Accessibility Advisory Committee

0:02I think I sent it kind of last minute. Okay, good.

0:07We got it. And it added that for those discussion items today.

0:12Awesome. Thank you so much.

0:14Eight members now.

0:16Jen ease that Jen.

0:18All right. We can go ahead and start the meeting.

1:08We do have four on.

1:09Awesome.

1:11All right. So I'm, I'm actually passing over to the other team.

1:16I'm just going to go ahead and get the,

1:18I'm not sure.

1:20So in order.

1:22Go ahead. So we have acting chair in order today.

1:25Okay. Call to order.

1:271.1.

1:29Indigenous territorial acknowledgement.

1:34As we gather,

1:36let us take time to reflect on our privilege.

1:39To live and work in Guelph.

1:41A city built over rich,

1:43indigenous history.

1:45And I think we're going to have to go ahead and get the,

1:48the city built over rich, indigenous histories.

1:52We are guests here and we should reflect upon responsibility to care for this land.

1:58The people who live here today and the generations to come.

2:02If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation,

2:06we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude.

2:12This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands.

2:17And a place of refuge for many people over time.

2:22More specifically, the at wander on and the hot on a sony.

2:29This land is held as the treaty lands and territory with the Mississauga's credit first nation.

2:36Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman track.

2:42And is part of a long established traditional hunting ground for the six nations of the Grand River.

2:48Many first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

2:53Who have come up from across Turtle Island called Guelph home today.

3:01Okay, that complete are the, or any conflicts of interest to be disclosed.

3:08None we will move on to approval of agenda.

3:21Okay, we've got Lorelai, do we have a seconder?

3:35Second and Jeanette.

3:46Okay, do I have to call for a vote here?

3:49Do we just see if there's any of those?

3:53Any opposed.

3:55Okay.

4:04And then on to the approval of the minutes, the minutes for the April 16th meeting. Do we be.

4:13Okay, we've got Lorelai.

4:16And do we have a seconder?

4:18I'll second.

4:19That's Mike in the room. That's the second day.

4:21Okay.

4:24Any opposed.

4:32Okay.

4:33That brings us on to the committee item.

4:40End of item no.

4:42So we've got not the full.

4:44Any comment on the agenda and accessibility.

4:48So we've got.

4:52Presentation from staff, I believe here.

4:54Thanks.

4:55I actually, I am so sorry.

4:57I have a point of order. If that's okay. I'm sorry.

5:01I didn't get a chance to review the materials until just before the meeting,

5:06but there's something I'd like a ruling from chair Cameron on.

5:09the city's perceived challenges

5:13like budget. Um so I was hoping

5:15to ask that staff omit the

5:17portions of their presentation

5:18that outline their perceived

5:19challenges because I don't

5:20believe this is an appropriate

5:21venue for that discussion. Like

5:22they can certainly bring those

5:24concerns forward to council and

5:26argue all the reasons they think

5:27that our recommendations might

5:29fall out of line with city

5:30budget, but I don't think the

5:32AAC should be asked to limit our

5:34requests to the city. Um, I

5:36think that the city's perceived

5:37challenges are not necessarily

5:38the city's perceived challenges

5:39that the city should be asked to

5:40limit our requests to the

5:42confines of that, and I don't

5:44think that is in line with the

5:46intended role of the AAC that's

5:48mandated by the Ontario

5:50government. Um like we're only

5:51supposed to advise on

5:54accessibility and disability. Not

5:55to receive pitches from the city

5:56about budget or tax increases or

5:58whether or not wheelchair ramps

5:59take up too much space like

6:01disabled people are deserving of

6:02space and we're deserving of

6:04budget allocation. So, um,

6:07I think that's a good point. Um

6:10So if I can just quickly respond

6:14to that, Lorela, um by all means

6:16for any discussion that occurs

6:18today, um you're correct in that

6:20the AAC's role is not to

6:22determine budget or, um, kind of

6:25have any real discussion about

6:27what what dollar amount should be

6:29allotted to what type of action

6:31or what have you. Um, but

6:33certainly we can still partake

6:35in discussion around all of the

6:37things that we've noted here on

6:39the agenda. Um, so no problem.

6:42Yeah, I think Mal. I understand

6:44that we I understand that we can.

6:45I'm just saying I don't feel like

6:46this is the appropriate venue to

6:48ask us to sit there like every

6:50other slide in this presentation

6:52is talking to us about. We don't

6:54wheelchair ramps take up a lot of

6:56space, and this just isn't

6:58procedurally what we're used to

6:59seeing at the AAC. We don't

7:01receive pitches from the city

7:02about the reasons accessibility

7:04will be too difficult. We are

7:06not allowed to ask staff to

7:08submit that because I don't

7:10think it's appropriate to ask us

7:12to sit through that. I

7:14understand it's allowed. I'm

7:16just saying I don't think we

7:18should be asked to sit through

7:19that or be asked to consider

7:21those things when making our

7:23recommendations. That's not an

7:24appropriate discussion for the AAC.

7:26That's an appropriate discussion

7:27for a council meeting.

7:29Emotion. Um, well, I don't know

7:31staff to admit that because I

7:36don't think it's appropriate to

7:37ask the AAC to discuss the items

7:38that council directed us to

7:40discuss, and I can omit every

7:42other slide in the presentation.

7:44It might be a little messy.

7:47Sorry, not messy. It just, I

7:49just, I don't know if staff want

7:51to jump in with an explanation

7:53or, um, given that it's their

7:55presentation, but should the

7:57AAC just speak? I'm happy to

7:59um, simply ask the AAC to

8:01discuss the items that

8:03council directed us to discuss

8:05the items that council directed

8:07us to discuss. Sorry, not

8:09messy. It just I you're

8:11catching me off guard. Um, so

8:13I will do my best. Um, so my

8:15content will be very little

8:17other than then just

8:19basically telling you what what

8:21we were told to discuss by

8:23council. So happy to tell you

8:25tell the AAC what those five

8:27items are and let the AAC

8:29comment. And create their

8:32own their own motions or leave

8:34them to the council. Uh, go

8:36ahead and ask staff

8:38to present the issues but skim

8:40over the. Uh, presentations

8:43about, um, budgetary

8:45restrictions and complications.

8:47And I do apologize. I should

8:53have sent that through sooner. I

8:54just didn't. I didn't have a

8:56chance to go over that. You know,

8:58my medical stuff that's been

9:00going on this week. Thank you.

9:07Okay, so we've got a

9:09presentation from

9:11the committee. Uh, Mallory.

9:13Lemon. If you'd like to

9:15begin. Yeah, good

9:20afternoon. Thank you to

9:22the committee for granting us

9:24time to discuss playground

9:26accessibility. I know this is

9:28off of your regular schedule,

9:30but we did feel that

9:32this would take more than

9:34you know, a typical five

9:36minutes slot in a typical

9:38meeting. So we had

9:40requested the special meeting

9:42that we're going to have.

9:44Um, and we know that you're

9:46giving us that opportunity.

9:48Um so I will jump right

9:50in. My intention was to allow

9:52the committee to do the

9:54majority of the speaking

9:56today. Um I will

9:58go through my presentation

10:00as much as possible and skim

10:02as you requested skim through

10:04any challenges that staff have.

10:06Um.

10:08So background on this, so

10:10I will go through my

10:12recommendation. I will

10:14read out the

10:16recommendation master plan to

10:18council in October of

10:20last year in 2023.

10:22The parks and recreation master

10:24plan was approved. But

10:26council referred five items

10:28relating to playground

10:30accessibility back to city staff

10:32and the AC to discuss

10:34together. Um,

10:36I will read out

10:38the recommendation. I

10:40think. I think if this is

10:42okay with everyone, I'll

10:44read through all five items

10:46and then go back to item one

10:48and ask the AC

10:50to consider

10:52the motion that was presented at

10:54council and discuss. Does that

10:56make sense? So basically, I think

10:58slide one is is the end of my

11:02presentation. Does that work?

11:04Okay. I

11:06will I'm not

11:08going to go through all of this

11:10again. Um I'll read through

11:12these five motions and then

11:14like I said, I'll go back to

11:16number one to refresh everyone's

11:18memory and let the AC

11:20discuss so.

11:22The five motions that were

11:24referred back to staff in the

11:26AC are number one.

11:28That the final PRMP, which is

11:30parks and recreation master plan.

11:32Include a requirement that all

11:34new playgrounds and wealth

11:36include at least one play

11:38structure that is wheelchair

11:40accessible to the lowest deck.

11:42Number three.

11:44That record recommendation 33

11:46in the parks and recreation master

11:48plan be revised to read

11:50apply a service level target of

11:52one rubber surface playground

11:54within 2.5 kilometers of

11:56residential area.

11:58So that the park and recreation

12:00master plan includes a

12:02requirement that all new

12:04playgrounds and wealth include

12:06a service level target of

12:081.5 kilometers of residential

12:10areas until 2025.

12:12Moving to a target of one rubber

12:14surface playground within

12:161.5 kilometers of residential

12:18areas starting in 2026.

12:20Number four that the final PRMP

12:22include a recommendation that

12:24areas of economic need will be a

12:26factor in determining the

12:28location of playgrounds with

12:30rubber safety surface.

12:32So those are the five items

12:34that we're here to discuss today.

12:36So I'm going to read out

12:38item number one and then I will

12:40turn it over to the AC to

12:42discuss and

12:44either choose to provide

12:46a motion or not.

12:48So number one that the final

12:50parks and recreation master plan

12:52include a requirement that all

12:54new playgrounds and wealth include

12:56a minimum of two wheelchair accessible

12:58play equipment and that talk to

13:00are not considered one of those

13:02features.

13:04And so now I think I will put it

13:09to the AC to discuss.

13:11Okay, thank you.

13:13Lorelai.

13:22Sorry I couldn't unmute for a second.

13:30Hi.

13:32So I was looking I did look over

13:34the rest of the presentation like I

13:36looked over the presentation and

13:38every other slide had like the staff

13:40recommended motion as well as the

13:42motions that came before council.

13:44And

13:46this first one and the second one I

13:48noticed staff the staff

13:50recommendation the staff recommended

13:52motion kind of grouped them together

13:54which I think makes a lot of sense.

13:56One thing that I wanted to talk

13:58about is the

14:00piece here about talk tubes. I know

14:02that I think I saw that council

14:04meeting and I think the intention

14:06of the counselor who brought this

14:08forward was that they were concerned

14:10that we might just be slapping a talk

14:12tube.

14:14I'm not going to be around and saying

14:16that that's good enough, but I'm a

14:18little bit worried about highlighting

14:20any specific accessibility

14:22things as like not being

14:24considered an accessible feature.

14:26So rather than saying there must be a

14:28minimum of two wheelchair accessible

14:30play equipment, I would be more comfortable

14:32with us just increasing the number

14:34of accessible play equipment we're asking

14:36for and not specifying

14:38that certain things can't be considered

14:40to get those talk tubes

14:42on some playgrounds in the past

14:44and I think that's

14:46that's my opinion. That's all I had to

14:48say there and I did I did draft

14:50up a motion that I thought kind of mixed

14:52the

14:54the city's recommended

14:56motions in their presentation with

15:00what I think the AC has discussed

15:02on these topics

15:04and I sent that through to staff but I'm

15:06sure we have more discussion before then.

15:08We also have a hand up in the room. It's Mike.

15:12Okay, Mike.

15:14One of the things I was kind of noticing

15:16I actually went out with Mallory, Sarah

15:18and Leanne last week

15:20and one of the things talking about

15:22wheelchair accessible equipment one of the things I noticed

15:24especially at the park right near my house which is

15:26Ferndale Park

15:28to get to the actual

15:30playground itself there's no

15:32rain.

15:34That's something that also needs to be considered

15:36and just like having the playground equipment

15:38cool and everything but if you can't get to it

15:40period that's a bit of an issue

15:42and I know Leanne you had spoken to me about

15:44the footprint for certain

15:46things so I know maybe something to look

15:48at there too and consider as well

15:50is like making sure you can get

15:52to the actual kind of

15:54playgrounds that doesn't interfere with

15:56the equipment that's already there.

15:58I mean there's got to be some kind of a solution

16:00there somehow some way.

16:09Thank you.

16:11You're welcome.

16:13I'm just wondering

16:15you say two wheelchair accessible play equipment

16:17does that frame it pretty well down

16:19to a certain number

16:21of implementables that you might use

16:23or is the field still fairly open

16:25my worry is that

16:27a lot of people will see this as a chance to put

16:29accessible swings

16:31but I understand there's a lot more

16:33than accessible swings out that the people can use

16:35so I'm just wondering

16:37if that two wheelchair accessible

16:39play equipment means that you're going to focus

16:41in on a certain type

16:43of play equipment rather than broadening

16:45it out that's my only concern

16:51and maybe you can answer that for me instead of thank you.

16:53Sorry I don't know if I'm

16:57out of turn if I

16:59am I allowed to say something?

17:01Go ahead.

17:03Yeah so

17:05my understanding

17:07I believe

17:09and I don't want to speak for the counselor

17:11but I believe the intention was

17:13for play equipment that you can

17:15use while on a wheelchair

17:17okay

17:19so if the AAC wants to make that

17:21very clear in their their motion then

17:23I think that would be if that's

17:25what the AAC wants then I would

17:27suggest maybe making that very clear

17:29in the motion.

17:33Would it make sense to pull up

17:35the modified

17:37or the amended motion that

17:39Lorela had prepared?

17:41Sure yeah I'll get list of full

17:45out and then we also have mics hand

17:47up in the room I see the Lorela's hand up

17:49as well.

17:51I was just

17:53going to say that I think my

17:55the slides that were in the presentation

17:57that had the staff recommended

17:59motion alongside these

18:01motions the motion that I wrote

18:03kind of squishes those together

18:05and it might be a good starting point

18:07for us so I would like to go ahead and move that

18:09and then we could maybe use this as a starting point

18:11and tweak it perhaps because

18:13just to get a motion

18:15started that we can kind of tweak and

18:17change.

18:19And also just

18:21the staff recommended motions

18:23in the provided materials

18:25combined

18:27item one and item two in one motion

18:29and so that's what I've done here as well

18:31this is covering both item one and item two

18:33in one motion just because it seems

18:35like it did make sense.

18:38You want to go ahead Lorela and read out your motion there?

18:40Oh yeah I could

18:42I think

18:44it just says

18:46I think it's mostly what the staff recommended

18:48motion was pretty much but it just says

18:50that the AAC recommends

18:52that the final PRMP

18:54include a requirement for all new playgrounds

18:56in Guelph to include a minimum of four wheelchair

18:58accessible play components

19:00with at least one of those being a wheelchair

19:02accessible play structure with a ramp

19:04or other method of full wheelchair access

19:06onto the structure. The AAC also recommends

19:08that the PRMP include a requirement

19:10for all play structures be connected to accessible pathways

19:12and that all other play

19:14components be within 255

19:16millimeters of an accessible pathway.

19:18The staff recommended

19:20motion talked about only accessible play components

19:22needing to be within 255 millimeters

19:24of an accessible pathway. I took that out

19:26because I felt like all

19:28play components are accessible to someone and we shouldn't

19:30kind of pick and choose. I would just

19:32like all play components but

19:34I'm not I'm open to

19:36whatever the AAC thinks is good here.

19:38Okay, so we've got a motion. Do we have a seconder?

19:40I'll second that.

19:42I'll add a question before it's

19:44moved. Just one second.

19:46This brings it up to discussion.

19:48So yes.

19:50Okay, my question is related

19:52back to the original point that was raised

19:54before we got into this discussion around budgeting.

19:56We might hear back

19:58from the city that they might not

20:00have enough budget available to provide

20:02for four accessible play components.

20:04At which point we might have to come back

20:06with another

20:08recommendation.

20:10I just wanted to prepare people for that

20:12conversation down the road. If it does

20:14come up, we'll have to figure out a way to

20:16reasonably deal with this consideration

20:18as well as move forward.

20:20That's it for me.

20:22Okay, Laughline.

20:26Yeah, just in response

20:28to that, it's my understanding that procedurally

20:30this is the last time this is coming to the

20:32AAC. It already came to us once

20:34and has been bounced back to us from

20:36Council. After we make

20:38these recommendations, Council will then

20:40decide. So we can ask

20:42for what we would like in terms of accessibility.

20:44They will decide, oh, we can't afford

20:46that. We can only afford to give you two or

20:48whatever. We will probably have an opportunity

20:50to have it delegated at that meeting.

20:52But it's my understanding that the next step is for

20:54Council to finally make a decision

20:56on the Parks and Rec Master Plan. I don't think

20:58this is meant to come back to us.

21:00But I think it will. I fear

21:02that it will. Just having worked with this level

21:04of sort of back and forth before,

21:06we will have this discussion somewhere

21:08down the road about how many

21:10accessible components there are in a playground

21:12structure.

21:14I think this conversation has gone on long enough

21:16to know that this is probably

21:18the last, not the last time that we're going to hear

21:20about this. So it's just a caution

21:22that I'm bringing forward from my experience.

21:24I think the Parks and Rec, oh, sorry.

21:28I don't, Laughline.

21:33I was just going to say, I know the Parks and Rec

21:35Master Plan needs to be a finalized

21:37document, and these are about

21:39things that are going into the Parks and Rec

21:41Master Plan. So at least this part.

21:43I mean, it's always an ongoing

21:45conversation about what's going to be at.

21:47But we are, you know, well

21:49within our...

21:51It's the problem that I'm...

21:53No, no, no, I'm just saying that this is probably

21:55not the last time we're going to talk about this.

21:57No, no, totally. I agree. I absolutely agree,

21:59Chris. And I also think, like,

22:01part of the reason we're talking about this again

22:03now is that we made a recommendation

22:05to Council and then

22:07staff were unclear about whether

22:09our recommendations were meant as a starting

22:11point or an end point or a...

22:13And it was kind of framed

22:15at that Council meeting that, like, the AAC

22:17said this is good enough, but at the AAC

22:19meeting we had very clearly talked about

22:21like this is supposed to be a starting point.

22:23So I would like us, for

22:25me, the reason that I wrote it that way is because

22:27I would like us to err on the side of asking for

22:29more and Council will make cuts where they

22:31need to for budget. I don't think

22:33that we should be worried about

22:35asking for less to make it fit into their budget

22:37because it might come back, you know?

22:39Oh, okay. Yeah, I think I'm...

22:41I'm not saying that. I think we're on the same path here.

22:43I'm just saying that we do have to discuss this again.

22:45When City comes back and says,

22:47I'm not going to cover four pieces in their place structures.

22:49So that is not

22:51the end of this as far as I'm concerned.

22:53So I'm fine with that. I'm fine with your response.

22:55I'm fine to vote on this,

22:57but it is a concern in the back of my mind.

22:59So that's why I raised it.

23:01That's valid.

23:03I wonder if there's a solution.

23:05Like, is there something we should change?

23:07Do you think? Because you've worked at this level.

23:09So I think you have.

23:11No solution yet that we can provide for at this level, honestly.

23:13Yeah.

23:15We can explore on this and see how it goes

23:17when it meets the Council.

23:19And then we can sort of rejig ourselves

23:21when they come back to us and start

23:23to make statements around not having

23:25enough budgetary components in order to put those things in.

23:27I think that's

23:29we might have to put our heads together

23:31and think through what that will look like

23:33to make it an intelligent response to them.

23:35But I'm just saying, as my original statement

23:37that this is not the end of it,

23:39it's just another structural component

23:41that will allow us to get this report out.

23:43So.

23:45I understand. Okay. Sorry.

23:47I just wanted to close the loop and say I understand now.

23:49I think I totally get what you're saying. Thank you.

23:51Yeah. I just want

23:53to have a little bit of a comment

23:55before we kind of vote on this.

23:57I went out last week with these guys to take a look

23:59at some of the options for

24:01playground equipment, and it won't just be swings.

24:03I actually saw some pretty cool stuff down

24:05at Riverside Park just getting a closer

24:07look at stuff from a

24:09Cherview, which is actually kind of surprise.

24:11I mean, I hope we do more than

24:13just swings and stuff like that.

24:15I saw the fish

24:17structure thing that like you could drive your kind of

24:19wheelchair into. I saw a different like kind of

24:21transfer stations. I was actually pleasantly

24:23surprised how many of that park was actually

24:25accessible. So hopefully

24:27we'll get what we want with four pieces

24:29and get the accessible pathways. I'm really

24:31glad you put that in there, Lorelai. So

24:33yeah, I mean, I'm good to vote whenever

24:35you guys are. So.

24:37Okay.

24:39Are there any other comments

24:41or questions

24:44that people would like to make?

24:46Can I can I just

24:48make a small

24:50comment? Okay.

24:52So the parks and recreation

24:54plan is approved by

24:56Council. So the next steps that we

24:58plan once we get the feedback

25:00from the AC today.

25:02Park staff will be taking

25:04a report to Council. So I just

25:06want to make it clear that so

25:08on the following slides

25:10staff had adjusted

25:12the motions that it didn't include

25:14reference to the parks and recreation

25:16master plan. I leave that to the

25:18committee to.

25:20For awareness.

25:29Thank you.

25:32Lorela.

25:44Thank you.

25:46Sorry, I'm really bad at that.

25:48So I think

25:50our request and the

25:52reason that these motions came up at Council

25:54was that the parks and rec master plan can

25:56still be amended. So I think that's

25:58why that's included in there.

26:10If there are

26:12no other comments

26:14questions or

26:16suggestions for an amendment,

26:18I think we can put it to a vote.

26:20You want to just ask if there's

26:24any opposed that might be

26:26any opposed.

26:28There's none in the room.

26:37I see no hands online.

26:39None opposed.

26:43The motion passes.

26:45So

26:52does the AC want to go through

26:54number two as well? I think

26:56Lorela mentioned that.

26:58I think we've rolled that together. So let's go on to number three.

27:00Okay.

27:02So the council

27:04or the motion that was presented at council

27:06was that recommendation

27:0833 in the parks and recreation master plan

27:10be revised to read

27:12apply a service level

27:14target of one rubber surface playground

27:16within 2.5 kilometers of residential

27:18areas until 2025

27:20moving to a target of one rubber

27:22surface playground within 1.5 kilometers

27:24of residential areas starting

27:26in 2026.

27:33And sorry, I'll flip it over to the AC again

27:35and then we'll get to the next slide.

27:40So I think we can

27:48move on to discuss.

27:52Okay, thank you.

27:54So we've got

27:58the

28:00motion staff

28:02Lorela.

28:04Yeah, I was just going to say so I

28:06saw in the provided materials

28:08that there's a staff recommended

28:10motion and I kind of tried to do the same

28:12thing again gathered up the opinions of the

28:14AC because we've discussed this already

28:16and we've got a lot of

28:18questions about this.

28:20So I would like to move that and put it on the

28:22screen so we could discuss that as a starting

28:24point. I'm not trying to write motions

28:26for anyone. I'm just trying to make it easier

28:29for us to have a starting point of where to

28:31build a motion.

28:33Liz is just pulling that motion up on the

28:38screen here and then Lorela, you want to go

28:40ahead and read it.

28:42Okay, it just says the AC recommends

28:44that the recommendation 33

28:46in the parks and recreation master plan

28:48is to have one rubber surface playground

28:50within 2.5 kilometers of residential

28:52areas until 2025

28:54moving to a target of one rubber surface

28:56playground within 1.5 kilometers of residential

28:58areas starting in 2026

29:00and that this be considered a starting

29:02point for future growth, not an end goal.

29:04I think this is just a little

29:09more specific than the original

29:11recommendation we made, which was that we

29:13approved of 2.5 kilometers

29:15because the conversation we had around

29:17that item

29:19pointed out that we weren't comfortable

29:21with 2.5 kilometers being the end goal.

29:23We were okay with it being a starting point

29:25and staff had kind of explained

29:27that yes, it's a starting point and in future years

29:29we're going to continue to revise this and shrink that

29:31but then when this went before council

29:33it was

29:35kind of discussed as though

29:37the AC said 2.5 kilometers

29:39is good enough so it got bounced back

29:41to us to be a little bit more clear.

29:43So.

29:45Okay, so we've got a motion

29:47on the floor

29:49if we

29:51can get a seconder we can then

29:53open it to discussion.

29:55Mike has his hand up in the room.

29:57I'll second that.

29:59Okay.

30:01Can you open it to discussion?

30:03Mallory, I believe you

30:05raise your hand for the

30:07We do have a hand up in the room as well for discussion.

30:09If that helps any?

30:11Chris? Thank you.

30:13Sure, so I just wanted to make sure

30:15that

30:17staff are not characterized as

30:19presenting something that was untreated full at council.

30:21So what was

30:23asked in the

30:25meeting when we discussed this previously was

30:27will we continue

30:29to something along the lines of will we continue

30:31to apply the service level as the city grows

30:33and the response was yes.

30:35As the city expands

30:37we will get more

30:39rubber surface playgrounds within those

30:41within

30:43those growth areas to beat that 2.5

30:45kilometer radius. So there was

30:47never any intention to

30:49present something different than what was

30:51discussed

30:53at the AC

30:55meeting to council. So just wanted to clarify that.

30:59Okay, thank you. Chris?

31:01Thank you. Lorelei,

31:03can you just verify something for me?

31:05Did you add

31:07the end to that motion where it says

31:09represent future

31:11look but not then go?

31:13Yes, that was something that I added

31:15mainly because

31:17yeah, because of that

31:19counsellors reached out and

31:21the conversation at council as I saw it

31:23I want to be clear I was not trying to say

31:25that staff was being

31:27I would never say that. I'm just saying that

31:29the conversation that was reflected

31:31at council was not the same as the conversation

31:33that I was there for at the AC

31:35and it seemed as though

31:37council was this

31:39was passed as a motion by

31:41the councillor who passed it

31:43or put it on the table

31:45because they were looking for more

31:47clarification because there seemed to be

31:49some confusion about whether it was meant

31:51to be an end goal. So I don't

31:53think staff was trying to do anything

31:55shady but I did put that in for extra clarity.

31:57Yeah. Okay,

31:59just because that's how I think all of us would like to see it

32:01progress. So that's good.

32:03Thank you very much for that. Thank you.

32:07That was my whole point too. So I took

32:09my hand down in order.

32:11Okay.

32:13Any other comments?

32:15I'm

32:27oh, Laura?

32:31Yeah, I do just want to say

32:33I want to make sure that we are

32:35I'm autistic

32:37and I sometimes am very blunt

32:39and I want to make sure it's not coming

32:41across that I'm trying to pit staff

32:43against the AC. I

32:45just believe we are coming at these conversations

32:47from different perspectives

32:49and with different

32:51kind of experiences and I

32:53want to really make sure that we're making enough room

32:55for the lived experience of

32:57the disabled people and the other advocates

32:59at the table here today. So it's definitely

33:01not at all ever an implication

33:03that I'm trying to imply that the city is

33:05being malicious or hiding things or

33:07misrepresenting us on purpose. I think that's

33:09the reason we have to be so detailed in our motions

33:11is to make sure that we can

33:13be very accurately represented but I

33:15think that Mallory, you've been fantastic.

33:17So I'm just I'm upset

33:19if I have put forward

33:21the at all the idea that I'm

33:23saying that staff are being

33:25shady or malicious or not transparent.

33:27So I just wanted that on the recording

33:29here. Thank you.

33:33No offense taken and

33:35appreciate you putting

33:37that out there for the record. That's great. Thank you.

33:39Okay.

33:44In that case

33:46are there any opposed to

33:48the motion?

33:55In none,

34:00motion passes. Donna?

34:10Sorry, I'm not sure.

34:15Sorry.

34:22Sorry, are we okay if I if I jump into number four?

34:26Yes, please.

34:28Okay. Okay.

34:30So motion number four was

34:32that the final PRMP include a recommendation

34:34that areas of economic need

34:36will be a factor in determining the location

34:38of playgrounds with rubber safety

34:40surface and back to the AC.

34:44Okay. Lorelai.

34:51Once again, I did draft

34:54motion for the AC.

34:56It's just exactly that

34:58and which was exactly the staff

35:00recommendation as well. I think all three

35:02were the same. The only thing is the staff

35:04recommendation took out reference to the PRMP.

35:06So I put that back in because

35:08our original ask was this be included

35:10in the PRMP.

35:12So we might as well just

35:14still ask for the same thing if everyone's comfortable

35:16with that. If I don't know if somebody wanted to put

35:18that up on the screen as a starting point

35:20for us to build from. And please, everyone,

35:22feel free to change the motion.

35:24Add to it, take away. I'm just trying to give

35:26us a starting point.

35:28So, okay.

35:46So yeah, I guess I would like to move this.

35:48Donna, are you raising

35:52to second?

35:55I actually had a question

35:57about this

35:59motion.

36:03Sorry, sorry.

36:05Sorry to the chair.

36:07You might want to get a seconder and then the

36:09motion is on the floor for discussion.

36:11Yeah.

36:13If we can get a seconder

36:15so that we can

36:17Is this going to second it?

36:19Can I second it?

36:21It's been seconded. So now we will

36:23open it to discussion.

36:25Seconded by who?

36:27Chris.

36:29Chris had his hand up

36:31and I think Donna asked online.

36:33We just need to know which.

36:35I saw Sue Ferguson.

36:37I seconded by Sue.

36:39I'm going to thank you.

36:41Go ahead Donna.

36:46Okay.

36:48So how do you determine

36:50economic need?

36:56That's a question for staff, right?

36:58Yeah.

37:00Census data can give us

37:02an idea

37:04of where there are pockets of needs sort of

37:06geographically.

37:08So

37:10this

37:12the staff

37:14recommendation on one of the slides that I'm not sharing

37:16is that

37:18first we're going to look at distribution that

37:202.5 radius or 1.5 radius

37:22of rubber surface playgrounds

37:24and then within those

37:26if we identify any gaps where hey we need

37:28a playground somewhere

37:30in this area to

37:32to fill a sort

37:34of distribution gap, then we could look

37:36at our census

37:38data mapping

37:40within that area and see if there

37:42is one park

37:44that may

37:46suit better than

37:48another just from the economic need perspective.

37:50So short answer is census data.

37:52Okay.

37:54So there is

37:56a master plan to show how many

37:58playgrounds there are and where

38:00their locations are now

38:02and then you would look at

38:04further data to see

38:06economic

38:08need. Okay.

38:10Thank you.

38:14Mike has hand up in the room as well.

38:16Okay.

38:18So this question is to Mallory, how recent

38:20is this census data?

38:22Like how current is it if we're going to be

38:24kind of basing it on this?

38:26So

38:28I believe census

38:30data, you might catch me here

38:32but I believe census data is released every

38:34four years and the last

38:36I believe was

38:382023.

38:40So we'd be looking at 2023 for

38:42say three years

38:44and then every

38:46I believe it's every four years it gets

38:48updated or it gets released again.

38:50Cool.

38:55Okay. Laura Lai.

39:02I've done it again. I forgot to unmute.

39:04I have a question for Mallory.

39:06I'm wondering

39:08I don't know

39:10whether it would be

39:12helpful to like I don't know

39:14whether we need to include that

39:16in this motion. What you just

39:18said, not just now but to the

39:20previous question about how we're determining

39:22do you need us to include

39:24something in this motion saying that

39:26like the citywide distribution

39:28gaps are considered first and that

39:30areas of economic need

39:32identified within those gaps

39:34are what we're asking for or is this clear

39:36enough for

39:38for council and for staff. Do you think

39:40that

39:44if it does not make a difference

39:46to the AC, my preference would be

39:48to recognize that the distribution

39:50is the first sort of metric we look

39:52at to make sure that there is sort of

39:54an equitable distribution first and

39:56then within those

39:58pockets of

40:00within those gaps, then we start to

40:02consider which park best

40:04addresses economic need.

40:06Okay. I don't know if I'm allowed to amend

40:08my own motion or not, but I do

40:10think that the citywide distribution

40:12gaps are considered first, followed

40:14by areas of economic need being

40:16identified within those gaps.

40:18So if we

40:20to the chair, if we can

40:22just confirm

40:24that we're not

40:26going to be able to add that into

40:28this motion, then we can add that

40:30into the motion.

40:32So I would be willing to add that

40:34into this motion if people would be

40:38amenable to that change. I'm not

40:40going to add that into the motion.

40:42So if we can

40:44just confirm with the secondary that

40:46they're okay to amend

40:48the motion to include that

40:50language, then we can, I can move

40:52forward with

40:54including that in there. And I would

40:56just need you to repeat that. I'm sorry,

40:58Lorelai.

41:00No worries. It's okay. I'm reading it off the staff report.

41:04And the second room is Sue.

41:13Okay.

41:17So,

41:19do you have a new

41:21seconder for the amendment or

41:23Nope. We just want to check with Sue

41:25that

41:27the amendment that Lorelai is proposing

41:29she would still like to go ahead and

41:31be the seconder for that.

41:37See that Sue's better hand raised. I don't

41:39know if you want to unmute there, Sue, and

41:46just want to confirm.

41:48Okay.

41:50Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah, we can

41:52hear you. That's great. Thank you.

41:54I'd like to confirm.

42:00I do.

42:02I think we're going to have to go back to

42:06the motion.

42:08So, I'm just pulling it from the stuff

42:10in the one of the stuff

42:12infos that they attach it says

42:14so maybe at the end

42:16of this motion, keep the motion as is and

42:18at the end just say noting

42:20that citywide distribution

42:22gaps will be considered first

42:24with areas of economic

42:26need.

42:28Being identified within these gaps.

42:30I can say that again slower if you need.

42:32That was probably too.

42:34Yes, please.

42:36No worries. Noting that citywide

42:38distribution

42:43gaps

42:47will be considered first

42:49with areas of

42:53economic need.

42:59Being identified within those gaps.

43:01I think I have it.

43:16If you just want to repeat one last time, just

43:18make sure I captured it and then I'll bring

43:20it up.

43:22So, I'm just going to go back to the

43:24motion.

43:26Noting that citywide distribution gaps

43:28will be considered first

43:30with areas of economic need being

43:32identified within those gaps.

43:36Is that more

43:38in line? Like is that helpful for

43:40staff Mallory? Okay, perfect.

43:42It is. Yeah.

43:44I think we're all pretty much on the same

43:46page about most of these things.

43:55Do we have any more questions

44:03comment?

44:05I'm going to ask the

44:08speaker.

44:10I think the speaker says areas of

44:12economic need be identified within

44:30those gaps within rather than with, but

44:32other than that, no.

44:39Okay.

44:41In that case, are there any opposed?

44:47Out of the room.

44:49I'm seeing none motion carries.

44:58Back to staff for the fifth.

45:02Mallory, you're muted.

45:04Sorry about that.

45:06So for this last motion, I'm actually

45:08going to go back to the

45:10discussion.

45:12It doesn't include anything about, you

45:14know, space constraints

45:16or

45:18financial constraints, but there are, I

45:20just want to kind of flag from a

45:22staff perspective why this

45:24may not be in the best interest of the

45:26AC to

45:28adopt the motion as written by

45:30council. Is that okay if I run through

45:32the slide or would you prefer that I

45:39just only present what was presented

45:42at the table?

45:44I think that's fine.

45:46You can go ahead with.

45:48Okay, great.

45:50So the motion that was presented at

45:52council reads like this,

45:54that the final PRMP include a

45:56recommendation to work with the AC

45:58to establish a target ratio of

46:00playgrounds that have rubber safety

46:02surface.

46:04So from a staff perspective, we find

46:06this to be challenging.

46:08So the

46:10application of a

46:12rubber safety

46:14metric and applying another metric on

46:16top of it for a ratio

46:18makes it challenging to try and chase

46:20down two different metrics.

46:22So a ratio target may result

46:24in playgrounds with rubber surface that

46:26are unevenly concentrated in certain

46:28areas of the city.

46:30So technically we could, you know,

46:32whatever the ratio may be,

46:34we could technically achieve that by

46:36filling out the entire south end with

46:38the distribution target.

46:40So that's the definition of the

46:42distribution target.

46:44So if you're interested in the

46:46definition of the distribution target,

46:48we have a distribution target that

46:50establishes the quantity and location

46:52of playgrounds with rubber and

46:54the distribution target is measurable

46:56and more equitable.

46:58So our recommendation from staff

47:00would be to stick

47:02with the distribution metric

47:04and if desired,

47:06we would be able to do that

47:08with the distribution target.

47:10So that would be a good option

47:12rather than try and do two

47:14different metrics.

47:16I think the intention is to

47:18get more rubber

47:20and I think

47:22the result will be better

47:24if we

47:26reduce the

47:28service area

47:30in the distribution metric

47:32rather than try and do, chase down

47:34the distribution target.

47:36So I will leave the AC with that.

47:38So

47:40the staff recommended motion was

47:42that the AC supports using a geographic

47:44distribution metric rather than a

47:46ratio metric for implementing

47:48playgrounds with rubber surface

47:53and I'll flip it back to the AC to

47:55consider.

47:59Laura?

48:01Yeah, I think I agree with

48:03what Mallory is saying here

48:05and I think

48:07that as well.

48:09I think that

48:11Mallory, can you pull up the next

48:13slide that had the

48:15recommended by council motion and then the recommended

48:17by staff motion?

48:19Because I recommended a third motion

48:21that basically mixes those two together

48:23because I think

48:25the metric that we've already

48:27passed in our previous motion today

48:29the second motion

48:31that we passed

48:33today

48:35we kind of figured out

48:37that metric of

48:392.5 km in 2025

48:41moving to 1.5 km in

48:432026. That's the metric that staff

48:45would like to use.

48:47Council was asking that we

48:49include a recommendation about a target

48:51ratio. So like we would like

48:53to talk to the AC about

48:55we would like 50%

48:57of all

48:59playgrounds in the city to be accessible

49:01or would we like 75% or would we like

49:03100% and they were just bouncing that back

49:05to us to be discussed. And I do think

49:07that's a valuable discussion that I would like us to

49:09have at some point with staff. So

49:11I do like the motion presented at council

49:13but I agree that if we just

49:15go off of a ratio metric

49:17that's not going to be helpful.

49:19So I wrote a

49:21motion that merges those two

49:23and I would like to move that

49:25now. It basically says that we support

49:27the use of the geographic distribution

49:29metric that we've previously

49:31removed in this meeting.

49:33Or here it is. I'll just read it out.

49:35It says the AAC recommends that

49:37the final PRMP include a recommendation

49:39to work with the Accessibility Advisory Committee

49:41to establish a target ratio

49:43of playgrounds that have rubber safety surfaces

49:45which will be considered in

49:47addition to the AAC's recommendation

49:49or recommended

49:51G

49:53I got to get my screen reader back. Hang on one second.

49:57We'll be considered in addition to the AAC's

49:59recommended geographic distribution

50:01metric.

50:03So

50:05this is basically saying that

50:07we don't have to worry about

50:09the staff's

50:11challenge of

50:13we might have things distributed

50:15unevenly through the city if we work with a ratio.

50:17It might be good

50:19for us to discuss a ratio but

50:21use the metric that has been outlined

50:23as a geographic metric.

50:25Okay. Do we have

50:32a seconder?

50:34Do you have mics scanned up in the room

50:36to second?

50:38Okay. Mike?

50:40Yup. I second for sure.

50:42Okay. Motion has been

50:45seconded. We can now open it to

50:47discussion. Laura Lai?

50:54I don't know

50:56procedurally. Am I allowed to ask questions of other

50:58AAC members

51:00right now?

51:02I had a question maybe for Chris

51:04if that's... Yeah, it's discussion.

51:06It's a discussion that's been

51:08discussed for a few years.

51:10It is. Yeah.

51:12Because Chris has worked on both

51:14the city side and the AAC

51:16side.

51:18So I am

51:20wondering if...

51:22I am worried I'm not sure if the wording of this

51:24will...

51:26I think you're a good person to chime in, Chris, on

51:28whether or not this balances the two worlds

51:30well.

51:32I don't want to muddy the waters too much

51:34and I wondered if you had any thoughts on that.

51:36Yeah.

51:38If you don't mind.

51:40Sorry, no problem.

51:42I'm going to jump in. I think in terms of the

51:44discussion around target ratio

51:46and geographic distribution gets a little

51:48bit tight in there.

51:50I think that what we're looking for

51:52is ultimately one distinct

51:54way of measuring how many

51:56playgrounds out there require

51:58rubberized surfaces.

52:00So I think that's a good question.

52:02So I'm looking at

52:04the target ratio and then

52:06the geographic distribution metric

52:08seems to me...

52:10I'm not sure if this is the way it is, Mallory, and you

52:12can jump in if it's otherwise.

52:14But it seems to me like it's going back to those two

52:16ratios or two distinct types of measuring

52:18where a rubberized surface should go.

52:20So I think

52:22if we're able to pare that down a little bit

52:24and

52:26say that

52:30we'll establish a target

52:32ratio of

52:36a ratio of

52:38playgrounds that have rubberized surfaces

52:42hold on a second. I'm going to get this

52:47out of the screw up here. The AAC recommends

52:49that the final PRMP

52:51include a recommendation to work with the

52:53disability committee to establish a

53:01target ratio of playgrounds that have rubberized services

53:03which will be considered in addition to

53:05the AAC's recommended geographic distribution metric.

53:07That seems a little bit dense to me.

53:09It's hard to

53:11break apart. I'm just thinking you might need a little

53:13bit more work and I'm not exactly sure which angle

53:15we should take whether we focus on the target ratio

53:17or the focus on geographic distribution

53:19and Mallory, I'm hoping to be able to jump in here

53:21and correct me if I'm wrong. I might be going completely

53:23off-kilter by saying that these are two different

53:25things. Yeah, that's kind of

53:30our

53:32position as well is that they're two

53:34two distinct things

53:36and

53:38truthfully, I

53:40don't fully understand the

53:42motion as written. So I'm not sure what

53:44so I think

53:46that if the

53:48AAC wants a target ratio then you need to

53:50say what that ratio is

53:52or

53:54we stick with

53:56what we've discussed which is

53:58placing them every 2.5 kilometer

54:00because

54:02sorry, Lorde, I

54:04don't know what we're looking at down the road.

54:06Sorry, what we're looking at down the road is trying

54:08to decipher what we've actually put in place

54:10and trying to figure out what those measurements are.

54:12It's a lot easier to make this distinct

54:14now rather than having to go back and think through

54:16what type of ratio we're looking at.

54:18We're just thinking about adding in more mechanics

54:20to the equation

54:22that are ultimately necessary. So I think

54:24if we're going to go with geographic distribution

54:26then that would ladder out

54:28the economic need because we can

54:30automatically. So if we remove

54:32target ratio

54:34and just affirm it, then we'll be looking at

54:36geographic distribution and that would be a

54:38clear, distinct way to move

54:40forward with the organization of services.

54:42That's where I would take it

54:44but that's my consideration

54:46but there's other people in the room so I might jump in.

54:48Okay, Lorelai, were you

55:00waiting?

55:02Yes, if it's okay.

55:04Yeah, that's exactly why I wanted people

55:06to chime in and Chris, I'm sorry

55:08for calling you out directly but you've

55:10helped with this stuff in the past.

55:12No, I was going over here.

55:14Yeah, I thought it would be like a good use of our time

55:16to just get right into it.

55:18So the

55:20conversation that happened at the council meeting

55:22that caused the council recommendation

55:24that we were looking at asking for a target ratio

55:26came after a discussion around

55:28like okay, we can put a geographic

55:30distribution metric

55:32but then how many parks will be

55:34in that, like

55:36that just figures out where they are, not how

55:38many there are. So the councillor

55:40asked

55:42that a conversation be had with

55:44us to figure out kind of how

55:46many and it was a ratio conversation

55:48but it doesn't have to be a ratio conversation

55:50but I do think it makes sense for

55:52us to say

55:54we are good with the geographic distribution metric

55:56because we've already put a motion forward

55:58saying we're good with that

56:00but that we also would like to continue

56:02this conversation with the city

56:04to figure out how

56:06many parks are going to be implemented

56:08and that we welcome that conversation

56:10because the council

56:12recommendation was

56:14we recommend that the city

56:16work with the AAC

56:18to figure out how many parks should be

56:20accessible in this geographic distribution

56:22so that's kind of what I was trying to get into this

56:24but I'm not

56:26wording it properly I don't think and I don't want to make it difficult for staff.

56:28I don't want to add extra

56:30so maybe we could just

56:32change that first portion to say something along

56:34the lines of the AAC

56:36would like staff to continue

56:38discussion with us

56:40around the number of

56:42parks or we would like to see

56:44further engagement on this perhaps I don't

56:46know.

56:48Before we go into the amendment there Lorela

56:50we have Chris's hand up in the room.

56:52Just thinking about how we can possibly

56:54put this down to make it simpler

56:56and Malar and Malaya

56:58I need to let me know whether this is in the field or not

57:00but potentially you could say that we're

57:02looking towards geographic distribution metric

57:04for the first four years of

57:06this project's implementation

57:08then we can revisit it when the next iteration

57:10of census

57:12survey material comes out

57:14and then we can make

57:16an evidence based judgment call

57:18on where we want to move forward and how we want

57:20to look rather than just saying

57:22now that we want it to move forward to a certain target

57:24ratio where we're not sure what the number is

57:26we can actually make it

57:28an educated

57:30call by saying we're going to follow the first

57:32format which is

57:34geographic distribution method then we'll revisit that

57:36when the census information comes out

57:38and however that's worded

57:40it's worded.

57:48Malari you're

57:50again

57:52I leave this to the AAC

57:54but the parks and recreation

57:56master plan we have a

57:58five-year update so I just wonder if

58:00that's something that we

58:02that the AAC recommends

58:04for consideration at the five-year update

58:06to the

58:08parks and recreation master plan

58:10yeah

58:12and I also I guess the question is

58:14what do you need from staff

58:16for you to make this

58:18decision

58:20like what the ratio should be

58:26I just sorry

58:30I would like to know

58:32what the AAC's

58:34why we wouldn't

58:36establish the target ratio today if that is desired

58:38I thought that

58:44we were looking at the target ratio as being

58:46the world out and we're looking at

58:48the geographic distribution metric

58:50so that would be

58:52left out of the conversation

58:54but five years from now

58:56if we have

58:58a good enough sense of how we can move forward

59:00we can make another consideration based on

59:02census information

59:04if that's not worthwhile

59:06then let it be

59:08I just thought it would be a good way to look at that

59:10while making

59:12educated sort of

59:14guesses on where to go and

59:20I see Laura lies hand up

59:27yes okay thank you

59:29just responding to

59:31Mallory's question

59:33I don't see a reason we wouldn't come up with

59:35a distribution

59:37metric or sorry a

59:39ratio

59:41everything's getting all jumbled together now

59:43I don't see why we wouldn't come up

59:45with a ratio today if we want

59:47to implement one

59:49I don't see a problem with saying

59:51we would like 50% of new parks

59:53to definitely have rubberized surfaces

59:55and that we also would like

59:57them to be distributed using

59:59the distribution metric that we

1:00:01outlined earlier

1:00:03that feels like a pretty succinct way

1:00:05or 75% or whatever percent

1:00:07the AAC feels comfortable with

1:00:09of new parks having rubberized surfaces

1:00:11I'm just one person

1:00:13I would think 50%

1:00:15makes sense but

1:00:17anyone can feel free to chime in

1:00:19that's kind of more what I was thinking is

1:00:21the geographic distribution metric

1:00:23says where the parks are going to go but it doesn't say how many

1:00:25and council

1:00:27bounced this back to us to ask us how many we'd like

1:00:29so why not take the opportunity

1:00:31to say we'd like 50% of all new parks

1:00:33to have rubberized surfaces

1:00:35so is that kind of what you were asking for Mallory

1:00:37is if we're going to do that can we just

1:00:39actually hammer it out today

1:00:41that makes sense we're way ahead of schedule

1:00:43that would be more clear for staff

1:00:45and I just don't want this to get lost

1:00:47two years down the road where

1:00:49there was a motion from two years ago

1:00:51or three years ago and now we're supposed

1:00:53to come back with this target I just

1:00:55wonder so yes

1:00:57Lorelie that would be helpful for staff

1:00:59to have that clear

1:01:03okay I saw a hand up I believe it was

1:01:05Jeanette

1:01:07thank you I had a question

1:01:09so

1:01:11I like the idea of setting a target

1:01:13first of all I thought

1:01:15what are sort of

1:01:17sister communities same size

1:01:19and demographics

1:01:21and economics do they have

1:01:23a target ratio so

1:01:25then I thought

1:01:27new parks so when we talk about new

1:01:29parks are we talking about new parks

1:01:31that are part of a development plan

1:01:33that

1:01:35I forget what there's a

1:01:37proportion

1:01:39that goes towards the development of

1:01:41a new park with every subdivision

1:01:43right excuse me

1:01:45so then

1:01:47why wouldn't we say 100% of all new parks

1:01:49would be

1:01:51rubberized

1:01:53for new parks moving forward

1:01:55this would be developers

1:01:57cost

1:01:59thank you

1:02:19yeah I would be comfortable

1:02:21with saying that we would like

1:02:23all new parks to have rubberized

1:02:25and we would like to have

1:02:27a conversation with the city

1:02:29and the city has told us they won't do

1:02:31that and I do know

1:02:33because they can't

1:02:35because some

1:02:37parks

1:02:39some park locations have drainage problems

1:02:41and other things like that

1:02:43but again we can ask for what

1:02:45our desired

1:02:47number is

1:02:49and council can have the conversation

1:02:51of well we can't give them 100%

1:02:53but I think

1:02:55we recommend that all new parks

1:02:57have rubberized safety surfaces

1:02:59and that the

1:03:01geographic distribution

1:03:03metric be used

1:03:05yeah thank you and be clear that we're talking

1:03:07new parks versus existing

1:03:09yeah thank you

1:03:11Jen

1:03:15I was just thinking about

1:03:17the size of parks

1:03:19or the drainage

1:03:21would it ever deter

1:03:23the park from being built in a particular

1:03:25location

1:03:27if there was insufficient drainage

1:03:29it was just

1:03:33I was just trying to think

1:03:36like

1:03:38that would be

1:03:40I was just thinking that would be a stormwater

1:03:42planner or engineers

1:03:44Bailey Wick right?

1:03:46They're designing the subdivision and they'd find

1:03:48the optimum places for park development

1:03:50as well

1:03:52I think that I can

1:03:54respond so I don't see

1:03:56I don't see

1:03:58an issue with stormwater

1:04:00being a big problem for implementing rubber

1:04:02if that helps

1:04:04okay

1:04:06exist sorry four new parks

1:04:08and there isn't

1:04:12like concerns about

1:04:14level I guess there isn't anything about level structures

1:04:16I'm just

1:04:18I love the idea of rubberized

1:04:20structure rubberized

1:04:22platforms I just

1:04:24thought it meant we had fewer parks

1:04:26or something

1:04:28I

1:04:30don't know okay that's fine

1:04:32it makes sense the rubberized

1:04:34are far more comfortable

1:04:38we have a hand up in the room Mike

1:04:40I know

1:04:42Laura you said that the city won't do 100%

1:04:44due to various reasons is there

1:04:46any way to put it in the wording

1:04:48to say 100% we're

1:04:50applicable maybe so

1:04:52gives us an option to shoot

1:04:54for the moon but understanding there may be areas

1:04:56where we just can't do it

1:05:01respond to that

1:05:03I want to make sure

1:05:05that we're still following the procedure of raising our

1:05:07hands and waiting for acting chair

1:05:09Cameron to call on us

1:05:11so that we're respecting the procedural

1:05:13sorry

1:05:15but yes I

1:05:17don't see a problem in us just shooting

1:05:19for the moon and not having to put that caveat in there

1:05:21because that kind of falls back

1:05:23on the very first point I made in this meeting

1:05:25that these are considerations that aren't

1:05:27the AACs

1:05:29like Jeanette just pointed out

1:05:31that there are park planners that will figure that out

1:05:33and they can let us know if it's not doable

1:05:35but there's no

1:05:37reason for us not to just ask for 100%

1:05:39I think I don't think we even need to

1:05:41add that caveat I see where you're coming from

1:05:43but yeah I'm on board with

1:05:45Jeanette's amendment I would amend my motion

1:05:47to include what Jeanette said

1:05:49if people are comfortable with that

1:05:51we may

1:05:53just keeping in mind

1:05:55that we may not receive this from council

1:05:57because

1:05:59it might not be doable but

1:06:01we should ask for what we need

1:06:03not what we think is doable

1:06:05we have Chris's hand up in the room

1:06:07just a point

1:06:09if we put down 100%

1:06:11and then we're fully knowing that 100% will be met

1:06:13that'll make it look kind of wishy washy

1:06:15so following you on that

1:06:17by saying we don't include a number

1:06:19we're going to get clear

1:06:21that we want

1:06:25the city

1:06:27to

1:06:31implement accessible playgrounds

1:06:33where possible

1:06:35and with

1:06:37reasons as to why they shouldn't or why they can't

1:06:39or something like that

1:06:41so at least we're in the know

1:06:43this doesn't have to be public information

1:06:45but if they come across the park

1:06:47then maybe they can let us know as to why they can't

1:06:49because of things like drainage and so on

1:06:51but I think

1:06:53that'd be a good thing to leave the numbers out

1:06:55okay, Jeanette

1:07:04thank you, yeah I think we're talking about

1:07:06two separate things a little bit

1:07:08one is new park development

1:07:10and 100% target

1:07:12of rubber

1:07:14and the second one

1:07:16which I think we're getting into the

1:07:18but what ifs

1:07:20that's the existing

1:07:22so I just wanted to make that distinction clear

1:07:24for the group

1:07:26and for the motions that we're putting forward

1:07:28and keep in mind

1:07:30when site plans are being

1:07:32developed and new subdivisions are being

1:07:34developed there are teams

1:07:36and project teams of planners

1:07:38landscapes, architects, engineers

1:07:40that are putting together the optimum plan

1:07:42for the proposed

1:07:44park development

1:07:46it is part of their

1:07:48it's mandatory

1:07:50when they put in a subdivision

1:07:52so it's going to be happening anyway

1:07:54whereas existing parks

1:07:56playgrounds

1:07:58may have different

1:08:00conditional aspects to it

1:08:02but if we ask

1:08:04then the default is 100%

1:08:06and it would be incumbent upon the city

1:08:08to tell us why that can't happen

1:08:10based on the conditions

1:08:12or influencing factors

1:08:14of a site

1:08:21Lorelei

1:08:23yeah I think I would like to amend

1:08:27my motion and find out

1:08:29whether the seconder would still like to second it

1:08:31I think

1:08:33hearing from staff that they're okay with us

1:08:35saying a target ratio if we are specific

1:08:37about it today

1:08:39and keeping in mind that I think that's more in line

1:08:41with the conversations we've had at the AAC

1:08:43for this

1:08:45motion I would like it to read

1:08:47just for the motion that I'm putting forward

1:08:49I think it makes sense to say

1:08:51the AAC

1:08:53recommends that a target ratio

1:08:55of 100% of new playgrounds

1:08:57have rubber safety surfaces

1:08:59which will be

1:09:01considered in addition to the AAC's

1:09:03recommended geographic distribution metric

1:09:05I can say that

1:09:07more slowly so we can type it out

1:09:09if you want or I can email it to someone

1:09:11but I think I agree with

1:09:13the members who've said we might as well ask

1:09:15for a target ratio

1:09:17and leave the

1:09:19leave it to

1:09:21I'm worried about leaving this

1:09:23to Nebulous

1:09:25this way if staff feels they can't meet this

1:09:27they will bring that to council and they can

1:09:29discuss it there and it might

1:09:31bounce back to us but

1:09:37so I don't remember who the seconder was

1:09:39but can I amend my motion

1:09:41and can we find out if the seconder would be okay

1:09:43with that? I think it was me so yeah

1:09:45I'll second it again

1:09:47Staff do you need me to

1:09:51slowly say that again

1:09:53Yeah no worries

1:09:55I typed it out over here

1:09:57I can also email it to you if that's easier

1:09:59but it might take me a few minutes

1:10:01If that's easier for you Lorelay

1:10:03For me it's easier to just

1:10:05say it because I have to

1:10:07navigate over to another tab with my screen

1:10:09Let's work through it together then

1:10:11I'll just be really slow

1:10:13So the AAC recommends

1:10:15that a target

1:10:17ratio

1:10:22of 100% of new

1:10:24playgrounds

1:10:26have

1:10:28rubber safety surfaces

1:10:30and then the last

1:10:38part is just as already

1:10:40written in the

1:10:42motion that I sent you which will be considered

1:10:44in addition to the AAC's recommended

1:10:46geographic distribution

1:10:48metric

1:10:50Okay let me share my screen

1:10:52and then you can just confirm whether or not

1:10:54I captured it

1:10:56I think this is

1:10:59a much more clear

1:11:01starting point at least

1:11:03less muddy

1:11:09So if this is still seconded are we just going to go back

1:11:11to discussing it now?

1:11:13Is that how this works?

1:11:15Yes

1:11:17I'm not used to being on this end of

1:11:19the discussion sorry

1:11:21Okay

1:11:23Are there any further

1:11:25comments or questions?

1:11:27We have a hand up in the room

1:11:29It's Chris

1:11:31Okay

1:11:33I think we have a question

1:11:35which I'll have

1:11:37rubberized safety surface would not be feasible

1:11:42So I'm wondering

1:11:44That's anybody to answer it

1:11:48Sorry

1:11:50I'll jump in

1:11:52I don't want to talk out of order either

1:11:54There are certain instances

1:11:56There's

1:11:58Sorry

1:12:00Do I'm thinking of

1:12:02Bark

1:12:04So I don't see any huge concerns

1:12:06from a

1:12:08site perspective for new playgrounds

1:12:10There are sort of constraints

1:12:12within existing playgrounds

1:12:14that may be difficult

1:12:16for replacement

1:12:19With this

1:12:21I mean with this motion cover

1:12:23This is only talking about new playgrounds

1:12:25It's not talking

1:12:27about ones that need to be retrofitted

1:12:29or refitted or anything like that

1:12:31Would that mean that we'd have to have a second conversation around

1:12:33ones that are going to be

1:12:35refitted or reused?

1:12:37To me

1:12:41the way that I would read this

1:12:43motion is that we're talking about

1:12:45newly developed parks that we're receiving

1:12:47as part of a subdivision

1:12:49So in my

1:12:51opinion this motion doesn't talk about

1:12:53retrofits or rebuilds of playgrounds

1:12:55Okay but those do occur

1:12:57and there might be the situation in which

1:12:59a rubberized safety surface wouldn't be

1:13:01feasible, correct?

1:13:05Yes

1:13:07So there are some

1:13:09financial constraints

1:13:11that prevent us from doing

1:13:13rubber safety surface

1:13:15I know that we didn't want to talk about that

1:13:17but that is a real constraint

1:13:19that staff face

1:13:21Still it's a valuable consideration

1:13:23I'm just wondering what will happen down the road

1:13:25when these considerations do come up to retrofit

1:13:27into an already existing

1:13:29playground

1:13:31with a lot of them in the motion

1:13:33There's nothing we can do about that today

1:13:35but I just thought

1:13:37I'd make that clear again that down the road

1:13:39we might have to have another

1:13:41conversation around

1:13:43retrofitting and so on

1:13:45Okay

1:13:49I see Jeanette's hand is up

1:13:51Yeah I was just going to answer

1:13:55your question there

1:13:57but Mallory had addressed it

1:13:59and as you heard

1:14:01she talked about financial

1:14:03constraints for existing

1:14:05but I'll just hand it over

1:14:07to Laura Lai

1:14:09Good

1:14:11Laura Lai

1:14:13Oh yeah, mostly the same thing

1:14:15I was just going to say last year we had quite a few

1:14:17at quite a few

1:14:19of the AAC meetings we had staff come

1:14:21and say

1:14:23we're going to be redoing and retrofitting these

1:14:25playgrounds upcoming and they kind of outlined

1:14:27at least the next few in Guelph that are going to be

1:14:29retrofit

1:14:31and we asked for all of those to have rubberized

1:14:33surfaces and they came back

1:14:35and told us this one can't because of drainage

1:14:37that one can't because of the slant

1:14:39and we kind of came to a consensus

1:14:41of like okay we can concede those

1:14:43maybe do these too

1:14:45so that'll probably keep happening in the future

1:14:47but at least the next few that are being retrofit

1:14:49Parks has been really great about working

1:14:51with us on it and they probably will continue

1:14:53to be really great about working with us on it

1:14:55so I'm not too worried about it

1:14:57I think this is good

1:15:03Hey

1:15:05In that case

1:15:07are there

1:15:09any opposed

1:15:11I'm seeing none

1:15:19so the

1:15:21motion passes

1:15:23Okay I think

1:15:33that's my cue to give out of your

1:15:35hair so very much

1:15:37appreciate the thoughtful

1:15:39discussion today so our next steps

1:15:41will be to take

1:15:43your feedback oh sorry Lorelai did I

1:15:45cut in before I was allowed

1:15:47No sorry I

1:15:49misclicked my bad

1:15:51Yeah so our next steps will be to

1:15:53take your feedback

1:15:55and then we will

1:15:57report back to council with what has been

1:15:59been

1:16:01discussed and the motions that

1:16:03the AC has voted for along with some

1:16:05considerations for

1:16:07from a staff perspective and

1:16:09and we'll

1:16:11send that over to council and have them

1:16:13discuss

1:16:15Okay

1:16:17Thank you

1:16:19So does that mean

1:16:21it's

1:16:23time to call for

1:16:25an adjournment

1:16:27meeting or

1:16:29Yeah that's right I just had a quick

1:16:31question for Malory do we have a date when it

1:16:33goes to council as of yet I'm just curious

1:16:35We do not

1:16:37I can say the council agenda

1:16:39is very full

1:16:41so I'm working with

1:16:43clerks and our general manager to find

1:16:45out what we can do

1:16:47and we can

1:16:49take this to council but no firm

1:16:51date yet but I will I can

1:16:53let accessibility

1:16:55staff know and perhaps we can just

1:16:57flag it for the AC

1:16:59I'll try and watch for it too

1:17:01but I'll certainly follow up with

1:17:03the committee let them know when

1:17:05it will be going to council which council

1:17:07meeting will go on

1:17:11Great

1:17:13Sorry Anori

1:17:15I'm sorry

1:17:17Lauren

1:17:19That's a good point Leanne was just mentioning

1:17:21that if the AC

1:17:23is looking for

1:17:25chair or another member

1:17:27to delegate at that

1:17:29rather present

1:17:31at that council meeting

1:17:33then we may want to take the opportunity

1:17:35now to make a move for that

1:17:37just something to consider

1:17:39as a committee

1:17:44Yeah I was my hand was raised because I was going to move

1:17:46but I think that's better

1:17:48if we would like to discuss that we have time

1:17:50Up to you chair Cameron though

1:17:54because it's you know you have discretion

1:17:56as the chair of the meeting so

1:17:58Yeah

1:18:00we can discuss that

1:18:02we've got the time here so let's

1:18:05Okay so if that's

1:18:10something that the AC would wish to do

1:18:12then we would just need a motion on the floor

1:18:14of that one this

1:18:16topic comes up to council

1:18:18for discussion that

1:18:20whoever you'd like to appoint

1:18:22as a committee would present

1:18:24on behalf of the committee

1:18:26at that council meeting

1:18:28and then we'll leave the seconder

1:18:30and then we would go into vote from there

1:18:32Would you like to suggest people?

1:18:36Sure

1:18:38That's not just Chris

1:18:42Oh Chris would have to be willing

1:18:44Yeah Chris why would you have to be willing

1:18:46You're really well spoken on this

1:18:48Am I though?

1:18:50Yes you're over and easily

1:18:52When is it going to be

1:18:54Okay

1:18:56we'll pencil me in then

1:18:58I accept that

1:19:00Okay so you're wanting to make a motion

1:19:02Yeah I'd like to make a motion to nominate Chris

1:19:04If that's your wish

1:19:06I have a point of order

1:19:08I also think Chris would be great but

1:19:10just procedurally

1:19:12is it not

1:19:14procedurally

1:19:16is it not supposed to first be offered

1:19:18to the chair and then the vice chair

1:19:20and then open for discussion

1:19:22for I believe that that's the role

1:19:24of the chair is to be the first delegate up

1:19:26and the role of the vice chair is to be offered

1:19:28delegate second

1:19:30and that's in our procedural bylaws

1:19:32or in our procedural documents

1:19:34I just want to make sure that we're

1:19:36the trap

1:19:38one of the roles that we were

1:19:40and it's one of the roles that we were elected for

1:19:42it's one of the responsibilities we

1:19:44put ourselves forward for

1:19:46so I want to make sure that Nortel and I are

1:19:48going to double check with Leanne and Sarah

1:19:50but in our orientation I believe that was

1:19:52that's how it's meant to be

1:19:54right?

1:19:56I'll refer to Liz on that one

1:19:58procedurally

1:20:00So our policies do state that

1:20:02the ACOC chair

1:20:04shall serve as a representative of an ACOC

1:20:06in communicating with council and the public

1:20:08and where appropriate act as a representative

1:20:10with the ACOC at meetings of council

1:20:12to present ACOC resolutions

1:20:14and advice and that's taken directly

1:20:16from the advisory committees of council

1:20:18meeting procedures

1:20:20policy but we have seen in the past

1:20:22with other committees as well

1:20:24should the chair not be able to attend

1:20:26or would like to delegate that out

1:20:28to a member

1:20:30that's an option as well

1:20:32but yeah quoting from

1:20:34the policy that is what it states

1:20:36I'm just saying I would like to delegate

1:20:38and I know

1:20:40Nortel also would probably like to delegate

1:20:42so procedurally

1:20:44because we've been so involved in this

1:20:46like that happens

1:20:48if we decline

1:20:50if we say we can't do it right

1:20:52and then we start opening it up for discussion

1:20:54I'm not trying to say I don't think Chris would do a great job

1:20:56Chris I think you'd be great

1:20:58it is one of the things that I really enjoy

1:21:00about being the chair

1:21:02and I think it's one of the things that I know Nortel enjoys too

1:21:04so I just want to make sure we're following

1:21:06the procedure sorry

1:21:08and just to make sure we're not

1:21:10every time there's a delegation up we're just like

1:21:12kind of voting for who we think

1:21:14I think we should follow the procedures of the

1:21:16I think we have to

1:21:18don't we

1:21:21there's a hand up in the room and it's on the ends

1:21:23yeah go ahead Leanne

1:21:25is that okay chair

1:21:27Cameron

1:21:29so

1:21:31what Liz is saying

1:21:33is right on the mark

1:21:35the chair is the representative

1:21:37and if the chair

1:21:39chooses not to represent

1:21:41because of

1:21:43whatever reason

1:21:45they can then delegate to another member

1:21:47it doesn't necessarily go from

1:21:49chair to vice chair and so on type of thing

1:21:51it's the chair's responsibility

1:21:53to make that decision

1:21:55right so I'm just

1:21:57I was a little stressed out by our staff

1:21:59liaisons being like

1:22:01let's just pick a person because that's not

1:22:03the procedure

1:22:05I don't think that was happening

1:22:07no okay I thought somebody said

1:22:09like let's pick a person that we would like to delegate

1:22:11is that not what Sarah just said

1:22:13no it was

1:22:15do

1:22:17does the AC want to make a motion

1:22:19to delegate to council

1:22:21that's it

1:22:23and if I made through the chair

1:22:25Laura there's another policy

1:22:27another one of our policies

1:22:29that also states

1:22:31similar along the lines

1:22:33of what the other one stated but at the direction of the ACOC

1:22:35or the ACOC chair

1:22:37or their designate

1:22:39shall attend and be listed with staff

1:22:41as a presenter to staff reports

1:22:43before council or committee

1:22:45of the whole where ACOC advice, resolutions

1:22:47and feedback have been included

1:22:49so again just quoting from policy

1:22:51both policies

1:22:53have indicated what

1:22:55the steps are

1:22:57at first

1:22:59if there's a motion you should say chair

1:23:01or whoever it may be I guess in this scenario

1:23:03it sounds like chair will present

1:23:05to council not delegate to council

1:23:07is what Liz is trying to say there

1:23:09I think I just wanted to jump in

1:23:11before we made a motion for Chris to present

1:23:13because it's my understanding that first

1:23:15if I can't present

1:23:17I'm to pick someone

1:23:19to present and then we discussed that

1:23:21so I was just trying to chime in because Mike

1:23:23was saying let's get Chris and Chris was like

1:23:25I'll do it and I was like can we slow this down

1:23:27this isn't the procedure that's all I'm trying to say

1:23:29yeah I just

1:23:31wasn't sure if you'd want like a break

1:23:33because you carry a pretty heavy load

1:23:35so I was just trying to give you a break

1:23:37okay so Mike

1:23:39I'm going to return it back to you

1:23:41yeah I will withdraw that motion because now I know

1:23:43it

1:23:45okay to create the full motion so

1:23:47motion 2

1:23:49I guess I motion to withdraw my previous

1:23:51motion I guess

1:23:53I guess I don't know how

1:23:55so motion for a lower

1:23:57life yeah I would motion for a lower life

1:23:59to present to council regarding

1:24:01this particular issue

1:24:06sorry can I jump in

1:24:08I've had my hand up but I just want to

1:24:10before

1:24:12when does the

1:24:14so I expect that this will go back

1:24:16to council sort of end of

1:24:182024 or beginning of 2025

1:24:20so when does the

1:24:22council

1:24:24or the committee appointments

1:24:26change because I just wondered if we should keep the language

1:24:28to the chair and then the

1:24:30procedures the procedure is already

1:24:32outlined in your committee terms of

1:24:34reference and bylaws

1:24:36that's exactly what I was going to say

1:24:38rather than saying lower life should let's

1:24:40just say we would like the chair to

1:24:42and then we follow the regular procedure

1:24:44because this might not happen for a year right

1:24:46so I might not be the chair anymore

1:24:48I might not be the vice chair

1:24:50Chris might be the chair by then

1:24:52like we don't know what's going to happen

1:24:54so let's just say chair and then we'll follow

1:24:56the procedure if

1:24:58you're from now whoever the chair is

1:25:00to present they can do

1:25:02we'll follow the regular procedures

1:25:04so I will amend my

1:25:06motion

1:25:08I would like to propose a motion

1:25:10that we have a the chair

1:25:12of the ACC presents

1:25:14at the appropriate council

1:25:16meeting regarding this issue

1:25:20I'm just going to read

1:25:22I'm just going to read it

1:25:24eloquent and not like a confused child

1:25:26I'm going to follow

1:25:28my phone

1:25:30and then back to

1:25:32chair Cameron to grab a seconder there

1:25:34I do think we have a seconder

1:25:36for the motion

1:25:42Chris's hand under the room

1:25:44I think Jen be to it

1:25:46Jen

1:25:48Jen

1:25:50yep

1:25:52I second

1:25:56I think we've had lots of discussion

1:25:58here

1:26:00I can just confirm the wording

1:26:02to make sure that the mover and seconder are okay with it

1:26:04I just listed that the chair of the

1:26:06ACC be listed as a presenter alongside

1:26:08staff for when the playground accessibility

1:26:10item goes to

1:26:12council

1:26:14is that okay?

1:26:16that's almost okay

1:26:20Lorelai

1:26:22yeah I just wanted to quickly circle

1:26:24back and clarify that it's not that I don't think

1:26:26Chris should do it or I don't think anyone else

1:26:28should do it or that I even I don't know

1:26:30when it will be so I don't know if I could or if I would

1:26:32even still it's mainly that that stressed

1:26:34me out that we're like picking people

1:26:36for an undisclosed date in the future when we

1:26:38don't know so I just

1:26:40yeah I don't know

1:26:42I feel like I've been so all over

1:26:44the place in this meeting I don't want to be

1:26:46misunderstood that I'm trying

1:26:48to say like I don't think Chris should do it

1:26:50I think Chris would be great

1:26:52there's a lot of things I shouldn't do

1:26:54there's a lot of things I shouldn't do

1:26:56stop giving me a microphone

1:26:58people

1:27:00okay

1:27:02me too

1:27:04any opposed

1:27:09I'm seeing none

1:27:11the emotion carries

1:27:15in that case

1:27:17do we can I

1:27:19get someone to put forward a motion to adjourn

1:27:21Mike has his hand up

1:27:23enthusiastically

1:27:27and we've got

1:27:29Jeanette there

1:27:31to second

1:27:33so

1:27:35I believe that's meeting adjourned

1:27:37all the votes sorry chair

1:27:39if you could just call the vote to make sure

1:27:41knowing there's any of those

1:27:43right yep any opposed

1:27:45and then the room

1:27:51seeing none thank you everyone

1:27:53thank you

1:27:55thanks for your time everyone

1:27:57thank you

1:27:59enjoy this

1:28:05the weather everybody

1:28:07all in