, we can actually go outside.

2:31:21Is that correct?

2:31:23Through the Chair, that is correct for the fleet vehicles,

2:31:26but for a specifically capital infrastructure,

2:31:29it is way more complex.

2:31:30It depends on the domestic supply chain plan

2:31:34submitted by the beader.

2:31:35And there are particularly different methods

2:31:39for the evaluation, whether it will be

2:31:42the commitment-based approach or evaluated approach.

2:31:45So based on the proven cell directions

2:31:49and evaluation method,

2:31:50there will be different decision factors.

2:31:53Okay, thank you for this.

2:31:55And through you Chair, one final question.

2:31:57Sinas, this is a new system that we have.

2:31:59Are we going to be working with other municipalities

2:32:01so that we're all having the same systems

2:32:04and the same tracking of the information

2:32:07about where things are available

2:32:09and how we are ensuring that we're actually

2:32:12procuring locally?

2:32:17Through the Chair, we are closely connected

2:32:19with other municipalities,

2:32:21and we are closely monitoring other cities

2:32:24and municipalities approaches,

2:32:26as well as we are reviewing internally,

2:32:30developing the guidelines.

2:32:32As specifically, I would like to note

2:32:34that these requirements are evolving

2:32:37and interpretation and that implementations

2:32:39are still evolving into the across all the sector.

2:32:43And other municipalities and cities,

2:32:45they may have a different approach

2:32:46based on their internal bylaws and internal policies.

2:32:51We are closely monitoring and trying to implement

2:32:55as much as compliant with the proven cell violence.

2:33:00Councillor Klassen and then Councillor Allt.

2:33:05Yes, thank you through you Chair Caron.

2:33:08I have two questions.

2:33:09So I know that the report outlines

2:33:13that there are not any direct budgetary impacts,

2:33:17but it does outline that there are financial risks

2:33:20associated with this.

2:33:23So my question are, do we have any projects

2:33:25that are at risk at the moment

2:33:27and then that we have seen so far?

2:33:32And do we have an idea of the size of the impact

2:33:35for future budgets?

2:33:37Or is this at the moment, we just are unsure?

2:33:42Through the chair, Councillor, currently that impact

2:33:46is unknown.

2:33:47We don't have a particular data,

2:33:49like how much it going to be affected.

2:33:51There is identifies is based on that

2:33:54domestic supply chain plan requirement.

2:33:57And it may affect to that supply chain,

2:34:01available supply chain within the Ontario

2:34:03as across the all sectors and other municipalities

2:34:06implementing the same requirement.

2:34:09So that would affect the supply chain

2:34:11and pricing and availability of the materials.

2:34:15Others can jump in regarding the budget impact

2:34:19of the projects.

2:34:20We haven't identified any particular project

2:34:23as these requirements are pretty fresh

2:34:27and like implemented effective from May 15th

2:34:31and we are still working on the developing

2:34:33internal guidelines.

2:34:35And regarding the budget impact,

2:34:38it's still, it's not identified

2:34:42like how much it will be impacted.

2:34:47Thank you.

2:34:48One more.

2:34:52Just thinking about this, will there be an opportunity

2:34:55for council to hear more about the impacts

2:34:57if any moving forward?

2:35:03Through the chair, I'll take that question.

2:35:05So absolutely.

2:35:06And I think Savins articulated the kind of very context

2:35:10specific in case by case nature of this legislation.

2:35:13And so as we go through procurements

2:35:16that the legislation applies to,

2:35:19we will be identifying whether there are,

2:35:21we're seeing pressures on those budgets

2:35:23and if there's a need to adjust those budgets,

2:35:25you'd see those come back to you

2:35:26through quarterly budget monitoring reports

2:35:29with explanation related to the Bi-Ontario Act

2:35:33as being the driver of some of those adjustments

2:35:36and through the budget monitor

2:35:37or the budget process itself rather.

2:35:42Thank you.

2:35:43And thank you for all of the work that you've done on this.

2:35:45We'll keep an eye out.

2:35:47Great, great questions.

2:35:48Councillor Allt.

2:35:49Just a comment and thank you very much, Chair Caron.

2:35:52Thank you to both Mr. Harsh and to the finance staff

2:35:56for what I consider to be a very concise report

2:35:58that allied all my fears.

2:36:01I had questions written down

2:36:02and they disappeared as I listened to you.

2:36:04Thank you.

2:36:06Thanks for those comments.

2:36:07Councillor Busuttil.

2:36:09Yes, thank you.

2:36:10Through you Madam Chair, I drunk my memory.

2:36:13I believe municipalities do not follow

2:36:15under the broader public sector accountability act.

2:36:18Is that correct?

2:36:22Yes, through the chair, yes, that is correct.

2:36:25Thank you.

2:36:26And so I have a quick question about in the report,

2:36:31it speaks to on page three

2:36:33about the internal approval process for procurement.

2:36:37And you've got circular economy, sole source,

2:36:40a whole bunch of other criteria that you're looking at.

2:36:42So my question is, and it goes to your,

2:36:46the bylaw that's attached on page 13,

2:36:49it's 2.3 point G as in girl and 0.5 circular economy

2:36:55and environmentally responsible goods and services.

2:36:58So my experience with procurement is sometimes

2:37:02it's values laden of what our priority is.

2:37:05And so is in reading this, am I correct on

2:37:09in one particular situation,

2:37:12the priority might be price, circular economy,

2:37:15like does it fluctuate based on the project

2:37:19or is there a framework for decision making

2:37:22that's consistent that so it's about values, I guess.

2:37:28Through the chair, Councillor, thank you for the question.

2:37:32Regarding the circular economy

2:37:33and environmentally sustainability criteria,

2:37:36it depends on type of the project,

2:37:39type of the procurement method that is being used,

2:37:42whether it is a tender or a request for proposal.

2:37:47This update and that language under the procurement bylaw

2:37:51that enables the opportunity for sustainability criteria

2:37:55to incorporate into specification

2:37:58for particular procurement that can be evaluated

2:38:01if it is a type of procurement is a request for proposal

2:38:04where sustainability criteria can be evaluated

2:38:09based on assigned rated percentage

2:38:14that enables to promote sustainability materials.

2:38:18But it depends on the type of procurement,

2:38:20particular thresholds and which particular thresholds

2:38:25of legislation or trade agreements

2:38:27applies to that procurement.

2:38:30Thank you.

2:38:31So when I think about this,

2:38:32these are the basket of our values

2:38:34and dependent on the procurement and what the item is,

2:38:37it may change on kind of the order and the evaluation.

2:38:42Thank you.

2:38:42I also had some questions about risk,

2:38:44but I'll wait for future reports.

2:38:46Thank you very much for all the work on this.

2:38:49Any additional questions or comments?

2:38:51Mayor Guthrie.

2:38:52Thank you, Chair, and through you,

2:38:53can I just pull on the thread a little bit

2:38:56about what you mean by qualified suppliers?

2:38:59And I think my mind is going back to a few years ago,

2:39:03sort of like there was other cities

2:39:06that were wanting to,

2:39:08they had people wanting to bid on different types of services,

2:39:13but they weren't allowed to.

2:39:15So, and some of it was like union based issues

2:39:19and things like that.

2:39:20So are those similar restrictions

2:39:24that we have here as well?

2:39:28Union versus non-union?

2:39:33Through the chair, Mayor,

2:39:37like regarding the qualified suppliers,

2:39:40if that is in procurement process,

2:39:42if we have selected or gone through

2:39:45that supplier pre-qualification process

2:39:48and we have qualified particular group of suppliers

2:39:51for future projects or construction,

2:39:53then subsequent tender or subsequent procurement

2:39:57would be subject to that qualified list of

2:40:01bidders or available suppliers.

2:40:05Okay, so when a project or service

2:40:09becomes available, it gets posted, right?

2:40:11It gets posted on our systems.

2:40:14Only qualified people are able to bid on that.

2:40:19It's not quite open to sort of like for,

2:40:23it's not like a free for all for anybody to be able to bid.

2:40:27Through the chair, it is correct in cases

2:40:30of where we have pre-qualified the suppliers

2:40:34through the pre-qualification process.

2:40:36If it is not pre-qualified

2:40:37or haven't done the pre-qualification process,

2:40:40then it will be posted through that open competitive process

2:40:44subject to that particular thresholds

2:40:47applicable to that procurement.

2:40:50Okay, thank you.

2:40:51And then my next question is,

2:40:55and it's one that I think I just want to ask

2:40:57to just get it out in the public

2:40:59because I think many of us get asked this a lot,

2:41:02which is there's by Canada or on this case,

2:41:06by Ontario, and then it falls to the by local.

2:41:11And sometimes we hear from people that have bid

2:41:17and they are unsuccessful.

2:41:18And they are our local businesses or local trades

2:41:24or they are in Guelph.

2:41:27And yeah, they're not successful

2:41:29for the reasons that are laid out.

2:41:32Can you just tell everybody about how,

2:41:37I think under the municipal act,

2:41:39under these new legislations that we still have to,

2:41:44you know, have in certain criteria,

2:41:46we have to go with the lowest bid,

2:41:49but also with certain criteria attached to it

2:41:52that doesn't, it can't force us to go local,

2:41:55even though we may all want to.

2:41:58I just think it's really important

2:41:59that that gets clarified in the public session here

2:42:03because often we sometimes hear later on,

2:42:06oh, I bid on that or I don't know why I didn't get that.

2:42:09You know, and it, I don't know if anyone recalls,

2:42:12I think this kind of reared its ugly head

2:42:13if I recall corporate history on my, on me now,

2:42:17but I think it was like either an electrician

2:42:20or like a moving company for the old museum.

2:42:23And you know, they, a local electrician

2:42:28or a local moving company didn't, didn't get it

2:42:31and like a Kitchener company got it.

2:42:33And it was like so close like on the, on the amounts

2:42:36and there was a big thing in the paper about it.

2:42:39And everyone's like, oh, why don't,

2:42:40why can't we just support the company

2:42:42that's right here in Guelph,

2:42:43the jobs that are right here in Guelph.

2:42:45So could you explain that in reference

2:42:47to what's in front of us today

2:42:48on how decisions are made in regards to that moving forward?

2:42:53Through the chair, Mayor, thank you for the question.

2:42:56And this is the common questions in the procurement,

2:43:00why we cannot apply this procurement requirements

2:43:04and buy local.

2:43:06It is not this, that straightforward, it seems.

2:43:10It depends on the type of the procurement.

2:43:12Also the legislation requirement

2:43:15and that which trade agreement it falls under too.

2:43:19There are particular thresholds under CFT and CETA

2:43:23trade agreements that require that open competitive process.

2:43:28Also public procurement runs based on that core

2:43:33principles of open, fair and transparent

2:43:37and applying local preference without particular tools

2:43:42like it violates that fairness principles.

2:43:48Still, there are like city can still support

2:43:52the local community outcomes through compliant tools

2:43:55if it is applicable like invitational procurement,

2:44:01maintaining that open fairness

2:44:02and transparency principles of procurement.

2:44:07But as I mentioned that it will be depends

2:44:10on that particular thresholds of CFT and trade agreements

2:44:13which require open competitive processes.

2:44:16And one more thing that I would like to mention

2:44:18about any unsuccessful bidders or suppliers,

2:44:22then they can request the debriefing to procurement team.

2:44:26We have particular process in place

2:44:28where they can request for debriefing

2:44:30and we can provide them for that explanation

2:44:33that is our transparency to provide them

2:44:36how we have conducted procurement

2:44:38and our decisions are based on the transparency

2:44:40and open and fairness principles.

2:44:43Madam Chair, through you,

2:44:45thank you so much for explaining that.

2:44:47I think it was really important to sort of state it out loud

2:44:49that those values of fairness, transparency open

2:44:55like through this process is what makes it ultimately fair

2:45:00with the decision at the end of the day.

2:45:01So thank you very much for letting us explore that a little

2:45:04bit to get it out in the open.

2:45:05Thank you.

2:45:07I think that was really valuable and open

2:45:09because we do hear that as counselors.

2:45:11So thank you for raising that.

2:45:13Are there any comments or questions before we call the vote?

2:45:16We've got a recommendation before us,

2:45:18moved and seconded, anyone against?

2:45:22I'm seeing none.

2:45:23So that is unanimous.

2:45:24Thanks again for your presentation

2:45:26and for the good work being done on behalf

2:45:28of the city of Guelph.

2:45:30Our third item on the agenda this afternoon

2:45:33is something that was pulled from the information items

2:45:36by Councillor Richardson.

2:45:37And I wanna thank Councillor Richardson

2:45:39for bringing this forward as the daughter

2:45:41of an active duty servicemen in the armed forces

2:45:44and then later a reservist.

2:45:45I think this is a great discussion to have.

2:45:48So the floor is yours, Councillor Richardson.

2:45:52Thank you.

2:45:52I'm happy to speak to this and through you, Chair Caron,

2:45:54I'm incredibly proud to share that the city of Guelph

2:45:57has been approved to join the glowing hearts

2:46:00reservist employee recognition program.

2:46:03It's a federal government initiative

2:46:05and it's delivered in partnership

2:46:07with the Canadian forces liaison

2:46:08and recognizes organizations that support

2:46:12Canadian Armed Forces reservists through flexible policies

2:46:15such as military leave and accommodations

2:46:17for training and development.

2:46:20The glowing hearts program recognizes employers

2:46:22that support Canadian Armed Forces

2:46:23and military leave with policies

2:46:25and provide reserve force employees with flexibility

2:46:28to continue serving their community in Canada.

2:46:31And I think I do have another motion to add.

2:46:35Dylan can put that up,

2:46:36if the clerks could put that up.

2:46:37I think right now,

2:46:40Canada has never been in a situation

2:46:42where we've not been able to rely on our allies,

2:46:45the way we have in the past.

2:46:47And I've been on D lately in D lately

2:46:50because I'm retiring looking for some part-time work

2:46:52and I have never seen more recruitment being done

2:46:56by our Canadian military than I'm seeing on Indeed right now.

2:47:00So I think it's incredibly important

2:47:02that we equal one step further

2:47:04and support our reservists as we need them to take leave.

2:47:10So I am putting a motion on that staff be directed

2:47:12to report back to council on policy change proposals

2:47:16and financial implications associated

2:47:18with the city's military leave policy

2:47:20that would support reservists leave top up

2:47:22and continuation of benefits.

2:47:24That would also be similar

2:47:26to a pregnancy and parental leave top up.

2:47:29So it would vary depending on what the salary was,

2:47:32what we chose, or the next future council chose

2:47:34to what percentage that would be.

2:47:37So I would be looking for a seconder for that.

2:47:40It's like you have lots of seconders on that.

2:47:43Take your pick.

2:47:45Great, thanks for bringing that forward.

2:47:46Any comments or questions on this motion?

2:47:51Caster Busetel.

2:47:53Yes, thank you.

2:47:54And thank you to the mover for this.

2:47:55And the pregnancy leave is what came to mind.

2:47:58And I can't remember if it's one

2:47:59of the automatic categories on top up categories.

2:48:05Obviously it may have already been done

2:48:06by other municipalities and so on the top up

2:48:09for that category.

2:48:11I can't remember the act around that section.

2:48:14Are you aware?

2:48:15I'm gonna refer to staff,

2:48:16but I don't think there's an automatic top up

2:48:18for reservists that I'm aware of.

2:48:23Through you, Chair Caron.

2:48:24Do Councillor Busetel know currently

2:48:25for military reserve leave,

2:48:27there is no top up that the city provides.

2:48:29This direction should council approve it.

2:48:32Would trigger us to staff to go back

2:48:35and evaluate some of those options

2:48:36and report back to council accordingly.

2:48:39Thank you.

2:48:40Thanks.

2:48:41Any other questions?

2:48:41Okay, I don't see any.

2:48:43I will call the vote.

2:48:44Anyone against this recommendation?

2:48:47I don't see any.

2:48:48So that is unanimous as well.

2:48:50And actually just for clarification on this matter

2:48:53and the previous matter on the procurement bylaw,

2:48:57we've lost a member of council who was not on screen.

2:49:00Councillor Gibson, are you there?

2:49:01Could you audio your vote for this item

2:49:06or the previous item and or the previous item?

2:49:09Through you, Madam Chair,

2:49:11I just wanna confirm Councillor Gibson

2:49:12is not in the meeting currently.

2:49:13Not in the meeting.

2:49:14Okay, so the previous item as well.

2:49:15Thanks very much.

2:49:17Okay, this concludes this portion of the agenda.

2:49:21I don't have any announcements

2:49:22from our corporate services DCAO,

2:49:26but as your corporate services chair,

2:49:28I do have an announcement

2:49:29because corporate property does fall under corporate services

2:49:33and one of the pieces of corporate property

2:49:35that we will be using tomorrow

2:49:36is our flagpole in front of City Hall.

2:49:38And I'd like to ask the community to join us

2:49:41for our pride flag raising

2:49:42as we celebrate diversity and welcoming

2:49:45and inclusion in our city.

2:49:47I think we, you know, it's a time to,

2:49:50sorry, Thursday, June the 4th at 12 noon

2:49:54in front of City Hall,

2:49:55let's come together to honor our local LGBTQ plus community.

2:50:03Let's raise the rainbow high in the City of Guelph.

2:50:06Everyone is welcome to this uplifting event.

2:50:08I think it's important that we show our community support

2:50:11and celebrate the vibrant spirit of our community.

2:50:13And this is an event that is open to the public

2:50:17and we're a great workplace

2:50:19and a great community to celebrate that inclusivity.

2:50:24So we'll see you there.

2:50:26I'll turn the chair over to Councillor Klossin now.

2:50:48Good afternoon.

2:50:49I'm just hopping on to say that we are going

2:50:51to take a five minute break

2:50:53and we'll be back at about 340 p.m.

2:50:58Seven, sorry.

2:59:31Good afternoon.

2:59:32The time is 340 and we are going to begin the items

2:59:38under the infrastructure development

2:59:40and environment service area.

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

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

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

2:59:56as presentations from members

2:59:58of our Heritage Advisory Committee.

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

3:00:04we have staff recommendations.

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

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

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

3:00:13is go to staff presentations

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

3:00:20and have a discussion

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

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

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

3:00:33stepping up to the podium.

3:00:36Welcome, Kyle.

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

3:00:44members of council.

3:00:46My name is Kyle Gibson.

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

3:00:49of engineering and transportation services.

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

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

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

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

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

3:01:05for multiple generations.

3:01:07Engineering staff have made the decision

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

3:01:12following a routine structural condition assessment

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

3:01:18to support public use.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:02:00and Victoria Road EA.

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

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

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

3:02:09findings and results.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:02:44The study areas were located entirely

3:02:46within the Grand River watershed

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

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

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

3:02:57until Stone Road East was realigned

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

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

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

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

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

3:03:19sought to address the problem

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

3:03:23to carry increasing vehicle traffic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:03:52for recreational use,

3:03:55providing an important link

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

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

3:04:02and educational institutions.

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

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

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

3:04:13and Stone Road East

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

3:04:18The preliminary results of that EA

3:04:19have been taken into consideration

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

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

3:04:30concrete boasting arched truss bridge

3:04:33and is both an early example

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

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

3:04:40to corrosion from weather

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

3:04:45Structural maintenance has generally been limited

3:04:48to wingwall repairs in 1992,

3:04:51vertical member repairs in 1995

3:04:53and regular structural inspections.

3:04:56A detailed condition assessment was undertaken

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

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

3:05:06as paw condition

3:05:08and the photos on this slide

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

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

3:05:14and bearing plates

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

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

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

3:05:27A problem statement was developed

3:05:29to identify the challenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:05:47and non-motorized transportation

3:05:49and that minimizes environmental, cultural

3:05:51and social impacts while maintaining

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

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

3:06:00to the extent possible.

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

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

3:06:12In proximity to the study area

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

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

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

3:06:24There are several existing trail connections

3:06:25within the study area

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

3:06:30The existing hiking trails shown

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

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

3:06:38and maintained trail system.

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

3:06:45The north-south hiking trail

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:07:02The two hiking trails are included

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

3:07:05The Guelph Trail Master Plan recognises

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

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

3:07:14The Guelph Innovation District Secondary Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:07:41This desired connection was discussed

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

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

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

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

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

3:07:59the Oramosa Springs Creek

3:08:00provincially significant wetland complex,

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

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

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

3:08:12are the primary ecological linkages

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

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

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

3:08:24The abutments of the existing bridge

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

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

3:08:31and also affects fluvial processes

3:08:34including sediment transport and erosion.

3:08:38The hydraulic performance of the site

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

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

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

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

3:08:54Thank you, Kate.

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

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

3:09:02of the Ontario Heritage Act.

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

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

3:09:09by including it as an attribute

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

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

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

3:09:24The bridge and the surrounding landscape

3:09:26is considered a significant heritage resource

3:09:29in the city of Guelph.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:09:53of a concrete bowstring truss form

3:09:55within the city of Guelph

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

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

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

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

3:10:08and reviewed by heritage planning staff

3:10:10and the Heritage Advisory Committee.

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

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

3:10:19abides by conservation best practice

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

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

3:10:28The conservation plan will be reviewed

3:10:30by heritage planning staff

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

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

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

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

3:10:48and approval by the general manager

3:10:49of planning and building.

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

3:10:55an application to demolish the bridge

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

3:11:01for review by staff and consultation

3:11:03with the Heritage Advisory Committee.

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

3:11:09of the Ontario Heritage Act,

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

3:11:13the Heritage Advisory Committee

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

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

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

3:11:24and amend the Ontario Reformatory

3:11:26Heritage Conservation District bylaw.

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

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

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

3:11:47an environmental assessment is required

3:11:49under provincial regulations

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

3:11:54We have followed the municipal class

3:11:56environmental assessment process

3:11:57for Schedule B bridge projects.

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

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

3:12:05both quickly and carefully.

3:12:07Phase one began with the development

3:12:09of the problem opportunity statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:12:38after which the environmental assessment

3:12:40will be considered complete

3:12:42and the project can move forward

3:12:44to the implementation phase.

3:12:49Extensive internal and external consultations

3:12:52have taken place to determine

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

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

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

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

3:13:04the Guelph Outdoor School

3:13:06and the Guelph Historical Society.

3:13:08Through the public engagement activities,

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

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

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

3:13:20across the river.

3:13:22The project team established consultation opportunities

3:13:25with First Nations partners in accordance

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

3:13:29environmental assessment, all city policies

3:13:32and best practices and direction

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

3:13:37Conservation and Parks.

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

3:13:43offering meetings to discuss the project

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

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

3:13:52No significant technical concerns

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

3:13:57Further engagement and coordination

3:13:59with First Nations will be undertaken

3:14:01throughout the detailed design work.

3:14:04The project team received feedback

3:14:06on the EA preliminary findings

3:14:08from the Heritage Advisory Committee

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

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

3:14:17and from review agencies,

3:14:18including the Grand River Conservation Authority

3:14:21and relevant Ontario government ministries.

3:14:29So six alternative solutions were identified

3:14:31from McQuillan's Bridge,

3:14:32and these were presented for feedback

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

3:14:37Alternatives which would not meet

3:14:39modern safety and durability requirements

3:14:41were not considered.

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

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

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

3:14:51would continue to age in place

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

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

3:15:00Alternative two, rehabilitate and strengthen

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

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

3:15:07that have low concrete cover

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

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

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

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

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

3:15:25Alternative three encompasses rehabilitating

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

3:15:31with a new steel bridge

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

3:15:35Under this alternative,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:16:21to provide the river crossing

3:16:22for people walking and cycling.

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

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

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

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

3:16:37environmental assessment for improvements

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

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

3:16:46have been taken into consideration

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

3:16:50for McQuillan's Bridge.

3:17:01So the alternative solutions were compared

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

3:17:06and technical criteria.

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

3:17:12No category was prioritized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:17:36The alternatives vary in lifespan

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

3:17:40in the financial evaluation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:17:59than any other alternative solution

3:18:02and would maintain trail connectivity.

3:18:04Alternative two has limited opportunities

3:18:06for natural environment improvements

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

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

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

3:18:19The second highest ranked alternative solution

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

3:18:26with a prefabricated steel truss.

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

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

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

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

3:18:38of the heritage structure.

3:18:41Alternative three, rehabilitate arches,

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

3:18:48Although it would protect the appearance

3:18:49of the main heritage attributes,

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

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

3:18:57and higher technical complexity.

3:19:00Alternative five, remove and replace

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

3:19:07Although the wider span

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

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

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

3:19:18of the heritage structure.

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

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

3:19:26This alternative presents an opportunity

3:19:29for naturalization of the area

3:19:30and would increase hydraulic capacity.

3:19:33However, alternative six would result

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

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

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

3:19:48So based on that evaluation,

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

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

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

3:19:59for detailed design and construction

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

3:20:04A feasibility study will be required

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

3:20:09to determine future options.

3:20:11Maintenance of the rehabilitated structure

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

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

3:20:19routine inspections and periodic concrete repairs

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

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

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

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

3:20:36The preferred alternative solution

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

3:20:40throughout design and construction.

3:20:42Rehabilitation requires complex design analysis

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

3:20:48to bridge stability during construction.

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

3:20:54to successful rehabilitation.

3:20:56Design engineers and contractors

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:21:19and the scope of rehabilitation work

3:21:21would need to be reassessed.

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

3:21:26for the existing structure

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

3:21:29until construction starts.

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

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

3:21:39If the preferred alternative solution

3:21:41becomes unviable for any reason,

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

3:21:46preferred alternatives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:22:15to finalize the project file report

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

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

3:22:24known as the MECP.

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

3:22:30following the findings

3:22:31during which the public may comment

3:22:33on the recommended solution.

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

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

3:22:41with detailed design work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:23:13and our consultant environmental planner,

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

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

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

3:23:26of our Heritage Advisory Committee,

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

3:23:33Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:24:12I'm David Camilletti.

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

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

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

3:24:24looking at the actual details.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:24:51in this type of situation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:25:16there are these types of bridges

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

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

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

3:25:29It was built in 1875.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:25:55was engaged in a rehabilitation project

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

3:26:00But rather than replace it,

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:26:26Our neighboring city, Kitchener,

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

3:26:30That was built in 1926

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:26:58Now the cost for that,

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

3:27:05is approximately five million.

3:27:07Brantford, another neighboring city,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:27:51is not unique.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:28:20Yeah, thank you.

3:28:21Can everyone hear me okay?

3:28:24Yes.

3:28:26Thank you.

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

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

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

3:28:34from project manager Kate Berry.

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

3:28:38in support of alternative two,

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

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

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

3:28:47to the rehabilitation and strengthening

3:28:49of the existing structure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:29:05is being so rapidly denigrated.

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

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

3:29:12be cast aside?

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

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

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

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

3:29:22Conservation District.

3:29:25The HCD plan made special allowance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:30:03that should demolition be proposed,

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

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

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

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

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

3:30:14into retirement.

3:30:16Bridges must be maintained.

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

3:30:19that infrastructure degrades,

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

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

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

3:30:26and by the road.

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

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

3:30:32to mutually reinforce one another.

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

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

3:30:38in support of the rehabilitation

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

3:30:42Thank you.

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

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

3:30:52of the advisory committee?

3:30:57I am not seeing any.

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

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

3:31:07Councillor Kerran has agreed to

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

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

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

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

3:31:19Mayor Guthrie, Councillor Allt,

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

3:31:25Councillor Caton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:31:52versus about $1.2 million

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

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

3:32:06to cross over that area.

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

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

3:32:18of those two options.

3:32:19Okay, thank you.

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

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

3:32:32I have a number of questions

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

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

3:32:41would not support public use

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

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

3:32:50who does have tremendous experience

3:32:52in concrete and bridges

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

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

3:33:01for automobiles but for pedestrians

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

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

3:33:10And not being an engineer,

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

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

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

3:33:23structural inspections of our assets

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

3:33:27we've been doing those

3:33:28through a third party structural engineer

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

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

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

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

3:33:39to help us inform the decisions

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

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

3:33:46And thank you very much

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

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

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

3:33:57made reference to the superstructure

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

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

3:34:05could comment upon that.

3:34:15Through the Chair to Clerks,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:34:35Thank you.

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

3:34:38Ms. Berry made reference

3:34:40to Schedule C Environmental Assessment

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

3:34:44who are concerned about that,

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

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

3:34:57Through the Chair to you,

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

3:35:02Schedule C

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

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

3:35:11So if you recall,

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

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

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

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

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

3:35:26In a Schedule C,

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

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

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

3:35:39and do further evaluation and engagement

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

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

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

3:35:53So the parallel Schedule CEA

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

3:35:58is following that process.

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

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

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

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

3:36:12Reference was made to the difference

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

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

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

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

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

3:36:32that we must have?

3:36:39Through you, Madam Chair.

3:36:43So we have these cost estimates

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

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

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

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

3:37:00and the cost estimate would evolve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:37:28What does that actually mean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:38:17and their applicability elsewhere,

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

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

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

3:38:36were removed from the bridge,

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

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

3:38:45of the part five bylaw,

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

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

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

3:38:56how extensive is that?

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

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

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

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

3:39:11Thank you.

3:39:12Now the application to demolish contains

3:39:15within a review and a consultation

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

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

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

3:39:24Do we have an understanding

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

3:39:30for something like that?

3:39:35If council directed staff to initiate

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

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

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

3:39:53During the lame duck period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:40:29Under the Ontario Heritage Act,

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

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

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

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

3:40:46on the optics of that,

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

3:40:52No comment, respectfully.

3:40:53Thank you.

3:40:57Moving forward.

3:40:59Excuse me, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

3:41:09Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:41:50is relatively sound.

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

3:41:56are in relatively good condition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:42:50for cultural heritage.

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

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

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

3:43:01which is the designated property

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

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

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

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

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

3:43:23with the detailed evaluation matrix

3:43:25because there are several subcriteria

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

3:43:32So there are three components.

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

3:43:37to cultural heritage landscapes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:44:18that there would be impact.

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

3:44:23if you like.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:44:44The other thing about option two

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

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

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

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

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

3:45:00it is a pedestrian bridge,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:45:21Right, including resurfacing.

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

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

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

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

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

3:45:39there was an EA required,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:46:05between the two bridges.

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

3:46:10would have been 6.38 million?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:46:55so similar.

3:46:57Those are all my questions.

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

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

3:47:05Any other questions?

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

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

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

3:47:12Okay, thank you.

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

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

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

3:47:27of demolition by neglect,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:47:57So currently we are continuing with

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

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

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

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

3:48:20Some years may require more,

3:48:21some years may require less,

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

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

3:48:30working with our operations team

3:48:32has created a service level agreement

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

3:48:38via those Housum inspections

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

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

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

3:48:52Thank you.

3:48:55Councillor Katelyn, please.

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

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

3:49:03to whomever knows the answer,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:49:25Through you, Madam Chair,

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

3:49:29from Councillor Clarana, what happens

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:49:48as further rehabilitation needed,

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

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

3:49:59for when that should happen.

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

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

3:50:10does the cost for the replacement

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

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

3:50:18feedback engagement required,

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

3:50:25Through you, Madam Chair,

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:50:45Oh, sorry.

3:50:46So within the replacement,

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

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

3:50:54contact heritage, planning,

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

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

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

3:51:04and other things like that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:51:27and future maintenance and replacement

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

3:51:36Great, thank you.

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

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

3:51:44would be disrupted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:52:07Councillor Caden, is accurate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:52:35to regain access for pedestrians?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:53:14not knowing those things.

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

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

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

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

3:53:27Okay.

3:53:29And through the chair,

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

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

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

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

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

3:53:55that might be another takeaway.

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

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

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

3:54:06If I can remember correctly,

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

3:54:13It was a pedestrian bridge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:54:42I can take that back.

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

3:54:46Thank you very much.

3:54:49Thank you, Councillor Caden.

3:54:50Councillor Goller, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:55:10was $5.1 million.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:55:41And it includes 20% contingency

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

3:55:48and inspection fees.

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

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

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

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

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

3:56:09Okay.

3:56:10Yeah.

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

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

3:56:14it talks about risk management and it says,

3:56:17preferred alternative number two,

3:56:20second preferred, it's alternative four

3:56:23to remove and replace with the steel bridge for 1.2 million.

3:56:27What is the threshold that it becomes unviable

3:56:31for any reason?

3:56:33Is it that it hits $3.5 million, $4 million?

3:56:36What is that threshold that you go from the preferred

3:56:39alternative that we're approving

3:56:40to the second preferred alternative?

3:56:45Through you, Madam chair,

3:56:46I think the threshold would not,

3:56:51it could be financial, but it could be purely technical

3:56:55and that we find issues through further investigation,

3:57:00through the detailed engineering modeling

3:57:03that would be needed that identify that for some reason,

3:57:08it is no longer feasible to rehabilitate.

3:57:12So we are keeping that scenario in mind

3:57:16in terms of those comments in the report.

3:57:21Okay, so we don't actually have like a firm threshold.

3:57:23So it could be that we're approving $2.9 million

3:57:26for alternative two today and it ends up getting built

3:57:28for six or $8 million and that would still be okay

3:57:32and their alternative two.

3:57:34Through the chair to councillor Goller.

3:57:38As many of you know,

3:57:39we have very robust project management office tools.

3:57:43So if through detailed design,

3:57:45all of a sudden this project staff found

3:57:48that this project was significantly,

3:57:51the proposal was significantly over the cost estimate.

3:57:55At that time we would take further actions

3:57:57which would most likely include coming back to council.

3:58:04If I could add there through the chair,

3:58:06I do think councillor Goller,

3:58:07the uncertainty aspect that you're getting at here

3:58:10also applies to all of the alternatives.

3:58:11And so it's a fair question and line of thinking

3:58:14and we've seen that on some projects in years gone by,

3:58:18maybe an estimate was made,

3:58:19but also we can't control sort of external factors either.

3:58:23So the cost to design and construct a material bridge

3:58:26went up over time as the prices of steel went up

3:58:29or as other things occurred sort of outside

3:58:31of staff's control.

3:58:32Those things would always be monitored,

3:58:34they'd always be brought back to council through budget.

3:58:37And so you'd see those updated estimates,

3:58:38but if additional analysis was done

3:58:41and we found issues with the structural steel,

3:58:43maybe there's more corrosion,

3:58:44maybe there's more degradation

3:58:46than based on the work done now,

3:58:48then staff would have to come back

3:58:49and kind of have those conversations.

3:58:51And that's I think part of what the EA is trying to get at,

3:58:53which is there is a bit of time sensitivity

3:58:56to implement the recommended or preferred solution

3:59:00based on those types of factors.

3:59:02Okay, thank you very much for that.

3:59:05I really appreciate it.

3:59:07And one of my concerns through you, Chair Klassen,

3:59:10is that the city's facing increasing financial challenges

3:59:14for residents.

3:59:16We are actively looking for cost savings.

3:59:18Is this comments or is it a question?

3:59:20It's a question.

3:59:20Okay, excuse me, sorry.

3:59:21Yeah, no, it's good.

3:59:22It's good.

3:59:23We are looking for cost savings

3:59:27and there is a significant difference

3:59:30between alternatives two and three

3:59:33and then alternative four.

3:59:34So as you move forward,

3:59:36do you have opportunities to try to reduce the cost

3:59:39of the $2.9 million or is that really a floor

3:59:43and it can likely go up from there?

3:59:52Through the chair to Councillor Goller,

3:59:55I think given the current cost estimates,

3:59:59that that's what we would expect.

4:00:02Obviously, if we can find cost savings in any project,

4:00:05we would look to reduce those costs.

4:00:08However, given the current studies,

4:00:11this is the best estimate we have at the moment.

4:00:14Okay, thank you.

4:00:15And then my last question to your Chair Klassen.

4:00:18Councillor Caton talked about the potential of us

4:00:20being taken to a tribunal which extends the timelines.

4:00:23From our experience, if there are challenges,

4:00:26if we were to say, not go down the road of alternative two,

4:00:30but say we say we wanna go down the road of alternative four,

4:00:34we have to redo parts of the EA.

4:00:37And if there are challenges,

4:00:38how long in our experience would it delay a project

4:00:42to have to redo that EA?

4:00:45And as I understand it,

4:00:47could you tell me what it would take?

4:00:48Like what work would you need to do on your end?

4:00:51And if there's a challenge,

4:00:53when would we be looking at a bridge being built?

4:00:58Through the chair to Councillor Goller,

4:01:01through our experience as this has not happened,

4:01:04we have not had Council direct us to go back

4:01:07and look at the scoring criteria for our projects.

4:01:11So it is a little difficult to say,

4:01:14but what I can say is we would be looking at

4:01:18further engagement on the new,

4:01:20sorry, we would have to go back

4:01:22and look at the weight in scoring.

4:01:24We would bring that back to Council.

4:01:26If that results in a different alternative,

4:01:29we would have to do further engagement on that

4:01:33prior to submitting our completion notice to the MECP.

4:01:39There are always the potential for appeals

4:01:44through that process.

4:01:46As well as in the meantime,

4:01:48we would have to start the demolition process

4:01:54with our heritage planning staff and work through that.

4:01:58As Jack has indicated,

4:01:59we would bring that back our September 9th meeting,

4:02:04which again, and have Council vote on that,

4:02:07which again opens ourselves up to potential appeals.

4:02:12So not knowing what the outcome of those could be,

4:02:16it's hard to state what the exact timeline to get going

4:02:20on this project would be given

4:02:24if we were to go to a different alternative.

4:02:28I appreciate that,

4:02:29but we have been taken to tribunals in the past.

4:02:31What is the timeline that it usually takes

4:02:33us to resolve those cases?

4:02:36I'm thinking emittorial,

4:02:38that it was delayed by a significant period.

4:02:41Through the Chair to Councillor Goller,

4:02:45receiving information that OLT appeals

4:02:48could probably take six and nine months.

4:02:51Section 16 order from the MECP could take anywhere

4:02:57from six to 12 months.

4:03:01Those are sort of the timelines we would be looking at.

4:03:04Okay, thank you very much.

4:03:05Thank you, Chair.

4:03:06I do have comments for after.

4:03:08Thank you.

4:03:09Next on the speaker's list is Councillor Downer, please.

4:03:13Thank you.

4:03:14So I just want to confirm one thing.

4:03:16So the 1.2 million,

4:03:19and that's an estimate too right now,

4:03:22as well as the one on the preferred.

4:03:25That does not include the demolition

4:03:28of the existing bridge

4:03:29and what you would have to do with those materials.

4:03:38For the steel prefab,

4:03:39I'm talking about the steel prefab one,

4:03:41there's no demolition costs.

4:03:43Do we know what those demolition costs would be?

4:03:45Through the Chair to Councillor Downer,

4:03:48that would just be the design and construction costs.

4:03:52There would be additional demolition costs

4:03:54on top of that.

4:03:57We don't have any costs for that.

4:04:03And dispose of those materials.

4:04:05I don't know if there's kind of...

4:04:06Through the Chair, if our consultant is still on,

4:04:11Jeremy might be able to help us

4:04:14with a closer cost for that.

4:04:19Good afternoon.

4:04:20Demolition costs were included in the estimates

4:04:22for options four and five and six.

4:04:28So those are included.

4:04:30Okay, cause I thought we heard earlier that they were included.

4:04:32Through the Chair, I stand corrected on that.

4:04:34Thank you, Jeremy.

4:04:35Okay, that really does take a big gap then

4:04:37between the 1.2 and the MURL,

4:04:41which is kind of in price,

4:04:44which I think we'd like to hear a bit more about.

4:04:48The other thing, you could help me with this 30 years.

4:04:52So this bridge was built in 1916.

4:04:58Until 2005, which is 90 years,

4:05:01it was taking traffic.

4:05:03I remember in the last quite a few years,

4:05:05it was taking trucks over that bridge.

4:05:08So it lasted 90 years,

4:05:10and we're going to rehabilitate and strengthen it

4:05:16for pedestrians and cyclists.

4:05:20How does that go from 90 years with car and truck traffic

4:05:25to 30 years with people walking over it

4:05:28after it's been rehabilitated and strengthened?

4:05:32And so I just sort of wonder about that.

4:05:37The math is not like working in my head.

4:05:39It's like, okay, I'm gonna rebuild and strengthen my house.

4:05:43That's 100 years old,

4:05:44but it's only gonna last another 30 years.

4:05:47Like I'm just sort of,

4:05:50we're gonna have to reassess it.

4:05:52So are you suggesting that any other bridge

4:05:54we wouldn't reassess for 75 years in our city?

4:05:59Like just this one, if it was rehabilitated and strengthened.

4:06:02So I'm just trying to go from the 90 to 30 years,

4:06:05and it was 90 years with truck traffic and cars,

4:06:09and now at 20 years on top of that

4:06:11with pedestrian and cycle traffic.

4:06:14And now we're saying, oh no, only 30 years.

4:06:17So I'm just trying to think about this assessment issue

4:06:21because I would hope we'd be assessing all of our bridges

4:06:25more regularly than 75 years.

4:06:29Through the chair to Councillor Downer,

4:06:31we do owe some inspections on all of our bridges as required.

4:06:38I believe the length between those

4:06:41are dependent on the age of that infrastructure.

4:06:44So we do regular structure assessment

4:06:50on those structures.

4:06:52I believe, and I'll look to our consultant in a minute

4:06:56to maybe correct me, but I believe,

4:07:01yes, it lasted 90 years.

4:07:03We are not replacing all of the material of that bridge.

4:07:07We are strengthening what is there

4:07:09that 110 year old concrete is still 110 years old.

4:07:14It will continue to degrade over time.

4:07:19It's not that it is brand new,

4:07:21so it does not restart the lifespan of that bridge.

4:07:28So it's not that it's gonna last another 30 years

4:07:33or the other bridges are gonna last another 75 years.

4:07:35It's after 30 years, you will want to assess

4:07:39the concrete in that.

4:07:40Because I suspect the concrete in my house

4:07:42is gonna hopefully last in a heritage house

4:07:46last more than another 30 years.

4:07:48Through the chair to Councillor Downer, yes.

4:07:50So we will continue to owe some inspections

4:07:54on this bridge as required.

4:07:56So it's not as though we would wait 30 years

4:07:59to do another inspection.

4:08:00We will continue to do owe some inspections as required,

4:08:05which those inspections do provide us

4:08:08with some maintenance that may be required.

4:08:13So we will not be waiting the 30 years

4:08:16to do another assessment.

4:08:18And we will would obviously try to keep the material

4:08:25up and rehabilitate throughout as much as possible

4:08:30to extend the life cycle of that material.

4:08:33So this bridge, if we go with this option,

4:08:36could last another 100 years then.

4:08:42Is that possible with proper maintenance?

4:08:46Through the chair, I will defer that potentially

4:08:50to our structural engineer.

4:08:54I'm just thinking of my house with its concrete basement.

4:08:57Like is it gonna last?

4:09:00Because it's over 100 years old.

4:09:03Good afternoon.

4:09:05The 30 year timeline that we're talking about

4:09:09for option two is an idea of when we would need to go in

4:09:15and reassess the bridge for its structural capacity

4:09:21and basically complete another feasibility study to revisit.

4:09:26Is it feasible at that time to complete

4:09:28another set of repairs?

4:09:30Or at that time, has the deterioration got so much worse

4:09:34that that time we would decide,

4:09:36do we need to repair it again

4:09:38or does it need to be replaced at that point of time?

4:09:41That's typical in the bridge world.

4:09:44Around the 30, 35 year mark is when a bridge

4:09:47that's brand new needs to be repaired

4:09:51in order to get your full lifespan out of the structure.

4:09:55So then all the bridges would need to be,

4:09:58rather no matter what option we pick,

4:10:00would need to be reassessed in 30 years

4:10:02is what you're telling me now, is what you're saying.

4:10:05In the future costs for the bridge,

4:10:09for each of the bridge options,

4:10:10there's a cost placed at the 30 to 35 year mark

4:10:14to account for kind of a major rehabilitation to the bridge,

4:10:19major repairs to the bridge.

4:10:21And those costs vary with each different option,

4:10:23but that prices at that 30 to 35 year

4:10:26timespan were included for each option.

4:10:29Okay, so every bridge would need to be reassessed

4:10:32in 30 years.

4:10:34Is that what you're,

4:10:36because that's not what we heard earlier.

4:10:37So I'm just clarifying this

4:10:40because there's a narrative out here

4:10:42that this bridge is only gonna last 30 years

4:10:45and the others are gonna last 75

4:10:48and now we're hearing, well,

4:10:50they're all gonna be assessed at 30 years.

4:10:53And one, like who knows,

4:10:55this one could last another 30 years beyond that

4:10:58with rehabilitation, the other one's the same thing.

4:11:01Is that what I'm hearing?

4:11:10The options with the 75 year design lifespan

4:11:13is based on,

4:11:18it's their design lifespan based on how they've been designed.

4:11:21So they're designed to last for at least 75 years.

4:11:24Every bridge requires repairs

4:11:27and the typical timeline for when repairs are required

4:11:29is that 30 to 35 year mark

4:11:32so that you can get your full 75.

4:11:34If you don't complete your repair at 35 years,

4:11:36it may not last the full 75.

4:11:39So at that 30 to 35 year mark,

4:11:42every bridge should have repairs completed to it.

4:11:45They could be smaller, they could be larger in scope.

4:11:47Right, so the option that's before us,

4:11:50the recommendation, the reassessment at 35 years

4:11:54could mean it could last another,

4:11:56may not last or it could last another 10 to 20

4:11:59to 25 years beyond that, is that correct?

4:12:03Yes.

4:12:03With rehabilitation, okay, good, thank you.

4:12:08Thank you, Councillor Downer.

4:12:10Next I have Councillor Gibson.

4:12:15Thank you, through you, Chair,

4:12:19Claeson, I appreciate it.

4:12:21A couple of questions for staff

4:12:22and I'm gonna take a second to encourage staff to just,

4:12:26I know this debate is around a few subject,

4:12:29I'm just encouraging staff to just give us the answers

4:12:34and don't allow sort of this,

4:12:37I feel like some hurdles are being put in your way

4:12:39and I'm just asking, encouraging you to be courageous

4:12:41and just tell us the facts,

4:12:42because I remember the Allen's Bridge EA

4:12:45and there was a number of councillors that spoke against that

4:12:47and I think they voted against finalizing the EA on that as well.

4:12:52And at the time they were advised this is a gate

4:12:54and again, I accept that this is a gate

4:12:57that council is going through

4:12:58to finalize a notice of completion for an EA.

4:13:02The issue that I will take with this EA is the scoring.

4:13:06So I'm speaking to a planning concern I have

4:13:10and how the evaluations were done.

4:13:12Obviously everyone's talking about the financial

4:13:15and I think the evaluation is fair on life cycle renewal.

4:13:19We've heard it very clearly from staff,

4:13:2130 years and 75 years are the two expected timelines.

4:13:25The financial are apparent, thank you Mayor Guthrie

4:13:28for making that very clear.

4:13:29But my question is on the natural environment

4:13:32and how this was scored in the EA.

4:13:35And I have some concerns about the table

4:13:38that was presented to council

4:13:40and the table that was presented to the public

4:13:42around the hydraulic function of this bridge.

4:13:45And it was very clearly stated from staff

4:13:47that the hydraulic function of the river would improve

4:13:50if we installed a clear spam bridge from bank to bank.

4:13:53Currently the existing bridge creates hydraulic.

4:13:57It constricts the hydraulic function of the river

4:14:01and as such that impacts GRCA flood programming

4:14:05that impacts upstream and downstream hydraulic function.

4:14:08And it was a clear benefit to move

4:14:10to a clear spam bridge option four, bank to bank,

4:14:14which would again, you've stated it twice tonight,

4:14:16it would improve hydraulic function.

4:14:18But why in your table were they scored the same

4:14:21on natural environment?

4:14:22Because one is clearly an improvement over the other

4:14:25and option two, which is the preferred alternative

4:14:27is scored the same as option four.

4:14:30And so I'm struggling with that assessment.

4:14:34I think if you pulled up your table, you could see it.

4:14:36It's, they're both scored three out of four

4:14:38for a natural environment, I believe.

4:14:41Through you, Madam Chair.

4:14:45Thank you for the question, Councillor Gibson.

4:14:49I'm not sure if you've looked at the detailed evaluation table.

4:14:52It's one of the appendices.

4:14:53I have not.

4:14:54The report.

4:14:55So the natural environment criteria has seven

4:14:59sub criteria within it that make up that score.

4:15:03And it is quite an interesting picture

4:15:04because there is a lot of variation

4:15:07across those sub criteria and across the alternatives.

4:15:11But what happens is that the bottom line

4:15:13where it's aggregated, unaveraged,

4:15:16it, you know, we end up with quite similar scores

4:15:21for several of the alternatives.

4:15:23So I think you have to delve into that detailed evaluation

4:15:27to perhaps see the nuance a little bit.

4:15:29One of the criteria is impacts to hydraulic capacity.

4:15:34And so for that sub criteria, yes,

4:15:36the options that keep the existing structure score lower

4:15:41than the options that would replace it

4:15:44and with a wider span for the reasons that you mentioned.

4:15:47So that is captured in the evaluation, but it doesn't,

4:15:52you know, it doesn't tip the overall

4:15:54natural environment score because of the other,

4:15:57the other sub criteria that are being taken

4:16:00into account as well.

4:16:03Okay, so I have to ask the question,

4:16:05what, given the fact that they have the same footprint

4:16:07and the same process, it's the same design

4:16:10and construction timeline,

4:16:12what are the environmental,

4:16:15the natural environment benefits of option two

4:16:18that are superior to option four?

4:16:22Because we've identified one that's clearly superior

4:16:24under option four, but what are the,

4:16:25what are the items that are superior under option two?

4:16:28Because that would have,

4:16:29there would have to be a waiting of that

4:16:32that would equalize, correct?

4:16:34Again, I haven't delved into the detailed evaluation,

4:16:37it just became apparent when I saw your,

4:16:39when I saw the table in the presentation.

4:16:50Through you, Madam Chair, but apologies,

4:16:51I was just taking a glance at the detailed

4:16:55evaluation table here.

4:16:57The categories were alternative to the recommended solution

4:17:02to rehabilitate and strengthen,

4:17:04where it scores slightly higher for natural environment

4:17:09is sub criteria number four,

4:17:11which is temporary or permanent impact

4:17:14on the habitat of species at risk.

4:17:18And also sub criteria number five,

4:17:21which is temporary or permanent impact on aquatic habitat.

4:17:25And so because we're working on the existing structure,

4:17:29we don't need to work in the river channel

4:17:33or make changes to the river channel.

4:17:35We're not having big impacts on the river banks

4:17:39and the habitat there.

4:17:40That's where the rehabilitation options score higher

4:17:44because they have a lower impact.

4:17:51I will respectfully disagree, but that's okay.

4:17:54This is what the exercise is for.

4:17:55This is what the EAs are for.

4:17:58On the design and construction costs,

4:18:00if I can just ask a few more questions,

4:18:02there's been a lot of conversation about the disparity

4:18:05between this project and the Emerald Bridge.

4:18:08Is it possible that this project is slightly more affordable

4:18:12because the design is so simple?

4:18:16Like the Clear Spam Bridge from bank to bank,

4:18:19this is an engineered solution.

4:18:21I challenged staff this morning about this being a design build,

4:18:24whether or not we even needed a detailed design

4:18:26for such a project,

4:18:27we could simply just tender it out to three people

4:18:29and say who could build a bridge

4:18:32and do it a cost effective way.

4:18:34Is there savings in the detailed design

4:18:38and construction aspect that,

4:18:41are there savings in the engineering

4:18:42and the fact that we don't need to over engineer this site

4:18:45because of its simplicity?

4:18:46It's a Clear Spam Bridge from bank to bank under option four.

4:18:55Through the chair to Councillor Gibson.

4:18:59Although the engineering costs

4:19:04to maybe select a pre-designed structure

4:19:10might be cheaper than the other ones,

4:19:12however, we still need to do assessments.

4:19:16So we still would need to do a geotechnical assessment

4:19:20of the site to where we would be placing those footings.

4:19:25We also need to do other sort of design criteria

4:19:31and permitting that would be specific to the site.

4:19:35So we would still have to apply to,

4:19:37let's say the GRCA for permit to fully replace that bridge

4:19:44and that would have to,

4:19:45we would have to show a site detailed design

4:19:48for part of that.

4:19:51Okay, that's fine.

4:19:55I have spoken with staff

4:19:58about the design and construction costs being simplified

4:20:00or being more expedient than the,

4:20:02like the option to preferred option with the restoration,

4:20:06but that's fair.

4:20:06We can agree to disagree on that.

4:20:09On my last comment, the last question, I guess,

4:20:11on the heritage demolition front,

4:20:14there was a situation alluded to by Councillor Allt

4:20:16about a resident speaking to how ironic it is that,

4:20:20we're forcing residents to abide by this rules,

4:20:22we're considering not abiding by it ourselves.

4:20:24And I just wanted to ask the process is the same, correct?

4:20:27If a resident wants to demolish a heritage structure,

4:20:30they put forward a Council application.

4:20:33Staff generally reject it,

4:20:35but it comes to Council anyway for approval.

4:20:38Similarly, if Council wanted to demolish a heritage asset,

4:20:42the same process would take place,

4:20:44it would come to Council for approval.

4:20:45Is that correct?

4:20:47Through the chair, that is correct.

4:20:49Okay, and I appreciate that.

4:20:51I guess what I'm saying is that there are members

4:20:53of this Council that have read over

4:20:57and surmised that a demolition of a heritage asset

4:21:02by a private resident was permissible.

4:21:04I'm one of those people that have voted

4:21:06for the demolition of a heritage asset

4:21:08when a private residence comes forward.

4:21:10So whether it's a private residence or the city

4:21:13making a determination as to what they want to do

4:21:15with an asset, it still comes to Council for approval.

4:21:18So there is no,

4:21:20I just wanted to make sure the public understood

4:21:21there's no disparity in process.

4:21:24If Council wants to do this or for private residence

4:21:26wants to do this, it's the exact same process

4:21:28Council has to decide for ourselves.

4:21:31Those are all my, I guess,

4:21:33I'll save maybe if I mind,

4:21:37Chair Klassen, I'll be very quick with my comments.

4:21:40Can I go to you first?

4:21:42Sure, no problem.

4:21:44After questions, I've got one more

4:21:46on the list of questions.

4:21:48I appreciate it.

4:21:49Okay.

4:21:51Councillor Chew, please.

4:21:56Thank you, through you, Madam Chair.

4:21:59I'm just trying to be very objective

4:22:00with how I look at the options.

4:22:02And personally speaking, I do like option four

4:22:06if we're really trying to preserve that linkage

4:22:09in good faith.

4:22:11I think like respectfully,

4:22:13like if we go through that appeal process

4:22:17and we're successful,

4:22:19it gets us out of some of those heritage obligations

4:22:22and it allows us to find a way to commemorate

4:22:26the built heritage structure in a tasteful way

4:22:28through some options that are presented in that report.

4:22:37I'm just curious, like for the end of the month,

4:22:39would it be possible for staff to give me

4:22:42that cost estimate for the Class C?

4:22:45I'm not sure if I'm able to find it through the EA page,

4:22:48but you can correct me if I'm wrong.

4:22:50So that's my first question, if that's possible.

4:22:57Through you, Madam Chair,

4:23:00could we just ask for clarification

4:23:02on what cost estimate you're looking for?

4:23:06Councillor Chew?

4:23:07Yeah, just for all the options in your evaluation,

4:23:11if there's a way in which we can disseminate that

4:23:13with the information that you guys currently have.

4:23:17Yes, that information is available.

4:23:19The draft project file report

4:23:22and all of the appendices are published

4:23:24on the city's project webpage.

4:23:27We can provide the link to that.

4:23:31So there's a detailed evaluation matrix table.

4:23:33It's one of the appendices.

4:23:34It has some cost information in there.

4:23:37There's also cost information within the body of the report too.

4:23:43And is that pretty much up to date

4:23:45and reflective of this conversation

4:23:48and for the end of this month?

4:23:52It reflects, through you, Madam Chair,

4:23:55reflects everything that we've presented today.

4:23:58It's correct, yeah.

4:24:00And is it possible if it's not done already

4:24:04for there to be a life cycle comparison

4:24:07for the steel bridge and the concrete bridge?

4:24:10I know through the options that it was alluded to

4:24:16through that report,

4:24:17but do you think before the end of the month

4:24:20we could have a bit more insights

4:24:23as it relates to this project?

4:24:27Through you, Madam Chair, to Councillor Chew.

4:24:29Yes, that information is already built into the study.

4:24:32It's part of the report.

4:24:34There is a life cycle analysis

4:24:37within the project file report that you can take a look at.

4:24:40It's fairly detailed.

4:24:43If there's more kind of questions around

4:24:45we can certainly provide more information.

4:24:47But I think I mentioned in the presentation

4:24:49that we have alternatives that have different lifespans.

4:24:53But that is built into the financial criteria evaluation.

4:24:59Okay, yeah, I'll take a closer look.

4:25:00You don't get that to you by the end of the month.

4:25:03Thank you.

4:25:04Thank you, Councillor Chew.

4:25:05Councillor Billings, please.

4:25:08To you, Madam Chair.

4:25:11I'm still struggling with respect to this lifespan issue.

4:25:15So the comment was, it doesn't matter, 30, 35 years

4:25:20we could have technical issues

4:25:22and it would be no longer able to rehabilitate this bridge.

4:25:27So for example, in the report it says,

4:25:30okay, the bridge footings will remain the same

4:25:33and no work in the water.

4:25:35So do we know technically

4:25:39how long can these footings last for?

4:25:42And then we hear about, well,

4:25:43the concrete is gonna continue to deteriorate.

4:25:47So are we really looking at whether 30, 35, 40 years

4:25:52we would have to demolish this bridge

4:25:55because it just would cost too much to replace?

4:26:02Through you, Madam Chair, to Councillor Billings,

4:26:04I think it's difficult for us to forecast the future

4:26:09of where we would be at that point in time,

4:26:11but I will defer to structural engineer Jeremy

4:26:15of whether he has any comment to add on that

4:26:18in terms of what we might expect

4:26:22for the lifespan of the structure

4:26:24and beyond that 30 year mark.

4:26:31Thanks, Kate.

4:26:34Beyond the 30 year mark,

4:26:37it is possible that the bridge could be renewed

4:26:41and repaired at that point in time

4:26:43to get us another 30 year period.

4:26:47It's just unknown what those costs could be at that time.

4:26:52And then so do you now, through you, Madam Chair,

4:26:55again, the concrete, more of the footings,

4:26:58a typical bridge like this,

4:27:00how long would those footings actually last?

4:27:05Typically the footings are not of concern

4:27:09on a bridge like this because the concrete

4:27:14is strictly in compression in those areas

4:27:18to get a little technical.

4:27:21The concern with these bridges is the art shape itself.

4:27:25And as long as that art shape stays intact,

4:27:29the bridge is...

4:27:36Okay, so then what you said...

4:27:38Sorry, Jeremy, I don't know if you cut out,

4:27:40I didn't catch that last part.

4:27:43Sorry, I think I was muted, I apologize.

4:27:50Would you please, Jeremy,

4:27:52just clarify what your last sentence was

4:27:54just once again for us, please?

4:27:57I apologize.

4:27:59As long as the arch part of the bridge maintains,

4:28:03its shape and its condition,

4:28:06the bridge would be re-able,

4:28:08it's possible to re-able it for another 30 years

4:28:11beyond the 30-year period.

4:28:15Okay, and so at that point then,

4:28:17because the concrete keeps deteriorating,

4:28:20so it could possibly be then in 30 years,

4:28:23we would have to put a few more million into that arch.

4:28:27Is that what you're saying?

4:28:29Yes, but yeah, just that cost is unknown at this point in time,

4:28:35but we would be in 30 years,

4:28:37we could potentially be back at where we are today.

4:28:40Okay, thank you for that, Jeremy, appreciate that.

4:28:46Thank you, Councillor Billings.

4:28:48I'm just looking around at my colleagues

4:28:50to see if there's any more questions.

4:28:53No, okay, and to quote Cam,

4:28:56lucky you, it is now my turn.

4:28:59Okay, my first question,

4:29:06I have two questions with regard

4:29:11to the heritage designation of the bridge.

4:29:17The first question is with regard to,

4:29:19some of my colleagues just have brought up

4:29:21some of the concerns with regard to

4:29:25de-heritaging the bridge,

4:29:29and I made up that word and you can add it to your dictionaries,

4:29:34but my concern here is,

4:29:36we've talked a little bit about the impact

4:29:39of what that would mean for our work plan,

4:29:43but I just wanted to go a little bit further with that

4:29:47and ask about the staff implications.

4:29:49So a couple of weeks ago,

4:29:51passed a motion to ask the provincial government

4:29:55if they could extend our timeline

4:29:57for heritage designations

4:29:59to allow our staff to have more capacity to complete those.

4:30:03We don't know if that will be extended or not,

4:30:05but the problem remains that we asked for it

4:30:09because we need the timing.

4:30:10So I just wanted to clarify

4:30:12what the staff implications would be,

4:30:15not just for this project,

4:30:16but for all of our other heritage projects that are in queue.

4:30:23Through the chair,

4:30:25I think I can confidently say that

4:30:27because this would require a heritage permit

4:30:30as well as repeal of a part four designation

4:30:34and amendment of a part five designation,

4:30:36that we would likely not be able to work

4:30:38on any more individual designations

4:30:40until this matter was resolved.

4:30:46Okay, thank you for that.

4:30:48And then my next question, I hope, is appropriate,

4:30:52but I just had a question

4:30:53with regard to the maintenance of McWilliams Bridge,

4:30:55and with regard to the timing of...

4:31:00Did we stop maintaining the bridge

4:31:02after it was decommissioned as a vehicular traffic bridge?

4:31:17To the chair.

4:31:20After...

4:31:22Let me, I apologize.

4:31:24Let me just ensure I have my dates correctly.

4:31:26But after the bridge in 2002, 2004,

4:31:34when Stoner was reconstructed,

4:31:37the bridge was no longer part of an active roadway

4:31:40and therefore was not part of our necessity

4:31:50to continue to maintain to the same level

4:31:55as a bridge in an active roadway.

4:31:57However, we did continue to do OSIM inspections

4:32:04to see in some ad hoc minor repairs as necessary.

4:32:09Throughout the years.

4:32:13Okay, thank you for that.

4:32:15And I just, I'd like to go back to a question

4:32:19that counselor Hauser had asked earlier,

4:32:23just because I wasn't sure if there was a number.

4:32:27So the question was regarding the cost to maintain it.

4:32:31So I'm guessing that based on your answer,

4:32:33there has been some ad hoc repairs.

4:32:34So is there a number with regard to how much it costs

4:32:39to maintain, I guess it's not been maintained,

4:32:41maintain it currently?

4:32:45Sorry, can you please, to the chair,

4:32:47can you please clarify, are you talking to maintain

4:32:50until we get to a point of reconstruction

4:32:53or are you talking about once we've reconstructed,

4:32:56what is that maintenance cost?

4:32:59The current costs annually.

4:33:05Currently, I apologize, I don't have the exact budget

4:33:11at this moment, but we could get that

4:33:15in conjunction with our operations team

4:33:17and get some, get a number back to you.

4:33:22Okay, thank you.

4:33:25All right, that is my, those are my questions.

4:33:30And now I'd like to move on to comments.

4:33:33And I know that there were quite a few that had comments.

4:33:37I did have counselor Gibson already on my list,

4:33:40but I would also like to ask my colleagues

4:33:43who else would like to comment at this time.

4:33:46Counselor Gowler, looking up at the screen,

4:33:50Counselor Katen.

4:33:54Also, Counselor Billings and Counselor Gibson,

4:33:57I don't see you up on the screen,

4:33:58but I just wanted to check with regard to comments

4:34:02if you wanna be on the list.

4:34:08Yes, no, okay.

4:34:09Yes, please, yes, please.

4:34:11And how's there and Quran?

4:34:17Let's start with Counselor Gibson.

4:34:20I really appreciate it.

4:34:20Thank you, Chair.

4:34:22My final two comments are my number one priority

4:34:26through this process is aligned with a secondary priority

4:34:30of the project, which is to improve the corridor itself.

4:34:34Currently right now, I don't believe the corridor

4:34:36is functioning properly along Stone Road.

4:34:38I've stated, I think publicly that I think

4:34:40it's a bit of a speed trap as you come over the hill

4:34:42on Stone Road and down into the valley,

4:34:43you go from a 60 down to a 40 very easily.

4:34:47We all know what it means to go 75 and a 60.

4:34:49You are speeding, but in this case,

4:34:52over about a 50 foot section of road,

4:34:54a 40 kilometer an hour sign pops up.

4:34:56And if you are speeding at 75 miles an hour,

4:34:59you're almost going twice the speed limit immediately.

4:35:02And the biggest story that I had was a gentleman lost.

4:35:05The suspended license was fired from his job

4:35:08all because he was making delivery at four in the morning

4:35:10to one of the plants out there

4:35:11and was pulled over for stunt driving.

4:35:15That was the designation at the time.

4:35:17So I do have a deep concern about this corridor.

4:35:19I want it fixed and I believe that option four

4:35:23is the most expedient way from a design,

4:35:26detailed design and construction methodology perspective.

4:35:29I think it can be faster.

4:35:30Although staff have told me that both option two

4:35:32and option four would follow a similar timeline.

4:35:3527 budget, 28 construction.

4:35:38So in closing, my last comment is,

4:35:40I think in the most professional way possible,

4:35:43I'm going to disagree with staff

4:35:44and their evaluation of the alternatives.

4:35:48I think financial evaluation needs to be given

4:35:51a little bit more weight.

4:35:53And I also believe from an environmental performance

4:35:55perspective on hydrology,

4:35:56and we all know how important flood water

4:35:58and flood maintenance and prevention is,

4:36:00being able to create a clear span bridge

4:36:03is a clear win over a constriction in a riverway.

4:36:06So I believe that that should have been evaluated

4:36:09a little bit further in option four.

4:36:11If the motion recommendation fails,

4:36:14I will put forward a motion to either defer

4:36:18or reconsider to staff other evaluation of the process.

4:36:23But I will wait to see how council votes on this motion.

4:36:27Thank you.

4:36:29Thank you, Councillor Gibson.

4:36:31Let me just quickly find my list.

4:36:33I lost it for a second.

4:36:36Madam chair. Councillor Goller, please.

4:36:37Sorry, Madam chair, do you mind if I just add a comment

4:36:41in response to a couple of things

4:36:42I've just heard in the last little bit.

4:36:43Just want to clarify, we do through state's FCA work,

4:36:46we have equal weighting on all the categories

4:36:48in terms of the way that the EA was applied.

4:36:50So I just want to say that out loud.

4:36:52The other thing I just want to clarify,

4:36:53just kind of picking up on the threads

4:36:55of some of the questions and comments is,

4:36:57we have done maintenance on this bridge

4:36:59over the course of time.

4:37:00And our operations department

4:37:01certainly does do minor maintenance work.

4:37:03When we talk about maintenance,

4:37:04there's different categories.

4:37:05The more major sort of structural rehabilitation

4:37:08type maintenance is different

4:37:09than maybe more routine maintenance.

4:37:12And so that routine maintenance certainly

4:37:13has occurred over the years.

4:37:14Our operations department is out there

4:37:17doing that work each year.

4:37:19So whether that's, you know, maybe there's some cracks

4:37:21or maybe there's some graffiti removal.

4:37:23Maybe there's some cleaning to do,

4:37:24whatever the case may be, we do do that work.

4:37:26And so I just want to make that comment out loud publicly

4:37:28that certainly the city has been doing maintenance

4:37:31on the McClune bridge.

4:37:34Thank you. DCG.

4:37:37Councillor Goller, please your next fair comments.

4:37:40Thank you, chair.

4:37:41And if you beg my leave,

4:37:43may I ask one more question of staff?

4:37:47Okay. Thank you.

4:37:49Staff, I just want to clarification

4:37:51because we're considering possibly like,

4:37:53what if we go with alternative four under alternative four?

4:37:57There was a sentence that said

4:37:58that it would have the new school structure

4:38:01could integrate some heritage considerations

4:38:04through sympathetic design.

4:38:06Could you tell me what that means?

4:38:15Through you, Madam Chair.

4:38:18I think, and Jack, I will look over to you

4:38:21after I've made some comments.

4:38:24The sympathetic design would be in terms of echoing

4:38:27the shape of the existing bridge, right?

4:38:30You have that opportunity to do that

4:38:33with a steel trust could be a straight rectangular shape.

4:38:36It could be arched.

4:38:39You have the opportunity.

4:38:41But I think what we've seen in the

4:38:44heritage impact assessment for this study

4:38:46is that you can't replicate the,

4:38:49there's no ability to replicate the heritage features

4:38:53of the bridge in a steel material.

4:38:55So it would really be only kind of honoring

4:38:58the shape of the structure.

4:39:00Jack, do you want to add anything to that?

4:39:02You're happy with that? Great. Thank you.

4:39:05Okay. So before clarifying,

4:39:07it could be a bow style bridge.

4:39:10It would just be made of steel

4:39:11instead of the historic cement.

4:39:14Okay. Correct. Yeah.

4:39:16Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.

4:39:19This is very, very difficult decision.

4:39:22I put it out on our newsletter on Friday

4:39:25to get some more feedback from our constituents.

4:39:28And I did, at that time here at about a ratio of four to one

4:39:32that my constituents asked me to maintain

4:39:36that historic bridge because of the impact

4:39:40to the culture of the city.

4:39:41And I do listen to that.

4:39:43I also heard from many of my constituents

4:39:45who are concerned about the cost increases

4:39:47to our community and the affordability.

4:39:50So I think at this time I am really torn.

4:39:53I will be voting in favor of the staff recommendation

4:39:57this time, but just to, yeah, thank you.

4:40:00Thank you for that.

4:40:01It is a difficult decision,

4:40:03but I think that I may change my mind later on.

4:40:07This will come back to us at the end of the month.

4:40:09Is that correct? Okay. Correct.

4:40:11So I will.

4:40:12And if I hear significantly different from my constituents

4:40:14between now and the end of the month,

4:40:15I may change my mind on that.

4:40:17Thank you.

4:40:19Thank you, Councillor Goller.

4:40:20Councillor Caiten, please.

4:40:24Thank you. Through you.

4:40:27So considering for me the speed to completion,

4:40:31which includes all processes and appeals,

4:40:34the environmental impact to the habitats,

4:40:36which would occur in all the options

4:40:38that involve rebuilding the base,

4:40:40the cost stall, the departments and impact to workflow,

4:40:44if we were to go the demolition route,

4:40:46risking our heritage plan,

4:40:48which is on a sprint right now,

4:40:49just to meet the provincial deadline,

4:40:52consistency of adherence to our heritage policies,

4:40:54the fact that we unanimously passed

4:40:57our part five designation on this just very, very recently.

4:41:01And the guarantee of the yearly maintenance funding.

4:41:05And also I attended the public feedback

4:41:07and the engagement that our group did.

4:41:11And it was really great.

4:41:12Like it was really well done.

4:41:14And everybody who walked through there

4:41:16wanted the bridge rehabilitated.

4:41:18And finally, just as a ward one Councillor,

4:41:20we deserve nice things too.

4:41:22We deserve some heritage.

4:41:24And the rest of the heritage covered under the policy

4:41:27we passed is owned by the province.

4:41:28And we saw how that went with the bridge

4:41:30that they just demolished in this area.

4:41:33So I'm very, very happy to support

4:41:37the staff recommendation and all the great work

4:41:39that you've all done.

4:41:40Thank you.

4:41:42Thank you, Councillor Caton.

4:41:44Councillor Hauser, please.

4:41:47Thank you.

4:41:48I would just like to echo Councillor Caton's

4:41:50mostly summed up what I was gonna say.

4:41:53What I really think is very valuable is,

4:41:55like this is 110 years old.

4:41:57It's very literally a bridge to history.

4:42:00The brand new bridge that we're gonna build,

4:42:01we're looking at longevity of 70 years.

4:42:04This one's already 100.

4:42:05And that's pretty remarkable.

4:42:06So I will be supporting as well.

4:42:09Thank you, Councillor Hauser.

4:42:10Councillor Caron, please.

4:42:12Yes, thank you.

4:42:14And I really, I appreciate the discussion.

4:42:17I know that there's been a discussion in the community.

4:42:19I know that their Councillor Goller initiated the question

4:42:23of whether the financial acumen balances out

4:42:28with all the other community aspirations.

4:42:30So I really appreciate that discussion.

4:42:32For me, this is a file that goes back

4:42:34so long and it won't come as a surprise

4:42:38that I'm passionately asking my Councillor colleagues

4:42:41to support preservation.

4:42:44This started for me in 2004.

4:42:46I wasn't even on council at that time,

4:42:48but I was the chair of Heritage Guelph

4:42:50at the time when this was designated.

4:42:52And the designation was at a time when, again,

4:42:55the reformatory lands were also being decommissioned

4:43:00or had already been decommissioned.

4:43:02There were some stone gates on Stone Road

4:43:04that led to this bridge that have since disappeared.

4:43:08I recall vividly standing at this bridge

4:43:12with members of Puslench Township Heritage Committee

4:43:16where we talked about this being their heritage

4:43:19because this was the township line

4:43:24prior to city boundaries expanding

4:43:27and a conversation about our obligation

4:43:29to protect their heritage as much as our own.

4:43:33In 2005, we had our Trails Master Plan

4:43:35identifying this connection.

4:43:37In 2016, again, the Trails Master Plan.

4:43:412004, I have an email from staff

4:43:44which I've circulated to members of council

4:43:47with a commitment to preserve.

4:43:49In 2019, we had our stranded asset report first tabled

4:43:53where a commitment to preserve was embedded in that.

4:43:56We've had commitments through three different CAOs

4:43:59that our heritage assets would be conserved.

4:44:02So for me, this is very much a matter of credibility.

4:44:05We have property standards bylaws for heritage assets.

4:44:09We have our part four and part five.

4:44:12There's very few individual structures like this

4:44:14that have both protections under the Heritage Act.

4:44:18I think we've created a community expectation

4:44:21when we passed those designations

4:44:23that preservation would be our priority.

4:44:26I wasn't gonna call a point of order,

4:44:28but I did hear my counselor colleague Gibson stating

4:44:32that counselors were somehow putting hurdles

4:44:36in the way of our professional staff

4:44:38and questioning the expertise of our structural engineer

4:44:42who's with us online and our professional staff here

4:44:45in the council chambers with us

4:44:49and questioning their assessment

4:44:51of their expert engineering advice.

4:44:52So I just want to point out that I have full confidence

4:44:55in your abilities and your advice

4:44:57as professional engineers in the delivery of this AEA to us

4:45:02and the final recommendation of option two

4:45:07was thoroughly assessed

4:45:08with lots of different parameters including financial

4:45:11and that maintaining the heritage rose above all of that,

4:45:15even including those financial.

4:45:17We've already lost the Trestle Bridge on the GID lands,

4:45:21losing a second bridge is just,

4:45:25when there's no need for that,

4:45:26there is no other opportunity for us

4:45:29to restore this once it's gone.

4:45:32I am sensitive to the financial limitations

4:45:35and I don't want anyone to believe

4:45:38that that isn't a factor in my decision making as well,

4:45:42but I know that this is a long game.

4:45:44I know that it has been a long game for 110 years,

4:45:49but I'm confident that we have a future generation

4:45:54well beyond us who will be able to enjoy this bridge

4:45:57just as earlier generations before we were born,

4:45:59unless any of us were born before 1916,

4:46:03that the stewardship of this asset

4:46:06will last well beyond our lifetime

4:46:09and that we have an obligation

4:46:10and I've heard the word obligation

4:46:12from many counselors including Councillor Chew,

4:46:16Councillor Goller, Councillor Gibson,

4:46:18I've heard the word obligations

4:46:20in a number of our narratives today,

4:46:22and so for me this obligation of stewardship

4:46:26extends well beyond the next term of council

4:46:29and into the next generation, so thanks.

4:46:32Thank you, Councillor Caron.

4:46:34Councillor Allt, please.

4:46:38Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

4:46:40First of all, I would like to thank staff

4:46:42for the tremendous work that is being done

4:46:45on this particular issue.

4:46:47Certainly your professional credentials

4:46:49and your integrity should not come into question on this.

4:46:52I believe that you have worked very solidly on this.

4:46:55Whether a heritage attribute is downtown

4:47:00in the inner city, word four, five, or six,

4:47:02I think it's incumbent upon us to research

4:47:04all of these to determine what the value is

4:47:07of preserving them.

4:47:08Similarly, I think we have a governance issue here as well.

4:47:11We have identified that this bridge is protected

4:47:14under the parts four and five

4:47:17of our heritage determination.

4:47:21I also note that I got an email from a bridge lover

4:47:26from Nova Scotia, pointing out that a preliminary search

4:47:30of the web has shown that this is the second oldest bridge

4:47:33of this type in Ontario.

4:47:36Now that begs two questions.

4:47:38Where is the oldest bridge, and why is it still standing?

4:47:42Should it not have come down as well?

4:47:44I also reflect on something that I'll bet you

4:47:47that most people here, I think maybe everybody except