Parks and Recreation Master Plan approved

And so please forgive me in advance if I'm not the best with pronouncing names. I will do my very best, okay? But first, let's go to the individual, and that is, listen to this, North American Powerlifting Championship winner. Coffee? And here's my try on your last name. We tried beforehand. And, hold on to me. Yes, I got a thumbs up. We should just go home right now. That was a win. Yeah. He won the overall North American Championships, as well as, ready for this, the North American Powerlifting Federation for Squat, Deadlift, and the Tolo Record. North American Championships, overall Best Lifter Award. and the Canadian 83 kilogram national total record. Please join me in congratulating him on these amazing achievements.Whisper

If I ever need security, I'm calling you. Perfect. All right. Now for the big group that is here tonight. I would like to now congratulate on behalf of the City and Council the Guelph Cyclones U15 team who recently won the Canadian Ball Hockey Championship in Newfoundland, capturing the City's first ever national ball hockey title. congratulations to all 18 team members and the six coaches and my notes don't say this but and the parents and all the grandparents or everyone that's ever supported for uh for this team let's give a huge round of applause to these championship winners so i'm going to come down here we have the city medals that we're happy to give out and we'll just bear with me. And my staff, my amazing staff that have stayed late here, both Patricia and Sandra, are going to help with that. And just follow my lead. It's all good. I'll be right now.Whisper

Thank you. Thank you.Whisper

Thank you again for joining us. and I'm sure you'd love to stay for the council meeting, but we'll give another minute here just to have you guys clear the room. And thank you again, and congratulations, everyone.Whisper

All right, good evening, everybody. And welcome to our October 24, 2023 Council meeting. Hope everyone's doing well. It is 630. So I'll call the meeting to order, please. I want everyone to. Stand if you're able because we're going to have O Canada.

Great, thank you. As we continue just a moment of silent reflection before we continue on.

Great. Thank you. And now for our Indigenous territorial acknowledgment. As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in guelph, a city built over rich Indigenous histories. We are guests here. And we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land. The people who live here today. And the generations to come. If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude. This place we call guelph, has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many Peoples over time. But more specifically the ananda Wanrik and the holden Ashony. And this land is held as the Treaty Lands and Territory with the Mississaugas of the Credit First nation. Guel flies directly adjacent to the haldeman tract and is part of a long established traditional hunting ground for the Six Nations of the Grand River. Many First Nations, inuit, métis Peoples who have come from across turtle island, call guelph home today. Is there any disclosure of pecuniary interest, or any general nature thereof, for the items on the agenda today. Hearing and seeing none we get. To start tonight. Council with some community. Recognition. We don't

have this too often. When we do it's an absolute pleasure. And so. We're going to have a moment to celebrate one individual here, and then a moment to celebrate a lot of individuals as well. And so please. Forgive me in advance. If I'm not the best with pronouncing names, I will do my very best. Okay. But first, let's go to the individual. And that is listen to this North American Power Lifting Championship winner. Coffee. Here's my try on your last name. We tried beforehand. Hold son of me. Yes, I got a thumbs up. Should just go home right now. That was a win. He won the Overall North American Championships, as well as. Ready for this? The North American Power Lifting Federation for squat deadlift and the total record, North American Championships overall, Best lifter Award, and the Canadian 83 kilogram national total record. Please

join me in congratulating him on these amazing achievements.

If I ever need security, I'm calling you. Perfect. All right. Now, for the big group that is here tonight. I would like to now congratulate on behalf of the City and Council, the guelph cyclones U 15 team, who recently won the Canadian ball hockey Championship in newfoundland, capturing the city's first ever nation ball hockey title. Congratulations. To all 18 team members and the six coaches and my notes don't say this. And all the grandparents are everyone that's ever supported. For this team, let's give a huge round of applause to these Championship winners. So I'm going to come down here. We have the city medals that we're happy to give out. And. Just bear with me. And my staff, my amazing staff that have stayed late here. Both Patricia and sandra are going to help with that. And just follow my lead? It's all good. I'll be right now.

Mayor and Dogs With Ambient Glenda Goller. Mayor andarle Pe killings and Gro collections andorie meinerifoot as well. it's mayor guthrie can you hear me okay dr we can see you i just see that you're still muted if you want to unmute i'm sure it would work there am i unmuted now you you are thank you so much for joining us and uh you uh you know the drill here but i'll just say it out loud just in case for everybody it's no more than five minutes and you'll hear a chime at the four minute 30 second mark to give you a 30 second warning uh that your time for delegation would be up and then we ask everyone to stick around just in case there's a follow-up question from any councillors okay so dr whiteley i'll turn it over to you and your time will start when you start thank you very much for the opportunity mayor guthrie and members of councilWhisper

Well, I'm aware of how historic this evening is because it takes about three decades, according to Guelph's current pattern, to reconsider the parks and recreation plans for the city. And so I'm quite confident this will be the last presentation that I make on that topic to council. my concern is that 14 years ago city council directed staff to prepare the document that you have in front of you and i'm concerned that it has taken 14 years for staff to do that it's an important area of that affects the future of the city very considerably and the life of the citizens within it during that period. So my first concern is that there's no explanation for the delay in bringing this forward.Whisper

And I'm hoping before the end of the evening or in the future, there is some explanation of the timing of this now updated Parks and Recreation Plan. My second concern is that there was, as I've documented in material submitted to council, a well-established decision by city council to have an open space master plan as a key ingredient of each recreation parks and culture strategic or master plans as they can. came forward. And so I'm very disappointed that the current document ends that practice. And again, I'm hoping that beginning with some discussion this evening, but continuing into the future, there will be an opportunity for council members and members of the public to understandWhisper

why staff have decided to end the practice of having open space master plans and not follow the practice of several other cities, London, Saskatoon, and Edmonton in particular, that have followed the same pattern that Guelph said of having master plans for their open space and have emphasized the importance of river corridors within that open space master. And so I'm hoping that council will take time to begin the process of understanding why this decision was made and possibly in the future reversing it.Whisper

Well, thank you very much, Dr. Whitley, for your delegation. Is there anyone that has a specific question in regards to this to the delegate? Seeing none. So again, thank you very much for joining us. Okay, thank you. The next is in person. Morgan Dandy, I do see you here. Come on down. and again now you have up to five minutes chime at four minutes 30 seconds if needed and you can go whenever you're ready and the clock will start when you start hello I don't really have a lot of prepared remarks today for you council I kind of gonna free flow a little bit I went over a few of the bits about the park stuff today and one of the things that really struck me was about the all ages 12 years ago i was not an older adult today i am i believe some of you on council may also be in a similar situation where 12 years ago you were still somewhere in your 40s and nowWhisper

you're somewhere in your mid 50s people like me we're at the front edge of the wave of gen xers that are coming through and we don't have the same recreation needs as the boomers that have come before us so the idea of working with the gwsa especially for the younger of us junior seniorsWhisper

Chevrolet pineapple.

Thank you. Thank you again for joining us. And I'm sure you'd love to stay for the Council meeting, but.

We'll give another minute here just to have you guys clear the room and thank you again. And Congratulations, everybody. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you, everyone. That's always nice to recognize members of our community that way and start things off. So that's awesome. Thank you for that time. All right, continuing on with the agenda. Then we have the confirmation of minutes. It's at the minute. So the open Council meeting held August 16, 2023, September 12, 19th and 26th, the 2023 be confirmed as recorded and without being read. Councilor bust till thank you so much. We'll move that for me. I have a second. Here. Councilor clawson will do that. Thank you. Anything on the minutes at this time. Okay, don't hear I don't see anybody at also called vote is anyone against those minutes. Again I don't hear or see anything so that matter is closed and unanimous. We're into the consent agenda now, and I'll just go through as I normally do. If someone wants to pull an item, let me know. I think a couple have already been addressed to me. So I'll say those out loud. The first is the Emergency Management bylaw and Programs, amendments. Don't hear any on that. The Community Grant update. Policy update don't hear anything or see anything on that

one. The Public Art Policy update. Is yourself right? Councilor clausen. Very quick question. Okay. I'll deal with consent. That I'll come right back to you. If it's a quick question, sounds good. And then the last is the Cultural Plan 2030 staff report, which I know councilor Busatill wished to pull from consent as well. So I'll Mark that. Can I have a motion? At least just for those consent items. Galler will do that for me. Two will second. Thank you. Anything on the consent? Anybody. Don't hear or see anything. I'll call the vote. Is anyone against consent. Okay, I don't hear or see anything. So I'll consider the moder closed. It's unanimous as well. Councilor clausen. You said you just had a quick. Is it something quick. Before you get to it. If it's quick, can you just move it for me, then? Yes. You'll move the report seconded by councilor galler. Okay. We're talking about just so everyone knows the public art policy. Go ahead. Yes, thank you. Through you, Mayor guthrie, to staff. I just have a quick question about the correspondence that was attached to the report. So the correspondence is from John Fisher, and within it he discusses the definition of public

art and in particular, there's two items that I wanted to ask a question about. And how Actually, I just think that they're addressed in potentially our culture plan and a motion coming from councilor Bustel this evening. So I'll just read quickly. And then I'll hand it over to you. So he's asking for a broader definition of public art. And then little later on encourages people to interact and be curious about public spaces. And then a broader definition also would include historical artifacts you are likely to find stored in city warehouses. So those two items, I was just hoping you could kind of speak to them and how they might fall into other places. Sure, through the mariner Council clause and the beauty of having the three reports before you tonight, the public art policy, the culture plan and the Parks and rec Master plan is that they really do all dovetail together and they function as a unit. And so many of the things that Mr. Fisher is referring to are actually included within the culture plan. When we talk about a lot of our culture plan, recommend. Recommendations that will cover off some of what he's mentioned, as well as the Parks and Recasture plan, specifically, things related to placemaking. And so I think everything that he's looking for does get covered off between these three reports that do all work together, as you've

indicated, we also know that councilor Busatill is bringing a motion tonight specifically regarding. Our civically owned artifacts. And so I think I'll probably be speaking a little bit more about that later this evening as well. Great. I appreciate that. Thank you, councilor. Now, is there anything more on that? I don't think so. Okay. Thank you very much. So it's been moved and seconded already since. I don't hear anything more on that. I'll call the vote on that. As anyone. Against the Public Art Policy update. Okay hearing and seeing none. I'll consider that matter closed and also unanimous. Thank you. And so just so you know, councilor businto, I will come back to you just because of the delegations. I got to go to them first. But I'll make sure you remind me. Thank goodness you're sitting close. You can do that. So I am jumping to the items for discussion now on our agenda. The first one does have some delegations and that will be under the Parks and Recreation Master plan. Now. I just want to. Ask here. Maybe. Councilor. Katen. Can I just ask you a quick question? Would you mind. You've asked

the chair of the Accessibility Advisory Committee to come forward to speak on the entire report or to speak only on consideration of amendments you're wanting to bring forward later. To speak on consideration of the amendments. Okay. So what I'll do is. I'll address that soon. I'm going to go to the delegates first. To speak, because that's to the main issue. Okay. And then I'll circle back and talk about that. Okay. So the first one on our agenda, says Linda Jeffrey. But just to be very clear. She herself actually called in and withdrew. The delegation just so everyone knows. So I'm skipping that. And the first one by video is going to be Hugh whiteley. Joining us. And so Dr. Whitely, it's Mayor guthrie. Can you hear me? Okay. Dr. We can see you. I just see that you're still muted. If you want to unmute.

I'm sure it would work. There. Am I unmuted now. You are thank you so much for joining us. And you know the drill here. But I'll just say it out loud just in case for everybody. It's no more than five minutes. And you'll hear a chime at the four minute 32nd Mark to give you a 32nd warning. That your time for delegation would be up, and then we ask everyone to stick around just in case there's a follow up question from any counselors. Okay, so, Dr. Whitely, I'll turn it over to you, and your time will start when you start. Thank you very much for the opportunity. Mary guthrie and Members of Council. I'm aware of how historic. This evening is because. It takes about three decades, according to guelph's current pattern. To reconsider. The Parks and Recreation Plans for the city. And so I'm quite confident this will be the last presentation that I make on that topic to Council. My concern is that.

14 years ago. City Council directed staff to prepare the document that you have in front of you. And I'm concerned that it has taken 14 years for staff to do that. It's an important area. That affects the future of the city very considerably. And the life. Of the citizens within it during that period. So. My first concern is that there's no explanation for the delay in bringing this forward. I'm hoping before the end of the evening or in the future. There is some explanation of the timing of. This. Now Updated Parks and Recreation plan. My second concern is that. There was, as I've documented, in materials submitted to Council. A well established decision by City Council. To. Have. An open space master plan as a

key ingredient of. Each Recreation, Parks and culture. Strategic or master plans as they came forward. And so I'm very disappointed that the current document ends that practice. And again, I'm hoping that. Beginning. With some discussion this evening. But continuing into the future. There will be an opportunity for Council members and members of the public to understand why. Staff have decided to end the practice of having. Open Space, Master plans. And not follow the practice of several other cities. London. Saskatoon. And Edmonton, in particular. That have followed the same pattern that guelph said of having. Master Plans for their open space. And have emphasized the importance of river corridors within that open space. Master.

And so I'm hoping that Council will take time to begin the process of understanding why this decision was made and possibly in the future. Reversing it. Thank you very much. Dr Whitley. For your delegation. Is there anyone that has a specific question in regards to this? To the delegate. Seeing none so again. Thank you very much for joining us. Okay. Thank you. The next is in person. Morgan. Dandy. I do see you here. Come on. Down.

And again, you have up to five minutes chime at four minutes, 30 seconds, if needed. And. You can go whenever you're ready and the clock will start when you start. Hello. I don't really have a lot of prepared remarks today for you, Council. I kind of going to free flow a little bit. I went over a few of the. Bits about the park stuff today. And one of the things that really struck me was about the all ages, twelve years ago. I was not an older adult today. I am. I believe some of you on Council may also be in a similar situation where twelve years ago you were still somewhere in your forty s, and now you're somewhere in your mid 50s. People like me. We're at the front edge of the wave of Gen xers that are coming through, and we don't have the same recreation needs as the boomers. That have come before us. So the idea of working with the gwsa, especially for the younger of us junior seniors, as I like to call us. I think it'd be a really good idea and tying that in as we become grandparents.

One of the things that is important to us is spending time with our grandchildren. I was a nanny for a lot of years, and I saw things move from sand and gravel in the playgrounds to the wood chips. Wood chips and wheels do not go together. I don't care who you are, whether you're pushing a carriage or in a mobility device, or you're pushing yourself in a wheelchair. Or you got somebody else pushing in a wheelchair. Wheels and wood chips do not go together. So the idea that councilor cayton is bringing forward about. Having. Eventually 1.5 km between rubberized surfaces and playgrounds, I think is beneficial for the entire community, not only. Those that have accessibility needs right now. I was really happy when I went on to Google Maps and figured out that from Royal City Park to the new herb markle park, where there is a rubberized surface, it's just under 2.5 km so way to go stop on getting that done and then from there up to riverside. Depending on which way you go, it's anywhere from. 2. So word Two is

pretty well set up when it comes to Ward three and Ward four. I was driving down willow Road yesterday and saw the wonderful building that kindles put up for our community. And recognize that there's two more big. Projects that are coming in in that area. And I wondered where the parks are going to go. And not only where the parks are going to go, but as people with more financial difficulties are moving into these areas. I know when I was knocking doors for many different. Political reasons. I ran into a lot of people that have children with mobility issues, children with autism. And while they don't pretend to understand everything that Dr. Whitely is talking about with the river valleys, I know that as an individual who has a neurodivergent brain spending time. Within the river valleys is something really important to me and making those accessible to everybody would be really cool too. I recognize that that's not something that's in the plan right now, but I'd love to see it at some point in the future. When I was in kindergarten. No sorry. When I was in grade five, I looked after a little girl who when she was two years old, she

fell out of a window and she broke her back. She wasn't able to feel anything in her bottom, and as a result, she wasn't allowed to go out onto the playground during recess. So I cared for her in the kindergarten room during recess. How amazing would it be if that little girl could have gotten out and played instead of having to stay inside. These are the kinds of things that having accessibility. In all of our playgrounds will allow. And the one thing I actually questioned councilor katen about was talk tubes and what they were. And when they explained it to me, I went, yeah, that's not a placing. So. I hope that when we get to the motions that everybody will have a really good listen and really understand that this is bringing things into aoda compliance, which the province has fallen down on. Thank you. Great, thank you. Any follow up questions at all. Seeing and hearing. None. Thank you very much. All right. And we have another one here. Maureen. And maureen, thank

you for coming. Come on, down. Welcome. And again, no more than five minutes. And the time will start when you start and the chime at four minutes and 30 seconds. Go right ahead. Okay. Thank you for having me. I appreciate that. I wanted to come and speak.

To councilor Caitan's motions as well, around accessibility and playgrounds. I come at it from a lot of different perspectives. I have in the last number of years had children. In guelph, and they are now teenagers. But during all those times that I had them at parks. I was most impressed by the parks that had accessibility options, and the fact that there were people there. With Accessibility requirements. That could play amongst my kids and my kids could play with them. And it was a very nice open space. And that made a lot of difference to me and to them in terms of their understanding. Of people. With Mobility requirements. And I'm very much coming at it from the perspective of being a professional as well. I've been in mental health field for 30 years. And in terms of what happened recently. With pandemic issues, I've noticed that outside space became exceptionally important, and it became exceptionally important to many people. But Unfortunately. It also became very isolating for those with mobility requirements. Under the aoda, it

became very difficult to find public spaces that were out of doors where they could attend and play and be with others. And I thought the mental health aspect of the pandemic, getting outdoors and experiencing nature, getting some exercise, being with others, others that you've never seen before. Or that you wanted to meet and you could meet at a distance, but in an outdoor play. It became essential, and is still essential. I very much am aware that 2025 is coming very quickly. I know that. I've, as a mental health professional, done everything that I can in my practice to allow. For everybody to be welcome and included. And I'd like to see that happen in our public spaces and our park spaces and all the plans make it become second nature to have those plans. In your rfps, for instance. As part of the standard of those so that when somebody comes forward and says, I'd like to propose to do this build, or I'd propose to do ask them. If they are going to do what you need them to do in order for it to be a welcoming and inclusive space. That is key.

I think that the intersection two of the mobility issues that we see again, based on my decades of experience, often the mobility issues that we see or the need for and the requirement for accessibility comes in areas of the city that aren't as well resourced. So. It's really important. I feel that if you do come to an area like that and you're able to walk between or easily. Get between those spaces. So that talking about lowering. The distance between places where there are rubberized surfaces and also accessibility play station, that sort of thing. Something where a wheelchair can fit in where kids who have different needs are all. Going to feel like they belong there. I think that that's really essential to think about the piece that's intersecting there. So when there are fewer resources in a neighborhood or in neighborhoods together in an area of Gulf, that's probably where more open spaces. And more accessibility needs exist. It was something that I just thought

would be interesting to. I thought of a beautiful playground that I could use as an example. And I'm not sure if everyone's aware of the dragonfly Playground in the south end. It's in behind Bishop Mac. So beautiful playground. Beautifully designed. It was actually developed and produced by a family who had lost their son. Who basically asked for donations to get that part put in place. And it is an exceptional playground. It's not accessible, though it's accessible once you are there, but it's not accessible to get there. And that's the thing that if you have to take transit or. If you are getting there on your wheels or walking for people who can still walk. It's very important. That the places like that are available to the people that need them the most. That's basically what I wanted to say and from a professional and also from an aging perspective. I am too also aging. And in the last five years, my mobility issue or my mobility has changed quite a bit. And I was at a point where I required mobility AIDS as well. And that comes and it goes and it's important to me

and to other people. That that continue to be a place where they can go as caregivers and as elders and with their children and so forth. Those are the things I wanted to do. No problem. Don't go away yet. Just in case there's a question which it looks like Councilor busintill. I'd like to ask you one. So just stay there. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much, Maureen. Hi. I just want a bit of a clarification, so you speak of it. Two baskets. For me. One is connectivity. And the other one is accessibility. And so can you explain a little bit more about connectivity, the distance between. And what it is specifically that you are speaking to in the connectivity. So what I'm interested in. Making sure that councilors are aware of is that it's important for not just one place for people to be able to go to and to enjoy. There's a variety that's required in terms of development. In terms of. Family and community connection. And so being able to go from one space to another space. Relatively easily. And because most people don't well, most people in a lot of those

areas where there's more resources required don't have vehicles. So they need to be able to get to those places either by transit or. By wheels, that. They're using their wheelchairs or mobility AIDS. So it's important for them to have not just. A place to play, but a variety of places to play as well as connect in communities. And I think it welcomes everyone who may not be a part of the community yet when they first come to Gulf, it gives them an option to become a part of the community in that way. So that's what I mean by in terms of having more options. In a smaller space. Through the Mayor if I might just a supplemental. So it talked about families and children. And the older adults. There. Does that connectivity and accessibility that Matt have a particular from your view and your experience for youth. The Independence and so on. Absolutely. In terms of independence of youth, being able to hang out somewhere. That's not a place where they have to buy something. Or in the mall. Or somewhere where they could be

together and enjoy each other. And also welcome their friends who may have mobility requirements. And they can join them there. So it's important. I think so. Thank you. I know, actually. How important it is? Any other questions. No, it doesn't seem like it. So thank you again for joining us. Appreciate it. My pleasure. Thanks. And that's it for delegations. So can I just come back to you, councilor keaton for a moment. I think through you.

Through to you. I just wanted to know Laura Li Root, the chair of the Accessibility Advisory committee. We've already had a couple of delegations tonight. Speak of pending. Amendments and motions that you wanted to bring forward. So obviously, the chair is fully aware. You've made the chair fully aware of these amendments that are going to be tabled. So I think maybe at this time it would be the best time for the chair to come forward because other delegations have already kind of mentioned it in passing anyways. I saw your head nod. I just want to make sure I'm trying to capture the right moment for you. You're okay with that councilor? Cayton? Yes. Through you. To you. It's a good time. For Ms. Ruth. To introduce herself. I believe that. She's prepared to answer questions. About the motions as they go on as well. Certainly. So. Yeah, I think it's what's a little bit just

a little bit procedurally odd. Not to belabor the point. It's just that normally we wouldn't speak to items that aren't officially moved and seconded on the floor, but we also wouldn't have. Delegations come in the middle of motions being tabled. So that's why I'm thinking now is the right time before the motions are tabled. So thank you. I just wanted to confirm that with you. So maybe we could invite the chair, then of Accessibility Advisory Committee, to join the meeting and then. We would. Enable the same delegation. Process. For her then. Okay, we see you. And can you just unmute for us just to make sure your audio is yes. We can hear you now too. So thank you for joining us and you know about the amendments that are looking to be tabled later. So we'll do the same thing for you as a delegation. And we'll give you the floor for up to five minutes, and then there might be some questions as well. So I'll give you that time. You go right ahead. Thank you so much, merriguethri. And thank you to Council for having me here today to speak. I'm always

excited. And certainly the aac is always excited to have opportunity to directly engage with Council and. It's always an added level of enjoyment for me when I know that the people I'm speaking to have a passion for accessibility and inclusion. And I know we're fortunate that everyone on Council really does. I've seen that displayed by all of you. So thank you for that and for being such an easy audience to talk to about this stuff. Yes. As mentioned, I'm here. I believe councilor katen was the one who initiated my involvement in the meeting today because I'm here to offer context and answer any questions regarding any AAC discussion that's happened and motions that we've made as the AAC. Regarding the Parks and rec master plan. We've been involved with the city discussing the Parks and Recmaster plan for a good number of months now. And I have been at all of those meetings, and I'm happy to offer any context and answer any questions that I can. It's worth noting that. I can only speak to on behalf of the AAC. I can only speak to things that we have discussed as the AAC. So I apologize in advance if I'm asked any questions that I have to decline answering on behalf of the aac,

I can certainly offer. My own opinion on some things. And my drawing from my own experience, lived, experience and expertise. And educational background for sure, but there will be some things. That. I can't say how the aac feels about them because we may not have discussed those things, so I don't know how they feel about them. However, I think that there's a lot of discussion that has happened that does lend to these motions that have been brought forward by councilor katen. So I think I will be able to help a little bit, I hope. And yeah, I will just open the floor up to questions. Now, if anyone would like to ask me anything or needs further context, thank you again for having me. Okay. Thank you so much. Can you just pause her time for a second. Okay. So how much time would she have had left. Three and a half minutes. So what I'd like to do? Because again, this is just a little bit unorthodox that you would it's okay. There's nothing against you at all. It's just that our procedural issues

here. That. You're speaking to motions or amendments that have not been actually formally tabled, but we know that they're coming forward. So I want to give you the time if you don't mind. I want to give you the full five minutes and you have about three and a half minutes left. So maybe you could just speak about the motions that are coming forward to the degree that you can. And then if there's any questions we can do, a follow up after your five minutes is up. I think that would be the best thing to do since you know that they're coming forward. Would that be all right with you. Are you asking me to read them out loud, the motions that are coming forward. No. But if you want to just give your perspective on it and you rightly did say as well. You have kind of a little bit of a problem where you rightly said, hey, I'm only here speaking as the chair. Of. What was moved or discussed at the acc. So I just want you to be able to speak in that manner. With an extra three and a half minutes on the motions that you think councilor Kate is coming forward on, and then we can open it up for questions, but. What I would do after your questions is

then I would move to actually table the original nation and see what happens. If councilor Kayton's motions get tabled after that, this is a little bit unorthodoxed, but. I just don't want to dismiss the opportunity for you to be able to speak. So you have three and a half more minutes. I want to give you the floor for that. And then. We'll still open it up for questions, so go ahead. I'll turn it over to you. Okay, quick. Point of order. Okay. That's just why. I'm just confusing, so just 1 second to our delegation. I'll go to account, sort. Because it is unorthodox. I was wondering if we could please have the motions on screen so that we can follow along with what Ms. Route will be speaking to. Yeah. Okay. But we don't know. I understand. I'm going to make a decision not to do that because some of them may not be applicable to her role as the chair of the acc. Very well. Okay. So I'm going to turn the delegation back over to you. You have up to an extra three and a half minutes. And then, as I said, we

can open it up for questions at that time. All right, thank you. I just need a moment to get my screen reader onto the right screen. I wasn't prepared to. No. You tell us when you're ready, and then we'll start the clock. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. All Right, I'm ready. So I apologize if this is a bit off the cuff. I wasn't prepared to speak directly to the motions. I was planning on answering any questions that anyone had. Obviously, these motions have not been seen by the AAC. So I can't say exactly about some of these metrics that are being mentioned, what the AAC would think. But there has been a lot of discussion about some of these topics at the AAC. Almost every time that we see anyone from Parks at the aac, we discuss that we would like more wheelchair accessible features. There has been a lot of discussion about talk tubes not being very inclusive. They're very segregating. So in one of

the motions, I believe that those are mentioned. As not a great play opportunity. And that's something that has been expressed by the aac in the past. The Parks and rec Master plan. I believe. At the April 18 meeting, I believe we discussed a potential radius of 2.5 km. Of distance between. Residential areas. And playgrounds with rubber surfaces. Sorry for any delay in speech. I'm trying to listen to. My screen reader while I talk to you. And we have discussed that at length at the aac as well. And I believe that one of the motions pertains to that. Requirements. That areas of economic need be a factor in determining the location of playgrounds that came up at also. The April 18 aac meeting discussion of that so I can speak to that if anyone would like. And work with the Accessibility Advisory Committee is always encouraged. And I know we are always happy to connect with staff on things. So there's a motion that speaks to

continued engagement with the AAC. And the aac has been very vocal about wanting that as well. I hope that's kind of. I'm not sure if that's what you were looking for. Merrick's range. No. That's fine. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah. No. You've done nothing. Zero. Wrong. Everything's fine. Okay. I think what I'll do is just go to my colleagues to see if. There's Any questions. Again, I am allowing this as chair. This is very unorthodox that we are asking a lot of questions about motions that have not yet been tabled. But this is where we're at tonight. So if we could just make sure my colleagues kind of get to the question, please, right away, I'd like to get the main nation, then tabled after this, I'll start with you, councilor alt, then to councilor cayton. Okay. Thank you very much. Mayor guthrie, through you to the delegate. Ms. Route, Ms. Route. One concrete point that you raised was concerns about the radius or the distance. Between rubber surface play areas. Was there any specific motion or recommendation that came from the AAC. To which you might be able to refer me.

Yes. Through you. Merrick. Three to Councillor alt. Thank you for that question. There was that happened at the April 18 meeting. And I believe the aac made a motion to support the adoption of a geographic distribution of playgrounds with rubber surfaces that was 2.5 residential areas within 2.5 residential areas, and that we supported the implementation of two new rubber surface parks to support that new radius. That was after. A lot of discussion surrounding whether this was a target goal or whether this was just the starting point, this radius. And we were told by staff that it was a starting point. And not an end goal target. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilor cayton, Please. And then councilor O'Rourke. Thank you. I was wondering if you could speak. To. The conversation that happened at the aac regarding transfer stations versus. Wheelchair accessible ramps. On structures. Great. So that actually just happened last week. Those minutes

aren't available yet, but I think the recording should be up. The recording of those meetings are usually just a couple of days. Sorry. Through you, Mayor guthrie, to councilor Katen. That conversation was a difficult one. There was a lot of conversation from aac members. A lot of frustration expressed, and a lot of confusion expressed. Basically what happened was. The city staff came to us to review the plans for two parks that are upcoming Dovercliffe and howit park. And in the presentation of those parks. The AAC. Had a lot of questions about where is the accessibility? Why are you showing these to us? Nothing seems accessible. And we were told by. Staff that they are accessible because. There was what's called a transfer platform. And for anyone who's not aware, I apologize if you already have this information, but a transfer platform or a transfer station or transfer bench. Is basically an assistive device that helps wheelchair user or someone sitting in assistive tech or assistive equipment. To transfer out of their chair as independently as

possible to avoid the need for people lifting and pulling at them and transfer into a new location to do. New thing independently. So, for example, there's a transfer station at my bed to help me transfer into bed at night. There's a transfer station at my shower to help me transfer to my shower bench. Things like that. And unfortunately, the staff pointed to an area of the plan. If you'd like, I think I can share it on screen, but point it to an area that's just a set of stairs. And they said, this is a transfer location. It's a transfer station. And aac members were confused and said, how is that a transfer station? What is it transferring anyone to? Because it's a set of stairs at the base of a climbing place structure. So essentially, it was explained to us by staff that the idea behind this transfer station was that. Parent or caregiver of someone in a wheelchair could lift them out of their wheelchair and place them on those stairs. And that's what they felt made it a transfer station. Now, that's not a transfer station, because it takes away any independence. And that's the point of a transfer station. It also wasn't transferring children to anywhere that they could do anything. It

was transferring them to sit. On some stairs. So transfer stations are definitely part of accessibility, but they have to be implemented in a way that allows access removes barriers to accessing already accessible equipment. It's like if you had an elevator. In a building that you could only get to by walking up a set of stairs that's not accessible, even though elevators are accessible, that wouldn't be. And this is very much an elevator at the bottom of a set of stairs. Situation and. There were three transfer stations that were shown to us that were just wide stairs at the bottom. So the AAC. Was pretty vocal about. We don't approve of these park plans. This is falling far below what we expect for accessibility from the city. I hope that answers your question. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor cayton, Councilor rourke, please. And then galler. Thank you, Mary. Through you to Ms. Root. Thanks very much for being here and for your service on the aac. It's really valued. I'm going to have a question for staff later around whether the advisory committee can recommend service level change because that's pretty significant, because that's apply

across the city. I just have a candid question for you about number four. And. That's the final PRMP include a recommendation that areas of economic need will be a factor in determining the location of playgrounds with rubber safety surface. So our staff are already doing an equity lens. On parks. They are already putting in a 2.5 kilometer radius or less, potentially. So I'm wondering, this is my concern. Quite candidly. There will always be areas that will have greater economic need. And if that is the requirement, right. So I see that it's a factor. Then are there parts of the city. That don't have the same economic need, but. That would have people with mobility needs. And then not have a similar access so that service level has to apply across the city right. Because people have mobility needs regardless of their economic circumstances. So I'm just wondering. Did the aac discuss this. And has there

been a conversation with staff around whether this is already happening. Thank you, sir. Guthrie, to councilor O'Rourke. Yeah. There has been limited discussion about this at the aac. I believe it was actually at the April 18 meeting. Again, we've discussed the prmp at five different meetings. But all of the questions tonight are about this one. At that meeting, we did have a member ask why it was geographic radius. That was chosen rather than things like economic status. Or other equity seeking groups living in certain areas and staff did address that with us that the only metric they're familiar with is geographic. That other status can change in the city, like. Financially privileged neighborhood might not be. Financially privileged neighborhood ten years from now, and parks are forever. So that was addressed at one of our meetings. It is a concern that's on the minds of aac members. But I think that. It being the reason I would personally support that motion is that it's a recommendation that it be considered. And I don't ever think

it's a bad thing for. Equity seeking groups to be considered. In all conversations where decisions are being made. So I hope that answers your question. Yeah. So I'm fine with it being a factor. And I think staff are already bringing an equity lens, certainly to the Trails master plan and to the parks and rec. I can ask them that question as well. And through you, Mayor Gusrie, just another question. Staff expressed a concern. And again, it's really strange, because we're talking about things the public doesn't see. A set of recommendations that haven't been sort of discussed and publicly available, but staff have raised a concern around the heat of the rubberized surfaces. Is that a concern that's been explored. At the AC, just about. The rubberized services tend to be a lot hotter. So if there's a kid who's sitting on the surface or playing somewhere, is that a concern that's been discussed at the AAC. Thank you. Through you merrick street to councilor O'Rourke. No. Sorry. Yes, that has been discussed. Let me just

find where. If that is important because. I compiled a list of every comment that every member made at every meeting where we discussed the prmp. Okay. We're just. Okay. If you'd like it later, reach out to me. I do have it. I have everything here. We did discuss that. There have been members who've expressed that it doesn't get much hotter than asphalt. Does that. There are also difficulties with things like wood chips. If you're sitting with bare legs on the rubber, it might get too warm. But if you're sitting with bare legs on the wood chips, they can also be uncomfortable. There's often. Animal excrement in them. They get soggy and moldy and smell like mildew after the snow melts because they're just exposed raw wood. There are people who have allergies to them. So. There are kind of considerations. For comfort. For people. That can be made. Arguments like that could be made for almost any surface, anywhere. But yes, it is something that staff brought forward to us. And the aac was not

concerned with that. We would much rather have access to areas and just not sit on them if they're too warm for us. But. That was pretty much the extent of the conversation around that, I believe. Okay. Thanks very much. Thank you. Caller. I think you were next. And that's last on the list. Thank you, worship through you to Ms. Ruth. Thank you for your presentation today. I wanted to go back. To the question of the wood chips the engineer wood fiber. It's my understanding. That they're deemed to be accessible by some standard satm. F 1951. Could you let me know if there were conversations about. The appropriateness of these wood chips and playgrounds. At the AC and why they're not accessible to wheelchairs. If you can tell us a little bit about that. Yes. We discussed that at the first time that staff came to the aac about the Parks and rec Master Plan. I believe that that was in April. No, sorry. It was in February. The February meeting. We discussed that right away. We were just asked, ballpark, what are some of your

biggest concerns? And wood chips came up right away. I'm not sure why some standards deem them accessible, but myself, as a chair user, I can tell you I can't get through wood chips. And the consensus of everyone at the aac was, this is the thing we are not happy with. I have a list of the things we said we didn't like, and that was at the top of it. Actually, the first thing brought forward to staff was Please don't use wood chips. We can't get across them. So anyone with a Walker or wheelchair, it can damage our equipment as well. Like if. It gets stuck in it. I was actually at stefler park today. It's one of my favorite parks in guelph, and they have a playground with wood chips. And while I was sitting talking to someone on the phone, I looked down and the wood chips over time tend to sink. And it kind of turned into like a pit of wood chips. So you also can't even get down into it or get back out of it with a chair or an assistive device because. They've kind of sunk down. So. There are a lot of reasons that they're not accessible, one of which is just really hard to push a manual chair or even a stroller or a Walker through them. Thank you very much. I really appreciate the additional clarity.

Thank you. Worship. Thank you and I don't see anything more. So lorla. Thank you so much for joining us tonight. And thank you again for your work on acc. We appreciate it. Thank you so much. Great. Okay. I think what we can do then, is there's nothing further. Could I please have a motion. From counsel to at least table the recommendations brought forward from committee today Downer and o'rourke, thank you so much. Those. Are probably. I would imagine that's. Fine. Except we know that there's probably some potential amendments coming forward here. So why don't we just jump into that? Okay. Councilor cayton, you wanted to try to table some amendments, so if you wouldn't mind reading them, it looks like Councilor galler doesn't even need them. Read or set, he's willing to second them. But why don't I just turn it over to you to introduce them, as I said to the clerks that they've been moved and seconded already, then by galler as the

seconder. And I will just give you just a minute or two just to kind of give some framing to why you want to move these amendments. So go ahead. Through you. Is it okay that we do them individually. Because I think that there's going to be potentially people who have feelings on certain ones, but not others. Absolutely what we'll do is I think all of them are now officially tabled. Because they've been all moved by you, seconded by councilor galler. But what we could do is just ask them to be separated. So now we can just talk about each one of them separately. Okay. So, yeah, why don't you go with number one? And I think I'll just go to Councilor alt suggestion. Now. Mayor gatsby, point of order. Point of order. Sorry, I didn't hear that. Councilor katen Reed, the individual. Motions that are tabled. I think we changed it in our procedural biologist to make sure if somebody. 's So they haven't been published anywhere. So somebody's just listening in then at least. Just going to read them. Yeah, for sure. I was just about to get to that. I just wanted them as councilor alt asked to have them up on the screen, so I want them visual. And then on each one. If you could read out each one. You don't

have to read each one. Now just start with number one, and then we'll discuss it. Okay. Go ahead, councilor CAYTON. Once you see it up on the screen there, if you wouldn't mind reading number One out for us. Thank you. Thank you through you. Motion number one, that the final prmp include a requirement that all new playgrounds in Gulf include a minimum of two wheelchair accessible play equipment, and that talk tubes are not considered one of those features. First, I wanted to say thanks to staff for all of their work on this land. I think we're making great strides towards inclusion and equity. There's a lot to love in the park and Recreation master plan. I think that with the addition of a few small metrics, we can make this 100% perfect. I realized this morning that it's actually been. A year today, since I thought that was voted onto Council and playground accessibility was one of the main drivers behind me choosing to run. So it's pretty special for me to be presenting these motions today exactly a year later. The current interpretation of accessibility for play in our design manuals includes locating height accessible plate options within the woodship area of the playground, and this is not independently accessible by all children or

caregivers. This motion ensures that even in new playgrounds that don't have the rubber services, there'll be an opportunity for some options. Along the edge of the pavement surrounding the play space, which is consistent with our equity lens and our strategic plan and our goal to be an age friendly, community. This is a design layout requirement. It should not increase the cost per playground. It simply allows people with mobility issues to have some play at areas close to their home. On that. Thank you. So why don't we just on this number one. And we got several to go through. So I'm just going to say it right now. Let's be very efficient here. Questions directly to staff on justice issue going to start with downer, then I'll go Gull or alt. Thanks through you Mr. Mayor Two staff. The public hasn't seen this, but we did get some responses. To these motions from staff concerns and. What was. So the motion says that. All playgrounds include

a minimum of two wheelchair accessible. Play equipment. And accept the talk tube rate. But. Your response to us was that. All playgrounds in guelph are designed to be accessible and in compliance with the AODA. So how would you interpret this motion, if that's what you're considering that we already do. So I'm just sort of trying to distinguish between what we do and what is being asked. Through the Mayor to councilor Downer. We see this as a step potentially towards rubber surfaces. In our playgrounds. But that's coming their emulsions coming up that speak to that specific topic later is our understanding. So I would revisit what staff has provided. And for clarity, because clarity matters here is that all new playgrounds in guelph are designed to be accessible and in compliance. With aoda and the City's FADM. Although not a legislative requirement, we have taken a position to exceed legislative requirements. And design and our playgrounds

where we can this includes. A minimum and accessible pathway and ramp into the play space. 25% of total play Components at ground Level different types of ground level play components that are integrated into the play space. 50% of Elder bladed Play components on an accessible route, connected by ramps or transfer stations. And safety. Surfacing, which would be important. To we're getting into detail here. But if we're going to be designing features that are used beside of pathway, there may be safety surfacing that's needed. Within the footprint, the rubberized surface or the wood fiber area of the playground staff. Note though. We note continually. That engineered wood fiber, which is commonly used as a safety service for playgrounds in guelph, although it meets standards that are challenges with that. And we're aware of that. We try to. Meet those expectations in our operation practices, the maintenance of those areas. And as we'll get to later, we are looking to add rubberized surface, where we can and where there's a good opportunity. Too in our parks. I'd

also add at a high level. We very, very much appreciate the conversations, the debate. The insight that we get with the AAC. It's meaningful. It's important. We want to continue that. And that really is where a lot of detail and the fine planning fine tuning to our plans can take place. And we're committed to keeping that happen both in our overall approach and with each specific playground. So each one of our playgrounds go through the AC. Before. They're signed off on. Is that correct? Three Mayor guthrie accounts for downers. That's correct. And we're happy to continue that. I'm sort of struggling here. With this motion because it sounds like the way it's written. Is. That. The motion doesn't interpret what's accessible. What we're doing now is accessible from our standards. Plus you change them. I know it's about the wood chips and the rubber service. I agree that wood chips are not. Having taken people in wheelchairs, like places, it's just not. Accessible. But I

understand I'm just sort of seeing how functional is this motion. If staff are already interpreting that we do have accessible playgrounds. I guess this leads me to Would it be beneficial for these motions to go to the aac for a proper discussion. On the wording of them and how they would come back. In a form that. Sort of represents more of what you're suggesting. Is around the rubber moving towards rubberized walkways and the other things. I know you've already been. Four or five times, but. As Laura, I even said they haven't seen these motions. These motions have specific motions. Haven't been discussed. And so. I know we're talking about there's all of them. I'm sort of concerned about this one. That the wording voting on this by itself, is kind of redundant because. It's already accessible from staff's perspective, right. So I don't know that it would make any difference. But I understand that councilor

cayton has a different interpretation of what that accessibility would mean. And it's not that I disagree with her interpretation. It's just. Whose interpretation is it going to be. What's accessible? And if each one of these. I'm just wondering. If the more I talk it out. To myself here. It sounds like I'm just wondering if these should all go. To the aec. The other thing, too. I would ask. And these may be for later ones, but there's going to be budget implications for these. We get the capital budget next week. Not that that's going to be. If these things need to be done, then that's fine. But. How would these get incorporated? And we've also heard that incorporating all of these would mean that some playgrounds wouldn't get done in the ten year capital budget, which if we make it more accessible for everybody, that may be a trade off, but if we're changing our service, let alone on the fly here, I'm concerned. At a meeting like this. Not that it's completely on the fire. I mean, we've had these motions a couple of days, but it hasn't gone through the aac. They haven't been

properly vetted by staff and a full report to Council, that's public. So I'm just sort of struggling with this. I don't know. What. Maybe I could just jump into just help facilitate I think the crux of the question is. Would there be value into having this sent through to the ACC. All of them. Even though there's an acknowledgment that it's already been there several times. So can we have. Staff at least just respond to that portion of what councilor downer has brought up. Through the Mayor, to the Mayor and to councilor Downer. As you mentioned, Councilor Downer our staff do take the time to have those meaningful conversations. So we're doing that at this moment, we do stand by and support the recommendations in our Parks Recreation Master plan as they stand. On budget just briefly. I don't necessarily want to speak to that in Motion One, because if we're going to go through an order, budget impact is less so in Motion One, though

more relevant to motions down the road. Stop won't necessarily interpret the aoda compliance or the fadm. We apply it. So standards exist. And we are working hard to apply those standards and great collaboration, whether it's through our community engagement or with the AAC. Taking that back to. The aac is something we can explore. I want to be careful in a moment to not over commit. To staff time with that also. So we would want to take that back. I would say to counsel, though, and again to take a step back from that higher level look. And we heard it earlier this evening. This can't be a plan. That is the last plan that generations see, we are committed to updating this plan at good intervals, five year. Interval is something I believe identified in the plan. Certainly something that we talk to. At committee of the whole. I wonder. And again, I want to take this back for a more detailed conversation to explore. How we can engage those ongoing conversations with the aac to explore these motions, we can consider that. But again, we have that built in Sale face. Granted, it's at five

years to really dig deeper into these service delivery changes that can have other unintended consequences. So I'm being succinct there's that high level. View. And I would like councilor downers to take that back. Those immediate conversations. To see what we can come up with with the AAC. Yeah. I understand Deputy CEO Quadrush would like to, but I just want to just sort of recap sort of that. So. If we could approve the whole plan, and still, because this is a living document, we could refer these to the aac and staff. And then because it's a living document, it can still come back as an amendment at any time. And so. Maybe Deputy CEO Clark Bush could respond to that part. So thank you through the Mayor, to councilor Downer and to all of Council. And Mr. Matthews has summarized it. I don't need to repeat what he said. I think the challenge that we and you are struggling with is these are emotions that have not been vetted through the public forum. So nobody, I mean, some delegates saw them, but the general public didn't see them. They didn't come through the committee, the whole process. And that is also. Causing us some challenges because

the aac hasn't reviewed them. I do want to give a lot of credit to the staff. They were in front of the aac four times on this plan. And so the challenge for us is we're before you with the Parks and weck Master plan. And I don't want to recommend that you not approve it tonight, because then that stops the work that we really want to move forward. So again, I'm not speaking necessarily to this specific motion, but to the totality of the motions. Approving the Parks and rec Master Plan in principle and letting us move forward and referring it to budget. Is how we're going to keep this work moving forward, the specifics of councilor cayton's motions. Certainly, we can take those away. We can have a subsequent conversation with the aac about how we might operationalize that. But as Mr. Matthew said. There are not necessarily the First Nation, but some of these motions have significant budget impacts. And I don't want to mislead you. We will not be able to revise the capital budget before it's released next week. There are capital budget implications of what's being proposed. We will not be able to do that. Before next week. So what it means is as we go through the life of this

plan, we'll continue to work with the aac, and if there are modifications we make rather than doing and again now where I'm starting to speak out of turn. So Gene will have to jump up and down if I get it wrong. Rather than doing three to four playground replacements a year within the budget, we might have to do two to three. Because we haven't yet costed what the implications are. We just know that the implications could be in the range of 25% to 40%. So that is that I think that's the challenge. And I recognize you're now in a difficult position because. We all want to make sure that we're doing right by the community where accessibility is concerned. I don't think that's. I hope that's not in any doubt for anyone. We're committed to it. We're working with our staff, accessibility team Lean Warren has been a great ally for us on this, but we're operating in a bit of a vacuum because the AAC. Hasn't considered these motions. And I think you even heard that with Ms. Root, that she was struggling because she can't speak on behalf of the committee who hasn't yet viewed these five motions. So I know that was a bit rambly. I guess what I'm trying to say is. Refer back to staff for discussion with the aac. Absolutely. But not in the absence of approving the plan.

Because I just want you to go into eyes wide open. If the plan isn't approved tonight, that then has implications in terms of how we can move this work forward. Other people can ask questions. I don't want to stop that. My preference, though, would be to refer it back to staff to have discussions with the AAC. Because some of these are operational. The node tube top things are quite operational issues, and it's not that I disagree or agree with any of them. There's quite a bit of it that I understand and agree with having people with disabilities within my family. But I also need to have. A complete information in front of me. From a policy perspective. And a financial perspective going forward. And it's not that maybe two to three might be better if it's accessible for buddy. I don't know, but I don't have that service level understanding or definitive. This is what staff is guessing because we don't have the real information in front of us. Of those implications. And it would

have been my preference. To refer these back to staff to have further discussions with the AAC. And report back. And then we could then start looking at this in the 2024 and on budget and how we could modify those. I mean, those budgets might have to stay the same. But then if we want to change our service levels. Or the interpretation of accessibility. Within how we want them to be. Then that's my sense. Right now I'm just worried about making a decision without the complete picture before me. Councilors want to ask questions before I do that because I don't want to cut off discussion. Yeah, of course I did have three more people. On my list only anyways. And I know that we're only talking to the first one because they've all been separated. But let me at least just go through. The list here. I know. That. We can do that pretty quickly. And then I can try to see where this can go from there. Alt you're next, then. Richardson, thank you very

much. Miracle. I appreciate that. I certainly didn't want to see this referred without having some questions asked, because I've got to admit that. Lack of understanding about much of this. So I do have questions for both staff and for the mover and the first question I think I'll ask to both the mover and then to staff what is defined as an accessible play. Amenity I don't know. And this will help me with number one. So through to. The mover, please. Thank you. Through the Mayor to councilor old. So. An accessible play equipment. If you. Take the aoda, which is two revisions out of date. As the example. They will allow wood chips, which we have just heard from Cheer route is not actually wheelchair accessible. So. When we hear staff that is completely accessible. It's completely accessible to those standards, which. Are not actually wheelchair

accessible. Inexperience. So any play equipment that is on there is not independently accessible by someone who has to travel over woodships and doesn't have mobility device that is capable of doing that, or doesn't have somebody else who can actually move them over to it. So as you heard, chair roots say, there's an entire design where they're talking about accessibility and how this is accessible. And there were transportations on a wood chip area. So that is what I'm considering an inaccessible design by practical standards. That is considered accessible by aoda standards. So it's a bit of a language issue. Right. So you can say if you're following the aoda that is accessible. It's not actually accessible in practice. So this motion would include. That two auctions. Would be independently accessible by wheelchair users. And when I discuss this with staff, we talked about how some equipment is on the edge of the paved area of a playground. So it's just about locating some play panels or whatever it is that they choose to do. I'm not

going to get into the design of it. I just know that the talk tubes were very specifically brought up by the AAC. When I was a member of the AAC. For a year. That those were not considered a dignified play choice because it was segregating, and you could talk to other kids who were able to access play equipment. And basically it was alienating. So that's why I wanted to make sure that that wasn't considered one of them so that there were some more active play options along the edges or wherever they choose to put them in the design. So that every playground has. Some accessible features even if we're going to be doing the majority of them in witches. Thank you, councilor cayton and the same question to staff. I was wondering if there could be any. Concrete examples of what might be considered. An accessible play structure. Or do we consider perhaps them all to be accessible. Through the merit of councilor alt. So specific to wheelchair needs. Ground level play would be a succinct way to put that, though we should highlight that

there are a wide variety of accessibility needs that exist with their playgrounds. And I think that it's important that we get the record accurate here. Councilor alt. And I'm wondering if that's information in greater detail that staff can provide to Council on background. Well, I do actually wonder that I wonder, actually, if I'm even delving into the area of operations. But I thought I should ask that because it strikes me that much of. This centers around. Some fairly concrete items that are being requested and. It's a difficult one. Thank you. Next question. Does the aac actually get to approve playgrounds, or are they just asked to provide feedback on what parks are doing. Through the Mayor to councilor alt. I'm going to confirm I'm just having some staff pull some information. Staff will ultimately. Have the final approval is my understanding. Of course we very much value the input from the aac. I'll confirm our more intimate process, though, as the meeting progresses, Council. Thank you very much. Last question, Mayor guthrie for the mover.

I have heard concerns about this year's budget in your motions. Was there an intention that. These be considered in this year's budget year. That's a significant question for me. Thank you through the Mayor to you Councillor earld. This was when new playgrounds are being redesigned. That. These be new metrics that are included in the design and for this particular. Motion. As Mr. Matthews said, this one doesn't have as much of a budget impact because it just includes placement of play equipment rather than. Type and style and any other kind of requirements. So this one would have very little budget impact. Just generally. It would be more about the process. And availability of the locations. Supplementary. Mayor guthrie. So what I'm hearing you say for the most part, is that these are questions of policy to establish. A more firm policy. I'm not even certain of

my words here rather than. Action Items for immediate. Response. To the Mayor. Yes. That's correct. Thank you. Hey, Richardson, please. Thank You, Mary Guthrie. All my questions were answered mostly by dco Clock Bush. So that's great. I was going to make a comment if I may and say that guelph has been a leader in accessibility for a long, long time and they've always had a very active AAC. And I know that staff and the committee together work very diligently to go over and above the basic ado standards. So I'm seeing a lot of these things would be working in that living document. And to be sort of assessed at the time that we're doing those new buildings or new playgrounds because there's more creative things coming every year that we haven't even thought of that we might want to implement. So I was really just going to say if councilor downer was ready to move, that I would second. Okay. What I'll do is I only have one more person on the list. So why don't I just because just because some questions about these out, and then we can move to move the motion to refer galler you're the last on the list. Then.

Thank you to your worship. All my questions have been asked. I would just ask my Council colleagues. In their consideration of referring some of these refer the ones that you really feel that would have a budget impact. The first one we've heard from staff does not have a budget significant budget impact. Let's move this one. Let's approve number one, and then we can look at the other ones. I feel. Some concern about referring all of them when they haven't even been read out loud, and we haven't really considered them all. Thank you. All right. Thank you. My apologies. I did forget. I'm so sorry. Councilor o'rourke, you. And then I'll go to Councilor O'donner. Thank you, Mary. Gastrie through you. So we still haven't read the five recommendations, which was a change of the procedural bylaw for accessibility. Because when people. Have the recommendations on. A published agenda. They can see them on their screen reader. Right. So I think it's in our procedural bylaw that was supposed councilor rourke. I'm going to jump in. I was getting to that. You keep telling me to do something I was getting to. So I was going to get to that once. If the referral was put down, I was going to ask for all of them

to be read so that it was very clear. So. I'm just not there yet, though, as the chair. So you just got to give me the time to get to that moment. Okay. Okay. Well, just a comment. It feels awkward because people are listening and they don't know what we're talking about. Okay. So my question. Is to staff. Promotions One, Two, Four, and five. Would the referral even delay the application. Motions One, Two, four, and five, are about talk tubes and. Having something to the lower deck. I don't even understand what all the details are. But say this goes to the aac and then staff way in and they say, no, it's six of one half dozen of the other. We put in this play feature instead, another. Does that delay implementation? Does it have to come back to us for approval? This is very operational. So for those four motions. Does the referral just for the conversation, go back to staff and then get applied. We don't have to wait five years, right? For this to be implemented in the Parks and rec Master Plan. How does that work. Through Mayor guthrie to councilor

O'Rourke. A couple of things. If the motions were to be referred and the prmp would be to approved and the applicable capital budgets be approved. We would envision still moving forward with our playground replacement program and our new playground work. And in the spirit of that collaboration, that important topic that we are all talking about tonight. All of the proposed motions 1234. Would be a consideration from staff with the aac at that deliverable level. We do that. We want to do that. We'll continue to do that. So we would keep that going. That spirit of that moving forward. How that may apply to policy change, service delivery. Change. That's the work we would need to do with the AAC. With other community partners. Probably a broader engagement process would need to and should take place with that. And it would take some time for us to get that right. Is it three months to eight months to a year? I don't know. We'd want to take some time to get back to staff. What I'm trying to say is that in the spirit of the motions, those have been and will continue to. Be talking points with the aac, and we can collaborate to do

that broader policy work. That broader review in good time. Thank you. Three mega three to staff. So Motion Four is about. Sort of equity throughout the city. I'm wondering if you could describe whether that's already a factor. In the quality of the play structure, like we were applying. The service level across the city and trying to improve things in areas that may not meet that current service standard, right. Through Mayor guthrie counts work that is a factor with a lot of the capital work that we do in parks. Thanks. And margot refer you to the mover. Actually, my last question. So this is really probably the tricky one, right. So I'm. Wondering how you've arrived at the new distance and also the date. So that nation talks about. Just looking. For it. Sorry. After 2026, we would go to a smaller radius. So I'm just wondering. Why that date. Thank you through the Mayor to

counsel. I picked a date on a timeline. That would be far enough out. That they would have a chance. To work on the ones that they've already got down. And it wouldn't affect the timeline for the playgrounds they've got flooded for in the next four years. So the motion is to just identify the gaps. It isn't to set the timeline. Or pick which one would be up for renewal or for redesign. The intent was as parks come up for regular maintenance or as they need to be fixed, then those would be the ones that are selected to have rubber services when they're in need of repair or in need of upgrade. So it wouldn't affect. The timelines of any of these parks being redone. It's more about which ones. Would be indicated as a rubber surface option. Kind of like how they pick the two that are already in the plan that they plan to fix up, but there is no indication of when those

would have to be done. Or. The specific priorities around them. Okay, so three Mcthrid, mover. You're asking for the recommend. Recommendation to 33 to be revised to read apply a service level target of one rubber surface playground within 2.5 residential areas until 2025, moving to a target of one rubber surface playground within 1.5 residential area starting in 2026. I'm hearing you explain it's about identifying the gap, but I think the motion is very specific. And that one I think absolutely has to be referred because I don't know if the distance is right. I don't know if the dates are right. I don't know what the implications are or the process would be. Okay. I appreciate. I wanted to understand those motions more specifically. Thanks. No problem. Okay. So what I'm going to do is. I'm just going to ask. I guess Councilor Downer and Councilor Richardson, if you would be willing to. Did you have time to move? Did you still want to move? A

motion of referral. Yes. Okay. I'm just sort of like working. With it. Now what I think is because we're just dealing with one. But to me one is not clear enough, because on itself. Because. We have two different interpretations of how accessible they're going to be. Right. So. There's what staff is saying, and then. What. Councilor katen is saying, are two different things, right. So who will be interpreting that. It'll be staff because they've got their standards now that they're using. I was thinking of a motion. But it's not just on one. It set motions one to five, be referred to stop, to continue to work. With the AAC. And report back to Counsel if any new service levels are required, so it's like some of these are operational. Like talk tubes. Well, yeah, if they're saying no. I don't know why we do them right. So why wouldn't

Staff be in agreement with that? But there's other things here, like around the service level. And number three. That's significant service level thing. I think we all need to understand that more going from 2.5. And it does impact the budget because we have a ten year capital budget. That's what we'll be approving. Next month is a ten year capital budget. A four year operations budget. So if anything comes back. With changes and that we can change the budget next year. But it might mean implications for other things. And we need to understand that. So as we've heard, it's too late to change for this year. And staff need time to have more in depth looking at this, but they also need to have a much broader discussion with the aac around these motions. I could agree with some of these surface level changes, but are they service level changes, or are they operational issues? That when staff take apart to. Accessibility Advisory Committee that. They are then designing these on a one off issue,

and some of them will need the rep. We can look at some of the rubberized things, or maybe there needs to be other things adjusted within it. Certainly I'd like to see the playgrounds more accessible and inclusive to everyone. And I appreciate this discussion and these things being brought forward because I think it's an important discussion. But I also think it's too important to be just making like this tonight. Without. The full information, and without that further discussion with the aac because the chair. Couldn't respond to a number of these issues. Okay, councilor Richardson, you're okay to second that referral. Okay. Point of order. We are referring motions that have not been read out loud. Well, actually, they all are on the floor, but we're dealing with them one. I don't know why I have to keep explaining this, and so if it's on me, then I'll apologize. I've already stated that. I will be reading out every single one of the motions. I was just about to do that. I've already got the clerks ready to put them up on the screen in advance. But you guys keep interrupting me to say I got to do something that I'm about to continue to do. So please. Know that I'm about to actually do that

right now. Okay. So can I please have the motions that I've asked for prepared and put up on the screen, please. Thank you. I am going to read out each one that the final prmp include a requirement that all new playgrounds in guelph include a minimum of two wheelchair accessible play equipment, and that talk tubes are not considered one of those features. Number two. That the final PRMP include a requirement that all new playgrounds in guelph include at least one play structure that is wheelchair accessible to the lowest deck. Number three, that the recommendation number 33 in the Parks and rec Master Plan be revised to read, apply a service level target of one rubber surface play. Playground within 2.5 residential areas until 2025 moving to a target of one rubber surface playground within 1.5 residential areas starting in 2026. And number four, that the final PRMP include a recommendation that areas of economic need will be a factor in determining the location of playgrounds

with rubber safety surface. Number Five, that the final PRMP include a recommendation to work with the Accessibility Advisory Committee to establish a target ratio of playgrounds that have rubber safety surface. Okay, all of them have been read. Okay. And now we are speaking only to the referral. I'll go to you. Councilor. Caden. Thank you. I think that. Through you to everyone. I think that number five on its own is referring to the aac, so I don't know that. Referring the request of first staff to talk to the AAC. And create a plan. Is good referral. Like basically we could vote on that one now because. That's basically asking them to talk to the AAC. So I was wondering if we could separate that one out. Because it just. Doesn't make sense to me. Yeah. That's not my motion. Yeah, I can't do that. It's a referral for all. And so it has to be kind

of encapsulated as to one referral. By the way, I want you to know that I understand what you're saying.

So I don't disagree with you. But. We're kind of referring something to refer them to do. The thing that's there. I get what you're saying, but I think it's just encapsulating the referral as to one. Is there any other. You have the floor. I'm sorry I interrupted you. Go ahead. No worries. Through you to staff. So if this gets referred. If the aac accepts it. Is staff going to accept it. Through the merit of councilor katen, we will very much accept it. We want to do this work. It's meaningful work. And it will be the direction of Council to do the work. So Yes. Next question. Through you. Mr. Mayor, is there a way to put it? I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. Councilor cayton, I'm going to interrupt because I want to make sure that Gene just answered that question the way I think it was posed by the counselor. So, Councilor cayton, you tell me if I misinterpreted your question. I heard your question as if this passes. And. It goes to the ACC,

and the ACC agrees with everything. Does that mean you'll do it. Is that the way you posed your question. But it would then become a part of the Parks and Master Plan. It would be updated with his company. Yeah. And then Jean, you said Yes. So I just want to make sure. I got colleen. And then Gene, I'm sorry. I've got gene. Through the merit of Council, we'll do the work to consider those five motions and to have the conversations about. How can should we apply those motions again? Some of them are quite operational. Things that we can probably should be doing don't want to commit in the moment. There are some things that are going to have other unceded consequences, are going to have work plan, impacts. Budget impacts, especially around the replacements. The replacements are really going to be where we see this challenge. So I'm being clear. We'll do the work to have good, meaningful conversations around. Those motions and come up with what's right. You still have the four councilor. Kate.

Thank you. Through you. Mr. Mayor, is there a way to have an information report. And a timeline attached to this referral, so that. We have measurable outcomes on the progress being made.

So through the Mayor to councilor Kate and I'm going to jump in here. It's a little bit hard because Gene and I are sitting across from each other. We can absolutely report back to Council and we can look at doing an information report. I think the first step is we need to get in front of the aac and discuss these motions. I also want to make sure that we're clear there will be budget impacts. And so we're going to need to come back to Council on. And I think Councilor downry's motion talks about service level. And I think that's going to be the quandary. By the time we get back in front of you, you will have passed the budget. We can't make changes to the budget, so it's going to have to be serviceable changes, which we have to come back to you on. We won't make those changes without telling you and the public. So that was a rambly way of saying yes. I think we not only can commit to an information report, we're going to have to because that as Mr. Matthew said. We will absolutely action these recommendations, but there's going to be impacts. And so we will need to come back to you and report. I think once we talk to the aac, we'll have a better sense of is that an information report. Or we are actually coming back and seeking your direction. And I think we'll have

to wait till we've had the conversation with yac. Through the Mayor. Thank you, Ms. Clap Bush, for your clarity. I appreciate your being forthright on that. With that in mind, then. I will endorse the referral. Okay. Thank you, councilor. Is there anything further at all. Okay. I just like to say something on this. Look. This is a question, I guess. I actually want to know the financial impacts. Prior to the 2025 budget. So would we be able to at least get an information report. Or something from staff around any of these conversations about what they would be so that. We can understand. That. Those. So yes, just consulting quickly with Deputy cio Lee here on the multi year budget process. But certainly the short answer

is yes. I think we can safely get an information report back to you before. You're considering. Before we're heading into 2025. Okay. That's good. I think that's important as well. Okay. So thank you. Yeah. Okay. I'll just maybe talk to the mover offline just with some other background information. That I think might. Be relevant. So that's fine. The mover of the main mover. You count. Sarcatin. I don't want to talk to Councilor Downer. It's you. Councilor Cayenne. Okay, well, I'll look to call the vote then on. Oh, councilor billings, did you want to jump in before I call the vote. Mr. Mayor, can you read the referral motion? Not the five clauses, just the referral motion. Yeah, we have it ready now on the screen. And I'll happy to read it. And it is that motions one through five. Be referred to staff, to continue to work with the Accessible Advisory Committee and to report back to Counsel if any new service levels are required.

And. That report that comes back to counsel. To me what the discussion has been. Oh, that could just be an information report. But that would have to come back to counsel, because. When I'm looking at staff's comments in the email, when you're talking 40% of this line item in the budget, you're talking $5 million. So this isn't to me an information report. This is service level and financial impacts. So to me is that not coming back to counsel and not just. An information report. Yes, you are right, and I am wrong. And the Deputy cio will jump in. To probably back you up by saying that I'm wrong. So I'll send it to the Deputy cio. Let's do the merit Council billings. I'm certainly not going to suggest who is wrong simply that once we have the conversation with the aac, we'll determine if there are any matters that are operational those we would come back to you on an information report basis. But to your point, councilor bill. Billings, the ones that have budgetary impact or as councilor downer has phrased it, service level

changes. We will absolutely come back to Council on those for your direction and decision. Thank you for that. Okay. And thanks for bringing it up. You are right to bring it up. Okay. I'll call the vote. Then on the referral. On these five. And then I'll move us back to the main motion. Is anyone against the referral. So that's unanimous. That's great. Thank you. Okay. And now we'll go back to the main motion, then. Does anyone need to say anything further on that before I call the vote on that Billings. And then Busatil, and then O'Rourke. My question. Sorry. My question for you, Mr. Merrick. To. Staff first clause is to be approved, but because of the referral. Is it not more appropriate to be approved. In principle given that in the past. Council has approved master plans in principle instead of just approved. So I wanted to hear staff's comment. On if it can be in principle or they say no, it has to

be approved. Through the Mayor to Counsel to be approved is a recommendation. And that would be the recommendation. We want to move forward. Okay. So I want to ask Deputy CEO calling Clark this with respect to approved in principle, what would be the difference to you? Because you would still be moving forward. With the plan. Correct. Through the merit of Council billings, I think the concern with the words in principle leave some ambiguity as to what the principle is and Staff interpretation of that. And so I think I'm struggling in the moment to think what a better way to phrase it. I think what I understand. We are looking for you to approve the Parks and rec Master plan so that we are clear that it is approved and we are moving forward. You've heard it. Even I think from Dr. Whitely that there has been concern about what happened in 2009. We would like to not have that confusion. We would like to have the clarity that the. Parks and rec Master Plan, as presented to you tonight, is approved. Notwithstanding that approval, we absolutely understand and take the referral of those five motions that is documented in the minutes. Those motions are minute. So. We will. I am comfortable that approving. It still

leaves everyone with the understanding that those five motions are to be referred back through staff to the aac for consideration and reporting back. My concern within principle is if some of us aren't here. A couple of years from now to discuss what in principle meant. I would just prefer not having it ambiguous. Okay. And then, well, thank you for that, colleen. And also through you, Mr. Mayor, the second clause to be referred to the operating and capital budgets. You're going to be presenting that in a few days. What you require for Operating capital. These financial amounts are already unceded in the budget. It's not like Council has. To move a motion to add any of the ask for operating and capital. Is that correct. Through the merit of Council billings, I'll use cao stewart's language, which is the budget, is the gas pedal. So you are approving tonight, you would be approving the plan through the budget. You will approve the pace at which we implement that plan. And so yes, amounts have been included for the Parks and rec Master plan. But it is.

At a pace that you're going to need to consider as part of the budget. As with all of our master plans, we've had to relook at the pace of what we're implementing and how quickly we're doing it within the constraints of that budget. Okay. Thanks. Colleen. Who should tell? Please. Thank you. And through the Mayor, I just actually have two questions related to the delegations or one question, part A and part B. The first one was Hugh whiteley's presentation. I do have to say, as a new counselor, I love reading history. It was great to read the long history. Of counsel and plans and processes. So my first question is about the advisory committee that was referenced there, the River System Advisory Committee. Can you tell me where those responsibilities exist now? And the part B to that is. The other half of the Walnut are those master plans that were referred to the open space. That kind of responsibility where they reside now and then I have a second question. So through the Mayor to Council. The Natural Heritage Actions plan. Speaks to Obviously, our natural heritage system and our watershed planning needs and

the river system. Is a part of that our Council approved park plan in February of 2022. Does reference. Rlss. And our NHS as it relates to our park and recreat. Recreation Master plan needs Our Park plan feeds into. A document that supports our PRMP. So they have their own strategic documents, their own lens. And our prmp builds on those and supports those. Thank you. The first part of that question was around the advisory committee, the community piece. It was a River System Advisory Committee. Where does that responsibility. Reside. So, through the Merit Council, Environmental Planning oversees. The pre responsibility of our river systems. Thank you. My second question is about Ms. 's delegation. She spoke about connectivity. And I've raised connectivity as well. But what does that look like from an accessibility lens? And is that something that is part of the Trails Master plan,

or is that part of the parks? Can you help me understand that so through the merit of Council, that's a theme or a pillar in our corporate strategic plan, which comes into effect, I think January 1 with our new plan. Certainly, our Trails Network plays a major role in an important role in that, as does our atn and our partners in Transit. So it is a broader organizational theme. And our guelph Trail Master Plan plays a very important role in that. Thank you. And with the mayor's permission. A very brief comment about the guelph Sports Council's correspondence. I just want to acknowledge that data was raised in their correspondence. And that was something that. I thought was needed. And I also think it speaks to partnerships in the community, that. Are really important. The other piece and I hate to rant about this but is food, especially in the regional parks when we have tournaments and so on. And this links into garbage and culture and placemaking and celebration. Is to speak again. It's nice to see the guelph Sports Council raised that. That aligns into building the culture and a destination for some of

the parks. Yeah, no problem for anyone if they want to do a comment here because. We're at the stage to vote anyway, so, councilor o'rourke, please. And then, Gibson, thank you, Mcguffri. Through you to staff. It's a bit of a corollary. To Council bustill's last comment about having facilities where people could sell food, et cetera. But specifically, I have a question around the implementation timeline. Number nine. And that recommendation says, explore partnership opportunities with the private sector for project funding and sponsorships. And so that is slated in the medium term from five to nine years. So I completely recognize that. You can't do everything. In the first period of time. But we have a major facility. Coming online because we broke ground on the South End rec center last Tuesday. Fun update since our committee the whole so why wouldn't we be looking for sponsorship opportunities. Before the five to nine year period so often at budget I'll raise, is there a revenue stream here? Councilor bust Hills talk about it in terms of community

economic development, or the Sports Council's talked about it in terms of an extra amenity, but also the sponsorship piece. So I know somebody has to do that work. I used to do that work for the cooperators. Why wait five to nine years. To Start seeking Sponsorship for facilities. Through the merit of Council. Absolutely. Anybody who would like to support us either sponsorship or naming rights or private partnerships. We are 100% on board to have those conversations and certainly south and Community Center is no exception. The work in the broader theme and the longer work is a resourcing piece. As you mentioned. To go out and actively solicit and make those connections ourselves. And when we look even broader than corporations or organizations that are in our community. We need some ability to even identify assets. And validate and value them at the same time. So I guess just as a follow up. Because it's a revenue generating position. Is there any appetite to look. At

accelerating that right to create a revenue stream like we have it for the River Run Center. People. Sponsor series. So I'm just curious because. We've got two major facilities. Coming on board. The rec center is one. And so anyways, I'll just state my desire to see that accelerated. But I'm wondering, is there an opportunity to accelerate that. Through the Mayor to Council. Absolutely. This is probably one of those good examples of the gas pedal where there could be some staffing, resources, or consultants or finance work that could move forward in order to help facilitate a proper sort of developed program across culture, recreation, and the park systems. Okay. And then. Just to comment. Margaret Three, I'm delighted to see the Parks and rec Master plan come tonight. There's been really good discussion about how it can even be better. But parks are one of these places. While the well being of our community really intersects right, there's a health component as people are moving. There's an environmental component as they're in nature. There is belonging, as people get to know. Their neighbors and so well done on a really comprehensive piece of work. And really

looking forward to seeing the implementation rollout. Thank you, councilor Gibson, please thank you to Mr. Mayor. I'll start by saying kudos to staff. Exhausted document, but excellent work to date. I really appreciate the insight around how we're going to accelerate our Parks and Rec Master plan. Picking up on correspondence, I gave my thoughts on the Parks and rec master plan, that committee of the whole so those comments still stand. But picking up on correspondence from the Sports Council. I really like to ask, Council Busatill said utilizing. Our local associations for data enrollment data, especially. What sports are growing, which sports are not. I think that. Data is really important. To implementation of the Parksmark Master Plan. And then also again, I think picking up on what councilor o'rourke just mentioned around accelerating. It's nothing to be scared of the idea partnering with a private organization or a private enterprise to help accelerate some of the goals of the Parksuric Master Plan, I think, has to be entertained. And obviously we can mix and match those relationships as we need to. But I just think that

it's a good document with lots of possibilities and lots of open ended language, which creates the opportunity for innovative solutions. So thanks very much to staff and I look forward to supporting you. All right. Thank you. I don't see anything further, so I'll just call the vote, then. Is anyone not in favor of approving the Master plan.

And that is unanimous then that we approve, not unanimous, that we don't. So thank you very much. That's great and great work Ditto on all the commentary there. From myself to staff and to the community that gave a lot of input into what we were seeing in front of us today. So thank you very much. Long time coming. All right, we're moving right along to a new motion here that looks to be tabled from. Councilor clausen. It's about the guaranteed livable. Yeah, but there's delegations to this. So everybody got to let me chair tonight. Take my first rodeo. Okay. Guaranteed. Livable income, counter Clawson. Is going to just speak to this. And. I would like to turn the microphone over to you. And then. We'll just ask for a mover and a seconder, at least. So we know it's to be talked about. And then I'm happy. To councilor galler, I think is good a second. So then we can have it a bit more formal for the delegations to come forward, to speak to

something that's actually being considered so councilor claus and over to you. Thank you, Mayor guthrie. And thanks, councilor galler. So I'll read out the recommendation. So that City Council directs the Mayor to write a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Deputy Prime Minister. And Minister of Finance MP Lloyd longfield, the Premier of Ontario, and mpp shriner, calling on these orders of government to work collaboratively towards implementing a national guaranteed livable basic income to eradicate poverty and homelessness and ensure everyone in Canada has sufficient income to meet their basic needs. So we have heard from our community partners that homelessness and Gulf hasn't been increasing over the past few years. We've heard that we don't have sufficient housing. That COVID-19 has put a strain on our health care system and that we know that we're facing a mental health crisis. Inflation has been increasing for several years, putting pressure on people who are already struggling. And we know that this means that more people are at risk of falling into poverty. In 2020 according

to statscan poverty increase from 6.4% to 7.4% and we can anticipate that number will continue to rise given what we know is happening currently. Municipalities across Canada are bringing forward the concept of guaranteed livable income. And this is not something that's new. I know many of you have chatted to me about it. It's currently being considered in the Senate. So what does it mean? And I am not the expert here. There's some great people in the audience who can speak to it further. But if you're under a certain income, you're entitled to resources. This would bring more to people who are struggling with our current social assistance programs. When you provide money to people living in poverty, they spend it in their communities. They pay rent, they buy food, they clothe themselves and they provide for their children. Senator Kim pate, who is tabling the bill at Senate, said use the phrase phase. Sorry, this phrase, get housed, get fed and get out of poverty. Tonight, we've received correspondence from members of our community who have been advocating for guaranteed livable income for decades. What I am proposing is not new by any means. But my hope here tonight is to be another strong voice

of advocacy for our provincial and federal governments. My hope is that our Senate will approve the bill to build a framework for guarantee. Guaranteed livable income. And that's all I have to say. All right. No problem. Thank you very much. Councilor alton, I'm not going to you. I'm going to the delegations, okay? Yeah. Thank you, my friend. I will definitely go back to you after the delegations. We have two. Teresa mckeeman is here in person. Teresa, thank you for coming. And then over the phone will be Elizabeth snow. Teresa. You've been watching since the beginning of this meeting. So you know the five minutes is the is the time frame with the chime at four minutes and 30 seconds. Stick around just in case there's a follow up question. Your clock will start when you start, go right ahead. It's on. Okay. Thank you, Mayor guthrie and Council, thanks for the opportunity to speak to this issue. I come to you from a 30 year career of working. In Social Services with low income people. And this issue of our social safety net has been weighing on my mind for a long time. What we

know we heard a bit from counselor class and that the current system is broken and we're in crisis. We just have to look around our streets to see the homelessness, the addictions, the poor mental health. And they're all made worse by poverty. The current system is piecemeal. It's administratively, very costly, and it has a lot of gaps and duplications, so it's not really working for the people it's intended to serve, and it's not working for us in government either. So we know our not and for profits are in trouble. Our charities are in trouble. They cannot keep up with the need. The raise for social assistance are so low that they leave people in deep poverty. In fact, many of them get just 37% of the poverty line. And it's a bit of a myth that Social Assistance Ontario Works recipients do not want to work. In fact, many of them suffer from untreated trauma.

Mental illness. Poor physical and mental health and addictions. And our systems don't give them a stable floor that will help them get out of this situation. There's evidence that living in deep poverty. Takes so much mental and. Emotional energy just to survive that they are unable to plan for the future, have good health or any peace of mind. The system is a poverty trap, so people trying to get out of it. Are often not even any better off if they're employed. We know that 20% of the jobs in Canada are considered low wage jobs. And so people leaving assistance. Are sometimes worse off than. When they were receiving assistance, we know that the changing nature of work. The technological changes and what we saw in the pandemic. That there are a lot of gaps in our system. And we keep reviewing the system. And tweaking the edges, but we never fix the fundamental problem. So

one of the concerns that people have with guaranteed income are basic income is another term that's used is that people will stop working. But the pilots that have been done do not really show any real evidence of this. We've had two major experiments in Canada, the mincome in Manitoba in the what they found was that there was only a slight reduction in work. And that was for people going back to school and women who were staying home to do caregiving for children and. Other family members. In the recently canceled Ontario Pilot, which only lasted for a little over a year. 20% of the people receiving assistance did find employment and leave assistance. And there were some others who did drop out of employment to go to school so that they could seek better jobs. Can we afford it? That's always the question. As. Councilor clausen said it is before the Senate right now, and the

Parliamentary Budget Officer was tasked with putting a cost on having. Basic income for Canadians. So he did estimate that the cost would be the net cost would be 44 billion over five years. But that did not factor into account any of the savings in healthcare, criminal justice, special education. Economic benefits. Of increased spending. The economists.

Will suggest that when you factor in all of those savings. You'll return it on investment of a dollar six for every dollar spent. Why it matters to municipalities is because Federal and provincial governments have the ability to raise revenue and Municipalities are paying the related costs out of our municipal property taxes. Thank you. Don't run away just in case you might be able to run away. But I won't let you yet. Follow up question at all or no. Okay. You can run away. All right. Thank you very much. And then over. The phone. We have Elizabeth Snell. So, Elizabeth, it's Mayor guthrie. Can you hear me. And just as a reminder, if you're on there, you got to press Star Six to unmute your phone. Merrick Author can you hear me? Elizabeth. She's on the line. Yes. Okay, again. Just a reminder. Hit Star Six, and that will help you unmute.

Elizabeth, that's Mayor guthrie. Can you hear me? Okay. Let me just confirm with the clerks. She's on the line. Em. Mayor Gusrin threw you to the rest of Council as well. Miss nell is on the line. We do see her in the meeting. It appears to be a muting issue. Okay. Elizabeth. We can't unfortunately unmute her. Yeah. Elizabeth. Can you press Star the Star button and then six on your phone and then keep talking. So we can see if that works. Star six. Yes, don't move. Yes. Perfect. Elizabeth. It's. Cam. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Okay. You're on. Perfect. You have up to five minutes. Keep talking. Go ahead. Right. Well, thank you, Maricotrian. Councilors. I'm a member of cairo, Squelph, an ecumenical social justice group representing various local Church denominations. And it

is part of CAIROS, Canada. Cairos works an ecological justice and human rights issues both in Canada and globally. A guaranteed livable income could help address Canada's persistent and deepening. Inequities. Citizens for Public Justice annual report on Poverty Trends shows that the dip in poverty during COVID supports has vanished. More and more Canadians are unable to meet their basic needs. A discreese for such a rich country. Government supports, while helpful, are inadequate, complex, often dehumanizing, and sometimes inaccessible. Without an address. Turning to increasingly stressed charities. Erodes. One's dignity. People are anxious and prone to health and family problems. Generations are locked in poverty. Pushes your focus onto daily survival. Planning is impossible. A guaranteed livable income is an important and essential step towards the just society. We have guaranteed support for seniors and children. The gap is for ages 18 to 64. Benefits would accrue not only to the recipients, but to local communities and Canadian

society. As Theresa explained, pilots show widespread positive effects. Many recipients reported improvements in their physical and mental health. Labor market participation, Food security. Housing stability. Financial status and family and social relationships. Longerterm planning and education became possible. Unpaid care work is supported. For many participants, guaranteed basic income was transformational, fundamentally reshaping their living standards, their sense of self worth and their hope. Healthier, better educated children can escape the poverty trap. Communities benefit. The funds are spent locally. Some people start businesses. Recipients contribute more to society. Artists can flourish costs of policing, emergency room use and health care all fall. With application, provincially or nationally, there could be huge savings in health care and justice systems, both. Currently very stressed. Replacing complex piecemeal, often overlapping and

bureaucratically, complicated current services could offer savings in both output and bureaucracy. Net value must consider all these savings. Any remaining costs could be financed by fair income taxes, easing municipal pressures significantly. The recommendation for Federal provincial collaboration is important. With a guaranteed livable income, both levels can reduce complexity and improve equity. Collaboration is efficient and offers the opportunity to appreciate the indirect savings at all levels. Planning would also benefit from municipal level and Indigenous representation. Program designers must appreciate the important benefits to municipalities. And understand unique barriers faced by Indigenous people. Accessing relief programs. Endorsements for a basic income are numerous. Political Party resolutions. Politicians across the spectrum. Numerous Ontario municipalities. The United Church of Canada. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women

and girls. And national organizations of public health agencies, social workers, physicians, food banks, mental health workers, and business leaders. A guaranteed livable income is a wise investment. In a healthier fairer society. I urge Council to join so many municipalities and experts to support the recommendation. Great. Thank you very much. See if there's a follow up. Which there is not. And again, glad we were able to hear you. Thanks for joining us. Yeah. Sorry for that delay. It's okay. We'll let it go this time, but it's all good. Don't worry about it. Thank you. Okay. Back to Council. It's already been moved. And seconded, is there anything further? Sorry, I did say I'll go to you, councilor alt, thank you very much, Mayor guthrie. And thank you very much to councilor clawson, as I do believe that this is very good political advocacy that benefits guelph. The way that I put it is the cost. To us to zero, but the return on the investment is priceless. Recognizing that for about 40 years, we've been in

slowly developing affordability crisis that began with clothing drops, moved to food banks. And now we see the inability to pay rents and mortgages as being symptoms of this. I don't think that we have any choice but to become advocates for this. There are. Structural issues that have led to systemic impoverishment of many in both Gulf and through Canada. And this makes our job much harder. As a social safety net. Lies and tatters. We're asked to fund housing at far deeper levels. That was virtually nonexistent 20 years ago, whether it's supportive housing or. It's housing for reintegration of people who are homeless. It didn't exist, for the most part, 20 years ago. Perhaps it should have, but certainly what the real problem is this belies that a country that has so much has so many that are actually suffering. I appreciate what you've done, and I think that the basic income will benefit us not just in terms of our principles and our values, but also in terms of the City of guelph's. Bottom line, as we don't have to necessarily grapple with many of the challenges we are currently faced. Okay. Thank you. Councilor Richardson.

Thank you for you, Mayor. This is probably going to come from my own ignorance on the subject. And I'm hesitant to give the province carte Blanche to implement. A guaranteed income program when I don't even know what a guaranteed income would be. I'm not sure how they would implement that. What that would mean, what that would mean to municipalities. What that would mean. To the residents. So I would maybe like to make an amendment saying. That rather than implement encourage these orders of governments to explore. National guaranteed livable. Basic income to eradicate homeless and poverty. I certainly believe in the concept. I just don't understand enough of it to give them carte Blanche without seeing what the program looks like. To support it wholeheartedly that way. Does that make sense. Yeah, sure. If you could send that to the clerks. I don't know if you have. But let me see if you do. Let me see if there's a seconder for okay. I see councilor gibson's hand. There. So. You're changing the wording instead of implement. To say explore. Sorry I didn't catch the whole

thing. Encouragement to explore. Just put your mic on there. Encouraging these orders of Government to explore. Okay. So just. Speaking to. The Amendment, then. Of just changing the words to implement to encourage to explore Gibson. Yeah. Thank you. Through Mr. Mayor. Thanks, councilor richen. I didn't know that amendment was coming, but I appreciate it. This is a good debate. And I've had this before former councilor mckinnon and I used to go back and forth over this all the time, which was a really fruitful discussions. If the argument is to reduce. Other sort of ow Disability Welfare systems. Then. I like the idea. However. That is just one argument that I've heard through this process, which is one reason why I would support exploring that being said, though, is that quite oftentimes what is attached to that is. The optional. Work sort of clause. So people

immediately jump to well make work optional. If you're not going to work in our society. It has to be for a Noble reason. That's how I feel like a disability if you're caring for a child, if you're going to school. Those are all Noble reasons. That being said to make work optional. It creates a working class, and it creates a non working class. And those are implementation concerns that I've always had. The most. Practical argument that I pose to people that have never been answered to me is when you guarantee someone 1520. $5,000, what does it take to get them back into the workforce before you remove. That basic income. So does it take $50,000 then to get them back into the workforce to say, okay. If you already guarantee them 25,000, they're not going to take a $30,000 job knowing that they're going to work for $5,000 for a year. You need to pay them to incentivize them back into the workforce. And when you think about the lower end jobs that people do in the service industry, like, for example, fast food McDonald's. When. You're asking to pay a teller at the McDonald's $50,000 to $60,000 to reenter the workforce. It just drives inflation. And these are questions that have never really been

answered to me. So my biggest concern around the universal basic income is the optionality to work, and then also the implementation of it. Effectively to reduce and remove these other. Administrative cost sinks that we have when it comes to Welfare, ow and other sort of government programs that we all acknowledge sometimes can. Be discombobulating. And unaligned so. On one hand, I would like to support it in terms of reducing bureaucracy. On the other hand. It never comes forward. Without the optionality of work piece and I really struggle with that without a Noble cause. I think that. Without the Noble cause I think we've experimented I think we can all understand what happened. When the federal government instituted the serb through COVID backstopping people's incomes, giving them essentially a basic livable income while they weren't allowed to work in the service industry. And it took years and years and years to get those people back into the workforce to the point where we're still struggling at our service level industries, our lower wage industries to get people back into the workforce because. They had to serve. Backstopping. It became work became optional for a period of

time. After COVID while the economy was building up again, but people were still getting those survecks. So we were seeing that it drew a lag. In the Work, employment. And quite frankly, we're still dealing with inflation related to the cost of the serve. So those are questions that I have. I'm not saying no today, but I am saying exploring is a good thing, but simply voting to implement without any say in the actual implementation. I really struggle with that as a counselor. So I'll be voting for the amendment. I won't be voting for the straight car. Blanche. Implement. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And then speaking just to the amendment, please, caller, did you want to speak to that? Okay. Yes, your Worship. I just encourage my Council colleagues to have the courage. To support this nation if they fundamental believe that people. Are lazy and will not want to work well. That's your belief. But I believe that people want to contribute to the community and that. As our delegates have mentioned, we have there's lots of evidence that universal basic income would do a lot of good for society. So I would just ask you to just vote for it rather than trying

to weaken our water down the motion. Either support it or not support it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And then finally, personal privilege, Mr. Mayor, I just want to point of personal words with Mayor. Okay, go ahead. I just like the Council to clarify. Was he insinuating that. I was calling people lazy. Through your worship to councilor Gibson. No, I was just asking my Council colleagues to either support the motion or not support it rather than try to water it down. We are not going to be the body that implements it. It would be another level. We're talking about the federal government, and they would go through their processes. We're just asking them to do it. Thank you for clarifying. Okay. And then to the original mover. Did you want to speak to the amendment. Go ahead if you want to. Yes. Thank you. Mayor guthrie and my Council colleagues. So as part of my research, I reviewed the Ontario Government Guaranteed livable Income pilot. It was started in 2017 by the Ontario government under Premier Win, and it was canceled after 18 months by the Ford government. It was canceled during the data collection

phase, which is pretty unfortunate, but it actually led to data being collected. From independently of the government and that study, which there's a great study. And I think it's one of the things that I sent you in that reference package, which I can share publicly as well, is that they found that people were actually able to improve their lives quite substantially, recipients continued to work, and others were able to get better jobs. And improve their life chances. And that came from those words came directly from the research study. With all due respect. The Ontario government. Has explored. What guaranteed livable income could be. I think that we do need to be bolder. And I think we need to ask for something better. We know that people are struggling. And I think that it's okay to ask for. What I think people need. And so I'll leave it at that. For and finally, Busatill, please. Yes, thank you. And I will be speaking to the motion. I will not be supporting the amendment. For Me implementation includes the evaluation discussion, and I agree that it's not

at our level. This will be other levels of government, just like councilor galler said. And I think post pandemic. We talked a lot about building back better. And even as municipality, I'm hearing our cao talking about a better deal, a new deal, and so on. So the world has changed. And all we're asking is that the other levels of government. And they're going to have these conversations about impacts on other benefits in the economy and so on. So it's just trying to push that forward. So I will be supporting the original motion. Okay. And then we caught o'rourke, and then Downer. Yes. Thank you. Mega three. So I'm struggling with this one. I'm looking at a page from cpa Canada. Their chief economist says the problem with basic income is not that there aren't proven benefits. There's clearly proven benefits. It's a series of sticky implementation issues that policymakers struggle with in designing a program. And I think that's why. We've seen pilots because a pilot can be different than a broad rollout. So I totally support basic income. But I worry about saying, just

implement something. So this author at cpa Canada, their senior economist, he says, I have no doubt in my mind that Canada will have a universal basic income in the future. With growing inequality, the increased threat of automation and the rise of the gig economy. We have more need now than ever for a policy that helps put an income floor underneath our nation's most vulnerable, which is exactly the goal. Of this motion, he says. But that conversation needs space and consideration for the policy to work. So the motion, as presented, says, we want the province and the federal government to implement something, but we don't know how that works together. If it does whose jurisdiction it is. And I totally agree we can let them figure that out. In my mind, Council richardson's motion just says we are urging them to figure that out. Don't implement it, but to urge them to explore it. To really support not just the nation's most vulnerable, but exactly Ms. Nell, who phoned to say there are people who they use the basic income to go back to work and retrain and be more productive. Right. So there are lots and lots of ways where basic income will be beneficial.

I'm not sure that the motion is prescriptive enough in terms of are we talking about just raise your income tax exemption? Just cut a check, just eliminate programs. So I'm struggling, really, because I think the exploration part, the urging them to explore it. Does just that to say what's really going to be the best system. To help the folks that we want to help. Downer, please. Thank you. I'm not going to support the amendment. I'm going to support the original motion because. I believe what the original motion says. Is to work collaboratively towards. So. That implies a lot of exploration. When you're working collaboratively towards something, there's going to be exploration of policies. Anyway, I do think that the stronger wording is there. It's something that says that. We basically support this in principle. And we like you to figure out how to work in collaborative, how this could be done. There are plenty of pilots. As a number of you said we all know

what works. But let them work that out. Collaboratively. Exploring. Is kind of where. They all have been anyway on this. So let's get together and figure out how it can be done so that it's effective. Thank you. All right. I'll call the vote on the amendment. Is anyone not in favor who is not in favor of the amendment. Okay. So I got 12345. Six, seven. Okay. So that's. Katen. Koran. Thank you, councilor alt. Didn't have my glasses on. I'm like, Who's up there. Galler. Alt, Clawson. Busatill Downer okay. Now, you really. No. He didn't have my glasses on. Or did you change your mind. You were up and down, eh. You remind me of some old counselors that used to be here pressing the wrong

buttons. All right, that's eight. Okay. Yeah. All right. So the Amendment fails. We're back to the main motion. Okay. All right. Is there anything more on this, or can I just call the vote on this issue? It looks like I can just call the vote. Okay. Perfect. Is there anyone against the main motion? Please put up your hand. Okay. Richardson, guthrie, and Gibson. All right, so that passes. Congratulations, councilor Clauffin. Good job. Okay. And now I am going back to Councilor busatill who asked for. The Cultural Plan 2030 stock report to be pulled. Would you mind moving the two recommendations to put the main motion on the floor? Yes. Who wants to second that one for me, the Cultural Plan. How about someone on screen here just to kind of spread the Love councilor. Cayton we'll second that. Thank you. And I will turn it over to councilor busto. Go ahead. Thank you. I first want to thank the staff for answering my questions and providing all sorts of context and background documents. And just to refresh Council's memory. I raised this when we were

talking about the cultural plan, specifically around the Mitchell Farm as resident. Residents in Ward Four were asking about this and culture in Ward Four didn't see it in the plan. And so I wanted to work with staff to try to capture. Some historical things. That had meaning in a neighborhood that would be part of our culture. So before I do that, though I did have one question for staff, which was one of the concerns that was raised by the community around. A concern. That the Mitchell Wood farmhouse, stone, or the cornerstone, specifically. Have been lost somewhere in the city, if you can speak to that. And I know, as I was working on this, I also received text messages and emails, people saying, Well, what about the old nisca Bridge? And what about this? I don't have that knowledge that corporate and that historical knowledge. And so if staff could respond. So through the merit of Council and to councilor Busatill. So yes, and I'll speak a little bit on behalf of dco Homes as well. So she and I, irrespective of what may occur tonight, have already undertaken a process to make sure that we have a really thorough inventory of all of the

cities. Civic. Archival or Heritage assets. Artifacts. Well, we have a very, very good system of storing. It is split across a number of different departments. And we want to have one consolidated inventory. We're going to work with staff, our heritage planning staff, our Museum staff, so that we have that good inventory of all of those civic artifacts or archival materials that we have retained over the years, as well as make sure that we have a documented policy. On where they can be utilized. And so I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that we don't have a good storage system or a good policy. It's just that we want to make sure that it's documented between our two service areas and that it's one coordinated approach specific to the Mitchell farmhouse. Yes, I can confirm and reassure that the agreements that were made. At the time when that farmhouse. Was taken down, that the materials have been retained in a safe and secure location so that they can be utilized at a later date. For example, the production of a care and I know is something that had been agreed to and that is still something that we are planning to do. And so without disclosing specific locations, I can reassure that those materials

from the Mitchell farmhouse, as for some of the others that have been referenced, have all been retained. And Ms. Holmes and I have made sure ourselves that. We are aware of all of those locations, but through the work that we're going to do operationally, it will be about consolidating that into one tracked inventory so that we have a good record of everything that we have retained and what it either was intended to be used for or could be considered to be used for in the future. Thank you very much. And if the clerks can put up, I prepared a motion with councilor Downer and with the staff support and circulation. For consideration. And so one of the questions that I had was why Q two, 2025 is that we would know the staff planning staff and Heritage staff are really quite busy trying to meet the deadlines. And so 2025 to bring us back a policy was their suggestion of a reasonable time frame. And so I'd like to place that motion. And. I believe councilor downer has agreed to second it. So I have to read it on my phone. That staff. Yeah, I can't see it here. That staff be directed to consider

an additional recommendation for inclusion in the Culture Plan regarding City owned cultural, archival, or heritage artifacts that considers incorporating such artifacts into public display for adaptive reuse and placemaking in alignment with the existing public art. Policy and Museum Collections policies and report back to Council no later than Q two 2025. Okay. Does anyone want to speak to this at all? If not, it seems straightforward. Okay. Councilor koran can speak to this. And then Downer can as the second Durkin speak before I call the vote. Go ahead. Okay. I thought I was raising miam to second it. But. I will be supporting the motion, although. I wish it was sooner and I wish it was stronger. The definition of public art, the definition of culture, the definition of place making are all embedded. In our current policies are all embedded in our strategic objectives. And I think that we have a really big policy gap here. That needs to be closed. That brings all of those

things together. And the sooner the better, so happy to support. Thank you. And then Downer as the seconder just sort of dittle to that. But I just wanted to point out, too, that we didn't bring the motion around doing the inventory because that's operational. And Deputy CEO quack Bush and Homes were both in the process of getting that underway. Now. So of doing an inventory of all of what we have in storage. In consultation with Heritage Growth and the Museum. Or Heritage Golf staff. I should say anything you see in staff. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. I'll call the vote on this particular motion, then. Is anyone against that one. Seeing nobody that's unanimous. Thank you, councilor. And then we're now back to the main motion. Then is there anything further on that? No. It's feeling good, everybody. I'm going to call the vote then anyone against the main motion. Again. That's unanimous in support. Thank you. And we are at bylaws. And councilor alt gets to jump in on the bylaws for us

tonight. Thank you very much, Mayor guthrie. The resolution to adopt the bylaws that bylaws numbered the year 2023 28 to 528. Four, eight and 28. Four nine are. Hereby passed seconded by Richardson. Amazing. Thank you anything on the bylaws anybody. Hearing and seeing none I'll call the vote and anyone against the bylaws. Hearing and seeing none that matters. Close. It's unanimous on the bylaws. Mayor's Announcements Okay, Everyone, buckle in. My first announcement. Is to say just to Congratulations to all my colleagues, because today is our one year anniversary of being elected. Lucky us. I'm just speaking for myself because it says mayor's announcement. So I get to say what I want. It feels fast to me. I don't know about you guys, but feels very fast. And if you take just a moment to think it back over this last year. We've actually done a lot. Like a lot. So I want to just thank all of you for that first year. And as a

team. With all staff as well. So thank you. For everything this last year and looking forward now to the next three. Okay, now I got some more announcements. There has already been some plans. In place. For budget town halls coming up. And there is some concrete dates that have been picked. And it's good. I'll probably do this a couple of times just to try to push it out there a little bit and maybe I would give a little wink and a nod to our media partners in the room to maybe start to also promote this as well, because we do really want a lot of interaction and engagement with the community as the budget gets released on November the third. So I'm just going to actually kind of go around the room. I'm putting people on the spot because I heard from a few of you that you wanted to mention it. So I guess I'll start with me. The cao, and I. Are having like a kind of a budget town hall, but it's through the Chamber. And I forget the date already is that the 8th. Scott. Mr. Maria, you're brilliant. It's November

eigth. Okay, so through the Chamber, I guess you can find that out. And. I will also be roaming the city and joining all my colleagues in the different wards as well. I'll be hanging out there probably. Doing audio visual for everybody helping with Tech. But I will be hanging out with all my Ward métis across the city on that. Ward Six. Why don't I start over here. Ken or dominique? Did you want to tell everybody when yours is? Yeah, absolutely. So our town hall is going to be on November 9 from seven to 830. We put out an initial announcement on social media, but we got the date wrong, so we're going to put it back up there for everyone. So the date is clear. We've reached out to a few places in word six. But we're still waiting for a response, so the dates to be determined. But please save the date. You're all welcome to attend. And we would love to share with you guys some updates and good news stories from Ward six. Great. Just think in a couple of years, you'll be able to do it in the New South Nrex Center, right. All right, well, just move to Ward Five

and. I'm just pointing at some in the room here not to ignore you, councilor qur'an, but I'm just going to Downer on this one. Yes, we have a budget Town Hall on November 16 at 07:00 p.m. At harcourt Church on Dean Avenue. Heading on over to Ward Four Mild stomping. Grounds. Thank you, Councilor billings and I are hosting a town hall on Thursday, November 23 at 07:00 p.m.. At the West End Recreation Center. Staff will be there and we'll have the Mayor there doing av. Yeah. Perfect. Phil, Michelle. Thank you very much. Mayor guthrie, Ward Three will be holding a town hall outside of Ward Three at City Hall. We would encourage people to please attend. In beautiful downtown Ward Two, I believe. I'm hoping that the Mayor will be there. And if you want to put your feet up that night, I understood as well. I'll bring the November the 13th and more details are to come. All right. Thank you. How award two. Anybody got something for us there? Yes. We're all set to go on November 20, here at City Hall, in

the Mark mckinnon Room from 630 to 830. And I heard that. Rodrigo will be baking cookies for everyone. Oh, all right, I'm just joking. Big turnout. We'll have to bring them into the Council Chambers. And then finally. Ward One, Dan, or Aaron? Do you have something yet at all. Or who wants. Hi there, Mr. Mayor. I don't want to speak too quickly, but I believe we landed on a date of November 20, Monday, November 20 tonight, back and forth with my Ward mate. Aaron, did I get that right? Is that sounding like the right date. I think we kind of started out for November 20 at 05:00 p.m.. At Victoria Road Recreation Center. In the cedar room. I think that's where we're going to be. We haven't confirmed with staff and we may have to fight for the Mayor because. Bring cookies, bring cookies. And in there. All right. That's awesome. Okay, so we'll do that a couple more times, okay. Just to kind of make sure everyone is aware. And thank you very much. That's it for Announcements. Who is the lucky one to move adjournment that'd be downer, and that would be clawson. Seconding, it anyone against that. Nobody. All right, go make

some cookies. Have a good night. Everyone take care of a bite.