Private tree by-law and taxi accessibility funding

All right. Good evening, everyone. It's just after 06:00 I'm going to call the meeting to order for our council meeting. It's Wednesday, April the 23rd, 2025. And it's just after six. And thank you very much for joining us for our council. Meeting. Right off the top. I'm going to ask if you could stand, if you are able. As we recognize our national anthem. Thank you.

Thank you. Just a moment of silent reflection as we continue.

Great. Thanks. And for the territorial acknowledgment. As we gather, let us take time to reflect on the privilege and our privilege to live and work here in Guelph. A city that is built over rich indigenous histories. We're guests here, and we should reflect. Upon the responsibility to care for the land and 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 called Guelph has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically the Annawanorok and the Hona Nashoni. This land is held as the treaty lands and territory with the Mississaugas. Of the. Credit First Nation and Guel flies directly adjacent to the Holdeman track and is part of a long established traditional hunting grounds for the six nations of the Grand river. Many first nations, anyt people who have come from a cross turtle Isle call Guelph home today. Is there any disclosure of pecuniary interest, any general nature thereof, for the items that are on the agenda. No. Okay. Thanks. No, I have official regrets, O'Rourke. And Clawson. And I think that's

it. I think everyone else, clerks is saying yes. So there you are. And I'm looking right off the top for confirmation of the minutes which were held on. March 18, 19th and 25th, 2025. In the minutes of the open committee of the whole meeting, held March 4, 2025, be confirmed. And recorded as without being read. Would someone like to help me out? Busatill. And sorry. Alt go. I'll jump back and forth from the screen to the room. Thank you. Is there anything. Further on the minutes. Hearing? None. I'll call the vote. Is anyone against the minutes? Hearing? None. That is passed unanimously. Thank you. We. Have. A larger consent agenda here. We have the debenture issue. Authority. Would anyone like that? Pulled. No. Okay. And we have the municipal service and financing agreement policy. Now, just to be as a heads. Up. There was an additional memo that was attached from staff because they wanted

to clarify some things. And embed that in the memo. It's all public. Just want to make sure I. Get a verbal from. Everyone that we're going to be moving. The one with the memo. Yes. No one's opposed to that. Just want to make sure. Okay. Clerks, are you okay? Does that confirm for you? Okay, and we'll continue. How about the results of the feasibility study? On the potential future arts and culture uses of the drill hall. Perfect. And I'll just call to vote on that, okay? Galler. Are you good? Green. Someone different on the screen. Kips in. I'll call the vote. Is anyone against? Nobody. Thank you. And then we have. The council consent agenda with the one item, the grant agreement. The funder reporting requirement of the Housing enabling water systems Fund grant. Thank you, Koran. And Gibson. Okay. And I'll call the vote on that. It'd be very weird if people were against

the grant, but good. Nobody's against the grant. That's good. I think we all kind of want $2 million so that's good. Okay. We are now moving into the items for discussion, and the first one is the private. Tree protection bylaw update. And only one delegation. Jonathan Harris is here. In person. Jonathan, come on down.

And thank you very much for joining us. So you have up to five minutes. If you need it, you'll hear a chime. In the room at the four minutes 32nd mark. And that's like a warning that you only have 30 seconds left, and then the microphone. Is turned off at five minutes, so don't let it get there. And then after you're. Done. If there's any questions, just hang around in case myself or my colleagues. Have any questions for you. Okay. Other than that, the timer starts right now and go right ahead. Well, good evening, everyone. Thank you very much for including me. Inviting me in today's discussion. My name is Johnathan Harris. I am Isa certified arborist. With a variety of credentials that work with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestries and multiple municipalities from Windsor to Laxaymo. Jacob Jordan, Quebec. First of all, I would like to take the time to thank the city for having me here. As well as Tamia file, Leah Leffler and the committee that is proposing updating. This outdated tree bylaw. It's something that's passed over, due, in my opinion, and I wholeheartedly. Agree that our trees need further protection to reach. A certain canopy size and goal. The original recommendation for the protection of trees up to

50 CM by Tamiya said at the previous meeting, to me made justification and made sense. Where I think the bylaw change falters is in two areas, and I'll describe them here. I think that regulated trees. 30 up, as I saw in last meeting. The bylaw. What we saw in Guel's private tree. Protection key issues options report on January 24 page six. It states that most of Guel's trees are relatively small and under 30. Cm. What that means is that according to the graph on page 693, percent of the trees aren't even covered. That's only 7% that you're looking at covering. Of course, it doesn't include newly planted trees as well as it also does not include. Trees that homeowners are planting and that you're unaware of. However, there's a way, I believe, to. Make this money stretch further is if you stuck to the original 50 centimeter bylaw recommendation. By Tamiya I think that there's a critical oversight that we haven't even looked at here.

Where is the Tree canopy conservation program? There is nowhere in the bylaw or the recommendations that I saw. Correct me if I'm wrong. Do I see anywhere in a conservation program that. Is going to help the community and help the people see the vision of getting trees planted on private property and increasing the canopy size. It is important with this goal, like the City of London has to defer the removal of large trees to the latest aid possible while allowing for secession planning to catch up. A program like this is an incentive base that offers. Rebates to property owners to help them care for trees on their properties. We are seeing this in many modern municipalities, Oakville, Burlington. Brampton, London Waterloo is looking at doing this as well, and this is something that's not even touched. From what I see, this would help. People understand about the programs that include types of indicated integrated pest management, cabling, bracing, and fertilizing programs that help benefit and get these small trees to a larger size that then can be covered by the tree bylaw. I believe the

amount of money spent changing the regulated trees from 50 down to 30 cm trees could be used for these rebates or better allocated. Let's simply put that this expenditure is missing. Active engagement with the community. We all know the trees are facing many struggles, including the diseases and insects that are listed on the city of Guel's website. This is evident from widespread destruction of the ash trees. Due to the emerald ashbore, which the wealth was greatly impacted. Wealth canopy, I believe, was in and around the 32% or 33%. Before the emerald Ashbor struck in 2003 in Michigan. And now, from what I believe in the reports given to us, your canopy is only at 26%. It is not the private homeowner that's removing these trees. It was a large devastation, and without the private homeowner coming in and helping the city reach the initiatives, I don't believe. That the compensation in lieu will. Help plant trees on private property. If Guelph had such a program in place before the devastation took place with the emmer. Lashbor. We might have saved thousands of more trees. There are several diseases and insects that are making their way here that will greatly impact our trees. And if the

people can't afford to maintain and keep their trees healthy, they will simply fall under the exemption of the bylaw and have to be removed anyway. The Rebate program is a great program, and I hope you would consider it for viewing the public comments and concerns online. There's a bit of distrust for what the city is reaching. Into the private bylaw and taking conservation over these regulated trees. I believe that if you include. A preservation plan and a canopy conservation program that you would further. Get the outreach and the community would see this more as a tree bylaw, not just the opportunity. Thank you. I could tell you on your last sentence, so good timing. Thank you. Thank you very. Much your delegation. Is there any questions at all for the delegate at this time? Okay, councilor Goer, thank you. And through your worship. Thank you so much for your presentation. Miss Harris, could you tell me, what would this preservation plan or the conservation program look like? You mentioned there was one in the City of London, but this bylaw is before us, so. We have to make a vote. I don't have time to

go and look. That would you be able to tell us a little bit of specifically what you would ask the city to do? Yes. So generally, money taken in the budget by cash in Lieu. From healthy trees that are being removed could then be used towards the canopy conservation program or money. That was supposed to be used. From the increase in going from 50 to 30 cm could be used towards. Generous rebates. So rebates could be. Some cities have $250, some cities have $1,000. That would be up to Tamiya and the people who did the report. To do cost analysis basis, but this level of education. In our long term residence is going to. Build preservation. On top of that, they would be able to get data from the individual homeowner and what trees are there? What's coming and how to protect us from things like oak wilt for the beach. Bark disease and from other pathogens like. Bacteria, canker and fungus that are coming and destroying our canopies as well as the poor soil content of Guelph. I mean, I really could go on. But I'll probably stop there. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, worship. Thank you. And councilor Chu as

well, please. Thank you to you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for your delegation. So I just want to get it. Straight. You're an arborist, and you're telling us that if we go to. 30 right away before we have this program and this bylaw put into place. It's just too fast. I think it's too fast. It creates. Public distrust as well as it's going to stop the public from planting trees on private bylaw because they're going to say, well, Why am I going to do this if my tree is not mine? You have to ease into it a bit. You have to create awareness. You also have to show them that you're not just doing this as a punishment to them for cash in lieu, because that's what a lot of the public do. See. Okay. And another question. The whole reason why we're having this conversation to begin with is because. There's an argument out there that. If we increase the threshold across the city, it'll cover more of the canopy. So we have less individual homeowners. And landowners. That would be covered under this bylaw.

How would someone like yourself, who's a private consultant, go about the education? To kind of make sure people know, hey, we have a bylaw. And we may move forward towards. Something more prescriptive in the future. Excellent question and thank you. So the incentivization for. Education and for maintaining healthy trees. What is coming with pathogens, disease and our environment and climate. Change is. Clearly needs to be managed, and I believe that without managing the trees you have, you're going to lose them anyways to these diseases, and you're also going to lose track. Of the canopy that's here. So a healthy tree only has its defense, its vitality. And once its vitality goes, a variety of factors, from pest pathogens, disease, fungus, many. Things lead to tree more decline in mortality. So education is key, and if you can teach and incentivize and ease your way into the program, you can have more of the public on board, starting with the youth and. With. Some of the long term residents of Guelph help educate them. That also gets somebody on their property, to let them know about the trees, to make them aware, because people just aren't. Aware. And one of the biggest confusions. Misinformation. You go

to Google something. How do you know one thing is true versus one other thing? Everything is opinion based. But if you have a consultant or somebody come out or if it's from the city website. From the truth. Then you can help educate these people and you can help reach your canopy goal. Otherwise. I believe that through studies and through what we've seen and through conversations with the International Society of Border Culture, Ontario chapter we're seeing a lot of decline because of mismanagement. Okay. And I have another question. Sure. So, theoretically, if this bylaw were to be in place without. Any. Changes tonight. People would be more dependent on calling you and your services to be able to cut down a tree, so that would be more. In your benefit. And you'd be the one to go about the knowledge translation to educate. People. However, you're telling us that if we go 30, it's going to actually. Be. It might not be in your favor as a consultant. Because. It's just harder to do the work.

Of showing people. That. Basically. For you. You think it's harder to educate people about what we're doing if we go 30 right away. You're creating a stigma that's making people not want to plant. Trees. Number one, right? Okay. It's not about what's good for me in business. Or not. I've not brought any of my business into this aspect. This is about what's? Good for wealth, for the people of Guelph, for the community. And the trees that live in it. Ethics is higher than business or standards. Okay. And you're? Trying to protect the reputation of your services as well. If you can keep a customer, if you can keep a tree, you can keep a client, okay? Yeah, sure. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Downer. And then Koran. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. So just a quick look at London, let me understand. So there's. It's 40 cm. But they're programmed. So the conservation program. And sort of correct me if I understand, is. To take better care of the trees, right? That we have, so. You have to hire qualified arbors like

yourself. In London to do what it says. Pest management. Pruning. Cable cabling. Embracing. I have a cable doke in my yard. I understand. And so you, so that's the type of program you're talking about. And it defers the cutting down. Of. Not just myself. There's many good professionals and companies in the area. Yeah. No, I'm not saying you, but arborous. Qualified qualifiers. Yeah, qualified. So that's the kind of program that you're thinking that we should be looking at. And so that the funds that we collect. For replacement should. Go. To. Grants or subsidizing. Residents. I think it's a critical oversight to not even look at Canopy managers. So it's kind of like Glovescott Trust program now, right? Yes. My wife's on the board. Yeah, right. So. They pick a tree every or a couple of trees every year. I know they did one in the Woodlawn cemetery once, and I think at McCray. School. They've looked after some and helped cave. Okay, that's the kind of thing that you're talking about. The city got on board with that? The public would show greater. Interest. Absolutely.

And preserving the tree rather than cutting it down. They're taking care of better. Taking care and having healthy trees before. These pathogens and disease decline the vitality which leads to any number of the exemptions. On the current and proposed bylaw. Okay. Koran, please. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for your delegation. And I don't disagree that more education and more understanding of why we're doing this. The importance of canopy for not just climate action, but stormwater resilience and all the great things that you spoke about. But. You did make a correlation between this bylaw and 30 planting less trees. And yet I wonder. If where the evidence of that is because in Mississauga and Oakville tree planting. Is their successful program on private lots and their bylaw is 15 cm DBH in Toronto. At 30 cm, we don't see a reduction. I don't see a correlating. Reduction based on what your diameter in the bylaw is and the number of trees being planted by private homeowners. So I wonder if you had any

data behind that statement successful. Successful plantings. So, yes, the data that comes out is they're planting trees, but is there any follow up? Visits. Is there any watering? It would be prudent to take a look at the data if any of the urban planners had of the amount of trees that are being replanted. So costs that are being wasted on that. So, yes, they may be planting trees. They could plant two trees in one location. Sure. Okay. Yeah, I see where you're talking about maintenance and information and education is important. I'm trying to understand how that correlates to the 30 centimeter in the bylaw. Public interest, public trust easing into a bylaw. You can always tighten it. Absolutely. But if people are afraid of it, they're not going to partake in it, and if they don't have the right information. They're likely. To not investigate. Through talks that we've had at the International Society of War Culture in Windsor. I met with delegates and people speaking on the board for Toronto as well as Mississauga. And John Hennessy at the city of Burlington. And we had conversations. So that's where some of my information is coming from, because we know this has been coming for two years, and it's a great program, what they've started.

I think we need something that's. Robust. That's going to last if you want to have it for another 15 years. Or if. You want to make it so it's tier upgradable, not just. We need to. Do it now. We need to do it right, because the right tree should have a 50 year plan for the city. Not a two year plan and replant, in my opinion. Okay. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate your delegation and your information. Thank you. Oh, I'm so sorry. Just wait a second. Jonathan, I didn't see council billings. Hand. Thank you, Councilor Busadill. I have another question from councilor billings. So real quick to your worship. So I think there's also another amendment to change it. To 40 cm. So with all. Your knowledge and experience. You are saying you do support the 50 cm, but. No lower. I don't think it's a good idea. Based on the data, and I really trust Tamia. And. Her input. She's been somebody that I've known. Through work relations for many years. They put a lot of work into this. They made a recommendation. They did not do it lightly. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Sorry, one more look around.

For real this time. I don't see anybody. Thank you. Thanks a lot, Jonathan. Thank you. Very much. Okay. Let's see here. We have recommendations. That are ahead of us. Yes. And so, like, hey, why don't we just, why don't we at least put the recommendations flowing from committee on the floor. If we want to amend referred, change, whatever, we can go after that. But let's put them on the floor. Downer and galler. Okay, so it's on the floor, and then I'll. Start with downer questions. So. A question to you, Mr. Merit's staff. I want to hear your comments on the tree. Canopy conservation program. I'm sure you've looked at the ones from London. And. I see it. Sort of like the tree trust program. But it's only dealing with some trees, and it doesn't help private owners who have big trees, mature trees that need to be taken care of, so. What are your. Any thoughts on that? Through you. May I? Got three. It is on our long term plan. So it's part of the vision of the UFMP to carry out proactive maintenance

on the canopy in general. And the private property is definitely part of that. We look at the urban forest as a holistic unit and it would be considered part of that. It's not in the short term. Plan, but it's in the longer term plan, potentially in the fourth phase of the UFMP. So the urban forest management plan. So you're saying it's in the fourth stage? So we had trouble getting the first stage done within the timeline. Not due to staff, but budgeting and whatnot. So. That sounds to me like it's 20 years out. It's something that we're in alignment with, something we'd like to see. And do you see any benefit now that. Regardless of whether we do 30, 40 or 50. Is there any benefit? In looking at that now. At some time in the near future, in conjunction with the fees that we would be getting, so some would be planting, but some would be also conservation. Of the urban forest. Through you, mayor. Got three. That's something we can definitely take away

for consideration. And when you think short term. Does that mean, like two years? Within five, probably within the next five years again. We have our work plan, and we're just updating the USMP right now. Just internally, we're working on that, and so we are working on our own. Proactive. Maintenance protocols, like our own operations for city owned trees as well, and so. It could be combined with those conversations. So when is this update of the urban forest management plan coming back to council? As far as I know, if timing goes right, we were looking at. Fall, early winter. Fall. If we wished, could council move a motion to have the tree? Canopy conservation program. Identified in this current update to be in the short term. So through the merit of council. I don't like five years, but anyway. Right. And again, we're all starting from a good place here. We want to help the canopy.

So, as Tamia mentioned, With something like our urban forest. An urban forest management plan. The work plan continually evolves, right? Depending on a variety of factors, including elements, invasive species, as we heard, that may not be immediately. On our work plan. Our focus recently has been getting caught up on historical work orders, as council is aware, and then that's another factor that makes us look at our work plan. Let us take back this for consideration and get back to council to see what we can do. To prioritize other works. To move this up, we'd want to consider things like our one canopy tree planning strategy. Which just came to council, and we're looking at, again, using funds to identify planting priorities. Across the city. So in the moment, we just don't want to get too far ahead. Of ourselves and to commit to something because it could have impacts on other bodies of work in the plan. That we need to and want to engage. So in short order. We can report back to council with a clear timeline as to when we may be able to. Engage hearing that five years and beyond is not something that may be acceptable to council with this. Specific program. With the motion tonight. So I just privately correspond with you now about a motion to bring forward.

Tonight that would bring us back. In the short term. And. Tied to the budget and the updated urban forest management plan. Pardon? A memo in the budget. I need some help with it. That's what would be included. And I know we're doing, like, a lot of stuff around planting. I know there's programs now and planning on private property. I think those are all great, but. I do understand the point that. There's no 50 year plan for these trees that were planting, right? So I think. We're doing a lot that way, but how do we look after. People have the resources or to look after the trees once they've been planted or once they start getting mature. And how they're not interfered with by other activity on the property. And to me, that gets to the issue that I raised. I've been raising. When there's construction happening, even when developers want to retain trees we don't

have any bylaws that help us. Help them. Not having heavy equipment sitting on the roots and things like that. How do we work towards conservation with the development industry as well? So I'd like to see a motion so I might have some. Quick. Correspondence with you while others ask questions. Thanks, Galler. And then. Chu. I see you as well. Alt. Thank you. Thank you for your worship. To staff. Just following up on some of the points raised by Mr. Harris. In terms of the information that is available to the public about this. Could you help me understand? At what point are we doing a mapping of the tree so that. We know for sure the trees that exist in private properties. Is that something that we have now? An accurate mapping of the trees that are outside the city. On private lots. So three. Mayor got three. We don't have individual trees mapped, and that's not. Something that's feasible at all. What we have is

the canopy map in terms of the spread across the city itself. There may be an instance where we may inventory a single tree. If somebody comes in for an exemption. Or a violation. Under the tree bylaw, but otherwise. Inventory individual trees on private property. Isn't feasible. Another exception might be. Through different types of applications where they provide tree plans and such, but again, they wouldn't. Be mapped publicly. Those are. Internal documents that we review as part of applications and such. Okay. So whether it is 30, 40 or 50 cm that are protecting. We still rely on that property owner to self report that those three exist and that they're asking a permit for them, right? Correct. We do have some data from the previous study where we could draw some correlation. Based on the actual plot data, for example, and maybe in a future study in 2028, we could sort of build off of that. And. Potentially collect data that's a bit more meaningful in

terms of the tree sizes. So it's something again we can look at down the road when we do our next study, okay? Thank you for that. Thank you, worship. Thank you. Chu then alt thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just sent you some. I was just wondering. If that tree conservation program rebate program. We can just start to explore comparative municipalities and just have that be put in an info report. At some point. I think we just want to continue to have that conversation so we can massage this bylaw. Towards more of an incentive program than just pure permitting. Is that something that wouldn't be too burdensome for you guys to do. Through the merit of Councilor Chu. We can take that away. Tamiya and team do a very good job. In being engaged with our partner municipalities on this topic, so that's not a stretch to stay informed in terms of reporting back to council, it could. May not be an information report, could? Be an email. To council to keep. Them up to speed.

Alt, then bustell. Thank you very much. Mayor Bethley, three years staff. It's a very simple question, but. It does affect. My understanding of the bylaw a little bit. We've been talking about the girth of the trees. At 30 cm up to 50. It lasts in a while. What is the approximate age of 30? Centimeter tree versus a 50 centimeter tree. And I'm talking about hardwoods like maple or oak or whatever, and I know that there's a variance on those, but. Those are. The girth of those trees is pretty significant, and that's why I want to know the age. Through you, mayor. Got three. That's a very difficult question to answer. We don't have direct correlations. Between diameter and tree age for gulf. Yet it is on our to do list again as part of our next study. That's something we're hoping to do because it would definitely give us some more insight into some of the things that we're talking about. Generally. Again, a 30 centimeter tree, depending on species, could be 30 years old,

but it could be 70 years old as well. Depending on species, even the site, you could have two of the same. Species, but growing in very different conditions. So I would hesitate to give you a direct correlation between the two. Thank you. I appreciate your candle on that. But you actually did help me, because I was thinking. 30 to 50 years of age are the trees that we're talking about. And I think that is important. In determining how we support this bylaw. All right. Busatill, please. Thank you. And through the mayor and thank you to Mr. Harris. For the delegation. I have a question for staff. Mr. Harris talked about. Private tree planting and the kind of follow up to know whether or not the two trees that I planted on my private property. And I'm going to ask about take root and a great program and uptake, right? Now of the great tree planting and what kind of follow up I know with take root there. Was the photo? Yes, I planted it. Is there some kind of conversation with people who participated in that around the ongoing maintenance, care and so on, or any kind of data from these programs as council, putting

aside money to do the private tree planting. Is this part of that longer term kind of investment? So through. Mayor got three. I can't see for certain other than the. Initial planting of the backyard tree. The backyard trees that there's any other monitoring that's? Something staff can follow up on and get back to you, though. Ideally. There is longer term monitoring. So with the tree bylaw, we do intend to have a warranty. Period for trees that are replacement trees that are required. It would be for a limited time. For sure because long term would not be ideal for a typical homeowner. But there is a warranty period built into that. Thank you. Just for supplemental, if I may, through the mayor, when the landscape program that the city does. Do they include trees to say. You can support this tree canopy. By watering more in this area or things like that. Does it include trees? I'm sorry. Can you clarify what you mean by the

landscape program? Thank you. The healthy. Landscape program. I'm sorry. I can't speak to. That. Through the mayor. I'm looking to Ms. Holmes, but the Healthy landscapes program is not something that the forestry department looks after, so I don't think we have the people here tonight. Who could likely speak to that. Thank you. My question was just whether or not the residential visits. I'm looking at my rain garden and everything else. Are they also looking at the ash? Trees that I have that are all inoculated. And held up and going to have to come down eventually. Do they look at trees as well? And are there some synergies there for public education and conversations. Through you, mayor got the answer to that is yes. We definitely partner with the Healthy landscapes program when it comes to education and outreach. And yes, very specifically the Emerald Ashbore program and other types of programs, whether it's the backyard tree, planting the tree giveaways and whatnot. So the answer is an absolute yes. Instead of synergies, it should be

synergies. Do you like that? Okay. All right. Councilor chu. I think you have advised us that you would like to move an amendment. The original motion is on the floor, so I can turn it over to you. Just be aware of your speaking time, okay? I would like to know in advance. Do you have a seconder for this? You do? Yeah. Councilor Gibson. Okay, perfect. Go right. Ahead. Okay, clerics, would you be able to put it on the screen so we could all read? It together because there's a lot of text here. I'm just going to keep it short. I sent an email to everybody kind of outlining. My intention, so. Basically through the consultant report, through my conversations with staff. I just feel like. Personally, I would love to support a private tree bylaw. I think first we need to put it in place. Like our arbor's friend had said, and give us some time to mature. And I think as well. The initial intent of the original staff recommendation is so that we

can ease this bylaw and educate some of our developer proponents and proponents that have larger land parcels. First. Once we do that data analysis and process. Maturation. With those people affected, then we can maybe look at tightening the bylaw. And I think there's opportunity as well to align this. With a public conversation on how we can incentivize these people with rebates. So it's not just a pure permitting process, but. It's also a financially incentivizing. Piece of work that the city is actively working. With people like our arborist friend. And I think as well, We have to understand that we have a culture here in Guelph where people are very culturally responsible, and they like to steward their own properties. And I just feel like we starting. At 30 and not building up that awareness, it will alienate people who want to do the right thing but feel forced through compliance. To. Hire x, y and

z. And pay x, y and z fees, and I just. Feel like we can get to that point. Where we need to have more tightening. I think at some point in time we're going to have to do that. I think right now, especially with our staff capacity and the historical work. Orders that. They have mentioned is on the table. We should be respectful of that as a council. And. That's basically the long story short here. If anyone has any questions to me or staff, I would be happy to take those questions. Thank you, Councilor Chu. Does anyone have any questions? Okay, councilor Billings. On the amendment, please. Sure, because the amendment is 40 cm. So through you, your worship, to staff. So when stock recommended the 50 cm, we knew we were going to run a deficit. However, With the 40 actually went at cow and went to 30. We received an email from staff and it talked about even at the 30 work plans would have to change certain planning applications wouldn't be processed in time. Of course, we would run a larger deficit.

But what about with the 40? I was wondering, could staff comment with respect to the 40 cm. Through. Umar got three. Yes. Previously we provided information to council. With the impact of the 40 centimeter trees. With an estimated funding gap of about potentially again, high level estimate of $16,000 more than the 50 centimeter, so approximately 238,000. Of a funding gap. It's about going from 4% of the tree population at 50 cm. We estimated it would be about 8% or double the tree population. And with the 40 cm with respect to work plans, planning, applications, those issues that staff pointed out with the 30? What about with the 40? Three. There will still be impacts. We would have to again go back and look at what those would be. But there will be impacts very similar to what we're talking about. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Gibson and then alt. Yeah. Thank you. Three. Mr. Mayor. So when I spoke to councilor too, about this, There was a bunch of wins here. From so many perspective, like staff have clearly identified the impacts this would cause for them and to our budget to go as drastic as 30 right off the bat. We've heard from members of the public today. And we all. Want to get there. We all want to protect some trees. We want to protect trees on private property where it's reasonable. So I saw the 40. As a great compromise. I appreciate councilor Chu bringing it forward. I think it's. Well. Thought out. I think it meets. Many of our objectives. And I think it still is a sound document, one that I hope we can be unanimous. Thank you, alt and Guller. Excuse me, Mary Gustri. I have a bit of a cough. That's why I'm. Not there tonight. I was length. Amendment number two could please be put back up on the screen? I have a question for

staff. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Merritt. The staff amendment number two strikes me as being very technical and as a consequence of that. I was wondering if you could please comment on the deliverability of this by Q three 2027. Through the merit of council. Much of this is work that staff already do. We had a conversation with councilor Chu and pointed in this direction because, again, a lot of this is in our scope of work right now. We may recommend, though, instead of this report. Yes. This report may include just. To. Intent of the motion accurately. But again, Much of this work is already being completed by staff. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. It wasn't clear to me. So in some senses, the motion is just a reiteration of what is being done, is that correct? Through the merit councilor

alt correct. Thank you very much. Thank you. Galler than Koran. Thank you, worship. Just comments on this. I heard our delegate present and call for us to put in place. At canopy conservation program. What I see in this motion is not that it would change. The trees that would be protected. So we'd be protecting 8% of our trees as opposed to the 14% if we kept it. At the 40. So with the motion as it is, I'm not able to support it. Okay, you can just jump in. Councilor Downer has a motion, literally kind of speaking to. That issue that's coming separately than this, whether this amendment or the original passes or fails. Regardless. That kind of emotions coming separately, it wouldn't be included. And everyone has it already, okay? So I just want to make sure that people. Aren't tying the two together when it would be a separate thing anyway. Koran, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to request a separation of

the two clauses. First of all, Because I can obviously accept. And support clause two because it's work already being done and it also gives council data. To go back and do bylaw reviews, which is always good practice for us to do. I can't support clause one because. This tree bylaw, private tree by law, has been well over a decade in the making, which. My. Wordmate knows full well we did a lot of public engagement. And in fact, on page twelve, of the public engagement summary, we see that 21% of respondents said less or at least 10 cm in diameter and 39% said 20 cm, for a total of 60. Percent looking for protecting tree diameters below 30. Think 30 cm for me was actually. The compromise. We have a 40% canopy goal, and we're just not getting there and. This bylaw. Is a step in helping us to get there because it is about preserving what we have. Absolutely. We need to maintain our tree canopy and increase through plantings. Those are other matters. Education

and councilor downers. Future motion. That's all about the next phases. But tonight we're just talking about what we're going to protect. So I will be supporting the original and voting against the amendment. Thank you. Happy to split that. Okay. I'm trying to wrap this amendment up, but I'm now I'm circling. And I'm going back to councilor alt. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You won't be circling. These are just my comments I cannot support. Clause number one. The reason I asked staff my question was I wanted to really get an assessment of what maturity some of the trees would be that would potentially not be protected by this bylaw and like council Koran. The 30 cm would have to be my cut off. And I recognize that trees. Of various types grow. At different speeds. The cherry trees that I planted twelve years ago are probably only 10 oak trees. Grow very slowly. But when we're getting to talk about trees that are 20 years to 50 years old. I'm a bit concerned because we want to get them to 100 years. Old and 100 years old.

In reasonable time. So consequently, I think that the 30 good cut off. Thank you. Okay. So I will be supporting the amendment. As everyone knows at the committee, I didn't support the 30 at all. I kind of wanted to go with what the staff recommendation was, but I like to try to meet in the middle. So that's why I would support this amendment. I think it's important just to put on the public record. I'd like to have just some of the staff points that we all know now know. About. About what the impacts are. If we do pass the 30, if this one doesn't. Go. So actually, technically, procedurally, no. If this fails, I will speak to this. If the 30 cm remains so, I will stop myself. So with that. I will be supporting both portions of this amendment. And I'll call the vote on number one, which is sort of the middle of the road, the 40 cm. So I'll call the vote on that right now. Is anyone against? That one. So

caller and busatil. And Richardson, downer, Koran. And Gibson. I'm sorry, not Gibson. Sorry. Billings and Alt and Koran. Okay. Katen. I'm sorry. I really need to wear my glasses. I'm very sorry. Kate as well. Clerks. Are you okay with that? Did you capture it okay? Through you, Mr. Mayor. We have that failing on a three to eight vote. Yes. Okay, thank you. And now I'll call the vote on number two as a standalone. And is anyone against? That. Okay, that's unanimous. Okay, thank you very much. So now we're back to the main motion as it stood. I'll go to yours after. Okay. Yeah. So we're going back to that. Does anyone need to have a round on that one at all, or are we good to go? Okay. Koran and then billings. I was anticipating that you were going to speak on the main motion related to budget, and then. I was going to respond. You indicated that you were going to speak to it after the motion passed. Yeah, but that would be councilor

downer's motion, and I'm not to. That one yet? Because the amendment to the main motion failed. I'm just now calling the vote on the main motion, which is what flowed from committee to here, the 30, all that kind. Of stuff. Sorry. Did I see another hand come up on this one? Okay, billings. Yes. Sorry through you, Mr. Mayor. Okay, so with the bylaw, I mean, it was supposed to be. A bylaw. That's not onerous. It's affordable. So even at the info sessions, I still have a problem. And that's the two things which actually. Won't. Be modified, amended until after the bylaw is passed. Into the tree manual, and that is. The width for in centimeters for the replacement trees and also the timing for the return of the securities deposit. So with respect to the replacement tree, it was mentioned in the info session and I think, Cal, it was going to be 6 cm. However, when. The city replaces a tree on someone's front yard because it was death, whether it was a city

owned tree or a shared tree. It comes in around 4 cm in a pot. And it gets planted. The 6 cm does not come in a pot. And. It's more expensive, but also. It needs equipment. So again, there's now another cost to the homeowner. So I was just wondering. If stock through you, your worship could respond to the 6, why we couldn't have it? At the four and a half, just like the city uses to replace their trees. Through. Mayor. Got three. Thank you for your question. At this time. I know we've discussed this previously, but at this time we're. Going to maintain. The standard replacement tree as a six centimeter tree. But. When we come to updating, reviewing and updating the tree technical manual, we will take into consideration. The flexibility and sizing or alternate tree replacement sizes. And just for information, the tree

technical manual currently does say. That smaller trees. Are acceptable as an option as long as. The intent is there again, you can replace two smaller trees for one larger tree and whatnot. So there is some flexibility built in. Okay. Thank you. Also, one last question for your worship. Some counselors have mentioned and quoted. Oh, but Vancouver is doing this in Toronto, and they have 20 cm or 30 cm. So I wanted to ask Tamia, the other municipalities that. Have those centimeters, do they not have? I'll call it like a tree department, where. You've got tree bylaw enforcement officers. And supervisors like an actual department. Three. Mayor got three. Yes, that is true. So again. I can only just off the top of my head, think of two specific examples. Toronto and Hamilton. Have separate tree

bylaw departments, with supervisory staff overseeing. A department of multiple tree inspectors, and some of them even have their own. Tree bylaw inspectors, whereas we have a bylaw department. And a forestry department, so. We're not set up similar to some of those municipalities. So if council decides through your worship to approve the 30 cm. So then for the 2026 budget confirmation process, then staff would be bringing back yet again another increase to the budget. Through the merit of council, correct. We've been clear throughout the process that. Should we move? Away from staff recommendation. There would be increased budget demands. And even as we discussed with the current staff recommendation from staff. There would be a budget ask, right? But with 30 cm, just much more. Through merit of council. Correct. Thank you. All right, thanks. I'd like to try to just wrap this up and go ahead and. Vote on the main motion as it stood, so I won't be supporting this, and I'm going to

give the reasons why. As outlined by staff. Just want it out loud. Moving from 50 to 30 cm will result in the bylaw applying. It would have impacts on city finances, staff resourcing and property owners and development costs. The amendment poses resourcing challenges for several departments, particularly parks planning bylaw and legal services. And this may affect staff's ability to manage existing workloads. The proposed amendment to the bylaw will require an increase to the annual operating budgets for parks. This represents a 0.4% tax levy increase that will now need to be reflected in the 2026 budget. Additionally, planning will incur a shortfall of an estimated 3.5 weeks of work annually for an existing position, and it is anticipated that the increased volume at the committee. Of the Committee of adjustments applications. Would now apply. This is anticipated to impact overall review timelines for our planning act applications bylaw will be impacted. Additional support from legal services may now be required. In addition to the direct and indirect cost. The city's proposed amended bylaw will have economic

and timeline impacts on residents and developers. The proposed amendment put forward at the committee, the whole has the potential to impose additional requirements and costs for smaller residential projects that are not currently subject to the bylaw. These costs include arborious services for producing now tree plans financial securities for cash and lieu more properties. Undertaking smaller scale projects such as. Construction for Adus or other building additions to their properties. The amendment. Is also anticipated to extend project timelines, potentially beyond the legislated ten business day turnaround time for building permits. So this may impact overall timelines for all construction activities. For those reasons, I cannot support this. I can stay at the 50, which was already a good thing, which was already a positive thing. That came from staff. It already came with some outlined costs, but I cannot move to. What council is now considering. Respectfully, I think these impacts are way too great for our community. And so I respect. Of course, council is a

different opinion and position, but for that reason, I will not be supporting what's on the screen today. Downer and corrupt. Excuse me? Downer than Quran. Thanks to you, Mr. Merritt. I just want to confirm with staff. On March 27, you sent me and we shared with all of counsel the difference between the 50 and the 30 from a funding gap. So the estimated funding gap with a 50 centimeter tree. Was 222,000. With the 30 centimeter, it was 261,000. So a $40,000 difference between the 50 and the 30 centimeter a year, correct? Yes. Great also. The estimated fte gap. One. For 50 cm it was 1.6 and for 30 cm it was 1.9. So not even half right in half te correct. Also, the estimated proportion of regulated tree population on private property that would be protected is on the 50 cm. What's 4% and. Under

30 cm was 14% correct. Correct. Okay. And you also indicated that it would rank slightly higher than the others due to the number of trees captured, but it would rank lower just to the cost to the city, so that 40,000. Correct. Correct. Okay, so that's the information we received that I shared with all of council. And when you think of in the report, it talks to multimultimillions of dollars in infrastructure that trees provide. In the terms of runoff and flooding and all those things. For all of us. I think that 40,000. And one third of an fte. I understand there are other implications, but I think that is certainly worth it, and I still will. Be moving motion around a tree. Conservation plan. And thank you. And Koran, please. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Merritt. I appreciate fiscal responsibility as part of our jobs. And I know that you take that very seriously, but the one thing we do a lot is we talk about the cost and we don't talk about the return on investment. And there is lots of data on the return of

investment, everything from extreme heat, water. Scarcity, biological hazards, degraded ecosystems. Health and well being, clean air. And we have city of Toronto data, along with TD bank, who run tree planting programs. That found that even with a 30 centimeter bylaw, the return on investment works out to about $125 of savings per annum per household, or about $8 per tree for those additional benefits to the municipality, and I think that. When you put it into those terms, we actually come out ahead. So I will be supporting this wholeheartedly. And I hope that that return on investment could be factored in to any budget deliberations or any consideration and data that you're using, Mr. Merwin, you're contemplating. The cost impacts in the mayor's budget process. Thanks. Yes, of course. Thank you. And councilor Chu, please. Okay. Do you, Mr. Mayor to staff, could you share with me

the funding? From 4%. Just so I remember. Through you, Maya. Three. Sorry, can you say that one more time? Sorry. So if we went from. 50 to 40. Diameter. $16,000. That would be the difference, right? Yes. Okay. And can you kind of share with me, too? You're going to have to rearrange. Your historical work orders in light of us moving to 30. To kind of prioritize this work. We share a little bit of that through the merit. Of councilor Chu. As we noted on April 1, that is work that we're going to have to do so. Staff provided a recommendation on the 50 cm. With a note to budget. That was based around being able to continue. The workload that we have right now as we move away from that staff recommendation. Staff are going to need some time. To find out where we're going to land, if it's going to be 30. Cm or 40 cm. There's a difference there for staff, as we're hearing.

That will impact our workload. What that will look like to me. As an example, her role is responsible for the administration of this bylaw to me as ruled also handles third party contracts. That is the kind of thing that third party contracts that may come off the list. That will look like. Slower operational works in the field. And again, we've made significant gains, as you know, in catching up to those historical workloads. That's an example of how we're going to see this. And respectfully, staff need some time to evaluate that. Once we've landed. On the dbh. So just to be clear, Inevitably, work is going to have to be dropped or reprioritized because of. This shift in prioritization. Through the mayor to council unless we have resources at budget. Okay. I guess I just have a comment. To me personally. I'm trained as a landscape architect. I'm a landscape designer at the moment, I would love to support this wholeheartedly. I don't want to repeat what's been said already, but I just feel like. This is happening way too fast, and we need to have

a framework in place surrounding the bylaw. And I felt like the 40 would have been a great compromise for everyone so that we're not painted against not liking trees and liking trees because I feel like. There's more complexity to this than that. In order to steward our tree canopy better, So I just feel like I can't support this. But I do want to put on the record that. I absolutely. Support. Private tree by law as a framework in place, but I can't support it in this. Current form, so I just need to make that clear for everyone. Okay? Thank you. Wrap it up. Councilor old I want to call the vote. Thank you very much. Well, we'll have to wait till I'm done. Speaking as a grandfather. And speaking during Earth week. I think it is absolutely essential that we support this. My colleagues made mention of the return on investment. I think that's very important when we consider riverways. And erosions and the roles that trees play in that. When we consider that we have a Guaff greener homes program, where we are trying to encourage people to do the. Environmentally. And ecologically correct

things to do and where we pride our city on being a leader in the environment. The simple thing that I can say is if London, the forest city, can do it, then wealth can do it better. And that's why I believe we owe it to generations to come. To do this and recognize the return on investment, not just for this budget, but for budgets to come is well worth it. All right. Thank you. All right, then. Just before I call the vote, thank you for the opinions. Everybody. This is why we got all elected to have different opinions. That's fine. And I am feeling, though, just a tad, just a little bit like it is what, councilor? Chu said, like either your four trees or you're against. I don't like that. Feeling. I don't like it. I just feel a little vibe. Just a little vibe of that. So I just want to say it out loud. That the original recommendation from staff that I was going to support was wholesome changes and better. Protections. And so I just want to make it very clear that any of the environmental type of discussions here. I am behind them. I think where I feel very comfortable in my position today is because councilor Chu's. Second Amendment

passed, which is the data, the impacts that can come back within two years. So. All of the laundry list of all the bullet points that I said about. What I'm concerned about, especially the planning timeline, legislative timelines. Maybe in two years that data comes back to us and it's like, hey, it wasn't. That bad, right? And I can be like, okay, I'm behind this. Let's. Go. So I think I'm happy that I didn't know you were bringing that forward counsel to achieve. I think that's really great that you did that. So we can get that data later on to see how the impacts of something like this is going to be. It looks like, it looks like past. And so we could play the game a little bit here of like, well, if you really like. Trees, then make an amendment for 20 cm or 15 could just keep going down and down and down. No, council cron, don't do that. Just kidding. But I just want to make sure that. It kind of reminded me a little bit of the online voting thing before the end of the vote. It was like, there's nobody here that's against democracy. There's nobody. Here. Everyone just has a different opinion on it. Same thing with the tree thing right here, right? We're going to vote differently on it, but we're all behind the environmental initiatives. And. To me. I just want to make sure that's very clear that we're not. Pointing fingers at each other and saying,

well, I'm better than you than on this. Let's not go there. Okay. With that, I'll call the vote. Who is against? The main motion as it stands. Chu and myself, Guthrie and Gibson and Billings. Okay, so that passes. Thank you. And thank you to staff, by the way. I know there was so much engagement, and then these changes in the last month. You've done a really great job in informing us, so thank you very much. To you, Councilor Downer. You have this standalone wine about kind of preservation plan and budget. So go ahead. So it's that staff report back on a canopy conservation plan in the short term, in the updated urban forest management plan and that men will be included in the draft 2026 budget. Update for further consideration by Mayor Grethory and city council. Thanks and go. Or seconded that, so it's perfect. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Can I call the vote? No, Councilor Goer. Briefly, I just wanted to thank the delegate for bringing this to our attention and letting us know. That this is important, that we need the conservation plan. So just thank you for

being here. Thank you, worship. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. And. Oh, sorry, Gibson, go ahead. Yeah. I don't think it's going to affect my vote. I just wanted to know. Is something that staff are going to be doing in house or is this going to be. Adding costs to staff's work plan right now without understanding the cost of it. If it's an in house, in kind report, that's great, but just like to know. Through the merit of council in house. Great. Thank you, sir. All right, I'll call the vote. Is anyone against those two motions for councilor Downer? Unanimous. Thank you very much. All right. Go plant a tree. Everybody protect trees. We're done. That topic. All right. Thank you very. Much. Okay, we're moving on to the last item. The vehicle for higher accessibility fund. The request. By red top taxi for vehicle accessibility modifications. As it says, right on the agenda. Mayor Guthrie will speak regarding this item because it was added just late last week, so I'm going to speak to it. I'm going to set the stage a little bit before the deleg. Delegations come up, and then we can decide what

you want to do from there. And I will. Look, I have no notes, so I'm going to go by memory as much as I can. I'll look to staff. If I'm speaking at a turn. So the context of this is that late last week, The accessibility committee. Had a decision to make in regards to funds that were being requested by red Top taxi, which is our only mobility accessible taxi service in the city. To use funds to go to modifications for a new van so that people could still be able to use accessible mobility services by them, both within our city and actually even outside of our city. Just to be clear, okay, it's not just for Guelph. And where the funds were coming from was a reminder to me, because I got to be honest. I forgot about it. It was seven years ago. That under the new taxi license and ride sharing licensing. There was a working group that was established that determined a way that we could help to make sure that we continue with mobility and accessibility. Transportation is that we

would take fees and we would set up an account that's dedicated. To grow. To help with then money that would go to modifications for taxis. That's it. It's as plain as day. That's it. And the way it was originally set. Up was that? The money would go into that account. And to date, there's a little over $330,000 that are in that account. And it's never been touched. It's never been touched. There's no money that's ever come out of it at all. And so red top taxi came to the accessibility committee and. They asked for the money. As was originally set up seven years ago. Which council approved and at the time. The original AAC group also approved. And the committee has the right to say yes or no. And they said no, okay? And they said no for their reasons. And when I found out about that, I felt it warranted coming to council for us to make an ultimate decision. Up from the committee

to council because. I felt that we needed to adhere to what the original intent and the backing of a seven. Year fee being collected under a policy. Was supposed to be used for, and I would like to support accessible mobility transportation services to continue in our community, especially if there is a van that might be coming off the road. And so that is why Redtop taxi came, and that is why this is now before us. Today. I want to also say that I heard in the meeting from the accessibility committee that there were other and separate issues. Okay? So I want us to park that issue, and I want us to. Now concentrate on the other issues that I also heard. Valid. Okay, valid. Is there different way we could help with mobility issues? Is there different ways of funding that could occur? Is there different programs that could occur? Could taxi scripts be better valid? 100%. But. That is separate. From the policy. And

that's why this is in front of us today. We have delegations in regards to this matter, and so I just want to set the stage. Then. A couple of things. One, thank you for coming. You get to speak to us the same as you heard earlier. There is. Our procedural bylaw allows no more than five minutes at the four minute and 32nd. Mark, you will hear. That means wrap it up, because at the five minute mark,

You will have your microphone cut off. I am making an exemption for I was previously requested by Laura Li Root, who needs a little bit more time. And, of course, I have accommodated that before, and we'll accommodate that tonight. The other part. Is, once you are done your delegation, there might be questions. So go ahead and ask your question. If there's a stay, just in case there's questions from any of my colleagues. Or myself. And the last thing is, I just want to remind everybody that our procedural bylaw. Is very clear. A delegate. May only address counsel or the committee with respect to the item on the agenda. They are registered to speak to. The item that we are speaking to that's on the agenda. Is literally black and white. Yes or no? Do you want to give money? To rettop taxi out of a policy that was established seven years ago, or don't. You. That's what is on the agenda and that's the parameters as your chair that I have to adhere to. By the procedural bylaw that we all voted on. That's what I have to do. With that. Thank you for letting me speak to the item. And so we will begin.

To call up the delegations. There's a few. And the first one? Is muhammad iqbal. Am I saying that right? Yeah. Okay. Come on down. To the microphone. Okay. I'm so sorry. Debbie, are you. Oh, sorry. Debbie. And are you Christopher? Yes. Okay, Christopher. Thank you. Yeah. Did you. All want to come down at the same time. May I just ask, are you doing separate five? Minute delegations or are you all together to speak and then we can only have five minutes. For all three of you. Okay, five minutes for all three. And then if you want to stay there, just in case there's. Questions. That's fine. All right, so whenever you start talking, the timer will start. Going from there. Okay. Thanks very much, everybody. Okay. Hello. Just want to say thank you for allowing us this time to speak tonight. My name is Christopher Wilson. I'm a mobility van manager at Red Talk taxi for seven years now. Aside from Gulf mobility, red top is the only of the mobility service in Gulf that I'm aware of. When we started this program, we had

two vehicles. In the mobility business, and it has grown to six vehicles. Even at six vehicles, we are still having to turn people away. At red torque taxi. We also do many rides outside of city limits taking citizens of Guelph to medical appointments in Toronto, London, Kitchener, Cambridge, Fergus, Hamilton. We're also their means of transportation to visit their loved ones on holidays outside of the city limits, which Gulf mobility does not do. Seven years ago when I got involved in the mobility part of this taxi service. The cost of a vehicle. Converted was around $60,000. Fast forward to today. That cost us risen to around $100,000 with the conversion. It's no longer feasible to purchase a vehicle at that cost to use as a taxi. That is why we are requesting funding for the conversion of the vans. In those seven years, I can't tell you how many customers have expressed their gratitude for this service as without it they would not be able to have the freedom the people without mobility. Needs have. I managed two of the accessible vans, one of which is

now out of service. It has around 700,000 it and it is no longer viable to put money into this. Vehicle. I'm looking to replace this vehicle, but the cost is now astronomical. Again. That is the reason why we are requesting funding for the conversion part. As the baby boomers get older, the demand for this service is getting bigger. I also own a regular taxi, and I can tell you the cost of replacing one of those. Vehicles versus replacing an accessible taxi is not even comparable. With this funding, I will be able to continue helping the citizens of Guelph that rely on this service. I have a passion for this job and would like to see this service continue. To exist in the royal city. Without the funding. I don't see the service lasting much longer. Thank you very much. That's your time, and we appreciate your delegation. And so we'll just start with. Some questions, okay? And perhaps, if you don't mind, maybe the two of you might. If you. If it's. Comfortable for you. If you could just make sure that if there's a question that you have to answer, you would come up to this microphone here, okay? Boostil and then galler on

my side, okay? Thank you. And through the mayor. And I apologize. This is all new to me about taxi and permits. And 2018 report. This is, I feel quite ill informed, I'll be very honest. So can you help me understand a little bit of the mechanics kind of the structure here. Is mobility services tied to the taxicab driver, or is it the company red top that has kind of this permit. The mobility service is a contract with Redtop where we is contracted out and we go and pick the citizens up and drive them around. Okay, so it's with the company red top. It's not with individual drivers, okay? So my second question was. It's about data, right? And the mayor is always saying to me, get the data. Get some data and so on. So from what I've read and what I've received today in a flurry, from staff and so on, is that the demand is growing outside of the service time. When. A public transit mobility services are. So does red top keep

data? You are talking about the increase in baby boomers. Are you able to say from this time in the evening or on this this is what our writership and is it directly related to. Not baby boomer boomer. Sorry. I'm a. Baby boomer. Baby boomers. Are you able to directly link it to disability accessibility services?

As far as the data is going. Okay, sure. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak. As far as the data is concerned, last year. We have about 14,119 completed rights. That's about, like. 1200 carls per month. That's the average that we do. That's not including the caldet turned away. Thank you. I guess I was looking. For. So that is. Are you saying that is outside of what, Guelph? Mobility? So what? I'm struggling with is I'm hearing from staff is that. There is a transit study that is taking place and we'll probably see the results coming. Up soon. That will include accessibility and. I'm not seeing. I would love to have a report from Red Top. That says this is what the service and the demAnds Are and the ratIonale for why we need to get another, because it feels to me that we're also going to be getting a report. From transit, from golf transit. To give us a more full

sum overview of accessibility, I'm just going to jump in. To be very clear, they are not asking for another. They have a current van that is at end of life. Am I right? Yes. So that van will no longer be available. The thousands of rides that they do will no longer happen. The vehicle is gone. They are replacing a vehicle in their life cycle replacement, and they need the money that was collected for seven years in an account to be able for them to continue to provide that service. So this has nothing to do with additional stuff or additional mobility, transportation. We can talk about that in a minute. Absolutely. But procedurally. We need to really put the blinders on and focus on. The question at hand is, should red top taxi be allowed to get the $39,500 that they require out of an account that was set up seven years ago for this exact thing. That's it. Anything else? After that, we can talk about the after we settle this. First. Thank you. And through you, the mayor. I guess I have some additional questions for the staff. Because I'm feeling that I'm asked to make a decision blindly, I'll. Be very honest, and

I'm feeling very uncomfortable about this, so let's get a bit more details before the delegations. I know this is a little bit out of whack. But I'm going to allow it unless someone challenges me. To our deputy cio colin clockbush. Did you want to fill in any blanks or give a perspective of what council is looking? At? Sure. So through the mayor, maybe I can fill in a few blanks, and then I'll. Pause and see if there's other questions. Obviously, that councilor busted has so just from a clarification point of view. The funds that come into this account. The other thing that I just want to make sure I highlight is this was related to ride sharing programs being offered. So not to name companies, but Uber and Lyft. And so when that was licensed, the decision was because they don't provide accessible vehicles. Instead, they would contribute, and I believe it's. Seven cents a ride. I'm looking. Mr. Godfrey is nodding. And so in the time the $332,000 that has been collected has come from those ride. Sharing companies and they pay into that fund. The reason why at the time, the working. Taxi companies. I believe, from the ride sharing companies. Is, as the delegate mentioned, Guelph transit is not able to manage

the volume of mobility. Requests that we get and also does not offer services 24/7 which red top does as well as out of town, as the delegate mentioned. So a lot of the requests that RedTop is getting. Do come through Guelph transit mobility services. And we have a contract with red top so that they are who we go to when we can't complete the number of mobility requests that we may get, and then, obviously, after hours, on holidays when we're not offering service out of town, and I also don't. Want to speak on behalf of red top, they may. Well, I assume. Use their accessible vehicles for clients who don't come in through the Guelph transit. Avenue at all. And they are simply providing that service. And then just the other thing that I wanted to make. Sure I provided in terms of information that I think is probably helpful is that there are. 86 licensed taxis in Guelph across all of the companies. And so, right now, the six that are accessible is all of the 86 that are accessible. And so if this one. Is not so six of the 86. This is to retain that level of six. So that's maybe some

background of some of what I've heard, but then I'll stop and see if there are other questions. That I haven't answered there. Thank you. And through them are. Yes, that's very. Helpful. So do you have a number of the number of call requests that actually come through the city. Through the mayor specific to Guelph transit. Know that are directed. To so what we can provide and get back to council on and again, because this wasn't. A transit specific item. We don't have the transit staff here tonight necessarily to speak. I'm doing my best. We can get the data in terms of. How many? What the total value was across 2024 as well as in 2025 for both. The mobility calls that we transferred over to red top through the taxiscript program, which I know there are some questions about, as well as for those overflow where our mobility services couldn't. Provide. Them provide the service, and we can share that with council. The fair strategy. Which is what I think you were referring to, Councilor Busatill, that. Came forward for council approval in 2023. So

council approved our fair strategy in 2023, which did include. The change that staff recommended related to the taxiscript program as well as mobility services that fair strategy is now what we operate under, and it will be coming back in a few years as part of. Our standard process of reviewing the fair strategy, but at this point in time, it is not on staff's work. Plan to do an immediate revisiting of that unless we get alternate. Direction from council tonight, so I'm just going to jump in one more time. I really feel like your questions, just like I said, the AAC on their other issues are valid, and I want to validate your questions, but they come after. Just the question in front of us. Do they deserve the $39,500 out of the account? That's it. We can talk about mobility services fairs, we can talk about mobility bus other options and programs. We'll do it right after this. Like, literally right after this. I want us to concentrate, please. Procedurally, on just the matter at hand. So I'm validating. Your questions, I want you to sort of, if you could. I'm going to make a decision here. I'd like you. To park them and bring

them up again, because the question here is just to validate whether or not. They deserve the $39,500 for a policy that was established seven years ago and the money's been collected. Is that okay? Yeah. And I'm still struggling with the value for money, I guess, is I've heard about the number of rides and that I've heard from DCO Clack Bush. That some go through the portal and some don't. So I'm trying to tease. This out. You're asking for money. And I'm not sure. I'm not convinced what it is. What's the value for money there. So I will stop and I'll ask further. Okay, thank you. The justice suppose of that would be what is the value if a van comes off the road? And now we have five instead of six. That's literally the reality. So who's next? Goer? And please, everybody, council, just concentrate on this one and then. Happy to move to other issues. Okay. Thank you. Through your worship. Well, thank you so much for your presentation. Just to be totally clear. So you're asking for almost 40,000 from the city. And then you would be putting. The other 40, 50, 60 to purchase the band, is that correct? Okay. Thank you for that. We would be purchasing the van that 39

five is to send it. Away to get it converted so we can get wheelchairs into the back of it. Okay, thank you. You mentioned that. Thank you for sending that additional. Letter to us that showed how many mobility calls you get in a day, and I think that was yesterday. Is that your typical day or does it flow a lot? So we making a sheet for tomorrow? Ahead of a day. So we make it on time for people. They go into the medical appointments. So that was. The shit that was shared with you was April the 22nd, and this is like a debt sheet. Probably. We have 32 cars. The one that is for tomorrow. The dispatcher. Just send it to. Me and I rent it out tomorrow. We have 35 calls. Out of the 35 calls, five of them are going out of town. So the first one. Like. Okay. 430 going to make master. That is a weight and return. So one way, one win. Will be out for the whole day. The second from St. Joseph to London. That's one of the reason for medical appointment. Third one night, Ocula St. Joseph

to. Ten. Street vessel, which that would be probably out for almost four or 5 hours. And then we have 41 Broadway, north state, Wellington. Coming to gulf, and then we have to take him back. So as a constant struggle and we have to put a lot of resources how to micromanage it. Like a one way. Okay. Like today, we have almost four cars from St. Joseph, two of them. Went to Grand river and want to send Mary and one to Cambridge, so they asked for wait. And return me like they're keeping the vein there when they finish with their medical appointment. Then we have to bring them back. So we advise the driver not to wear it. Come back. Service the in town carls and when they are ready, they will call for return and we go. So that's how we're managing it with the five rents, so in total. We have been operating with a six fan since that one vein is down. It's constant. Struggle, okay? And we did not get the funding. It means. That's for sure. The scalp. That will be. Okay. Thank you for helping me send the volume that you see. So that you mentioned that sometimes you were not able to meet the demand, so you could likely

use another vehicle. How often are you telling people that you're not able to pick them? Up because there's no vehicles available. So most of the people. They've been using us for a long time. We don't turn them away, but. We being honest to them? Okay, it's going to be a 1 hour we try to squeeze them. So if we have to fix somewhere from St. Joseph Hospital and we have another booking. Like. Okay. 09:00 the second one is 915. So we try to squeeze them. We send? They're getting this page 15 minutes ahead of our time, so the customer is ready, so. They get picked up early, and then they have that five minute to come back and service the one that calls in, okay? That's really helpful to understand that you're at full capacity and you need this. Vehicle to be able to service globe residence. And there is a need for more. Such vehicle is not enough. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, your worship. Thank you. GibsOn and then Richardson and then alt. Thank you, Mr. Merritt. My questions actually were just to follow. Up with council Bustel to Ms. Clack Bush, so I'll pause and wait for that

time. I'm sorry. I thought that we were engaged. Okay, I'll come back to you. Just to the delegates. And just remember, everyone. They're important because they're the ones asking for the money. So fair enough, but. We have other delegates too that want to speak, so let's just make sure we're. Moving along. Richardson, please. Then alt thank you. And through you, Mr. Mayor, to the delegates. Thank you for clarifying that the money that you're requesting is strictly only for the customization. Of a van to make it accessible. And. Would it be a fair understanding of mine to assume that as you've done your long term planning, and you're planning for your fleet replacement that you budgeted and made your plan based on knowing that this funding was available in order to customize that vehicle. Yes, that is correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you. And alt, please. And then Cayton, my apologies, mayor Guthrie. My questions are for staff. Sounds good. Katen, please. Mr. Mayor, I was just wondering, were you aware of the enabling accessibility fund federally. That for profit businesses can apply. For funding from

the federal government for grants to help things like your business. I think it's. A great business. I'm glad you're doing it. I was just wondering, were you aware of that fund? I'm not aware of it. They indicated that they weren't aware, okay? So my question is more just a comment. So there's a fund and it will be open again in May. Sorry. I'm so sorry. I just want to keep procedure. Tell that comment later. We're. Just at questions right now. Okay. It was just two of the delegates, so I wasn't sure if they would get. The comments later? No, but they'll probably be waiting around and they could hear it, so. You can say it later. If you want, you can come back to that comment. Okay. Is there any other questions, or can I move on? All right. Thank you very much for being here. We appreciate it. We'll move on to the next delegation. Okay, thank you. Who is next? Okay, Laura, lie Root is going to join us by virtual and so we'll. Just wait for her to jump on the screen. Can you speak for me, Laura? Lie so we can hear you. Yes, hello? Yes, we can both. See and

hear you. Thank you very much for coming. And I don't know if you heard me earlier, but yes, if there's a little bit of a stretch of time for you to make your delegation fully understand that. And hopefully it won't continue on and on, but I want to respect that. So I'll turn it over to you. It's no more than five, but with a little. Bit of bump to accommodate. Okay, go right ahead. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you, everyone, for allowing me to speak here today. My name is Laura Li Root. I'm the former chair of the accessibility advisory committee. I am one of the members. Who was that? The mayor earlier referred to the original group who approved this budget back in 2018. And I'm a disabled member of the city who's a part time wheelchair user. And when I'm using my wheelchair, I actually exclusively rely on red top taxi to get around the city. To my knowledge, they are the only cab company that has accessible cabs for wheelchair users. So I'm very heavily invested in making sure that. There's maximum access possible to wheelchair accessible cabs in this city. So if all of that is true, which it is, you have to ask yourself, why did I? Along with

the entirety of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, unanimously vote against this request from red top taxi last week. For that to be true, there would have to be some sort of missing puzzle piece. Because it doesn't make a lot of sense. And there is, there is a missing puzzle piece. Earlier in this meeting, the mayor referred to the original intent for this budget. And the AAC who originally approved it, a group I was part of and said it's as planned as day and that's it. But that is not it. Last week, the AAC was asked by staff to weigh in on this item at our meeting. And we did pass a motion, which I'm surprised. Actually, I'm disappointed to see that they decided not to attach that to the report that they submitted to all of you. I believe that oversight is maybe due to the fact that this was added to the agenda kind of at the last second, which unfortunately also makes for much more engagement on this topic than I think the city should be aiming for, because I know a lot of members of the community that care a. Lot about this and feel very strongly. Weren't given enough time to sign up as delegates. Unfortunately. But whatever the reason, some vital information and context about this issue are missing, which I would like to provide, and I would also like to provide the motion from that meeting. So, as the mayor

and Colleen crack bush both mentioned in 2018, when this budget was created, the AAC was approached by the city to weigh in on its use. And at that time, the AAC actually put forward a motion to use it to fund also something called the taxiscript program, which I noticed. Was not included in the report, but it basically just offers subsidized cab rides to disabled community members who face higher than normal cab fairs due to our disability. And in recent years, the AAC was made aware that access to that program is incredibly limited. Especially to members of the unhoused community. But it's so limited to the point. That even I, as the chair of the AAC, who have been told by staff repeatedly that. I definitely. 'm looking for. Sorry, I. As the chair of the AAC, who definitely should be able to apply for this. Have been unable to finish the application myself just due to the excessive barriers. Included in applying for the program. So due to these barriers, we've repeatedly asked for a review of the application process for. Mobility, transit and the taxiscript program, and for months that request has gone unanswered. By the city, and we've been told we will get

to this eventually. We've looked at comparator municipalities and you are right. We agree the application process is comparatively disproportionate, and we will get to it at some point. And then along comes a request from this private for profit company to use those same funds to modify a taxi, which they will then turn around and charge the disabled community to use. And as I've already outlined, disabled people pay more than nondisabled people do to use. Cabs in the city. And so. And also, we currently can't even access the program that is meant to subsidize those cab rides and help offset that cost, and somehow that request has been pushed. Through at breakneck breakneck speed. So I'm just going to read. The motion that was passed by the accessibility advisory committee a few days ago. It says the accessibility advisory committee does not support this request from red top taxi to use these funds intended for the taxiscript program to purchase or modify an accessible taxi at this time. This budget is meant to subsidize transportation access for disabled residents, not to fund capital. Costs for a private, for profit company that will charge full fare to the disabled community. For those services. The AAC has already called for a review of the taxiscript and mobility transit

application processes due to significant barriers to accessing both programs, and until those. Issues are resolved, we do not believe it is appropriate to consider new funding requests related to this. Budget. When staff initially heard sorry, that's the whole motion. When staff initially heard our concerns about this application process for mobility, transit and taxi scripts. They did agree with us. They said that the application process is incredibly more complicated and invasive and barrier ridden than the processes of comparator municipalities the application for mobility. Transit is longer than a passport application. It asks invasive and ableist questions, uses outdated measures for disability and has a final page where the applicant is required to sign over the entirety of all of their medical files to the city of Guelph's transit staff. Anyway. So to me, a lot of what I've outlined here tonight is representative of a larger issue of poor communication between the AAC staff and council and is a prime example of why myself and so many other members resigned from the committee in protest of the way we've. Been overlooked just a few days ago. I appreciate you carrying me out today. Thank you. Thank you so much for your delegation. Is there a follow

up question? Alt. Thank you very much, merriguthrian and I appreciate. That Ms. Rude is before us and has. Done. Work on the AC in the past. Sorry to see you go. I do have a couple of questions that come from the report on page two of the report. Under collective funds. The line that causes me concern, and I'm going to ask staff for an interpretation as well, these funds are collected monthly and provided to the accessibility advisory committee to be used in a grant program for those needing accessibility modifications to their vehicles, including taxicabs. Now, there's two things. About that. It says it's provided to the accessibility advisory committee. And then there is the issue of modifications to vehicles and taxicabs. Could you please explain to me what that means to you, because this is an important governance issue to me. Yes. Through you, America. Three. Two. Councillor Alt, I am confused by that line myself. I have since 2018 been told that the reason that we collect those funds from the Uber and Lyft

rides is to have access to solved mobility related problems. And every year we come back to the budget and say we have a little bit more. How would we like to change the taxiscript program? We've never before heard a mention. Of modifications for cabs, even up to. The executive planning meeting where we wrote the agenda for this last accessibility advisory committee meeting. I asked for clarification again on the budget and its intended purpose, and I was never told that. It had anything to do with modifying cabs. I have only ever known it to be for the taxiscript program. So whether that's a miscommunication between staff and the AAC or whether it's a line. That's been left out of this staff report. I can't answer that for you. I'm sorry. But I'm wondering if you can answer provided to the accessibility advisory committee. That's a significant point for me. Yes, thank you. We've always been told, and again, we clarified this just this past week. As well. We have always been told that it was up to us whether or not. These requests get approved and that this is basically the only budget that exists in the city of Guelph. It is the accessibility advisory committees to completely oversee. And because the accessibility advisory committee was

so involved in its creation, And in the conversation around should we have rideshare programs that don't have accessible ride options in Guelph? If so, what should we have them do to offset that? And this was the solution that was come to in the working group with the accessibility advisory committee at that time. So to my understanding, I have always been told that it was our decision, so I was surprised to see this, but. I do trust counsel to make a good decision on it. Personally, I'm saying our I'm not a part of the accessibility advisory committee anymore, so I'm not sure how much I can even speak to this. Thank you. I'm asking you as somebody who has past experience. I do have one other question for you. And again, I will ask both of these to staff. As well. Within the report, it says that there is a duty to consult under the municipal responsibility. Under Aoda. I'm wondering if you could explain to me what that means that. The responsibility. To consult. Consult is a keyword. There. I do know that legally, the city did have to come and run this by us before it could be brought any further because under the

AODA, transit is one of the areas that the accessibility advisory committee does have to be consulted. Although I'm not sure whether that means our feedback and motions have to actually be passed. On to council or not, because it doesn't look like our emotions or feedback from this. Past meeting were passed on to council unless it happened. Not attached to the meeting agenda, but I haven't seen anywhere that we were included, so our feedback was heard. By. We heard the same delegates that you just heard at the AAC. And we said to them, We would love you to come back at some point when these other issues have been resolved, but right now. It's just a no for now. But yeah. I'm not entirely sure what the scope of the responsibility is there either, legally. Okay. So the advisory committee of council staff report. This is coming to us as the title is advisory committee of Council staff report. So this report are you suggesting did or did not come? From the aac. The motion that I just read you is the only feedback the AAC provided. So when I looked over the agenda and the

attached items. There was no mention in there. It looked like it was all information coming just from staff about staff's opinions. It didn't reflect our opinions from that meeting at all. Okay? Unless there's a different document that I'm. Not seeing. I didn't see the AAC's feedback at all reflected in that document. All right? I said I will ask staff the same questions. Thank you very much for your service in the past. Wishing you the best. Thank you. Thank you. I think it's Keaton and then busatill and then that's it. Go ahead. Thank you. Through Mr. Mayor. Can you explain a little bit more? You'd mentioned that it costs more. For wheelchair users and people who need to use the mobility taxis more than other folks. Can you explain that a little bit more. Yes. Through you. Merrick, Gustri two. Councilor Katen. There are a number of reasons that disabled people pay more when taking a cab. One of them. Is, well, the most prevalent and the most costly, I believe, is wheelchair users being loaded

into. Mobility vans. We have been made aware by red top taxis that it is technically not their procedure. But I can attest that every single time I've taken a taxicab by red top. And additionally, the reason. We initially brought up the taxiscript program was because. When a person owned a wheelchair is picked up by redshaft taxi, the meter starts running. And then they are loaded in to the car and it takes quite a few minutes, and they're secured and everything, and then they're dropped off, they're let off, which. Also takes a few extra minutes and the meter is running that whole time, we have been told that that is not technically redshop taxis policy, but the lived experience of. All of the users at the AAC has been that. That is what happens every time myself. Included. Additionally, there are people who have spinal injuries, for example, and need to take longer ropes to get places due to speed bumps, so they end up paying more to get to where they're going. There are people who may need to be picked up right at the door or helped to. The door by the driver. Maybe blind or low vision people, for example, who can't be. Dropped off right at the door and need someone to help them get. To their destination and the meter will run during that time as well. There are people who use speech to text. To speech devices to communicate and

the time that it takes them to sit there and type about. Their payment method or any other things that they have to communicate to the driver. The meter is running during that time. So cab rides for disabled people have an inherent so called disability tax. Thank you. Through the mayor to the delegate. If. There were. I don't know if this is possible because I'll be asking staff after this. Is there a way? To ensure. That the meter was only ever running. While the ride was occurring. To increase the equity between. The two user groups. As a part. Of this payment. Would that be something as a mobility rider that. Would be acceptable to you. I don't think it was solved the problem because. There are still, for example, people who have to be dropped off, maybe around back or a different place so other people could be dropped off. There are people who may have to take a longer route to get somewhere and say, please avoid these streets and these streets because the speed bumps will hurt my spinal cord injury, and then their

ride gets more expensive, so it wouldn't solve. The problem, and I'm not sure. How, for example, blind and low vision people would be able to verify that the meter actually wasn't running. Or people like me who were loaded into the back of the cab. I can't see if the meter is running or not all of the time. Sometimes I can, but. Sometimes I can't. During the ride. Great. Thank you so much. I just would like to say out loud, I felt a little bit uncomfortable about some of the answer there about allegations that a company may be running a meter. Or not providing integrity in the services that they are providing for people. I just want to state that out loud, that I just felt a little bit uncomfortable with that. And I just wanted everyone, both questions and answers to please respect the work that a company in our city is doing as we engage on this topic, please. Let's see who is next. Busatill. I'm sorry. Your last go ahead. Thank you. And through the mayor, thank you, Lorlie, for your delegation. It was something I think you responded to in your question to councilor alt. I think you said something like, you reviewed this around the budget. Can you help me understand?

Does this program come? To the AAC for review each year as part of a budget process. The taxi script. Sorry. Through you, Mayor Guthrie to councilor. Busted. Yes, the taxi script program does. This budget does get reviewed once a year by the AAC. Every year that I have been on the accessibility advisory committee. The discussion has been, wow, there's a lot of extra money. Left in the budget right now. We should increase access to taxi sc. Scripts until a couple of years ago when we realized, wait, the reason that people aren't buying these taxi scripts is because nobody can get approved, because nobody can complete the application. So that's when we started realizing that there needed to be an overhaul of the whole system. But yes, this budget has been discussed at the AAC once a year. Leanne Warren will bring it to the Aac. I've never. Discussed any changes to taxicabs before, though. Thank you. And just one further clarification. So you see this budget as taxi script? And the modification to vehicles is one budget. Okay. Thank you. Yes, and I do think both are. Important. I do think that the AAC would agree that we need more accessible cabs in the city.

It's just that there is a really glaring barrier right now that has not yet been removed, and that's the main reason that we're aware. Of for the budget. So it's not that we don't want there to be. More accessible caps. I very badly want there to be. Great. Thank you, Laura, thank you very much for joining us and for your delegation and answering questions. Okay? Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next up is. Sarah matheson. Is Sarah here? Yes. I see it. Take your time.

And then an order is going to be on video, who's going to be coming up. Next, okay?

Thank you. Would someone be able just to help? With using the button, the white button there to move. The podium down. Thank you.

And. Sorry, Sarah. I know I saw you earlier. I just didn't have my glasses on. So I couldn't see past there. So I'm sorry. I knew you knew you. Were here. Thank you for coming. Thank you. The five minute as well? Yes, I am. Thank you. Great. Start. Whenever you want. Okay. Okay. Good. Evening, everybody. Thank you for this opportunity. To address this really important issue to me. I came to Guelph 15 years ago and I was greeted by a taxi at the airport and it was a red top taxi. And since that time. I've never, ever been charged. For time. But I'm unloaded. Or unloaded in the taxi, that's just a fact. And I'm totally comfortable sharing that. I'm very much in support of red top receiving funds. To create yet another taxi because.

It's been very difficult, especially in the winter. For me to have access. To. The facilities here in the city. And slightly outside of the city. Through transit and red top. They're just really busy, especially in our snowy winters. I'd like very much to see. One or two taxis added. To their fleet at this time because. It's been a long time coming. I was sitting on the accessibility advisory committee. When it was decided that. We would be receiving a stipend from the taxi. Companies who began serving in Guelph because they weren't going to be able to serve the disabled community. So I left the committee at that time. Feeling really pleased. That this was going to

be a possibility. That was 2018. So, of course, what I've come here to say is that I am very much in. Support of. This. It's a very important service. There are many misconceptions in our community about what the different services are. And. I think that more education about that would be really helpful for everyone involved. And I think that. That's all I have to share at the moment. Well, thank you, Sarah, for your delegation as well. And let me just look to my colleagues. If there's any follow up questions for you. There isn't. Thank you for waiting around for this. And thank you for your service. Previous on the committee as well. We thank you. Okay. Anortle, Cameron is going to join us by video, and then Morgan, I can see you? Barely. But I can see you in the front row there. You're in the wings. So Anortol is good to join us by video.

And anordle. I just want to make sure. Yes. You just beat me to the punch. So there's your camera. And can you just test your mic for me? Hello? Yeah, you're coming through. Great. Thank you very much for joining us. And I'll turn it over to you whenever you're ready. Hello. My name is Annordal Cameron. My pronouns are they, them. I am a lifelong disability advocate and resident of Guelph. Last week, I resigned in protest from my position as vice chair from the accessibility advisory committee. I'm here today to talk some about. This decision. So we voted. Not to turn down. The modification of the van. Permanently. But to. Not at this time. As Laura I said earlier, We had been told. Repeatedly and frequently by city staff that the budget was first and foremost for the taxi script program. And with many people being

unable to use. It. It just didn't seem right. For us to be taking from a budget. That. Wasn't being used to its full potential at the time. So we voted to try. To. Voted to say that the budget should be left for the taxiscript program once the issues with that were resolved. If there was money left over, we would be happy to consider. Funding for modifying the cap, but not until then.

So. I believe if you go back and check the videos of the AIC meetings. You'll be able to see clips where it is actually mentioned that the budget in question does tie to the taxi script program. And some of these miscommunications. At the top of the meeting. In the presentation here. Are part of the reason that. Volunteering with the AAC became so stressful and. I found myself needing to resign. So. I would ask that when you go to vote today. Please listen to us. Listen. To. Our lived experience and expertise. The disabled community so often feels that our voices don't matter. So, please. Listen to us and prove that notion wrong. Thank you very

much. I just want to confirm you're done your delegation, and I can. See if there's any questions. Okay. Thank you, Nordo. Let me just see if there's any questions.

There is not. So thank you for joining us today. Morgan. Dandy, I think you are next. Yes. And then Maureen. Hi, Maureen. You're going to be up next, okay?

And welcome, Morgan, to take your time. And whenever you're ready, the clock will start there. For you. Okay, clerks, if you could just make sure the microphone is on.

Mayor, I'm sorry. I'm going to take a second setting up because. My computer. Has accidentally been impacted by some stuff and. There is a large section. That is just gobbledygook. I just have to get through it, delete it. So I've got my words. That's no problem. How about we go to Maureen? Next, and then you. 're done. Oh, you're good. Okay. Yeah. It just was a matter of. I wanted you to be aware. Yeah. No, that's okay. Good evening. And my hope is this discussion is at least as involved as the conversation about trees. I was excited for the opportunity to submit my application for a couple of the advisory committees of council following the review. Until I watched the last meeting of the AAC, the voice of the disabled community. It is a fact that for the vast majority of people, disability is not a question of if I'm sorry, Morgan. I'm sorry. I did indicate at the beginning that the delegates. Of fruit are procedural bylaw can only address counsel. And I'm speaking to disability, sir. Okay, just 1 second. Please don't interrupt

me. As the chair, let me just. Finish. We can be respectful as we talk back and forth. And your time's not being. Allotted here. It's all good. A delegate may only address counsel with respect to the item that is on the agenda that they are registered to speak to, so. I don't need to. And none of us need to hear anything else other than the item, which is around the amount of money that is going to be requested. From red dot taxi, from the account that was set up. That's the only focus that we need to have. And I actually hate that I had to interrupt you. It bothers me, but as the chair. I have to uphold the procedural bylaw that all of council voted on. So we're. Going to start your time all over again. And I want you to take your time to start. If you wish, but please be prepared for your delegation to make sure you're adhering. To what topic is at hand. Okay, so, clerks, if you can, make sure you start the time. Over. Thank you. The item before us today was not supported by the AAC for a very good reason. There's an upcoming review of the AAC account and the use of the funds collected through the program scheduled in 2026, and the AAC wants those funds to be used to the best benefit of the

disabled. 30 of people. Disability is not a question of if but when, whether it's a temporary disability like when. I had a tibial plateau fracture or a permanent disability like the yet to be diagnosed condition. Making me have to sit today. During their delegation to the AAC. The representatives from Red talk stated that they have an average of 46 rights per day, with six vehicles. That is approximately eight trips per vehicle per 24 hours period. With five trips per vehicle. Does it seem unreasonable to have each vehicle do one more? One additional trip for 24 hours? For a period of time. Additionally, ODSP is also a user of red top as a per provider for medically necessary trips. I was grateful to have the service to take me to university health network in Toronto. So I question why the AAC. Is the only group being asked to provide the subsidy. Given that the review of the AAC account and the use of those funds is

scheduled for next year. I agree with the AAC that the request from Red Chop not be support. I understand the way the bylaw is written provides for the fitting of vehicles, including taxi cabs. And I understand that the AAC membership would like to understand if the funds are being put to their best use before agreeing to the request from red top. At this time. Handing nearly $40,000 to a for profit business for five trip differential per 24 hours. Seems a poor use of funds until such time as the 2026 rural review has been completed. And it can be confirmed. This is a good use of the funds provided to the AAC. For the benefit of the. Disabled community. Honoring the requests of the AAC on the behalf of the wider disabled community is important. Because nothing about us should be decided without us. Thank you, Morgan. Let me just see if there's a follow up question for you. There is not. Thank you very much.

Marie. Come on. Come on down if you're ready. And Maureen is our last.

Okay. Welcome, Marine. And whenever you're ready to, the clock will start. Okay, thank you.

Of course, it's not cooperating now. Okay. Thank you. All right. So I was wondering. About this question. Being so presented as so black and white. Yes or no and why that would have to be decided. In this moment. I think that it's interesting to me, having heard all of. The previous delegates, as well as. Hearing some other information that I have in the community. I work as a volunteer within the community, especially in the downtown. And I also have mobility issues myself. Not. Yet to this stage where I would require a mobility taxi yet, but there are many people like me that are on their way to that potential, so I'm just wanting to make it. Clear that. We're having an aging population, so I understand wanting to have. Another

mobility unit. Within. Taxi's fleet, and I understand that they are the only ones that provide that in the city of Guelph. My issue is that as a citizen, Is there a for profit company? And the money that was gathered. From the Uber situation. Was for public use. And so I understand that they want some support in getting. Their. Van. Modified, but I don't understand why that would be their responsibility. With this particular fund, so I'm just asking you to. Talk to me about, or at least. Make it. I'm trying to make it. Some sort of sense of why a for profit business. Wouldn't do this. On their own. Because it's a good business decision. To. Have modified. All of the business. Of the disability community.

And. They have exclusive. Use of that of their vans for the disability community. Especially in wheelchairs. So I'm wondering why it wouldn't just be a good business decision to ensure that they had the funds set aside to do that. So that they could continue to provide that service. That's one of my situations. My misunderstandings about the situation, the funds in question. Were utilized or were gathered for the purpose. Because it was a ride share program Uber and the funds were gathered in order. For them to be utilized with the diverse needs of the disability community. So these taxis help people in wheelchairs. And. It's a benefit. Absolutely. And it's probably something that should happen. Forth with. But not. From the origins of this particular fund, because my understanding is that it was for public purpose, as opposed to. For a private or for profit purpose

that these funds were gathered. They wanted to support. The people who need it most, the most vulnerable people in our community. So the people that aren't able to access it are the ones that. The taxi script program specifically are the ones that need it the most. They need to be able to access the cabs. Even though we're not supposed to talk to any of these other situations. I do believe that we have a lot of vulnerable people who. Have been pushed out to the margins of the city. And who, in order to access. The supports that they require in downtown. Need to access that program and be able to take taxis or take transit. And if they need mobility transit, how do they get mobility transit? And if they can't get mobility transit, how? Do they access the taxi script program? The barriers are the things that bothered me the most around having to be able to. Provide all that information that they would have to provide. They would have to fill out a form

that's massive. And access a doctor to help them with that. In order for them to be able to even access that program, and you have to have a doctor, and you have to have a little bit of money in order to be able to get. Those things happening. They could. I know I'm going to run out of time. They could have a lot more access. To just access. To those paths and to any of the tabs, and I'm not sure. I'll stop you there. Sorry. I was just trying to understand. Why red tub taxi was the choice. But I understand that now, from what I know. Yeah. No. Problem. It's kind of a default. I'm a little worried about the optics there. When you have other. No problem. Thank you. Thank you for delegation. So is there a follow up question for this delegate at all? Guller, please. Thank you for your worship. Thank you for your presentation. In what I read and what I've heard from Brett Hob. As I understand it, they don't

actually generate enough revenue to build up the capital for the ban, so. What I hear them tell us is that unless the city puts forward these $40,000, they cannot afford to replace it with the cost to operate it. So with that information and knowing that on their own, as a business, They're not narrating enough revenue to replace the vans. Would that change your position? On the support of and the other part of this, I also had the question of. There is $288,000 in this fund. If we give $40,000. To. Red sub today. They're still going to be over. For the taxi script. And to me, I feel that. I got to correct you on two things. The first point is, no, I'm going to correct you on two things because I think you're out of procedure here. You're talking about a separate issue, which we will get to, and there was $330,000 in the account.

39,500 that's being requested will bring it down to the 288. Just want to make sure everyone is hearing the right data. You still have the floor. So with that information, how much money is on the account left for the taxiscript and that. They would not otherwise be able to. Would that change your position on this? I'm not. Entirely sure that it would, and I think that the issue is not. The people that are the most in need of. They're not all wheelchair. Users. So it's not about having access to that necessarily. That wheelchair, trans van or wheelchair. You can't get approval for mobility. Transit. And then if you don't get that, you can't access the script program. And I think that those barriers. Are what most people are worried about in the community. And you have to have an address and you have to have a doctor and those things that's why I'm mentioning those things. In order to access. The program as it is. And I think when people. Have been asked to review it, and they have to review it down the road.

But they're not doing it right now, and we're making a decision right now. Why are we making this decision so quickly? When there could be other things that happened first before the decision is made. Okay, I appreciate that. That makes sense. Thank you so much. Thank you, worship. All right, thanks, everybody. So I think it would be apt at this point. Thank you to all the delegates. Our staff have heard. What I said and our staff have heard. What our delegates have said. Staff over to you. Who would it be? Okay. Cao clock, bush. I think we need staff. To. Qualify, verify, clarify. And speak into what's been said so that we are all foundationally on the same page so that we can make a decision moving forward. On. Just what's going to be put on the screen in a moment. Cao. Thank you. Sorry about that, Tara. Thank you. So there's a number of

things that I won't comment on at this moment. Because I understand and respect the Mayor that we're going to focus on this item. There are certainly other things that have been said related to transit and mobility services. And when we get to it. I'd like the opportunity to comment on. But on the specific item before you. Related to red Top taxi. I just want to make sure that I'm very clear, because. I do. Sorry. I want to be very clear about what is allowable under the council approved vehicle for higher schedule in the business licensing bylaw because it is very clear so the funds are collected and I mentioned that at the beginning, and they are put into, in essence, a reserve fund and that is what the balance is, as you know, of about 332,000 and. It is very clear that those funds are to be used for vehicle modifications. So it says, right. In the original staff report. Rideshare vehicles that cannot commit to the limitation regarding making their vehicles accessible will pay a fee to a general fund, which can be used by taxi owners to offset the price of making their taxis accessible. The other thing that I'll just, again, within the bylaw, it is specifically right in that schedule in the bylaw that the obligations of the issuer of the

licenses and this speaks to they have to remit the funds to us, and it's right in the bylaw to be used in a grant program for those needing accessibility modifications to their vehicles. So I would say. That at this moment, council cannot actually do anything other than answer yes or no to the request. And then you, as council, will, of course, have the prerogative to change the specifications of. That schedule under the bylaw. And as the mayor says, that's a separate issue, but. Right now, under the terms of the current bylaw, neither staff nor the AAC. Had the authority to do anything other than consider the request and it be a yes or a no, I know there's been a lot of discussion about taxiscript and I'm more than happy to speak to that because I think there's also some confusion about why are the taxiscript funding is coming from. It is not coming from this fund. And when we increased from two booklets to three booklets. It did not come from. This fund. It came from the transit operating budget and so happy to continue the conversation and help to clear up that misunderstanding of the history of that taxiscript program. But to be very clear, it has not been funded out of this reserve because it can't be under the current schedule. That is in the bylaw as approved by council. Hopefully that

helps that for this specific matter, Redtop's request council has the authority to approve it or decline it. And then if you want to, as the mayor says, Give direction on us revisiting that. But at this moment in time, it is very, very clear that that is the only thing it can be used for is vehicle modifications to make the vehicle's taxicabs. In this case, accessible. Thank you. Yes, I see everyone's hands. But the first thing procedurally we got to do is we got to get the motion on the floor. Councilor Richardson and Gibson moved and seconded. And the motion is that the request from red top taxi for $39,500 to modify one vehicle for wheelchair accessibility. Be approved. I would like us to move quickly, please, through these items so we can get to the end. To the conclusion. This one, as our staff have said, is literally a yes or no. But if you have questions of clarity before the yes or no come. I respect that, but let's. Get to the questions right away. No long preambles, please, starting with Councilor Gibson. Then Galler Busatil alt. Yeah. Thank you. Through Mr. Merrill. Be

brief, Councilor alts. And calling Clark bush. Have answered my question, so I'll lean into their answers a little bit. I sympathize with the decision makers. At the advisory committee level. They have stated over and over again that it was out of a desire to fix the taxi. Script issue that they felt was in place. Is the reason why. Councilor Gibson, I'm so very sorry to interrupt you. Is there. A question. No. I made clear. I already asked. I had heard the answers to my question. I was going to comments. No problem. Just so all of council is on the same page, I will allow comments or questions at this time just so we can get to the vote. Okay? I'm sorry. You have the floor. I'll start the timer again. Go ahead. I just heard it louder and clear and I heard loud and clear that the dissatisfaction with the taxi script program or funding was the rationale for voting against. This line item. I believe that was a little misguided. That being said, I understand there was a lot of confusion around the issue. So I'm glad it's before council. I'm glad that we are making this decision I wholeheartedly support. The program was intended to create a fund, a slush. Fund for taxi

companies to come forward. And apply and request this funding. And that's exactly what it's for. So there may be issues elsewhere in the accessible. Transit scripts or program. But this is a very straightforward question, yes or no? And I'll be voting yes. Thank you. Galler than busatill. Thank you through worship just comments. I was very concerned when I watched the AAC meeting. After the fact. And my intention today was to come and to not support this. However, now that I've understood that the tax script and this funding are separate budgets. That really helps me. Out, so. I will be supporting this. And then I look forward to other motions to clarify. The application process for the taxes script. Thank you. Thank you. Absolutely. Councilor Galler. Thank you. Busatild and alt thank you. First, thanks to the mayor for clarifying the balance amount in the fund. It's a little bit confused there. Thank you to DCo Clark Bush. For the clarification on page three of the staff or the report it's got. The. Bylaw in there. If you can help me, just clarify for me. It says. The committee to be used in a grant program

for those needing accessibility modifications to their vehicle's. Comma, including taxicabs, so. Is it also intended if I have a vehicle that I personally. And am eligible. Can make application to modify. I wasn't around in 2018, if you can clarify that. Thank you for clarifying the bylaw. And then I do have one final clarification question. Through the mayor, councilor Busatil. So no, it's not for private individuals. It is for any vehicle for hire. So it could be a limo. It could be a ride share. Vehicle licensed under the vehicle for higher section of the bylaw could apply. Any other applications. Thank you. And I guess my clarification question is, is there ever a call for applications and further in the report in the financial implications. The staff who prepare the report say that. Speaking to the sustainability of the grant program, careful management, periodic reviews. And can you tell me when? The reviews happen of this program. To fund us. It says as many accessibility modifications

as possible. Can you tell me what the review cycle. Usually with bylaws. You have a review cycle in there? So through the mayor. View of this as of yet. And. I am also, at this moment going to suggest that probably Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Goss are going to need to come down because I'm also going to probably need help from both. Of them. Mr. God for here on the bylaw side and Mr. Goss on the accessibility. Side. So it would be typical that we would look approximately every seven years or so. Which would time about now, but we have not done a review. And it answered your earlier question. There is not a process for a formal call. It is simply on an as requested basis and then just the clarification related to the accessibility advisory committee. This fund is under the control and authority of council. You, through this report, delegated the decision. Making to the accessibility advisory committee. It isn't a budget line that's renewed every year. It's simply a fund that continues to accumulate that is under the control of council. Other than the approximate time, as councilor Brucetil just asked. Is.

Do you, Doug, need to say anything further to that, or is that the answer? DCo clockbush got it right. Okay. Thanks for coming down. We appreciate you. All right. Thank you. And I think it's important to note that all of council is aware that. Once we deal with this issue. There already is going to be motions to consider about reviews. Everyone knows that, right? So it's coming. Yeah. You still have the floor. I wasn't aware of that. Thank you. And so that was my question, is, hearing the AAC and the delegations, it seems to me that it would be something that should be reviewed ASAP. Thank you, alt then chu. Through you to staff. With all due respect, I did find a couple of points in the report presented to us that accompanies these motions. To be confusing. So I'm going to ask the report, is this a recommendation coming from staff or the committee

or both. So through the mayor to the councilor. Thank you for the question. Yes, so. The report that's before you. This is the report that was initially presented to the accessibility advisory committee dated April the 15th. And so. That was the staff recommendation being put forward as a result of the request. To the accessibility advisory committee. Thank you. Perhaps it's Ms. Clark that needs clarification of this. Just prior to you, Ms. Clack, Bush stated the decision making is delegated by counsel to the AAC. I'm wondering if that could be explained, please. Bylaw. Through the merit of councilor alt. That is in the 2018 report. That was what the recommendation was, was that. The applications were to be reviewed by the Accessibility Advisory Committee for vehicle modifications. Thank you. Because that's where I'm struggling, and I'm really struggling with this as a governance issue. If the

decision making is delegated to the AAC and they did not recommend this. Are we not in violation of our own procedures? Through the merit of council hold. It is my understanding, and I would look to. I don't. Know the clerk that anything that you have delegated can always come back to council. I don't know if. Let's let the clerk answer, please. Through you, Mr. Mayor to councilor. So it is delegated through the bylaw to the AAC, generally speaking. Delegations that council makes to staff or other bodies do not prevent city council procedurally or legally from making a decision on that topic in the future. So it has been delegated to the AAC, but that does not mean that council is not able to review or make a different decision if it desires. Yeah, I'm thankful. I do appreciate that. I think, however, it's a nuance that's probably lost on a lot of people. And another nuance, and I think I need to. Merrick Guthrie. This is a procedural question. As well, probably for the clerks. What does the term consult actually mean? Under the municipal responsibility? Under the Aoda. Is that reporting? To. The Accessibility

Advisory committee that this is a report going forward, or is it discussion and perhaps some sort of consensus. Because I'm really unclear on this. Through you, Mr. Mayor to councilor, generally speaking, in legislation, and I don't have a specific section up in front of me to refer to, but consultation would mean bringing to a body. For discussion, a particular item, but it would not bind whoever or whatever the decision making authority is. Based on the results of that consultation. Consultation doesn't bind city council when it comes back to you for a decision. And I completely understand that. The challenge that I've got is that I think, again, there's a nuance. It's fairly ambiguous to most people, and that's part of our problem here. I think the rest of my. Questions have been answered. But I think that we have some governance issues that. Are very apparent from this that we need to clear up. I do have one last question for staff. I think I know the answer. But I think, again, it's important for this to be made calmly. Why? On this program or

on the request? From. The taxi company which is made. In all sincerity, why would there not be an RFP for this? Through councilor Alt. I would just want to make sure I understand your question on RFP. For the modifications they're seeking to make. This one is neither fish nor foul to me. That's what's confusing me in a way. Why are they coming to us, asking us for a grant? Do the merit council, because that's what specified within the vehicle for. Higher report, and through that schedule, the business licensing. Bylaw that this is the process. And so red top is simply following the process that was set out and approved in 2018. And just the last point on that. So if canadian cab or I think there's perhaps another cab company or even red top were to apply for these. Funds, they are equally as eligible. Through the matter. Council? Yes, absolutely. Any vehicle for hire again to councilor busatille's? Earlier question. Limos. Other rideshare. Anyone

that is licensed. Would be eligible to apply for funds under the current the way it's structured currently. Thank you very much because, like council busatill, I did have some concerns. I was confused by the expression statement cars and taxis. That struck me as anybody could apply for. A modification. And I would encourage us. To clarify that. That's cars for higher and any future report of this nature. Okay. We can get to sort of that comment. In the next phase, trying to keep us focused. Councilor Koran and then Kate. And please, questions or comments? Okay. I'm just trying to get the jurisdiction correct here. And on page five of the report. We have some excerpts from the bylaw. It does say 288,000 has been collected, but I did hear Mary Gothary say it's. Over 300,000 -39,000 equals 288. Could you just clarify that through the merit of council. It's the difference on when the report was

written and versus the balance in the account now. So as of today, the balance in the account is the. 332,000. And if you were to. Accept the request from red top, then that would drop the balance by the 39,000 and. Again. I'm rounding, but the current balance in the fund is 332,000, and I think the difference is just the timing of when the report was originally written. Okay. Thank you. And. Also at the bottom of page five of six in the report. Speaking to councilor Alt's line of questioning. It doesn't say. The decisions are delegated to the AAC. It actually says the funds are managed by the AAC. And I just wonder if you can clarify the difference if it's just. That are they? A delegated authority and we are sitting here as an appeal body. Or. Are they actually the managers of the fund? And we don't have a role. I just want to clarify the language. Thanks. So through the marrow start. I don't know if Dylan wants to jump in. Where we're giving you advices based on what is in the schedule

within the bylaw. And so if the wording in the report has caused that confusion, It is that. This has been delegated to the AAC to make a decision or to evaluate the applications. The suitability of the applications and make a recommendation back. But that ultimately, as council. You have the responsibility for this fund and the final decision making authority. Okay. And then my last question, I just want to be clear, because I don't have the minutes that the AAC committee in front of me and I haven't watched the video. But it was my understanding. That. The motion was not. To decline the application to red top for this amount. It was to pause until there had been a review. To ensure that. There was some fairness in the application process and that there were criteria established because one of the things that we don't have right now is any criteria for how a vehicle for hire would apply for these funds, and they were requesting

a pause until we have criteria, not an out. And out. Decline. No, never. Statement. Is that accurate? So through the mayor, I think to clarify, the motion from the AAC was not related to the application process for the modifications to vehicles under the vehicle for hire. Their motion related to that was related to the taxi script program. Which, recognizing the mayor has said will still be considered tonight. But the taxi script program is not something that can be funded currently out of this account. It is only vehicle modifications. And so again, the mayor brought this to the agenda tonight, so I'll leave it to him to speak to why he opted to bring it here, but the recommendation as passed by the AAC. That they've referenced the taxi script program, and that isn't what this bylaw. Currently can fund or this schedule of this bylaw. Okay. Thank you. It's become apparent to me in the discussion. That we have two separate issues here. We absolutely need a review of mobility, transit, accessibility, taxi script. Program, and I'm trying really hard to keep the two separate. Thank you, Katen. I think you're last. Go for it.

Thanks. Three, Mr. Mayor. So I understand. That given the way that the bylaw is currently written, this is the only thing the funds can go for. I'm not against them having money or increasing their accessibility. I think that's great. Of them. But because I do feel that the bylaw needs to be reviewed, I'm reluctant to lower the budget because we have other items that I think would also increase best bang for the buck once that review is completed. I know that. In 2024, we spent $46,000 on red top taxi because we couldn't. Accommodate mobility transit users. And so that's a cost from the city. And it's $400,000 for a new mobility bus. It's about $44,000. For a part time driver, it's about 103. For a fully kitted out, full time driver. So the reason why I'm going to be voting against this is because.

I think that once it's reviewed, And. There are the ability for us. To use this fund for other things. The best bang for the buck is to put it into mobility transit. Because we clearly have a gap. We've got an overflow. And we've got affordable bus programs. So. This would be the best way. To get people moving. Who have these needs throughout. Guelph. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Very quickly. I'm circling now. But except for councilor Downer. So I'm going to allow it. But I would like to call the vote. So I'm circling very quick to Gibson, very quick to call. Her. Take your time, Councilor Downer. It's your first time around. But please, counsel. Let's get to the decision, because, you know, I'm going to speak for a minute and a half. So Gibson and then Guller. Yeah. Thank you. Through Mr. Mayor. So first of all, thanks for bringing this forward, Ms. Fair. You foresaw this being somewhat of a difficult conversation, but I

appreciate it because. It is ultimately looking at solutions oriented decision making. We haven't identified issue we're trying to improve accessibility in our city, and that's ultimately what this debate is about now. I will say this on the issue that we're debating now. Counsel. We have a bylaw. A bylaw? With very clear. Sort of mission statement to help outfit these vehicles to increase accessibility. We have had an operator come forward requesting funds out of that bylaw reserve, and now. I'm hearing from multiple counselors that. We don't like this process. We need to review this by law before we make any decisions. We need to have a fulsome review of it. That's not how it works. We have created a policy that allows. This transaction. We've been collecting this fee for seven years, and now we have an applicant. Coming forward, looking to utilize it, and all of a sudden, we're not in favor of the bylaw, and we want to review it. That doesn't give me a good feeling, reputationally as a city. And that doesn't. Give me a good feeling. With the applicant in the room, quite frankly, listening to this conversation, saying that now

we want to review the bylaw and go back to square one and potentially remove their application from the process. So I'm really struggling with any kind of justification as to why. Other than saying fly out. No, I don't want to give this money to rent op. Any justification around reviewing the bylaw does not seem appropriate at this time. This is a policy that we've established. They're here. It's a yes or no. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Galler than downer. Thank you. Through your worship to staff. Just following up. On something that councilor Katen said. Could the funds in this budget. Line be used for wealth transit to purchase a vehicle. Through the merit of councilor Galler. No, Gulf Transit is not under the vehicle for higher bylaw. We are actually not a licensed vehicle. And then I would also just note that we also don't provide service 24 hours a day, seven days a week or outside of the city. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, worship. Thank you, Councilor Gar. Okay, Councilor Downer, please. Yes, sir. You, Mr. Merritt. So I'm going to support the

fund. Going to red talk taxi. I have to sort of agree. With councilor Gibson's position that. The fund was put in place, and it was under a report called the taxi vehicle for hire. Report. It was all about taxis and regulating taxis and how we do that. And I sort of somewhat remember. The conversation at time that the difficulty it was in order. To. Have. Modified taxis within the city. And for that option, I would not want to see that option reduced. My own mother used to use that option quite frequently. As it was the only one that she could use many years when she was alive. A while. Ago. I'm really struggling. With some of the discussion here. There's a process in place. We had a policy. I understand they desire to review. I do understand that, but they have come here. Under the existing policy. That's been in place. And. To change it

now, when they've come forward with that, it just seems completely unfair. And somewhat to me, lacks integrity when the policy is still in place. And that is what we're here. That's what they're doing. They're following our policy and they're here looking for that decision. They're offering a much needed service within our city that. Other provide. Providers. Accessibility providers don't provide the outed town trips and things like that, and the 24/7 so I think it's important. That. This move forward. If we're having a review, I'm happy to do to support. That as well. But at this time. It's the policy that's in place. It's about the predictability that we give our community. As well, and we talk about a lot of unpredictability in businesses these days. I think we should at least be predictable to the policy that we have. In place and I think it's very worthwhile asset for our city and I don't quite see the issue with it. It was quite specific back

then that. It was around. The fund. We're going to modify vehicles. And if I was one of those companies that contribute to this fund? I would be somewhat. Disturbed that the funds were not going to be going to what it was the intended use. I'd have to say. So I will support this. I would also support a review going forward. It's about time to review it, but I think it's important that. We create some predictability around this for now. Okay. Thank you. Make sure I time myself. I'll just speak then, before I call the vote. Okay, everyone, so obviously I'm. Going to support this. I brought it forward. I brought it forward because. Of two to three reasons. One was, and I kind of spoke to this. When I spoke about the item at the beginning, before delegations, but I felt like this issue to me needed to come to council because of the policy in place, and we needed to make sure, in my view, that we needed to follow that after seven years of fees being collected and speaking fees. I just got to say, in my opinion, I don't personally like the

consistent. Narrative of. For profit companies can be very. Nice companies. For profit companies can be. Great, great community builders in our company, in our city. And what's special about this fund is because guess what, everybody? There's no tax. Dollars. There's no property tax dollars that come into this. It's from. For profit companies. That their fees from for profit can go. Flow through to another for profit company, so be it. There's no property taxes involved in this at all. I want to thank you, red Top taxi, for your service to this community. Because I, too, like sarah has indicated in her delegation I've heard multiple times. The over and above service that you've done to our community, so thank you very much. I think that the AAC made a. And perhaps because of some confusion, which I respect, A difficult yet wrong decision, and I have the right to say that. And that's why I've brought it here because. Council is the ultimate decider, and I think we need to adhere to the policy. I also brought it here because I agreed with some of the issues that the AEC also brought up, which we're about

to talk about in a second. I'm looking for a win win here tonight. That's the entire reason why I brought this forward. I didn't want this to be controversial at all. I want to help people get around. This city and outside of the city for their medical appointments. I want to help them have mobility. Transit options. That is being provided. I don't want to reduce that. I don't want to cut that. I don't want to make it difficult for our people and our citizens and. Our community to not be able to get around. That's why I'm going to be voting yes to the request. That the entire account was set up for to begin with. And then we'll talk about the other stuff, which I also fully agree that I think we need to also discuss, too, and that's where the next win hopefully can come. I'm here tonight for a win win. And I hope the council can also do a win. Win tonight. Let's give the money through the request and let's talk about the next issues after that. So with that, I'll call the vote. Is anyone against the request for red top taxi? To get $39,500 to modify their vehicle to make it an accessible vehicle to continue their service in

the community. Councilor Cayton. And that's it. So that passes. Thank you very much, everyone. Okay, thank you very much. Now we're going to go to the next topic. But I just heard. It probably is wise. We're going to take a break. We're going to take a break. We're. Going to take a ten minute break. It is 851. Let's be nine minutes. Let's come back at nine. But council, can I encourage us? Then we know it's coming next. It's all about review this. In a way, those motions are also a yes or no kind of option, so. Let's maybe rally around getting to that decision as well, and let's have that nine minute break. Okay, thank you very much, everyone.

Okay, everybody, this is your 32nd warning.

20 seconds.

Just before we're to start. I just want to correct something that I said that was wrong earlier, just so it's on the record. We'll be here for the next 5 hours because no one's kidding. Thank you to staff in my bullet points of the tree bylaw. I accidentally said 0.4% impact when it was zero four. I accidentally said that wrong. And so, just in case our media partners here are writing that I just wanted to make sure, on the record that it was corrected. So my apologies and thank you. To staff for letting me know. I apologize for that mistake. Okay, moving along. We have two more motions to consider. And as I said at the beginning, I felt like the issue we've just settled was one of the wins that I was looking for. And I also felt, and I'll use the same terminology that I used, which was I thought that some of the things that were brought up by the AAC because I too watched the meeting. Were valid. And I want to validate that through some of the motions that might

be ahead of us. One of them is from myself, and the next one is from councilor Keaton. I want to thank councilor Keaton for working on the one that she will bring forward. After this one. But this next one is specifically about the taxi script. It's that staff. Be directed to review the taxiscript program for potential modifications and enhancements through the 2026 Bu. Budget confirmation process, ensuring feedback from the AAC. And just so everyone knows, sorry, just to be procedurally correct. Busatil will move it and Richardson will second it. The word like modifications can include some of the things that I heard from the AAC members. Like the process, the application. All of that could be reviewed, and then. Is there also an opportunity to speak about. These scripts, even though. They've been kind of increased already. Is there a demand for more? Is there not? And so between now and the end of the year for the budget. It gives staff enough time to review that. Get that answers. In the late fall. So

with that, is there any questions on that one? Because if not, I can call the vote. Yes, Councilor Cayton. I was thinking about doing an amendment to it, but can we have it on the screen again? Just one more time, because I want to make sure if it would make sense with the way it's written. Yes, absolutely.

We'll have that put up and take your time. Thanks. Yeah, we talked about this. I'm so sorry. Last night you might have wanted to add. Yeah, I was just going to add the taxi script program. And mobility transit applications. I think that's valid. Can I just have you move that cayenne? For us. Yes. I think busatill will be happy to second that. Kate, I'm really sorry. Can you just take the time to also just make sure you email that to the clerks. But they've captured it, but just make sure you do. So we're adding and mobility transit. Applications. Those are the words. So let me call the vote on the amendment, please. Is there anyone against that. Nobody. Thank you. And now we'll call the vote on that motion. As amended. Is that okay? Sorry. Can I ask a question, too? Go ahead. You have the floor. Go ahead. When this is being reviewed. Would all the past feedback from the AAC. AACs be included as a part of that process. So through the merit

of councilor Cayton. Absolutely. And I just do also want to clarify that. The review, and by no means does that take away from the motion. I just want to make sure that it is stated that as committed to the AC, transit staff are already doing the review. Of the mobility application. So this just reinforces that. But that's actually work that's. Already underway. And. The review of the mobility application probably doesn't have budget impact or not necessarily. We were bringing that forward anyways with the feedback from the AAC. And so. I just want to make sure that I sort of stated that out loud because I didn't. Want to leave. In particular, those who were on the AAC. The impression that we hadn't honored our commitment to already be doing this work, so the motion before council. Of course. Just reinforces that. But that work is already underway. The taxiscript program, that is where there could be budget impact. Because increasing the taxi script program would have a financial implication right now, as stated earlier, that's funded out of the transit based budget. And so that motion then would allow us to bring that forward. And to your question, Councilor Kate and it would absolutely include the feedback that we've heard from the AAC on this. Great. And I know we've had conversations about the application process before, so I knew that. You were all working on it. I just wanted to make sure it was

in there so I. Appreciate that you're all working on that. Thanks. Thank you. Just a clarity question. I'm so sorry. Staff are already working on it, and I'm fine to solidify it with our own. Motion from council. But when was it coming back? In other words, is this motion going to accelerate that? To council the review of the mobility application. That won't change the timeline on it. I don't want to commit to a firm timeline tonight because I don't have transit. Staff here, and so I just don't want to speak out of turn, but that work. Was already underway, and it was going to. Be coming back in terms of the recommendations that we'd be bringing for the AAC. To see the recommendations that we're making, and then ultimately, that's not an application. That would need to come to council for approval anyways. It's operational, and we would simply be implementing it. But the taxi script, that isn't something that we were necessarily planning. To bring back in advance of budget. So that will accelerate this, so that you have that information. In advance of budget. Okay? So I'm very sorry, counsel, but. I'm just trying to make sure we're kind of doing this correctly. I appreciate that you're not speaking on behalf of the transit staff that aren't. Here. But I think that there was some valid points from the AAC. And we even heard it tonight. Not just the one they listened to

in the last week. I guess I'm just trying to understand. Is this a one year wait? And I'm exaggerating on purpose. And I guess what I'm trying to also get at depending on your answer. Is, should we actually create another motion? In other words, should we have a motion that's just the taxi script because it's budget related and has a memo attached to it and. There's budgetary and then should we have a separate one? That is the mobility application. Process. And review on that, and we can still do both. But should they be separate? Because you understand what I'm saying. Go ahead. To the merit. I'm not sure that it's an issue that they're. Together. Our memo will simply state that there isn't a budget implant to the mobility application. Changes. And yes, I have confirmed with transit staff that that is something that we will be bringing. Forward in 2025. Part of it is we want to make sure that we're respectful. Of the feedback from the AAC, so we need to time it to when they're meeting, and we can bring that forward for. Their consideration, but that is something that we will be looking to update in 2025 towards the end of the year. Once we have a chance to do that review with the AAC, I'm so sorry, everybody. I just want to make sure I understood that. Thank you very much. And I'm glad to hear that it is coming back this year, because I think there is validity in

trying to get that process done changed as quickly as possible. Okay, so I'm. Going to call the vote then, on this motion, as amended. Okay. Is there anyone against that? Nobody. Perfect. Okay, we're moving to the last motion. I'm going to go to. Councilor Katen, thank you again for bringing this forward. We talked last night, and we were kind of on the same page on some things I threw. It over to you and so happy to have you table the motion. Go ahead. We could get that on the screen, please? Thank you very much. That staff be directed to report back to city council with proposed amendments to the vehicle for higher schedule of the business. Licensing bylaw would ensure the best use of funds. With regards to publicly accessible mobility options. And I'm doing this basically for the reasons why I said I think that there's. A lot of ways that we could be using this money. That would improve mobility. For our residents, and I think that we need to just expand that use. Thanks. Thank you. Does someone want to second that? Alt. Thank you. Can we just have the motion up

on the screen one more time? Thank you. So that staff be directed. We're good so far to report back to city council with proposed amendments. I got to be honest with you. I might have a little bit of a problem. There to the vehicle for higher schedule of the business licensing bylaw that would ensure the best use of the funds with regards to publicly accessible mobility options. Hey, I'm the chair. Does anyone have questions on this before I ask just a question. I'll go alt and then Galler. Mayor gust it's not a question, but I think I know what your concern is. And I think that. It might be addressed if the word proposed is changed to possible. Council alt we are aligned tonight. Well done. I'm going to let the camera focus in. On me so you can see what I see. And the reason for that is if we don't. Do that, then. We have predicted the outcome. That staff is going to come back with, and I don't think we should preclude staff from making the recommendations independently. Thank you. Councilor Alt would you be willing just to move the amendment then

on that word for us. Thank you. So you're changing the word? Proposed, proposed two potential I guess we need to give the breadth of the room to staff to be like, I don't know. They could come back and say, you should leave it alone. Because of whatever Abcd. So I think. Thank you, councilor. We're on the same page on that. And who's? Seconding that amendment. Richardson. Thank you. Okay, can I just call the vote on that? Amendment or that word, please? Yes. Is anyone against the word change to potential? Thank you. That passes. We're back to the main motion now, as amended. Does anyone have. Any questions on that for the review? Caller? I had you next. You're good now, okay? Busatill I was just curious if staff wanted to comment on a timeline for that. So through the mayor, I think one of the things that we would want to do and Mr. Godfrey may want to comment is when this was created in 2018, it was in consultation with. The very companies who would be paying into this fund, as well as potentially. Accessing the fund, and so we want to make sure that we're taking the time. To go back and be respectful and have the conversations with the taxi companies, the ride share companies. And so I think that wasn't an answer on the timeline, simply to say that it is

not something that we would be coming back to you on in 2025. I think this is an into early 2026 because we would need to take that time. And also just recognizing there's work plan. I need to make sure that Mr. Godfrey's team has the time to put into this. So I don't know. Doug, is there anything else you want to say on timelines? Through Ms. Rack I agree with what councilor DCo clock Bush indicated I would recommend. Q two of 2026. Council or ca. So, Stephanie Ca. Wow. Sorry. It's a demotion. You know that, right? All right. Thank you, Councilor Busatil. Koran is next. Yeah, normally a bylaw. Review would have stakeholder and community engagement. I don't think we are looking for an entire bylaw review process to happen here. But community engagement as well, I'm assuming. Thank you. And I just want to say I'm going to vote for this. I talked with Aaron. But councilor Caitlin about it last night. One of the things that kind of surprised me was number one. It's been seven years. I kind of forgot about it. I don't know if anyone else did. I see heads

nodding. So it felt right before a review, anyways. And then the other thing was, there's 300 and somewhat thousand dollars in there. My issue a little bit was like, well, what if no one comes and asks for years and it just keeps accumulating and accumulating and accumulating, and there's like a million and a half dollars, you know what I mean? I just don't know what the uptake is on it, so I think it's. Very fair to do the review, which is, again, this is part of the win of why I wanted to bring this topic here tonight, so thank you very much. With that. I'll call the vote then. Is anyone against that main motion as amended? Nobody. Perfect. That's unanimous. We have bylaws. Two things I just got to say about the bylaws councilor. Downer just to say them out loud. One is. On the 7.2. It's the traffic and parking bylaw number 20698. As amended to regulate the highways within the city of Guelph and the traffic and parking. There on. We got an email from staff today that. Just has to be parked. That's a bad pun. But until another time, because it's just a lead. Clerks. Am I saying that right

before. I ask councilor Donna to move everything, as amended, through you? Mr. Mayor, we just want to. Know that there's an amendment to 7.2. Located there versus what was included on the agenda to make one small amendment to leave a set of temporary traffic lights at a location for longer. So it's a slight change versus what was on the agenda and just needs to be moved as amended. To the clerks. Do you need a formal amendment of that? Or just to note it verbally. Okay. Anyone against that notion of verbal changes? Okay. And then the second thing is. Councilor Galler is asked for. Bylaw to be. Pulled out. Which one is it? Seven point. Seven point three. Am I right? Okay, so, councilor Downer, would you move everything except for 7.3?

I moved by myself and seconded by councilor Richardson. That bylaw is 2025 21. 59 and 2025. 21. Seven two. Through to 2025. 21 seven eight b. Approved. Subject to section two eight. Four. Sorry. Two 8411. Four of the municipal act and as amended. And that's pulling out. 7.3. Thanks. Councilor gibson. Do you have a just. A funny thought came to my mind about the amended bylaw and the temporary lights staying up. A little longer. No one is complaining about those lights staying up. Okay. Thank you for the comments. For now, I'm going to call the vote. They are just bylaws, and we have to get them through. So is anyone against all those? No. Okay. Thank you. That's passed. I'll now. Have you just. You already moved? 7.3. Just pulled out to vote on separately, so I'll call. To vote on that as anyone against.

Just galler. Okay. Thank you. So that passes. I am not good at college yet, even though maybe everyone wants us to. Because councilor Koran. Has been very gracious. This is why people need to come to our council meetings in person. More often. Happy birthday to our city. There's cake. Adam's like, hey. So, yeah. I just thank you, Councilor Koran, for thinking of our city and us. And it's a little nudge of a reminder that, hey, we're two years away. Now it's sneaking up on us. On the bicentennial, we will have a much larger cake. So I will make sure that's in the budget. And so I just wanted to say thank you to you for bringing that. And happy birthday to our great city. And with that, who wants to help me with adjournment? Busatil and Katen would like to help with that. Is there anyone against adjournment? Nobody? Okay, thanks, everybody. Have a great rest of the night. The meeting is formally adjourned. Take care.