Daytime shelter procurement and location scoring

Good afternoon, everyone. It's Tuesday, May the 27th, 2025, and it is 04:00. And I like to call the city council meeting to order. Right off the top, we're looking to move into a closed session. And is there any disclosure of pecuniary interest or any general nature thereof for the item that we may be talking about in camera, which is. May 2025. Public appointments to advisory committees of council. No. Okay, great. And so would some of you willing to move a motion to go into closed. It's under section 2392 B of the municipal act regarding personal matters about identifiable individuals, including municipal or local board employees. Alt and bustill will do that for me. Thank you. I'll call. The question is anyone against moving into closed on that hearing seeing none. Well. We're good to go. That's unanimous. And when we are done, we'll. Have an update when we come back out, a high level summary or more. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We are done. The closed session.

However, our open session does not start till 05:00 and so we will convene. At 05:00 and start the open session at that time. And anything that's reported. Out from closed will be done also during the open session. Thank you very much.

It's quiet. That means either we're ready or everyone's eating their meal. Are we good to go, clerks? Yeah. Okay, let's go. Good evening. It is 05:00 it is Tuesday, May 27. This is our city council meeting, so thank you very much for joining us tonight. As usual. And we'll be talking about this on the agenda. But there is official regrets. From councilor O'Rourke. We'll make it official that I don't have to say that anymore. Maybe later. In the meeting. But just to get that out of the way. And I believe that's the only regrets. That I have. There can be some regrets, though, from Councilor Koran. She might be in a difficult area for connection, so just to state. State that out loud. As well. Earlier, we moved into a closed session. On one item, which was May 2025, public appointments to the advisory committees of council and we did make a decision on that in camera, so we are going to vote on

that in the open session, so it's public. Okay, but it's coming up in the agenda, just. In a few, so we'll get to that. Just want to make sure everyone's aware. And so with that, If you can. Rise if you're able, so that we can recognize our national anthem. That would be great.

Well, thank you. Just a moment of silent reflection, please.

Thank you. And our territorial acknowledgment. As we gather, let us take time. To reflect on our privilege to live and work in wealth. A city that is built over rich indigenous histories where guests here and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this 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 we call Guelph has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples over time. But more specifically, the Anawana rock and the Honenashoni. This land is held as the treaty lands and territory with the Mississaugas of the credit First Nation and Guelphali is directly adjacent to. The Halteman track and as part of a long established traditional hunting grounds for the six nations. Of the Grand river, many First Nations, Inuit and Mati people who have come from across Turtle island called Guelph home today. Thank you, everyone. And moving along, is there any disclosure of pecuniary interest or any general nature thereof for the items in front of us today. Not hearing or seeing any. So I'll consider that matter closed and we'll move. On. We have the minutes and they are for the council meetings held April 8 and 23rd,

2025. And the minutes of the open committee of the whole meeting on April 1, 2025, to be confirmed as recorded and without being read. Would someone be willing to move that? For me. Billings and Clawson. Thank you. Is there anything further on the minutes? No. Okay, I'll call the vote. Is anyone against? No one that's unanimous.

Thank you. We're into our consent. And if anyone wants to pull any of these items, please just let me know. And we have the 2024 year end operating budget monitoring report and surplus allocation and deficit funding. Does anyone want that fold? No. Okay. And the 2024 year and Capital Budget Monitoring report. No one. 2024. Long term financial statement that reserves in debt. No one. Thank you. The code of conduct for councils and local boards. Councilor Cayton. Thank you. We will move that to the end. Okay, thank you very much. And that's it? For consent. So would some employees be willing to move? Did I miss the terms of reference? Where is that? Oh, I missed that one. Sorry, everybody. Could catch clerk I appreciate that. Welcome back. I did it on purpose to see if you could. Catch me the committee of the whole terms of reference update. Does anyone want that? Pulled? No one.

Okay, great. Would someone be willing to move the consent? Thanks a lot. Alt and Richardson. Okay, thank you. Keep it in ward three. That's good. Is there anything. Further on that. I'll call the vote. Is anyone against? Nobody. That's great. So we'll get back to the code of conduct a little. Later on. Now we are moving into items. For discussion. But before we do that, I did mention that we would have the. Open vote on what was discussed in camera, and that is in regards to the May 2025 public appointments for all the advisory committees of council. So councilor Galler looking to you, they'll be up on the screen, and we don't need to read them all out. But they are there. And we can go through that there. But there are the names. Would you mind moving them for. Me. And would. Someone will win a second Richardson. Okay, thank you. All right. Do you want to just put that up back up there just for a bit? I think some. Of our media partners and others were just trying to look at it a little bit more. Okay. There you go. Great. And

so, are there anything. Excuse me. Is there anything further on those items? On those appointments. Sure, council. Just a question. When will those names be published on the city website so that the public sees them. Our clerks department is the one that kind of manages, making sure everyone knows that they've been successfully appointed, so I'll go to the clerk. Thank you. Mary Gastri, we'll. Begin now, with council's approval, to connect with those individuals and advise them. And they'll be live on the website. In short order. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I'll call the vote then. Thank you. Is anyone against? All those appointments. Nobody. Thank you very much. That's great. Now we're going to the next one, which has delegations, which is addressing the gaps. In daytime sheltering options for persons experiencing homelessness. We have 123456. We have ten delegations. And some of them may. Know how we do things here, and some may not know, so I'll just state it. Out loud here at the beginning, so everyone's on the same page. Everyone has no more than five minutes. So if you need

the five minutes, take it. If you don't, that's fine. But you will hear a chime at the four minute and 32nd mark giving you that 32nd. Warning that. Your five minute limit is coming up. Your microphone will be turned off at the five minute mark. Though, okay. And didn't stick around just in case there is any follow up questions and if there's not, then we'll go on to the next delegation and the first. One is. Dean Mitchellmore, who I believe is here in person. Eidine. Come on. Forward. Thank you for coming. And whenever you start.

You can go whenever you're comfortable. Go right ahead. Thank you for allowing me to speak right now. I was informed about this funding for a day shelter, and I took over for a pickle. Scale for the downtown bench. Feeding the needy in there. Now, I'm aware of a lot of the people and the personalities. And that the funding is great and we appreciate it, but if it's not accessible to downtown in that people are not going to use wherever you go. OCM is prepared and set with new showers, new bathrooms that they're doing. That would be a great place to put the funding. I don't know what your plan is for it, but. That would be an optimal place. I know the THC is doing some renovations as well, but I'm not sure what. All that entails. But if it's not downtown, we can get the people off the streets, but they're. Not going to leave downtown. Because that's where we feed them. That's where everything. The pharmacies are the Meddo. They're not going to

travel and come back and travel again. So. That could be thought of when you decide where you want to put the funding. That's all I really got to say. It's my first time in here. No. You don't mind. You're doing just fine. Thank you. Thank you very much. I don't want to cut you off. I just want to make sure you're. Good. Yeah. Like I said, I took over for it, so I know most of these people personally. Know, I've been dealing with them for a couple of years, helping ed. Rachel, the downtown. Friends on Sundays. I've been in the community for four and a half, five years now. And some of. These people that use these services. I've known for over 30 years. I know them well. If anybody wants to talk privately on different issues. I'll stick around. But, I mean, as an open forum. I don't know what to say. It's. Okay, thank you very much. I'll just see if there's a follow up at this time, if there is. Yes, Councilor Altus. Go ahead. Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie. Through you to the delegate. Mr. Mitchell Moore. Mr. Mitchell Moore, thank you very much for speaking. You said that people

would not take advantage of. If it's not downtown. No. Could you? Explain why and what might provide incentive for them to take advantage of it if it's not downtown, or is that just out of the question? Well, if there's transportation provided, but. I mean, they're not going to travel to. The outskirts of town with their bags and come back. But stepping stone. They get kicked out at 08:00 in the morning. They got to take all the bags. With them. And then they can't get back in there until 08:00 p.m. so if they got to go across town a day shelter, come back into town to get the meds and go back again. They're just going to go sit on a sidewalk downtown in the summer weather, right? Who's? Going to travel that much with all the bank. It's just more convenient for them to be downtown. And the OCM. The Royal City mission allows them to bring their bags in, sit at a table. And. They're already got an elevator for anybody in a wheelchair or anything that needs it. They've got renovations on the

go for showers, bathrooms. They're expanding already. They don't open until noon. So when they leave stepping stone, all they got to do is wait 4 hours and the RCM is open, they get a meal. They get a place, that's one. Right. Why travel across town with your bags and travel back? Thank you very much. I'm not saying that's exactly where to put the money. But if it's not something in that manner. The judge is going to wait for the RCM to open. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, councilor old and we appreciate it. And for your first time here. You did great. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Morgan Dandy. Who? Has been here often, knows the drill. Come on, Ford. Morgan.

Nice to be able to stand this time.

Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker. But whoever is kind to the needy. Honors God. Proverbs. 1431. Council members in 2020 when I started making a point of providing service for my less fortunate neighbors. I would often think there but for the grace of God, Goliath. You never really know where you're going to be five years from now. Because today, instead of being a monthly donor to Hope house, And providing meal service. I now use the services provided. And spend time in my new community. Being able to spend time with my chosen community. Is important. As Gail Hoekstra of Stepping Stone said at breezy breakfast during episode. 216 around the 19 minutes mark

of the podcast. There are three parts needed to support our community. One. Housing. Two access to healthcare services. And three. Community. With all three. Being of equal importance. Slightly before this statement. To paraphrase Gail. Newly housed people experience loneliness. And community is the antidote and the key to successfully transitioning. To being appropriately housed. I would have loved for you to have heard from more community members who access services at Royal city mission. But 06:00 p.m. is dinner time and chairs start getting packed. Up at 630. So people needed to choose to eat. And allow people like me to speak on their behalf. To me. The idea of having restrictions or criteria for where a day shelter is located? Well, It's just not a fair process.

For an organization to be able to submit a proposal for a day shelter. Additionally, the idea of having said day shelter outside of the downtown court is strange considering the provincially approved heart hub located at the community health center on Upper Wyndham, is currently being constructed. And other services. Housing Ontario works the Norfolk Pharmacy. Chalmers Hope house. They're all in close proximity. I'm grateful. That staff brought forward the RFP for approval because that means stable funding and the potential of the dream Gail spoke of with a partnership between stepping stone drop in Emerald city mission. And that could maybe become a reality. But what is that dream? It's a 24/7 shelter service, including 12 hours of day shelter split between the two locations. I'm hopeful this dream will become reality when 23 Gordon's completed and stable funding. Is in place. A reminder from proverbs 1421.

It is a sin to despise one's neighbor, but blessed is the one who is kind to the needy. It's my hope that today. Council will remember that kindness and approve a fair and equitable RFP for a funded shelter. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for this delegate? Seeing none. Thank you. Tay Cayton is next, joining us by video. Mary goth. For your awareness and for council's awareness. We're expecting that the individual is going to join us over the phone. We're just connecting with them at this moment. Okay, so maybe if we can just hold for a short moment, and then if we're. Having difficulty. We can attempt someone. Actually, I just got a message that they're able to join by. The telephone so you can proceed. Great. Tate, have you unmuted? Can we hear you? Okay, do you want to just say. Hello. So we can make sure your audio is working. And if you can hear me, you got to just press star six. We're

having some technical difficulties. Yeah, we can circle back. Or you could just come on your screen, I guess. I don't know how that would work, but. If that's allowed, we'll do that. I'm fine with it. I'll allow it. Hi, there. Sorry about that. I was on the webex phone, but then clerks just called me, so I had to hang. Up. The phone waiting on hold here to take that call with clerks. So sorry about that. Yes, go. Right ahead. Your time will start whenever you're ready. Okay. Yes, sounds good. Hello, mayor. And council. I'm tay and I'm in constituent of war ii. I'm here. To speak about the request for proposal. Regarding a supportive daytime space after watching the previous meeting. Where possible, location based restrictions were discussed. It's irresponsible to take a restrictive approach towards an urgently needed social space. This early on in the proposal process, especially when those restrictions are based on feelings rather than data. And

reason. The focus should be on project requirements and timelines, requirements such as accessibility with an open mindset toward suitable locations close to current community services and our central transit hub. Welcoming streets. CHC, RCM. All these services are downtown Chalmers Hope House. I could keep listing. Adjacent social resources. Placing restrictions on an RFP does nothing but cause delays or make it more difficult for the people who need this space. Where it makes most sense, close to other resources. This decision should consider the reality that most of the downtown corps is surrounded by a substantial slope or gradation, which can be inaccessible for many. It can be very difficult to get up and down some of those slopes year round, but especially in the winter. I've spoken to some people who use mobility devices, and they have told me even around the downtown core. Many of the sidewalks and businesses are very difficult to access. It can even be difficult to get off of a bus in the winter, let alone up and down in icy or snowy side street. Ignoring accessibility may result in legal or even charter challenges, which is not in the best interests

for Guelph, both the taxpayers and the corporation of Guelph, especially when these restrictions are rooted in stigma. I met with my city counselor, councilor Galler, and he stated he was putting a request. Out to legal regarding this proposal. I'm interested in hearing the outcome of this legal discussion and what their recommendations are before. A decision is made. This could be a costly battle for Guelph. If the legal advice without creating restrictions is not properly considered, and a decision is made without due diligence. I mentioned being a. Resident of War II. However, I do not own a downtown business, something that I personally feel is irrelevant to this discussion, despite some counselors feeling otherwise. I hope this doesn't disqualify my voice in these chambers. This is a council which serves people of Guelph, and there are Guelphites. Who require these services. This council does not exist to amplify stigma from the DGbA. Despite two of the DGba seats being held by city council members. But when you're in these. Chambers. It is your responsibility to protect all of wealth. There is a reason we have a council. And a DGPA board as separate entities because one represents the people of Guelph. And the other represents the

businesses of downtown. This is a Guelph council decision, not a DGBA needed. DGBA does. Not provide social services to our community. BGBA is irrelevant to this discussion unless they wish to get into the business of finding initiatives like the space discussed in this proposal. At its core, this is a decision surrounding basic healthcare, community resources, and harm reduction. The association of Municipalities of Ontario Amo website clearly states the responsibilities of municipal politics, including health and social services, shelter services and social or community housing. It does not say you have to amplify unsubstantiated stigma or make feelings based decisions which harm your community. It's not the municipality's responsibility to protect the feelings and misconceptions of a few business owners. Just because an area has a business improvement association does not mean it is exclusively an economic zone. If downtown is an economic zone, why are there residents and residential zoning and new residential construction? Why are there churches? Why are there doctors or other social supports and meal programs? I can actually answer that because downtown

is not exclusively an economic zone, and I'm baffled a resident of this ward has to explain this to their government. When basic needs are restricted, delayed, or unfeasible to access people's health. Further suffers in a province where hospitals are overburdened to the point of billions of Ontarians tax dollars being spent on private staffing agencies. This space should not be restricted by any feelings, stigma or perception. What's more important in this proposal is accessibility, feasibility and timelines to support the people who will use it. I encourage you to listen to the delegates tonight because selective listening and ignoring countless facts, for a few feelings, is not representative of a democratic or responsible counsel. I encourage you to focus on requirements for the folks who actually need this space, who you have. A duty to support by speaking to them. It is also your duty to challenge stigma and misinformation which harms these communities rather than validating and amplifying hatred. Urgently needed. Sorry. Not Aaron's. Tory. Sorry, it's Cam. And sorry, that was your five minutes. There. Okay, so I did have to stop you there. My apologies, but thank you very much. For your delegation. And

is there any questions as a follow up? Seeing none. Thank you very much for joining us. Okay, the next is. Sharon Velker. Is Sharon here? Front row. Thank you very much. And whenever you're ready, go right ahead. Okay. I would like to thank council, the mayor and city staff for allowing me to speak to a matter that is of great importance to me. My name is Sharon Selker. I am here today. As a concerned citizen, Ward II resident and someone who frequents and has worked downtown. I would like to speak to you about the daytime community shelter and where I believe it needs to be located. First, I'd like to thank you for your support for a daytime shelter, because it is a much needed critical service for our community. Standing here in front of you this evening is a bit out of my comfort

zone, but I believe real growth and understanding comes from allowing ourselves to be vulnerable. I grew up in wealth and have many fond memories of our downtown corps. The shopping, the events but mostly the inclusion of everyone. Was very evident when you walk the streets of downtown. At that time, there were individuals living in poverty, people dealing with addictions, and yes, some people were unhoused. How do I know? In 1967, after the sudden death of my father, the descent into a so called social safety net. Was devastating. This system takes every last ounce of self esteem and worthiness. Tosses it in the toilet and continues to flush it every time you feel like you might be able to muster some strength to pull yourself out of the poverty hole. I watched my mother deteriorate bit by bit, unable to cope with constant barriers and demoralizing.

Treatment she faced and was left to feel something was wrong with her. I know what it was like for my family to not have the support we needed, and I can only imagine how much more difficult this is. To day, I often wonder how my life would have been so different if we had. Just had supports in place that could have helped us work through the trauma rather than add to it. To me, it is imperative that the daytime community shelter be in an area close to the resources people need to access. These individuals are in a deep state of survival mode. Every moment of their day is spent trying to figure out where their next meal is coming from. How to get from out of the extreme cold or extreme heat, where to lay their head to. Rest and to just feel safe for a few minutes. Each and every one of us need to take responsibility for the crisis we are seeing as a society. Every level of government needs to take accountability.

You cannot stop building affordable housing for decades, keep wages low, increase the cost of groceries, and expect people to thrive. As a resident of War II, having worked downtown. I understand. The complexities and the need to have a viable, thriving downtown. But in order for a society to thrive, it has to be inclusive. If the daytime shelter is placed outside of the downtown core, what I believe ultimately will happen is that we will be forcing our most vulnerable citizens to go deeper into hiding, feeling even more ostracized and unworthy, putting them in a place of complete hopelessness. And that, I fear, will lead to. An increase in the crisis we are in, and we will begin to see many more lives lost. For me. One death is too many. If we as a society continue to criminalize and ostracize our most vulnerable. Then how can

we expect that anything will ever change? The most vulnerable, the marginalized, those with less opportunity will continue to struggle, and we will continue. To see the demise of our society, not just downtown, but throughout our entire city, as we are. Already beginning to see. Imagine if we work together to support each other. Imagine if we stop judging how a person gets. To that place. Imagine if we move past our own fears so we could begin to understand their situation and how. We can best assist. I don't believe we need to oust them further. Sorry. That's your five minutes. Don't go anywhere. Hard to go fast. No, I. Could tell. I heard the beep at 30 seconds, and I saw your speed go up a little bit. We all do it naturally. So thank you. Is there any follow up questions to this delegate? There isn't. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming. We appreciate it. Dominica McPherson. From the Guelph of Mulligan. Task force for poverty elimination is here in person. And whenever you're ready, go right ahead. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I want to begin by sincerely

thanking you for your commitment to addressing critical community needs. Your unanimous support for proceeding with a procurement process to fund daytime shelter is a significant and commendable step. Stable funding like this enables real planning, coordination, consistency, and staff retention. Key ingredients for delivering better, more reliable support to people in crisis and. Turn to our broader community. That kind of consistency has been lacking in the past. This commitment addresses that with the integrity and clarity that come from an open, transparent and fair procurement process. I'm here to encourage you to maintain that momentum by not placing restrictive requirements on the procurement process or limiting where this service can be located geographically. Safety and vibrancy in the downtown are super important. They are not at odds with support services. We can respond to poverty and homelessness with compassion and effectiveness while also supporting a healthy, thriving downtown for everyone. In fact, well supported and well run services are part of the solution. Daytime shelters or drop in spaces provide safety and stability and offer connection points that

support people on a path towards housing, health and opportunity. They are part of the infrastructure of a caring, safe and functional city. The suggestion that important services should not be located downtown or that people experiencing poverty, housing loss, or health issues. Should access critical supports elsewhere. Is not only impractical, it is harmful. These are members of our community. People who are facing issues that will not go away if there is no daytime shelter, they will still be downtown, but with fewer safe spaces to go, increasing risk and deepening crisis. Ensuring access to supports when and where people need them, creates pathways to stability and contributes to a safer, more inclusive community for everyone. Inclusion isn't in opposition to safety. It's essential to it. When we respond with compassion and evidence informed services, we build a more stable, inclusive city for all. Residents, workers, businesses and visitors alike. The poverty task force, as you know, supports collaboration to address the root causes of poverty. I work with partners who are committed to aligning their services, coordinating

hours. Using. Resources as effectively as possible and building models shaped by community needs and feedback. The goal is not only to provide a safe place to be, but to connect people to housing. Healthcare and the supports needed to move forward. This work is already happening. Let's not constrain it before it starts. Daytime shelter is complex and resource intensive to deliver. There are very few organizations that I know of with the capacity, space or willingness to take it. On, especially not alone at the proposed scale in hours. While a desire for accountability and safety is entirely understandable, Overly restrictive requirements or narrow geographic limitations could unintentionally make the service impossible to deliver and could prevent viable proposals from being submitted. This could risk leaving the community without this critical service by the end of December, during the coldest time of the year, leaving people with few or no options for. Where to go. At the same time, I want to encourage council not to lose sight of the bigger picture, which will be of surprise to none of you. A daytime shelter is essential, but it's not. A solution to homelessness or poverty. We need to

address the crisis while also working upstream to prevent and solve these issues. I want to acknowledge the difficult environment in which you're working. Municipalities are too often left to manage the visible impacts of poverty, homelessness and mental health without the funding and tools you need from upper levels of government, and I want to thank you for your tireless advocacy in this regard. While many of the root causes lie beyond the municipal mandate, there are still meaningful tools in your hands. A strong housing affordability. Strategy, you can action measures like a renovation and rental replacement bylaw to prevent the loss of housing, and you can continue to champion deeply affordable housing projects to create more. Your decision to invest in a daytime shelter reflects leadership and commitment to community well being. Thank you. I urge you now to ensure the process remains open, achievable and responsive to real capacity and need not constrained by limitations that could undermine success. Let's move forward with a solution that supports those who need it most, strengthens our entire community and keeps compassion, inclusion, and evidence at the heart of our decisions. Thank you so much. Thank you very much.

Just under the wire there. Well done. Is there any follow up for Dominica? Councilor busto. Yes. Thank you for your delegation. Not saying you're old, but you've got a long lens. In the community many years. Do you have any knowledge of daytime shelters being done before, either here, close by or so on? And what it looks like. Yeah. So, I mean, I think some of you have even cited examples. As you may know, our organization. Oversees that infographic weather response of the services. So we actively have conversations with organizations and I don't think it's of surprise to anyone that the pre pandemic context where we had supports offered in a number of different locations. People, predominantly earlier in the day, were at the drop in center 23 Gordon, now known as stepping stone as the organization and then would be in later afternoon evening at Royal City mission, which supports more broadly provided by agencies, I can. Say that partners are looking to those types of models again to try and explore how we can best meet needs. And are actively talking about the needs of not just the people that, first and foremost they

are trying to support, but businesses, people accessing downtown and really trying to listen to the input and feedback to be as efficient with resources as possible, but also collaborate and align services. Just a quick supplemental. So, just what you described. I wasn't on council. Was that developed through an RFP process, or how did that come about? Yeah. So. No, from my knowledge. At the time. Services it's important to acknowledge that services were still quite fragmented prior to the pandemic. And throughout the pandemic as well, with huge gratitude for your resourcing. That you put out in recent years. But that fragmentation meant that there were still quite a few gaps in terms of service, and I think it's important to consider. How deeper and more significant some of the issues people are facing. So the need to provide this type of stable funding to prevent gaps from existing so that people have places to go is a huge difference that I think will serve our community really well, and not just people that are going to rely on these services to get by. Thank you. Councilor alt thank you very much. Through you to the delegate.

Ms. McPherson, you talked about a fair procurement process. I was wondering if you could please identify what you consider to be challenging or. What worries you have about what impediments might be put in place. Yeah. I'm not a procurement expert. But I think in general, Organizations that I know that would be interested in pursuing this are spread very thin at the same time recognize the importance of this, and I've heard huge gratitude for your championing of wanting to support something like this. I think what's important to consider. Is also the amount of time and energy that needs to go into participating in procurement processes. So if the process has far too many requirements, it could actually make it difficult for those organizations. To respond in a timely manner that would allow you to fulfill your procurement process and could preclude them from being able to apply. Just knowing the disproportionate barriers they face rather than it not being a commitment to want to make sure that you fulsomely have what you need for a good. Procurement process as well, but I think it's important to consider. The pressure that these organizations are facing. Thank you, Dominique. And no more questions. Thank you very much. Thank

you so much. Elliot is going to address by video.

Hi, Ella. It's Merrick, Arthri. Just wondering if you wanted to look to turn. On your video. Or you could just try your audio if you wish. Maybe we'll try to come back to Ella, okay? Andrea Baker is going to also try to join us by video. And Andrea. If you could hear me, it's Mayor Guthrie. Just feel free to jump on, turn on. Your video there and try your audio, or if it's easier, just audio. Oh, there you are. Hello? Okay, we can see and hear you. That's perfect. And you have no more. Than five minutes, so go right ahead. Okay. All right. You, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for listening. Yeah. So, echoing a couple of things that I've heard today. A fully equipped shelter that no one uses because. It's inviable and an inaccessible location seems to be very cost and effective. I want you to think about that. As you're considering this, because

there's a lot of things. That could be considered when deciding. What makes a good daytime shelter? And you obviously want it to be a fully equipped facility. That serves everyone's needs. But if that's in a place that people aren't. Going to use aren't going to be in anyways, which I think we've. Heard from a few people already. Seems to be the case. If it was in some locations that people aren't already in. I feel like that would be a waste of money. Right. Especially when then those people who are downtown. Like Dean said, we'll be needing those services anyways. I know Dean was talking about Royal City Mission a little. I've attended that as a church and also volunteered there somewhat. I know people are well cared for there, and it's a wonderful facility. And downtown. I know. People are around that area regardless. And

like Dean said, Yeah, it sounds like people won't. Be traveling multiple times. They have a lot of bags on them. Right, because. Some people are in very transient stages where they have to carry a lot of things with them. And so I think you have to be realistic, right? I don't know if anyone's heard about real estate. It's location, location. Location. Those are the three elves of real estate, right? This is very important, very impactful. And yeah, I'd like to echo Tay. When they said. It seems irresponsible and irrational to place restrictions on the RFP. I believe I got that right. Because. You have to think of. What is this service for? And what is it not for? Reiterating a little bit. But they will be downtown. That is what the people who know the most are saying. They will be downtown

regardless. It's. Just a matter of whether they are sheltering inside a climate controlled space or outside on a sidewalk, tired, hot, not able to go inside. Which I would say seems like an undignifying experience. Which comes along with stigma. Arguably seen today. I believe some people don't want daytime shelter to be downtown. Because they're trying to hide this poverty, because they're uncomfortable with witnessing this poverty. And. I'd like to invite people. To look at what a daytime shelter is for and what the solutions to poverty are. Is that discomfort? Should it be swept under the rug? Or should we address poverty at its roots and look at it for what it is and deal with it. With people like their people, essentially. And I think you just have to deal with people like their people and commit to putting the daytime shelter, where it's the most use, that's the most responsible, cost effective thing. To do. In my opinion. Yeah. So I think that's it

from me. Does anyone? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much, Andrea. Any follow up for Andrea at all? There isn't. So thank you for joining us tonight. Thank you. Let me go back to Ella. Ella Elliot, I believe, is going to try to get the video. And audio on.

Hi, Ella. It's Mayor Guthrie. Can you hear me? Can you at least just try to. Maybe talk for us. Okay. We're going to have to come back and try. We'll try a third time. But Laura lie Root is going to join us now by video. There's Laura lie. Thank you. Yes. Perfect. I was just going to ask you to test your audio, so thank you. And I know that. I'll be lenient on the time allotment there for you so you can. Go right ahead. Okay. I should be all right. Thanks. Hello, council. Mayor Guthrie. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Laura. Lie. And I'm here to urge you to ensure that the proposed daytime shelter is going to be located in the heart of downtown Guelph. Not moved out to the margins, but located right where the need is the greatest. I've also seen some proposed motions posted online today, and with those in mind, I also urge you not to waste any taxpayer dollars or staff resources on developing point systems or placement guidelines. When a suitable

RFP process already exists. That takes into account things like the Aoda and other things, other factors that I saw mentioned. That likely be coming up later in this discussion. When we talk about an RFP for social services like this, I think we should really be asking mainly how do we meet the needs of the people that we're attempting to support? With these services. So if the goal is to support those who are unhoused or experiencing poverty or living with food insecurity, then we need to locate this shelter in the community that it's. Meant to serve, especially when that community doesn't have access to transportation and that community is downtown. I know its council's aim to always be responsible with any funds that you have access to. So I have to also point out. That to put a daytime shelter anywhere else is going to be incredibly ineffective and honestly, quite an efficient use of our funding. And I know this because I work in this community. I'm a frontline worker in downtown Guelph. I volunteer and live in the community that we're talking about. And I help run an organization that provides food, supplies and other necessary supports. For people who need them. Downtown. The group of people that I work with is the group of people that this shelter would serve. I've talked to countless people who called downtown their home, and I can promise you as others have said here today. They are

not going to pick up and move just to follow a service to another part of town, and honestly, they shouldn't have to. This city is their home, too. And that's not going to change just because some people wish it would change. Of course, I wouldn't be me if I didn't also highlight some accessibility concerns. So I also have to remind everyone of the enormous overlap between the disabled community and the unhoused. Low income and food insecure communities. We cannot talk about daytime shelters without also talking about accessibility. And many of the people who need this shelter don't drive. They can't. Afford cabs. They can't use Gulf transit reliably. Many can't even apply for mobility. Services or the taxiscript program because. Those systems are still impossible to access for many people. Despite repeated calls from the AAC to fix them. So if we put this shelter outside of the downtown core, we're going to be building it outside of reach of all of the people who need it the most. We can't. Be asking disabled people to trek through the snow in the winter or the extreme heat in the summer or the downtown hills and slopes just to access a bathroom or a bite to eat that wouldn't just be bad plan. Planning or nimbyism or gentrification. It would also be blatant ableism and if

we want to serve this community, we need to put the services where the community already is, and that's downtown wealth. Now, I know there are some people in Guelph who don't want social services downtown, mainly because they don't want to have to see unhoused people downtown. Maybe they don't want to be reminded of poverty when they're going to get a coffee or spend their money. But even for those people. And I should note, there are people I strongly disagree with. I think that's a really unethical take, but even for those people. The solution to that problem is still a daytime shelter located in downtown Guelph. Because if your concern is people hanging out outside downtown businesses all day. Then give them somewhere indoors to hang. Out downtown, give them access to rest, to water, to washrooms and to human dignity, I think. If we're all being really honest, this conversation isn't actually about the. Location of services. It's about the location of people, right? And specifically a certain type of. People. We're talking about people living in poverty and experiencing a hard time. It's about an attempt to relocate a community, a community that is deeply rooted and has existed downtown for generations and isn't going anywhere. This conversation is about displacing people, but classism

and gentrification and nimbyism are not new concepts. I grew up on Cardigan street, which is in the heart of downtown Guelph. And so I've seen the pattern of attempting to relocate. This community play out over and over again, including recently with the public space use bylaw and that. Didn't work right. These people are still downtown because you can't make it illegal. To be poor in public. And just like every other attempt to erase people from downtown, this one. Wouldn't work either. The community is here and it's staying and it's resilient and downtown. Guelph is meant to be for everyone, not just business owners, not just people with property. Not just people with money or the means to be sold to. So if your goal is to reduce the number of people with nowhere to go downtown, then give them somewhere to go downtown. That's. How you solve that problem. Not by pretending the community doesn't exist, not by shuffling them. Out of sight, not by unethically prioritizing commerce above human rights, but by meeting people where they are at and providing them with essential services that can propel them forward in their lives and allow them the opportunity to thrive. So please put the daytime shelter downtown. And also please ensure that any requirements for

shelters are also requirements for downtown businesses because, like I said, I spend a lot of time downtown and I can think of a few business owners who could benefit from following a good neighbor policy like the one councilor Galler has been advocating for the city to enforce exclusively on the recipients of social. Services. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there any follow up for this delegation? Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you, Lorelai. Elliot. We're going to try for a third time.

Okay, Ella, we're parent of the clerks are telling me that apparently you are connected. Did you want to try your audio, your audio and video?

Okay? Yeah. I'm sorry, Ella. We appreciate you trying to make the effort there. We're. Not sure what's happened, but thank you very much, and you can feel free to email any comments into us. And maybe you did already, but thank you for trying, okay? Let's see who's next here. Yeah. Daniel Lockharan is here, I think. Is Dan here in person? No. Okay. And. Shelby law.

Thank you for waiting, and you can start whenever you're ready, okay? All right, first off, thank you for having me here today to speak. And thank you for staff. For putting together. The proposal for having a downtown shelter. I've been living here in Guel for over ten years. I came here as a student. I'm now an educator here in the city, and I volunteer with our community downtown. I've also lived in downtown. I continue to shop in downtown. And I would continue to do that with a daytime shelter downtown. As you've heard, everyone speaking here today, everyone. Is in support of a shelter, a daytime shelter, and specifically everyone is telling you this needs to be downtown. I'm not going to repeat everything that everyone has already said tonight because I know you. Still have other things. On the agenda tonight, but I just want to implore you to not only listen to everyone. Saying we need the shelter downtown. But. To really take that

into heart when you are voting. Take that into heart if you have anything. To add to the motion. And I want you to think about what people will think if council moves to create the shelter. Outside of downtown. I don't believe this at all. I know that council is here to support everyone in Guelph. But I can't but help wondering if people think that counselors are. Cruel for putting the shelter where people cannot access it. If you knowingly put a shelter or even suggest that we should be prioritizing shelters. Outside of the downtown core. After hearing all these people tell you that is the wrong thing to do. I worry what your constituents are going to think. I worry that. They are going to see their counselors as people that don't actually care. And I don't want them to start thinking that. This shelter needs to be downtown for all the reasons that you've heard today. But as people have pointed out, like Andrea said, people may think that council is just trying to sweep

the people away. By even talking about putting the shelter anywhere from downtown or trying to say that places outside of the downtown corps should be prioritized. Would be further marginalizing people who are already marginalized by putting daytime shelters in the margins. Of the city. You are marginalizing people. The only logical thing is to have this downtown. Staff have provided you a system already. To determine the best proposals, best places to have a daytime shelter. Listen to what staff tells you. You're paying them for a reason, right? Don't waste more money and time. By arguing against what the people are telling you right now. The only reasons that I see to have this outside of downtown, and I think the only reasons that anyone can see are rooted in misconceptions about our community. They are rooted in beliefs about who the people are downtown and what it means to be in poverty. So I hope that council will vote to have a shelter, a daytime shelter. That will help us in the summer as we have

these extreme heats, as we just heard. We've had our graphic put out for the summer, and you can see there isn't. Enough space for everybody. City hall is going to have to be open on hot days. If we had a daytime shelter. That would be one place where everyone knows that it can consistently. Be. It's going to get worse than in the winter. This is a problem that needs to be solved. And it's going to be solved by a downtown shelter. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Shelby. Is there any questions for Shelby at all? Seeing none, thank you. For waiting and thank you for your delegation. That is our last delegate of this item, so thank you very much. We are going to look to move into a closed session right away. And it is coming up on the screen. Is that council for the city Guelph to hold a meeting that is closed to the public. Pursuant to section 2392 f of the Municipal act regarding advice that is subject to solicitor

client. Privilege. And including communications necessary for that purpose, specifically in regards to addressing gaps in daytime sheltering options for persons experiencing homelessness. I have someone move for that. Thank you, Councilor Alt Richardson will second that for me. Thank you. Is there anyone against that? No one. So we are going to have an in camera meeting to seek that legal advice and then when we come back out, I will give a high level summary of that, and then we will continue with the item. Okay, thank you.

Okay. Just giving the 1 minute warning.

Okay, great. I'll call the meeting back to order then. Please, just 1 second.

Sorry, everybody. I'm fine. We went in camera under getting legal advice. We received legal advice. There was no direction given. We just received legal advice under this item, and as I said, no direction was given, and so we're back out into open session and let me just go to my agenda here. So let me just ask that. The three recommendations be tabled. Okay, Carly. And I'm sorry. Councilor Clausen, Councilor Gauller. Thank you and. Councilor. Guller. Would get you. Go right ahead. Thank you. Through worship. Did you wonder to be questions first, or is it okay if I move? A motion. No. You could table your motion. Okay. Well, I wanted to, first of all, thank staff for their work on this, on the RFP. I think. It's imperative that the city of wealth do provide funding for daytime shelter services. It's something that our community needs. Based on conversations that I've had with my constituents.

With fellow counselors. With staff. And with their support, I've come up with this warning. And I have two motions. The first motion. Acknowledges that we want to provide daytime shelter services. We know this needs to be in our downtown. Core. We have heard from. The downtown BA from people that work and live in the downtown that they have concerns about the concentration of services with this. I wanted to prioritize. Some of the downtown main streets. Not the entire downtown, but some of the main streets as part of our thriving business district. So with the awarding provided here, it would provide. A location score on submissions that are outside. Of a few of the downtown streets, but by and large it does not restrict any organization or any group from applying. Councilor Gauler. I'm so sorry. Can you just read them? Absolutely. And let me. Get a seconder so that you can continue to talk. You're

just doing it in advance. Have you read them all out? It might take a bit, but have you read them all out? I'll see if there's a second, or then we can go back to you. Okay, perfect. The first one is that stop directed to use an RFP scoring criteria that includes scoring based on the proposed locations where if the proposed daytime sell to locations are not on Wyndham street between Wellington and Woolwich, Carden Street, Quebec Street, Cork Street, East McDonald street or Wilson. Street. The proposal receives. A higher location score than submissions where the proposed data and shoulder locations are on one of those identified streets. And the second motion is that staff be directed to develop an RFP, which requires proponents to include the following in the proposals without limitation. The municipal address, location, floor plan layout and detailed description of the proposed data shelter location, including buildings indoor amenities, private outdoor areas, and Aoda compliance accessibility. Key staff roles, job descriptions, areas of expertise and training, including health and safety, conflict resolution and de escalation techniques. Plans and resources to maintain safe

operations, including facility management and operational protocols, health and safety, cleanliness waste management, pest management and general maintenance. Summary of operational policies, rules, codes of conduct for clients and staff, a summary of good neighbor approach to managing relations with neighbors. And compatibility with the surrounding community. And sufficient washing facilities during hours of operation for members of the public in need, regardless of whether they use the daytime shelter services. Okay. And councilor clossemble. Second. Thank you. So you still have the floor? Yeah. Just remember, everybody. Up your five minute limitation. So just letting you know, this is a warning. Okay, go ahead. Thank you, your worship. I think I have given a bit of a preamble to the first motion with the second motion. I just want to make sure that. When we put out the rfp. We get a space that is good and accessible and inclusive. So with those bullet points, make sure that. It is completely compliant. I would love to see if there was in their amenity space outdoor amenity space so that

it could be enjoyed by everyone. One of the delegates talked about how every business should be required to have a list like this. Unfortunately, the city cannot control what happens in those private places. But if we are putting taxpayer dollars I want to make sure that we have all of these amenities and facilities. For the people that need to use these services in our community. All right, thank you. Is there any questions on. The motions that are on the floor. Councilor alt. Thank you, Mayor Guthrie. I would ask that the motions be split as well.

First of all, to the mover, I have three, maybe four questions. I'm a bit unclear, and I'm hoping that the mover can please explain. To me, what is meant by health and safety criteria? First question. Through your worship. With that bullet. It's plans and resources to maintain safe operations, including facility management and operation. Protocols. Health and safety collisions, waste management, pest management and general maintenance. With this because it will be a municipal service. I want to make sure that it is fully. Resourced. I want to make sure that any submission that we get is not cutting any corners. Or trying to reduce funding or services. I want to make sure that we get a full plan. For what is being provided and that is fully resourced by the city. Thank you to miss sales, Merrick Guthrie. Would it not be a requirement that Ontario health and safety laws actually be followed by any organization? That. Is actually applying to the RFP. Through the merit

councilor. Much of what has been identified by councilor Galler's motion number two. Our fairly standard service standards that we would look for in a provider as part of an RFP thank you. So it's redundant. Okay. Thank you. With regards to private outdoor areas councilor. Galler, could you explain to me what you mean by that? Are there dimensions that are required? Are there activities that you would like to see go on or. Activities you would prefer to not go on. Through your worship. No. My intention here is to make sure that. Wherever the daytime shelter is located. That it has adequate space for folks to be in. I know that we are putting the center to the community. If there are multiple applicants and some of them are able to provide amenity space, outdoor space, indoor space. I think that should be prioritized versus an applicant that does not have amenities. Face for people. So just to clarify, then it wouldn't matter whether it is street facing side facing back. Facing sizes. Immaterial. Through worship. I think that does depend on the applicant, but I think

adequate amenity space. And however they're able to provide that, I think that's what I'm looking for. And what about activities? I'm not sure what your question. Outdoor. What are the outdoor spaces used for activities? I think, councilor old.

When you or I go home, we have the ability to hang out in our backyard at the front porch. I want the same to be available. I think when we get applications, if there is an applicant that does not have amenity space, for people to hang out, to spend time in. I think that the applicant that has amenity space for people to congregate, to have fun. To spend time in community. I think that that should be prioritized. And I think it's the last question. Might be one more the good neighbor approach. I was wondering if you could explain to me what you mean by that. Yes, absolutely. Regardless of whether. This space is located, there will be other people using those streets. And in my experience, for example, with Wyndham House, That is a huge shelter. It's in war two, and they have many policies. That. Work to be good neighbors. They ensure that the relationships between them and the other. People that the residential and the commercial addresses on the streets, they are addressed. And I think that is what I'm looking for. I'm

looking for policies that ensure that the services are provided in a way to be the most compatible. With the other folks that are going to be on those streets. Just a follow up. Would that be weighed against what staff is aware of? Are the realities of activities around. A particular. Structure, say, like Wyndham House. So in other words, they have a policy. But are they following it. Absolutely. When the house is done a really good job of maintaining those relationships and they are proactive about. Addressing any concerns with the neighborhood. And this is what I'm looking for. I'm looking at whoever submits an application that there is a consideration of how those services are going to interact with the neighbors. One last question for staff. Through you. Mayor Guthrie to Ms. Sales. I have heard that there might be two or perhaps more organizations. One or two, perhaps in the downtown and others outside the downtown that are looking at a shared application. I don't know if that's true, but I've heard rumors of that. If that is the case with regards to the point

system in number one. How would the point system be assessed? Would the points be divided in half? Or third. Or how would that occur? Through the merit of council earlt staff haven't engaged with proponents, so I can't. Confirm the speculation about how many proponents may be interested in participating in the RFP process. However. We understand the proponents may choose to work together, given the magnitude and the scope of what's being proposed here, and so I think we've given it a little consideration and we may use an hours. So if one proponent was. On. The preferred location and one was in a less desirable location, let's say, or less preferred. We would use the hours. To then divide the points, if that makes some sense, so that we have a mathematical and transparent approach to dealing with that. I think it makes as much sense as we can possibly make of it. Thank you. Last question to you, Ms. Sales. Do restrictions. Or criteria that go beyond the RFP program. Caused potential delays. And is there a cost effectiveness issue with facilities located outside the car

that might have to be assumed by the city over time. Through the merit to councilor, potentially two parts to your question. I think if council expresses some preferences tonight, through a number of motions, staff are able to move forward within RFP process as planned. To meet the timelines, obviously. If there are preferences expressed, I can't tell you if that impacts the number of proponents. That, then submit, as you sort of heard other delegates articulate, who work in the sector and understand some of the challenges. And so if we find ourselves. Later in the summer. Without a successful RFP project and a proponent, certainly we would be delayed. In awarding, and we'd probably be back to thinking about. How to move forward with filling the gap that may exist in January. As our current service provider is set to expire at the end of 2024. And the other thing I'd say, I believe you asked some questions about cost. Certainly the more that we put into the scope. Of an RFP, the more that that impacts on the cost of the proposal. That we receive. And I guess this is the last question. You keep leading

me to more. What happens if we don't get a competitive field? We're hopeful that we can get to the other side of this project. And I think through the health and housing planning table and many of the other community groups that we're involved in, sort of. We would look to those tables to talk about the gap. That may exist in our community. If we're not able to find a proponent who can be successful. And we'd really be working with other members of the community to talk about filling that gap. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Clausen, please. Yes. Thank you. Through you, mayor to staff, I just had a question with regard to the current wording of Councilor Galler's motion. It currently has a list of preferred areas. Will this also what happens if. Folks are within that area, will they still be able to apply? Through the merit of councilor Clausen as the motion is proposed. It would really just be part of the weighted

evaluation criteria where we would consider the location. But proponents from throughout the city, without restriction, should be able to apply to the RFP. Yes okay. So. If no one got points in that area. It would just. Kind of wouldn't matter. Okay. Thank you. With that. I guess I'll call the vote. That okay, Councilor Busato? Sorry. I thought you saw my hand. So I have similar questions to councilor alt, and it's about part two of the motion. When I read that. To councilor Galler. I felt that it was a bit of an overreach and. So my question for staff is, are these elements not something that staff would inherently include as part of our RFP process because for me, this feels operational, and there's a lot of value laden language in there. Like, where is it? The private outdoor areas. And amenity space. Compatibility with surrounding community and so on. Is that not stuff that staff

or elements of an RFP that staff would have included through the merit of Councilor Bustel? Absolutely. As I explained to councilor alt, these are. Fairly standard service standards that exist. For the provision of these types of services. And the way that this looks for someone who is a proponent to the RFP is that we are asking them in a section of the RFP to describe how they undertake those things. From staff's perspective. Do you have the outdoor amenity space? What is that amenity? Space. Can you describe it so we can understand it better? As part of their submission to the RFP. Thank you. It feels a bit performative. Is there anything in there that you would not have? Included as part of your RFP process, a staff operational process. Through the merit. Councilor Bustatell. No, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Katen, please. Mr. Mayor, I had just comments. Is that okay to do now? Absolutely. Thank you. With a preference against these streets. We're saying that groups like Lake Heist, like Lakeside, Hope House, Chalmers

Royal City Mission Wealth Community Health Center, Guelph Neighborhood support coalition your downtown well, friends, not shame. In ten seat would get less points if they applied. I don't. Understand why we would have a preference for streets in the downtown that exclude existing facilities that are easily accessible to community. Staples like Wellington County Social Services, which exists on one of the non preferred streets. It's counter to the advice that we were given by collective results. It's great that the hope health Clinic and the Church of Latter day Saints on either side of the children's art factory on Yarmouth won't be deducted points. Or that the youth resource center on wool which won't be. I do worry. That our preference for streets creates weighting that favors some groups over others. Without data to support why this preferences would unfavorably grade some of the values of the nonprofits on the streets. I can see a few who benefit, while a lot don't. The point of the RFP is to provide a service that works for the people who need it based on data from Wellington county. In the downtown 141 Woolich contains 71 and two bedroom rent gear to income units. 17 other units get a housing benefit. And several locations just outside of the downtown make up roughly 285 rent year to income and affordable market units for singles, couples, families and seniors. Those are just the units. If we guess an average of two people per

unit. That's 744 people. All of those people might need mail. Services, may not have air conditioning or might just be lonely. And also downtown. We've got 65 people living in temporary housing on Norfolk and stepping Stone. And eleven people are experiencing unsheltered homelessness. And these are all war two and war. Three residents taking points off streets in a location of high need where current providers exist doesn't feel logical to me. This is an RFP for a daytime drop in center that provides. Three meals a day, toilet, showers and storage. Some items look to be property standards based. Some are public health based. The largest concern with a good neighbor policy. I'm just wondering. The library, which hosts about 50 to 100 people a day for similar daytime hangout space. Do we have a good neighbor policy do we have a good neighbor policy for our cooling? And heating centers when those are times of needs. I think that the addition of ensuring toilets be accessible to anyone. Which I think is a great provision, is a bit perplexing. Why you'd give less points to it existing on those streets where we have more folks. And

then that leads the burden for public toilets to the mall and local businesses. So I'm just confused on a lot of those points. Great. Thank you very much. Sorry. Councilor Downer, please. Thank you. I'm going to support the motion. I don't see offering a preference. It's not excluding. That. Anybody can apply to do this or respond to the RFP or partners can. I think that would be ideal. It's about stating what some of the preferences might be. And just understanding. A bit of the history of what happened. On these main business streets in town over the last. And councilor Alt has certainly alluded that to that recently. And something he wrote. Around retail spaces, having gone to government services, which this is, and you will notice back in. When Mike Harris downloaded. Services. To the

municipalities. The county of Wellington had to take up street space. Office space in the downtown. Doesn't matter what the services is, it's government service. On? I think it was. I can't remember whether it was the walkers or marks and. Spencer stores. They took up two of them and then the post office. They took up the post office and the post office then moved to another spot that had been a retail space. And so this sort of continues. Has. Created problems around economies of scale in the downtown, around creating a balance between government services. Businesses in the downtown and those economies of scale that need to happen in order to make those businesses successful. So for me, It's not about competing values. It's understanding the value of. Yes, we want a sheltered space. Ideally, it would be in the surrounding downtown area. But our preference is that these main retail streets. That they're not on those streets or they're not going to be expanded on those streets where they are. That doesn't mean that rules of emission or the community health center will not be open

to the public or that they will still not have the offering. Those services. It doesn't say that they're going to shut down because of this. None of that says this. So they will still be available to them. So to me, it's around. Not about. Competing values or try to divide people between. Anti homeless. Or pro business? I think it's about what would our preferences be? How do we deal? With these two competing. Not competing, but the values that we have around. Servicing vulnerable people. In an accessible way. Probably it will still be in the downtown area. And also ensuring that we have these balances of retail ad businesses in the downtown as well. Without losing space to those. So those are my main reasons for supporting this. And to me, it's not excluding those. I mean. This could still happen. But it's how we wait this and how we make the decision. On who's going to be granted. The rfp. Thank you. Is there anything

further before I have the votes come up? Okay. Did I see your hand too. Yeah. Comments? Comments, questions? We'll start you as well, Carly. Anytime, okay? Councilor. No, she has, so I will. Counselor Busatilla. Yeah, sure. Comments is fine. And. Then councilor Clausen and then councilor Alz. Okay, thank you. And through the mayor. Thank you, councilor downer. I remember the days when in the gummer building in the. Top floor. I ran the center for employable workers for many, many decades. And so the transformation of downtown, I don't refute that, but it's social. Services that provided a very important service downtown that is now very important housing. So transformation of urban spaces. Is a good thing. I do want to speak to, I want to speak about the process and for me, what I struggle with is. When it comes to processes like rfps, front and center for me is the objective of providing daytime services for vulnerable member of our population and, yes, consideration for the community and so on. And so I believe I can support number one. I cannot support number two for

me. It sticks to my craw. For me, it's an overreach. It's operational, it's performatory, it's us as politicians stepping into an arena that, quite frankly, I want arm's length and trust our good, qualified, intelligent staff to go through that process. We give them the direction to develop an RFP. Yes, we can include some streets. And. A scoring a little bit there. But number two for me is as a politician, I do not feel comfortable. Waiting into those criteria. Staff that staff. So I will not support number two at all. I can support number one, but I will not be supporting number two. Thank you. Klassen, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Councilor Downer, for your comments about balancing values. Maybe this is an overall comment, but. I'd like to express that I'm grateful for staff bringing forward. These recommendations for daytime shelter, and I hope that today we will bring them closer. Into

our community and. Put them as centralized as we can. My comment is just with regard to number two, some of the policies. In preparation for today's meeting. I was thinking about why I got involved in politics, and I hearkened back to my days. As a library board member. And one of those things that I did was start to learn about all of the things that a board member does, and one of those things is set up policies. And suggest new policies. And so I think, number two, I'm actually got the operational policies. Of the library pulled up right here, and there's quite a lot of. Them. And one of them is a code of conduct. And I think that how I've interpreted councilor Galler is suggesting. We want these spaces. We want these services, and they are shared and they are public services and there's a code of conduct. And we're suggesting that it be developed and shared as part of this process. And I think that it's absolutely fair to request that. And that's not taking away from the fact that. We all are in support of. Well, I shouldn't say that, but I

am in support. Of having daytime shelter in a centralized location to serve as many people as we can. Thank you. Thank you, councilor. Cousin. Councilor Alt, please. Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie. I will ironically support number two and not number one. It's interesting because. It is, as councilor Busatill stated, it is somewhat performative, and I think actually redundant to what staff is already doing. I cannot support number one because. I do think that it seems perverse that the providers that are currently downtown are being penalized if they apply because they are downtown. Yet the irony is they're downtown because that's where. The support is needed. Tomorrow, Chalmers is still going to be downtown. Hope House is still going to be open with lots of outside space. The Royal City mission is going to be open. And by the end of the summer, we'll have showers, laundry facilities, and we'll continue to deal with the clientele that are down there. My biggest concern, though, with the point system, the way. That it is presented. Is, I'm very concerned about the city's reputation regarding our commitment

to social service. Provision, addressing mental health issues and even housing, because we've talked a lot about these things. And then when the providers downtown. Are perhaps looking. We don't even know if they're going to look at this. RFP to further enhance what they are doing. We're stating that there could be a discount on their application because of location. Consider that. The library is a daytime shelter right now and will continue to be if we do not have a daytime shelter downtown. The new library will be our largest and our most popular daytime shelter, and I don. 't have a problem with that. I believe libraries are for everyone, but I also believe that we need to have daytime shelters that have exactly what Royal City Mission is building in right now. And is not going to go away. As Pastor Kevin said to me yesterday, we're going to be open for business. It might not just be as often. I'm also very concerned. That there might. Be a consortium of organizations that will be looking for funding. To distribute the load, so to speak. Because I understand Royal City Mission will not be applying because they can't do it all. Similarly, I also understand that

others can't do it. All, they're doing it collectively because. As somebody has already identified, we have countless people on the street. That need these services. 07:00 a.m. Okay. A point of order. Go ahead. What's your issue? I would caution councilor alt to speak on behalf of. Organizations that haven't responded here. To this tonight. I respect that. I'll also recognize that within some of the letters we have identified some. Organizations said quite clearly they're not going to. You've cited, you've given names of an organization that hasn't written a letter, so as the chair, I'll jump in. Thank you so much to both of you. It's my role just to kind of be the arbitrator here, so I'm going to suggest councilor alt, just be careful. On maintaining still the ability of an open RFP process that we don't prejudice it. With statements that you're saying on behalf of other organizations. So please continue. You have the floor. I do concur with councilor Dow. Fair enough. Be careful. Okay. I understand. A consortium of unnamed organizations could

be considering applying for joint support in the downtown and other areas, and I'll leave it at that. However, I think it is very important for us to recognize that without funding, the library is still clearly our. Largest daytime shelter. Point of order. Okay. Yes. Through you, Mr. Mayor. The library will always be an available daytime shelter for everyone to visit. By having a daytime shelter that the city is funding. We aren't saying don't go to the library we want people to go to. The library. It is a place for everyone, and there's not a competing interest there. So I just want to be really clear about that. Thank you very much, Councilor Clawson. I'll wait for the mayor. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. We're getting into sort of back and forth on opinions. I'm going to let councilor alt statement stand that was his opinion. We can like it or not, but I'm going to let it stand, and I would just let it go from there. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? Okay. Thank you, Councilor Gibson. And then if I don't hear

anybody else. I will jump in with closing comments. Councilor Gibson. Thank you three. Ms. Mayor, great conversation, council. Really appreciate the back and forth. Thank you, Councilor Gala, for bringing forward. Well, Joe, I'll. Say this. Thank you, Councilor Galler, for putting the work in to get together with staff. To create an RFP that's fair, transparent, and is simply just a weighted version of what a council seeks. For equitable service providing and as well as balancing off the needs of all the needs of the downtown on the comments around shepherding or moving or the president of stating where we want a service to be. I'm always cognizant of history. And you know what? It was a member of council just recently that was talking about the process that we went through. For the library. That triggered my thinking. On it was the decision of counsel. That the conversation was not going to be had anymore. The new library would be on Baker Street. I can remember that distinctly taking the vote that said, we're not going to look at other sites anymore. The conversation is Baker street, so it's not above us to take it upon

ourselves to choose locations for services to be provided. This is an RFP process, so we are not choosing the location, we're simply setting. The context, setting the. Environment for going through a proper process to identify where that service will be provided. So again, I'm always cognizant of history. This is a step back from stating where it will go. It's simply creating the environment. For competition to occur. So I do appreciate it. I've read through the motion well in advance of today's. Meeting, and I thought it was sound. Thank you to staff for providing your insights, and I will be supporting. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Gibson. Is there anybody else at all?

Okay. Sorry, Councilor Chu thanks, councilor. Go ahead. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. I wasn't going to speak tonight, but I just feel too compelled to just set the tone clear. There is enough downtown to go around for everyone. So I just hope that the fiction that we're excluding people from downtown. Is demystified tonight because I think our heart is all here in the right place. And we're trying to be as transparent as possible. And I applaud, councilor. Galler for speaking up. And putting in place this process for us to have this conversation. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Chu. Is there anybody else before I jump in? No. Okay, so I was wondering, first of all, just process. West, could you throw those motions back? Up as we move through them as it's been asked to be separated. Yes, mayor. Got to. We'll pull them up. We also separated them out so we can pull up the first clause and then the second clause. Or we can pull up both at your preference. And then move from there. Okay, I'll just look at the screen

here. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so I'll call the vote on this one. And. Very quick comments. I have a preference that I don't see. Activated downtown Bia main streets. As becoming only social services or institutionalized with government. That is my preference. And when we are using a lot of money. From taxpayer dollars to go to a good thing. My preference is that we do not have it. In those areas. But I think the way that you framed a council caller in the waiting is the appropriate way. To move forward, so thank you. The other thing I just like to demystify. Thank you for using that word count, sir. Too, because I'm going to borrow it now. Is that? No one excluding me. Has ever said. If it's maybe the waiting on these streets compared to others. I have never said I want it in

the Hanlon Creek business park. I have never said I want it by the Honda dealership. I just have a waiting and a preference on these streets. To help with the vibrancy of the downtown. With my lens of also economic vibrancy. Tourism events and so on that I think downtown main streets should have. That's it. So any wine that has a narrative out there that we were thinking of putting it in the corner of the city somewhere. Has never come up, ever. And that would be completely false if anyone were to describe that as something that I've ever said or even advocated for. It is these streets that, in my preference and in my opinion, I want to see. Activated from. A more of a business. Thriving entrepreneurial small business. Area which. Is the core of a bia. It's the core of a bia. The business

improvement area. The business. Improvement area. And so it's still open because of the way the motions worded. Thank you. I hope that people will. Apply from wherever. And what we're doing here. Is. Even if we don't like some of this wording, but the overall direction to staff if we say to go ahead with an RFP process. We are raising taxes. This is a new service. This is a brand new service that, in perpetuity, will be a lot of money. A lot. And we are basically saying as a council, we find it to be a priority. We think it's important, and we want to get this service provider up and running so that there is certainty for the provider and certainty for the clients that would be using that service. And we are willing to say we are going to raise your taxes with a brand new service. As of 2026. That cannot be forgotten here. Okay, so I think it's really important that we look

at. The positive here, which is. Our professional staff have rightly come forward and said there is a gap. We have been throwing $100,000 here in $450,000 there. Over the last few years. And it's time to stop doing that. It's time to actually make a commitment. To helping with a daytime shelter space for the people that we all collectively actually want to help. That's a good thing. I think that's the takeaway for me. And we'll see what happens. We're? Not even coming to a conclusion here tonight. This is a process to kick start an RFP, and then we'll see what happens. We'll see what happens after that. So I just think I want to thank staff, and I really want to. Thank the discussion. And I'd like to thank councilor Downer with some of your comments as well. About the not pitting sort of anti homeless. Narrative that's out there, we literally, I believe, are unanimous in wanting to actually start. Providing new money to a daytime shelter space that's not anti homeless. That's not anti homeless to me. Okay. Thank you. With that, before I

start coughing. I will call the vote on just this one that is on the screen. Okay, is there anyone against? That's councilor Galler's first one. Okay, so. Just alt and. Sorry. Alt and Keaton. Okay, let's go. Clerks, I'll have you move through the next ones for me. So that passes, just so I say it out loud. Okay. Just bear with me for a second.

Okay, so number two. I will call the vote. Who is against? Number two? Just busatill. Okay? And so that passes and then we will go. Back to the main motion. Okay, Councilor Keaton. Press your hand. Yes. I have another motion to add before we finish off. Go right ahead. You have the floor. If clerks could pull it up for me, please. So I have some extra motions and I'll speak to them after I just introduced them. So the points begin to proposals located in areas with easily accessible wealth, transit stops for roots that cover all areas of the city. Number two, that points be given to proposals located in areas with topographical street, sidewalks, slope and pitch consistent with accessibility standards for manual wheelchair users using. ADoa ramp standards as a baseline for accessible inclines. And number three, that points be given to proposals located

in areas with the highest identified need for the service. Using existing data and collaboration with Wellington county. And number four, that points be given to proposals within the operating area of welcoming streets. And number five, that points be given to proposals close to existing services used by the same population to lower barriers to access. If there's a second. Alt will second. So I'm going to jump in right away. Can I introduce it? No. Okay. Let me just. Because. I think a few of those are. Not in order. So number one, I find to be okay. Number two. We just passed a motion from councilor Galler that spoke about all the Aoda. That has to do with the inside of the building. This has to do with the outside of the streets. So, like, if it's located on a hill. And your sidewalk up the hill.

You can't actually get up that sidewalk. Yeah. Let me walk through them. Sorry. Just 1 second, okay? Number three, I guess I would let stand, but I think maybe Jody should jump in because she said in one of her comments that she would be. Already going to them for information, but whatever. We'll get to that. And then number four would be out of order. Because it's the same operating area that we just passed under council Galler. No, because. There's two streets in the downtown that are not weighted less, that are still in that encachment area. And it's about waiting. Okay, let me look it to the last one. Okay. I'm not sure about the last one. The one that's jumping out at me. That might be out of order. Would. Be. In my view, it'd be two. Okay, I'll just stop with number two. I'm going to call number two as out of order. So number two isn't about the inside of the location. Which is what councilor Galler's? Motion was about. It was about.

88 standards for the building itself. This is about the location. And the streetscape. So if you try to go up Cork street, for example, Towards the church, you have to go up on an incredibly steep incline. So if the location were to be if that church were to apply. It would be very hard for people to get up the street to get to that area. We've got a lot of hilly areas. All right, at this point, I'm going to not interfere. I'll just thank you for letting me as the chair just kind of weigh through it. But. I'll just be quiet. That'd be a good thing. Counselor all the seconded it. So we'll go to figure out what council decides. So go ahead, Councilor Katen. You still have the floor. Thank you. So. I'll talk about accessibility first, because that's what was just brought up. So as identified in the report and study on homelessness by collective results that we got. There is a lack of daytime low barriers locations for people. So in this

report, The hub model and location of services near each other was recommended, and many people who use this service are disabled. Guelph is quite hilly. Downtown is a slightly angular plateau surrounded by hills. It's either uphill or downhill. If you're kind of on the edge of downtown. And there's differences in those heights. Some of them are more steep, some of them are less ste. Steep. So the external accessibility of the location. In my opinion, needs to be a consideration. Similarly, people from all over the city could need this service. So access to Gulf Transit that has various routes and easily accessible service. Would be really quite necessary. I know that certain food services aren't near bus stops and so they get used less or only can be used by people who have cars. And regarding the Welcoming Streets location area in the 2023 Impact report for the community benefit agreement with welcoming streets. They said that they responded to 404 businesses, contacted almost 2000 clients.

And they supported 115 unique individuals and held all sorts of meetings and such. And as any provider is only responsible for crisis management within their own property, it only makes sense. To give some points to providers who operate within areas serviced by a group that can help participants who may experience crisis outdoors. So that the neighborhood feels supported. In a similar good neighbor agreement that was just passed. In the motion. By councilor Guller. So I think that when we're considering RFP to be good neighbors. Having waiting for a group that we pay for that is meant to help with de escalation. And mental health crises on the street would be a good move from us. And I'm happy to also have these broken out. By number in case people don't want to vote for them as a batch. Thank you so much. Councilor Busatil and

then councilor Gibson. Thank you for. This, Councilor Cayton. Similar to the last motion, the entire number two. I, in my governance role feel completely uncomfortable about relief. Getting involved in this. And what's different from number two, from this one, is that this is really prescriptive saying that points be given versus the other one. Speak about thinking about this, which I would hope that the staff already do this. And so, again, I objected to number two because I think that's performative. That's telling the community stuff that the staff is already doing in their good roles. So I'm going to ask the staff. Would they not consider? These kinds of things as part of the RFP process. Through the merit of Councilor Bustel. Certainly. For example. Number one. Easily accessible to transit is something. That as the proponent describes their location and the amenities nearby to their location, I'm sure that that's something that we

would see in the response of an RFP, and we would note that as part of our evaluation criteria, Item number two relates to the topographical street, sidewalk slope and pitch, and I'm no engineer or expert in this. So I look to my colleagues to my left. But regardless, our RFP would be looking for a fully Aoda compliant service, and so I can't speak to the impact that the slope of a street would have on our evaluation. But we would be looking to. Any successful service provider to be Aoda compliant in their facility. And then. The next three. No, I'm sorry, number three. Suggests that we would work with the county of Wellington. And certainly staff are planning to work with the county of Wellington and invite them, in fact, to participate as part of our scoring criteria of any successful RRC process. And then. The last two motions we understand to be more preferences for location. And I think. That's contradictory in some ways to the motion that has been passed by council and staff.

Would struggle with how to implement. That because of these two weighted criteria, have the potential to cancel them out. I think from an implementation perspective, it would be challenging for us if it were one point based. On location as previously passed by council. And then there are two motions here. Do. I do a half a point or one point, and I don't really want to. Be the person who's responsible for deciding that the intention of counsel with these motions. That's the quick step overview of those five motions. Councilor busted Hill, if that's. Helpful for you. Thank you. And just as a supplemental, if I. Mayor, if it didn't. Say that points be given in item number four and five. Would you not consider? An operation that included welcoming streets. When we talk about. Collaborations and wraparound services. Welcoming streets is very much part of the service delivery downtown. Would you if it didn't say points? Would that not be part of your RFP? Consideration. Certainly. Our report. I think it's on page five. Talks about

the importance of collaboration amongst service. Providers and with the downtown. And certainly if we just step back for a moment and think about the longer term goal of working towards a daytime hub, whether it be integrations with health services or a relationship in existing relationship with a service. Like welcoming streets. All of those things would form and round out the response to our RRFP. And help us understand the provider and how they work in the community. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. It was on my list. Councilor Gibson. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I think this motion. My opinion only is an extension of the previous debate, I think. All the values that the mover is speaking to in the motions are a reiteration. Of the debate that we just had the reasons why they only wanted in the downtown. So I feel like this is. Although you may have found the motion in order, that's. Fine. But I do feel like this debate is becoming a bit cyclical, so I would encourage

you to call the vote at your comedians, please. Are you officially asking me to call the vote? Sure, I've asked you to call. Okay. I'm good with that. It's been asked to be separated. And as long as there's nobody else. Okay, can we have number one on the screen, please? Mr. Mayor, we haven't split the votes out, but perhaps we could just pull up the screen and have all I can go through each one. Sure, no problem. Thank you. Sorry about that. So we'll just call the vote on the. Easily accessible transit stops for roots covered in all areas of the city. Okay, is anyone against that? One. That's unanimous. Okay. And then the second one is. Points proposed in locations with topographical street, sidewalk slopes and pitch consistent with accessibility standards for manual wheelchairs users using AOD ramp standards as baseline for accessible inclines. So on these ones here. I just want to state just a quick comment. I'm not going to be supporting

these because we're getting into more now points. And waiting. Which I don't think we should do. So it has nothing to do with me not being in favor of these types of things, of course staff are going to look into it. But the specifics on points, it doesn't make me feel comfortable. So is anyone against that, please raise your hand. Are you praying or is that a hand? Okay. Richardson, Guthrie, Clawson, downer.

And billings and. Gibson. Okay. Thank you. So that fails. Number three. Is the proposal located in areas with highest identified needs for service? Again, points being used with existing data in collaboration with Wellington county. Well, you heard miss sales already say that she's doing that. And just a remind everyone part of our motions coming up here is that we're asking Wellington county to pay 10%. So we're obviously going to be talking. To them. So if anyone's against that one, please raise your hand. That is to a point of order. Just from a process perspective, if we vote against these, does that mean staff can't look? At these. Thank you. I'll just go to staff, because then we've now directed staff, not. To look at these, right? Or are they non motions because they fail? I'm trying to figure out. No problem. Let's go to the clerks. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Marin. Through you, councilor downer. These are amending motions to the main motion. So these are adding items to the main motion. So if they fail here, we will vote on the or you. Pardon me? We'll vote on the main motion, as amended, with whatever is. Added, and that would be direction to staff

at that point. So the answer is no. They don't affect staff's decisions until. They're constituted in the main motion, as amended. Thank you for that clarity. So, again, Against number three, please raise your hand. So Downer and Clawson and Guthrie and Richardson and. Galler and chu. And Billings and Gibson, that fails as well. And then, number four, that points be given to proposals. Within the operating area of welcoming streets. Again, I won't be supporting this because of the points portion. I also want to remind everyone too. And welcome streets knows this. Welcome street was only funded for this year. They've known that it's going to end at the end of this year now. We can have a discussion about that account. So don't get me wrong at budget time. But that's a known thing. That's not moving forward in the base budget. So with that, anyone against, please raise your hand again to Galler, Richardson, Guthrie, Kwasson. Downer. Gibson, billings and koran. And then. I'm

sorry. My screen is cut off. Is there a fifth? Yes. That point to be given to the proposals. What the existing services used by the same population for low barriers to access. Again those again to please raise your hand. Chew. Galler. Richardson. Gothary. Clawson. Downer. Koran. Billings. Gibson. Okay, that fails as well. So, clerks, can we go back to the main motion now, please?

Mr. Mayor. We're just adding that. One approved amending motion to the main motion. We'll have it up shortly.

Well, thank you. So all that is now captured clerks, you're comfortable with all of that? So now it's as amended, okay? Do I need to split this as well, or. No, because I don't think so. Because. We've already made our points. Okay, so you're either for or against the main. Motion, as amended. Okay. So all those not in favor, raise your hand. That's unanimous. And thank you for the discussion and debate council. I appreciate that. Thank you. To staff and delegates as well. We are going to take a five minute break. I think we deserve that. And actually, I'm going to make it an eight minute break. So we're going to come back at 740 and. We'll kick off with the call to climate action. Okay? It's the next agenda. Item, so eight minute break.

Everybody. Let's. Let's get back at it. No, I don't have. I don't need any more candy. No more candy. I am done. We are moving to the gulf community call to climate action. We got two delegations. First one no stranger. Actually, both no strangers here. Adam Donaldson is coming forward, and Evan Ferrari. I saw you. Evan. There you are. Well, you're in the wings, so get ready. And again, five minutes. You guys. Know the drill. So thank you very much, Adam. Over to you whenever you're ready. I know the drill. And I'm just going to read from a column I wrote for Guelph. Today, and I hope council. Asks and staff engage on conversation about this aspect because it was the one aspect that was missed. In this discussion about the Guelph community called the climate action. There were a lot of things said about building standards, net zero, protecting our tree canopy. Reevaluating community, energy, every aspect. And I would say of environmental virtue signaling was explored in that meeting. But there was one

that nobody touched. 30% of our greenhouse gas emissions, nearly one third come from transportation. And when we say transportation, we mean the private automobile. So in the course of that discussion, Mr. Hoyan said that there were over 100,000 vehicle registrations in Gulf, which I found an interesting statistic. Because when you consider that in order to break ridership records in a week, That's just around 200,000. Boardings on Guelph transit. So you have to reconcile these two numbers. And the main reason why people would rather get in their car and then ride on the bus. Is because, and I don't say this lightly, Guelph transit is a failure. Cars. Are the biggest source of our emissions. No one wants to give up theirs. The obvious alternative is transit, but no one wants to use it because it's woefully. Inadequate to servicing a city this size as a commuter service. No one at city hall wants to make substantive changes to improvement. And in fact, I would argue there's been outright sabotage to make to. Not let those efforts go forward in the name of affordability. So my solution is obvious and. Yes. You probably know the drill

here. We have our procedural bylaw. Encoded here does not wish to. Make disparaging remarks. I don't think it's disparaging. I have the floor. To state that people, staff especially, And or council is purposely sabotaging something, so I'd like you to please take that back, and then you still have the floor. I'm not going against your time, but. In here. I don't think that's fair. To our professional staff especially. Thank you. Brian, I'll take it back so I can continue, because I feel like these points are more important than a couple of words. The community at large believes that Guelph transit is synonymous with lateness, with lethargy and a leisurely place of change and improvement. So we've had twice in the last 20 years that there has been a wholesale realignment of the system. And then a couple of years ago, when council was presented with a ten year improvement plan, because of delays through the budget process. That's now going to be probably a 17 year plan. Before it's complete. And I would say that this is assuming that the system can be improved upon. I'm not sure that it can. The hub and spoke

model of our transystem is hopelessly out of date. Many trips require a stopover downtown, which can be a huge detour and the most obvious contributor to lengthiness of a crosstown trip. And on top of that, major streets in Guelph are not even fully covered by transit as they would be in a grid based model. Edinburgh Road is serviced by four different buses, each covering a different portion, so as Victoria Road. Because there's almost no direct routes. It takes forever to get anywhere. If you live in a northwest end and want to get to the south end. You're looking at 45 minutes. At least, if not an hour or possibly more. No one in Gwelf who has any other option. Will undertake an hour long trip on transit when they can do it in ten to 15 minutes. In their car. Which is adding another huge barrier to getting people to make the modal shift. I would also argue there's an inherent. Classism. To transit in Guelph. I think there is a widespread perception. That transit is meant for the poor, for old people who can't drive anymore, young people. Who can't drive yet. Newcomers and students and I think it's a fact, followed by function, because if you're a busy person constantly traveling to different

locations around Guelph, you're obviously not going to use transit because making even one trip crosstown requires the coordinat. Coordination of what I would consider a military strike. That's why whenever you go in this town, wherever you go, Green, new deal, meeting, climate. Action protest. Community discussion about collective action. The parking lot is always full. Gulf's affluent class, who are among the loudest calling for climate action, would never sully themselves by getting on a gulf transit bus. And frankly, I would include many members of council. Through their actions. I'm going to skip that part. In the interest of not saying anything that's going to get me called out on point. Of order. I just want to say that Councilor Quran made a comment at committee of the whole. That the low hanging fruit is gone. And I would agree. Transit is the highest of high hanging. Fruit and nobody wants to climb up and pick it. We had an hour long discussion here. I think more than an hour. I'll wrap up in a second. I'm sure Mr. Ferrari is going to come down with a lot of really great ideas about heat pumps and stuff. But this is the high hanging fruit, and my only. Question to council is, what would it take for you guys to make the modal shift? What? Transits could. What

improvement could transit make to get our city councilors on the bus occasionally? That's all. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And. Is there any follow up questions for Adam? Hearing? None, thank you very much. Okay. And back to my agenda. We have Evan Ferrari coming down from emerge.

Thanks, Evan. And whenever you're ready, go right ahead. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members. Of council. I guess it helps if I put my glasses on. I might be able to read. What I'm going to say here. We're very impressed. I have to say right off the bat that we're very impressed with the work that the city climate change office is doing and has been doing for quite some time. Emerge is also thankful for the climate goals that the city has approved. And that the city. Has acknowledged a climate emergency. That's why we have significant resources. Pardon me? That's why we have. Put significant resources into supporting the city's challenge of Enbridge at the Ontario Energy board. We want Enbridge to pay for the use of the public right of way, and we could. Turn that revenue into fighting energy insecurity amongst the most vulnerable and on many more climate projects. Emerge was planning to come to. Bring. Pardon me. I'm glad a runny knows all of a sudden. Pardon me. Emerge was planning to come to bring some very creative projects to the table and move the needle. That could move the needle on climate change. However, we are very concerned about the manner in which the. Oh, thank you. Pardon me. Thank

you. However, we're very concerned with the manner in which the data has been presented in words. While our targets are great, our progress is nothing, is anything but we don't believe that. The scale of the problem is being communicated seriously by the city. There's no question that the chart entitled total emissions that appears on all of the materials clearly shows the problem. However, the text doesn't convey the severity of the problem. The 800 pound gorilla in the room. Or dare I use another metaphor? Let me be the skunk at the garden party. What? The data shows that we are about. 20% above where we need to be. To put that another way, we have overshot our climate goals so badly that it's like having an additional 30,000 people or more emitting climate pollution in the city in 2023, the report year. I can share that data with city staff if they would like. It's from their data. Sorry our calculations are from their data emerge fully expects another emissions increase in 2024 but we really

want to be wrong with that. It's excellent that the city wants to bring community to the table on fighting climate change. From the report. It says since community ghg emissions. Are released by all sectors in Gulf. More focused and meaningful action by all members of the community. Is urgently required. This is very honorable endeavor. But how will we fund it? The report states that in quotation marks, departmental work plans using staff resources and existing approved funding. But what this means is unclear at this point. It's been three years since the city pulled the funding back from our energy Guelph. Who was charged with doing this exact task, and up until now we have heard little on it. Our energy. The money. That energy. The amount of money remaining, from my understanding, is that it was between 250 and $350,000 that came back to the city. From an allocation standpoint, went into the Greener Homes loan program. That might have added another 20 homes to that loan project. However, it could have significantly, or could have significantly had a greater impact if used to do exactly what the city is proposing in Guel's community. Call to

action. Use the remaining OEG money to kickstart. Gross community call to action needless to say that this leaves a lot of questions unanswered but I'm encouraged by what this. Movement here we had emerged. We want to motivate change. We want to be positive. We want the community to truly take a more aggressive approach on climate change, but we also need to be sure that we can clearly state the problem properly. And in a desperate attempt to end on a more positive note, here are some of the positive projects that we as an organization are working on and engaging the public. And attempting to add value to what the city's work is doing. The first one is green development standards, or as we like to call them, high performance development standards. The banning of fossil fuel fuel ads in city facility. Let's continue to continue to send a clear message to the fossil fuel industry. The removal of Alan's dam to adapt to the flooding caused by severe weather events. There are hundreds of homes in Guelph that are within the GRCA floodplain. And susceptible to

flooding. Removing Alan's dam bridge. Bridge dam, rather, could significantly reduce the impact. Making lemonade from decades long lemon turn the heavy metal contaminated site of imico into a community solar project. Our analysis suggests that this could be generating enough electricity for as much as 200 homes. And on that note, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to address today. Thanks. I did miss one other, the one last point I was unable to make. But I appreciate the extra time for my leaky nose here. And that is district energy. Yes, I said it. District energy. We've had discussions with consultants working on the Doleme site to consider working with. The city. To consider using the waste heat from the waste water sewage treatment plant to heap the new doleine development only a couple of hundred meters of way. This has been done successfully in Vancouver. And I understand other municipalities around the world. And on that note, I'd like to end and thank you for the additional time, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. It also gave me time to cough, so thank you very much. Any follow up question. I know councilor alt has one. We'll

start with you. Who? Else got a table? Thank you, Mayor Guthrie. Through you to Mr. Ferrari. Mr. Ferrari. I was a bit surprised. I thought I'd hear you speak more about Bill five and Bill 17. And how, Germaine, are those bills to what you were talking about today? I think they're profoundly germane to all of the issues that we're attempting. Well, let me back up and say the best way. Of characterizing Bill five and Bill 17 is that they will essentially obliterate anything related to positive impact. Positive move forward on the environment. You get down in the weeds on all the different acts, but it touches all sorts of acts. Including acts that may not have environment in their title, but could from a regulation standpoint. With some minor changes to it just make it easier for us to just ignore the environment. On many different fronts. Last question. What would you like to see from the city? I think, for starters, you should consider taking back whatever money is left over from the allocation from. Our energy gulf and putting it into this project. At least at this point, it isn't evident to us

that there will be. Sufficient money to actually move forward with this. So I don't think that all of that money has gone out in the form of loans at this point. And I think it's an excellent opportunity to put it towards more climate change, more climate change. If it was indeed $300,000 that was remaining, that at best would benefit 20 homes. Because I'm guessing that the average loan that's going out is probably in the range of $20,000 per home, so that it's in that ballpark and I think it provides us with an excellent opportunity to lever that money into having an impact. On just 20 homes to a much broader impact on the broader community. Thank you. I'll ask staff about that money for you. Okay. Thank you. And councilor Clausen has a question. As well. Yes. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Merritt, to the Delgate. Thank you. I had a question first. I have two questions, so the first is a clarification around the Allen's dam idea that you had. Could you just repeat that? Yeah. Up until now, all of our. All of our focus has been on mitigation and mitigation. Is about not making the problem any worse. Adaptation. The second side of what we need to do. On climate change is

adapting to the impacts that we know are going to happen because of the changing climate. So the GRCA maps all the municipalities within. Well, all the land within their jurisdiction within that. Watershed in a manner that they designate something called the 100 year flood line. And what that states is. That's based on? The hurricane Hazel that occurred in I believe it was 1954 or 1953 that sought 253 rain fall down in a 48 hours period. So they're looking at it with that lens and with that lens. It suggests that. Almost all of the. All of the houses backing onto the Iramasa river upstream. So, essentially, from Macdonell up to at least Aramasa and then further, further north. Of that. Those houses are entirely within the 100 year floodplain. A good portion. Of the ward. The area that we know is the ward is my old house on Alice street. Half of the home was in the 100 year floodplain, a whole series of homes and businesses along Bristol street as well. Are within that area.

The dam at Allens Bridge is essentially holding back water and. What that's doing is it's causing that 100 year floodline to be at a higher. I say at elevation. Or altitude when. You take the dam away now all of a sudden? That line comes down. We've been in discussions with the GRCA, with a GIS specialist, and we're looking to attempt to model what the impacts would look like of taking that line down significantly. Not only is there a benefit from an adaptation perspective, We would be adapting to. A potential significant storm. I will say that in mid April when we had that, I believe it was 50 mm. That we got in very short order that the backyards of almost all those homes. Between. Macdonell and Aramaso were flooded, so we're already seeing. Some of the impacts. That's the adaptation side of it. Once we've lowered that, now all of a sudden? We've also decreased the temperature of the river. You might think, well, what does that have? To do with anything. That dam is what we call a top draw. Dam and a top draw. Dam takes the. Takes the water off of the

very top. Of it. And Andy, all of us have been swimming, either in a pool or. More appropriately, in a lake where we know that if sometimes our feet are very cold relative. To our shoulders. That heat stratification exists. And what happens is that when you've got top draw dams, they wind up increasing the temperature downstream. It changes the predator prey relationship of the flora and fauna that exists, that exist in it, and all of a sudden it's changing what the species look like there. When we also drop that. We also provide an. Opportunity for a revegetation of the new shoreline that exists. There's another mitigation. Approach with that new vegetation, it provides us with an opportunity to sequester more carbon. As a result, I could go on for about an hour and a half. There are many opportunities. That are there. And as a result of what the city's going through, On the downtown revitalization end of things, that this is part of one of the projects. They're looking at, and we want the city to really seriously consider that piece, okay? And. Then this last one is just a yes or no. Maybe.

There's no maybe. Are these ideas? The three that you mentioned previously? Are you working actively with staff on. No, we're doing our research at this point before we. 're taking the opportunity to put these on the table. Let me put it this way. That wasn't a yes or no answer, but I think you. Okay, well, thank you for the answer anyways. All right, Evan, is there anything further for this? Delegate, thank you very much for coming. Thank you. Yeah. Appreciate it. Oh, go the other way. There you go. All right. Would someone be willing to move the motion from committee that council approves staff actions? To support the community in taking collective climate action as described in Guelph's community. Called climate action. Alt and caller, thank you. I believe. Have some. I'll get to you for sure. I'll put you on my list, I believe. You have some extra amendments that you'd like to look to table, is that right? Well, your worship, if I could ask. Through you, through the clerks. If my motion is an amendment or if it's following once. We approve this separate? Yeah, we can do

that. We can do that. That's totally fine. Let's just do it that way. That's cool. Okay, so before I call a vote on this one, did you want to say something? Do you? Have a question. Awesome. To the staff. Yes, thank you. Through you, Mr. Meredithaff. I just wanted to bring attention to Adam Donaldson's comment with regard to transit. As eye hanging fruit and. How are we considering transit as part of our climate action plan? Just wanted staff to have an opportunity to speak to that. Through the merit to council class. And so part of. Our community call to action for climate change does include, of course, Looking at changes. To transportation modal shares. We do that through our active transportation plan, our transportation master plan of course, we work very closely with our partners in transit as well. We are also looking to bring to you as part of the improvements to transit and to fleet. The guelph transit and fleet services building. That's coming later in June that we'll be able to give you more information. On. But of course, we are working within the budget that we have to make all the

improvements that we can. So I don't know if Ms. Clark Bush has anything to add. Through the Mary council. I'll just simply add, as Ms. Holmes said, just the reminder that June the 17th is when I believe I have the date right. We have the report that's. Coming forward that will highlight a lot of the work that we're doing, both related to the transit in the fleet facility, how that ties in and connects to the ICIP funding. Looks at budget because we have had a number. Of investments in both the operating and the capital budget in our transit system. But also coming forward as. We look to that June 17 workshop, really highlighting what is needed to move the electrification of our transit fleet along. And what the transit sort of growth looks like as we are. And I'm going to get wrong, what year we're in and our future ready action plan. But as we continue through the process of that transit future ready action plan that is going to continue. To upgrade the transit system moving forward. Thank you. So just follow up

question, because I think. That, Mr. Donaldson? Was not talking so much about what we were doing with our fleet or our building, because we know that we're electrifying a building and we're doing a fleet. How do we change the modal split so. How do we reduce the reliance on cars? To make transit more convenient as part of our community at the climate action plan. Were we prioritizing that? We put the plan out over a longer period of time, but is there a renewed interest in looking at more aggressive ways to change the modal split. So through the mayor. Certainly. And Ms. Holmes may want to comment more on the broader transportation master. Planning work that's going on because. There's multiple pieces to that puzzle. And when we look at how we're going to change. The modal split. Certainly. The plan that Gulf transit laid out, the future ready action plan. Will be coming back. That always comes forward when we look at budget each year and we talk about the pace. The way that plan

was designed, it always was able. To be sped up or slowed down, depending on balancing those fiscal priorities. And so that is something that we will continue. To bring forward. We also have initiatives, for example, like transit priority lanes, where we're looking at the signal prioritization. Some of those initiatives will also help to improve our transit system. But. The future ready action plan was always designed to be a multi year process. We're not turning that around overnight, and. Some of this also relates to necessary infrastructure and construction projects and timing that, for example, speed vale is a good example where we need to time how we're going to upgrade those Speedville. Routes to coincide with infrastructure projects, so. It's complex, and certainly I think we're going to get into more of that. Detail on the June 17 workshop, but I'll look to see if Ms. Holmes wants to. Add anything further. Through the mayor to council downer, just to add. It's also getting people. Out of their cars, but also not just into buses, but also being able to use other modes. Of transportation. So that's why we have done. A lot of investment into

our trails. Into our bike lanes. Whenever we do reconstruct a road, we do look to make sure that there is some equity in terms of other forms of transportation on those roads. So looking at it from a lot of different angles to give everybody opportunities to make different choices about how they want to travel across our city. Okay. Councilor Clinton? Yes. Thank you. You said it would be quick as a circle. Back. And thank you for the question, Kathy. This is related to it. So to follow up on what we heard from Mr. Donaldson, one of the things that he asked us as a council was to challenge ourselves to take the bus. And to me, that is a communication strategy. And it's also a challenge. It could be a potential challenge to the community. So is that something that we can look at? Is it, like, part of our marketing communication strategy? As like. Anything but the car type marketing strategy where. Council can help to lead an initiative to get people out of their cars into their bikes. Amplify. And help encourage that

conversation more. Through the mayor to council class. One of the most imperative parts of our community call to action is to have a really comprehensive communication plan to do all those things that you are mentioning, some really good ideas about how. We can actually action and show everybody. What the community can do. The community is asking, what can we do? And so this is an opportunity to be able to communicate to them and also then demonstrate it ourselves by leading by examples. So. That will be certainly part, like I said, our comprehensive communication plan that we will work with our partners in corporate services. Great. Thank you. And since I am almost done with the floor, I'm just going to. Add in one little comment, which is I hope that potentially is part of communication strategy. We can also maybe collaborate with. Different organizations with the city to maybe close down streets and to encourage people to rollerblade. Or bike. Or scooter and just use anything but the car on a certain day of the week. So I'll end it there. So thank you. Thank

you. Let me maybe just call the vote on this, and then I know you have a few just follow ups, councilor caller, is that okay? Oh, sorry, councilor. Kate and I see your hand. Go for it. Thanks through you. I have some questions for staff. On the same topic in terms of. Transit. I know that one of the things that would make it the most convenient for riders is to have a grid system. Right now, the roots are very serpentined, so if you don't need to go in. That specific area, it's hard to use the bus. Have we done a comparison of what the. Climate impact would be if we put. Money into creating the grid system over creating the electrification of the buses, because I know both are quite expensive. But have we done a value of how many cars that brings off the street? If we had a grid system with the amount of electric buses we have now, rather than increasing. That. Have we done a priority? So through the mayor to the councilor. So just as a refresher, the Gulf transit

future ready action plan was exactly. What the plan does is it moves us away from that tub and spoke model to the grid. System. It was just a multi year plan and. We are only partially into that plan. And so, from the Guelph transit point of view, We need to continue to your point about making the transit system better and improving it. Getting. And I think Mr. Donaldson referenced that we have some roads where we have three and four. Buses traveling on the same road. Eventually, that's what the future ready action plan the whole plan is laid out helps to eliminate that where we would have single buses similar to what we have on the main line, the 99, we would. Have other mainline routes that go crosstown where we move towards that grid system so that's. The intention behind the future ready action plan. The pace at which we move through that plan. Is part of our budget conversations that we have each year, and we will certainly come back to you with further information about that in terms of the different weighting between that. Versus the electrification again, I think you're going to get lots more information about that electrification. Project on June the 17th because that is very closely tied to our

ICIP funding that we have. And I think it's important, in my opinion, to. Approach it from both, electrifying the transit fleet, also improving the transit system as a whole. Great. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you, everyone. I'd like to call the vote then, on this. And actually, I'm going to just say something because everyone gets there, everyone gets to state. Their opinion on something, but. I don't discount. I actually don't discount. The conversations that we should have constantly. Maybe not just a budget around transit, bettering transit. I sincerely don't. But I do want to just state. Council approved in the last budget a lot of transit initiatives. I forget what we did. I think, originally. Was it route five or something that was supposed to be paused? And then I gave direction to not have that paused. So in the fall last year, that was reinstated then in the budget route 09:00 a.m. i,

right in the south. End. What was that, Colleen? Sorry, am I saying that one? Correct. Route five is the south end route. That we. Was it just that one? Now you're testing me, and I'm going to have to look it up. Well. There was another one that wasn't originally in, and then we added that, and then we added in the children. The high school option for free as a pilot project for this year to see how that's going to go. And I've been talking to high school students for the last couple. Of months now, and it's actually amazing to me. I would say 90% of them don't even know about it. So I've actually been really disappointed in that. When I've been going into the rooms. And I say, like, did you guys know that there's free transfer? Free? And they're like, really? And I'm talking, like, a ton of high schools that I've gone to, they don't know. And now they know because I've been going and talking to them. About it, which is great, but that's in there. We got fruit for seniors and free. Now for the lowest tier income people. In our city. It's now free and that's permanent. That's $240 each that they are now saving a year. Those are positive things, and so. I just don't want us to

leave this conversation. That there hasn't been movement on some roots, some structure, some free fares. Trying to have incentives. Those are good things, and I don't think those can be lost. And finally, I would just say, I remember in the budget last year, Councilor Goler, you brought forward an extra $1.2 million for race to zero. Initiatives which council approved. I did not veto it. So it stayed in the budget. Right. So we are making investments and. We should be acknowledged for that. As a council, we should be acknowledged for that. And the final thing I would just say about the climate call to action from a perspective of staff is that we've heard it over and over again from our staff, especially Eugene, that it's a climate lens on everything. There truly is on that. You look at what we're doing at building the library or. We're building the south enrich center or building a new road. There is a climate lens on everything that is happening here, which. Is great. And so I just think that now, this climate call to action from a community perspective, we have to amplify that. I 100% agree

with that, and we have to do more. I 100% agree with that too, but. There are some wins that I just don't think. We should completely go over and not acknowledge. As a council that we have done really well, and I just want to make sure that those are not left without being said so with that. I'll call the vote then on the main motion. Okay. Is anyone against that? Good. Nobody. That's great. And then councilor Ghler over to you to throw those. Other motions on the floor. Okay. Thank you for your worship. Following the committee of the whole discussion, I got a message from a constituent who highlighted. Something happening in other parts of the country that we could be looking at, and if I could ask the clerks to put up the motions. I have three motions here acknowledging that. We have to convert 40,000 homes over to heat pumps and that, a lot of that. Work that needs to be done is outside of what the city can directly. Influence and direct. The first motion is that the city of will formally request the province of Ontario. Through the Ministry of Municipal affairs and Housing to amend the Ontario Building Code to

include provisions that effectively require. Or create a clear pathway for the widespread adoption of energy efficient heat pumps. As a main space heating and cooling solution in new residential and commercial construction, and major renovations were feasible. Number two, that the city of will formally request the province of Ontario to adopt a tiered building energy performance standard similar to British Columbia energy step code, providing a clear incremental unpredictable regulatory pathway for all new building. Buildings to achieve net zero energy ready levels of performance by 2030 or sooner, thereby supporting a transition to carbon neutral future in Ontario. And the third motion is that this resolution be forwarded to the honorable Doug Four, premier of Ontario Mike Schrenner, MVP for Guelph and other ministers that we usually send. Motions to. This is acknowledging that we need help from the province to meet our goals. And it particularly references British Columbia, where they have a province wide guide that directs the construction of buildings. Incrementally to get to that net zero future. And that's something that needs to

happen here in Ontario and that we frankly need in order to be able to meet our climate change targets. And. I'm just going to. Just to include her. I'm wondering if councilor Koran. Would like to second that. Just trying to be nice. Council. Koran, can I get a thumbs up? If you'd be willing to second that. Okay. Just trying to include you. All right. Thank you. So that's on the floor. Thank you very much. And before we go on, I just want to say one quick thing. I just remembered what the. Other service was that I was talking about the Sunday service. And the Sunday service extension as well. We did that as well. Over to you, councilor. Thank you, Merrick Guthrie. And I want to thank councilor Galler for having brought this up. I think that this is absolutely imperative. Given what we are dealing with, with bills five and 17. This provides us with a clear stand and directs the province to pay attention to how we use energy and how we can conserve energy and addresses the issue of electrification as one

of the solutions. To our use of carbon based fuels. Thanks so much. Can I call the vote on those three? Okay, it looks like I can. Is anyone against those three? All right. Thanks again, councilor. Go. It's kind of your night. So thank you for bringing forth all the motions. Those all pass thank you to our delegates, too. Appreciate it very much. Okay, so we're going to keep moving along, and we're going to go to the Council vacancy declaration. And the accompanying report which is filling of the vacant ward six council receipt. Now our city clerk, Steven O'Brien, is going to do a small little presentation, more for the filling of the vacant ward six counselor seat, but council. We can get rid of the first one here. The first one is completely mandatory by the municipal. Act. We have to declare that the seat is vacant. I don't think we need a discussion on this. It's pretty obvious. Would someone be willing to move that for me, please? Councilor billings, councilor Chu will second it. Can I call the vote? Good. Is anyone against saying that her seat is vacant? That would be weird

if you did, but okay. That's unanimous. Thank you. Now over to you, Steven O'Brien. Give us a little preface to the other part of the report. Yes. Thank you, Mayor Guthrie. I'm pleased to present the report before you today. As you're aware, council has a series of decisions ahead of you. Following councilor Rourke's. Election to the House of Commons and her resignation from council effective May 14, and. Your now just recent declaration of that seat being vacant. The determination in terms of next steps now must be made within 60 days, by July 26, 2025. And the report before you outlines three options. One, an appointment from previous election candidates. The second being an appointment by a call for open nominations. And third. By election. After careful analysis, staff are recommending option two, an appointment through an open call for nominees. This option and approach provides the strongest balance between representation, fiscal prudence, and timely action. It invites public participation by opening the door to all eligible residents of Guelph, ensuring a transparent and inclusive process. A special council meeting is proposed for July 23, which

would give applicants a platform to speak and answer questions publicly and giving council an opportunity to make an informed and collective decision. From a fiscal. Perspective, the option mitigates the estimated $125,000 cost of a byelection it also avoids drawing further on the election reserve, which has been carefully planned to support the 2026 general municipal election, with only about a year remaining in this term, a byelection particularly as the third election for ward six voters. In 2025 raises contemplations about value for money and likely voter engagement. Operationally, this recommendation allows the city clerk's office and supporting departments to stay focused on strategic improvements to the 2026 election, like Internet voting, expanded access, and improved voter experiences. A byelection at this point would divert critical resources, slow progress, and risk compromising those long term goals as it relates to the 2026 election. In contrast, the appointment through an open call is efficient, inclusive and cost conscious, a solution that reflects good governance and respects budgetary considerations. Staff have also updated the council vacancy policy to reflect current

procedures, including hybrid meetings and best practices drawn from other municipalities. This will ensure a smooth and transparent process. In closing, we believe this recommendation is the right approach at the right time. It supports community representation respects our financial realities and allows council to continue serving the public without delay or disruption. I'll leave it at that. You can see the recommendations we have in the report and. Thank you for the time. I am now happy, along with the team here, to answer any questions that you might have. Great. Thanks, councilor. Alts willing to table it, Clawson? Will second that. Let's open it up for any questions. Or is it pretty straightforward? All right, I'm going to call the vote. 12349. Okay, good. We can't. Have a tie vote. There's nine of us. That's good. All right, I'll. Call the vote. There's ten of us. It's going to be five. Five. No. Here we go. I'll call the vote. Is anyone against that recommendation? Nobody. Thank you very much to the clerks. And we look forward to. I'm sure there'll be major communication that we can amplify

around the next process in this for anyone that's interested. And we'll go from there. We'll amplify. I think it's. Probably important that we amplify what our city staff are saying about process and stuff. Let's make sure that we do that. So we're all kind of pushing the same information. Steven, did you want to jump in and through? Mr. Mayor, thank you for the opportunity. Real quick. Absolutely. Tomorrow there'll be initial public messaging going out in regards to the process. That you've just decided upon and. That will be amplified, and there'll be additional resources communicated publicly following tomorrow. Okay, great. Councilor Keaton, it is back to you. Thanks for your patience. It's code of conduct that you and local council and local boards that you asked to be pulled. I will go to you. Would you be willing? To at least table the recommendation. And I know you might have some other things. What would you. Be willing to do that. Okay. And then Galler will second it. So the recommendation is at least on the floor, but. I'll turn the floor over to you. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. I have an amendment. If clerks could put that on screen, please. So here are

the three amendments. I'm just going to read them out in full and. Then I'll explain how they're different or what is new. So I want to replace paragraph two, section eight, part one, with where a member is chosen to. Enable public participation and comments on a social media account with content specific to the role as a member. The social media account will be considered a municipal public forum. Once a member establishes their social media as a municipal public forum, they cannot selectively exclude members of the public. From that forum because they are critical to the member or express objectionable or contrary views and number two is to replace paragraph three, section eight, part one, with a member is not required to. Enable public participation and comments on their social media, where a member has enabled public participation and comments on social media with content specific to their role as a member. They should exercise. Due restraint prior to blocking individual members of the public from viewing or commenting on their social media. A member may be justified in blocking users where necessary to protect the member's social media account by preventing it from being overrun by spam spots or disseminating abusive, hateful or insightful communication. And number three is members who have created a municipal public forum have a duty to moderate, abusive bigoted and hateful comments towards community members and groups. When made aware

of such comments moderation options vary from platform to platform and may include deleting or hiding user comments or posting with comments disabled. So the first two currently exist within the code of conduct that was proposed by the integrity commissioner. And I went, Through. My changes with the integrity commissioner and after back and forth in edits, they had no problem. With them. The first one. The only change to what is existing in the current staff version is that it only applies to content specific to their role as a member. So say. You have. A boat hobby account, and you're just posting stuff about boats on there? Then. That. Is not subject to blocking. No one can go to the integrity commissioner to say they've been blocked from seeing your boat content. So it has to do with your role as a member. So that it's not so broad that anyone can come at us for integrity complaints about not being able to see it. And the

same thing. With the second paragraph. We've added in that a member is not required to enable public participation and comments on their social media, so. You don't have to create a public forum with your social media. And you should be careful on blocking people. If it's your role as a member. The new content is number three, and so it's similarly to. How we're ensuring that people have access to our content that's relevant to our rules. For charter rights and freedoms. There is an online. Abuse Act 63 I believe it is. And that means that when you have an online forum or you have a platform, That hate speech and other abuse is coming up, that you have a duty to moderate that. Because otherwise you are allowing hate speech on a public platform. Because we don't always check every one of our comments all the time. We wanted to make it not onerous so that when you're made aware of those comments, then you have your duty to moderate them so that hate speech isn't

left out. So. My goal is to make sure that everybody has safe access to our content. And that no one is being subjected to abuse. Thank you. First of all, does anyone want to second this? First of all, Okay. Are you good with that? For a seconding? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I have a few questions, but I'll let others go first if you want. Okay, Koran questions. Go ahead. Or comments. Go ahead. Yeah, these are comments. I just want to thank councilor Katen for bringing us forward. I think. I was the second city councilor in wealth history to have social media accounts. The first was councilor Ian Finley. And it was almost 20 years ago. And so much has changed over the past 20 years, not just the platforms we use. But the type of discourse that happens in the community, and I do think it's important to have policies that guide that use, but it has to also be balanced with our ability to

shut down. Hate speech. And behavior that is not in the best public interest or. Is not actually public discourse about an issue, so I just want to say that I'll be supporting this. I do think that we need to find that right balance and it will evolve. Again. I'm sure as social media evolves, our policies will evolve again. This isn't. The be all and end all. This is just a start. Thank you. Do you mind if I just ask a couple of follow up questions? Do you mind just putting. The motions up on the screen. I'm not asking these questions. By the way, councilor. Katen in any way to be confrontational at all. I'm trying to get to yes. What do you mean? In the first one where it says they cannot selectively exclude members. What do you mean by that? So that was put in by the integrity commissioner. And so it means that. We cannot block people individually from seeing our content. Just

because they disagree with us. So. The second one gives us the measure of how you can block people, but you're not. Supposed to selectively. So if you're going to basically remove comments on your social media, It's for everyone. You're not saying that this person can't comment, but this person can. So they're either open or they're closed, or you're dealing with individuals. Who are creating a problem. Or performing hate speech. So it's not about if someone thinks you're wrong and. They're saying that you can't block someone you can't exclude them for. Those reasons, but you can exclude them if they're being abusive and hateful. Okay. I think you've answered that for me. So thank you. And then the only other one. And I did kind of give you a heads up because I just want on this question, so. It's not a gotcha moment or anything at all, but. I'm still trying to reconcile. Who is the arbiter? Of like. I know. Eventually any of us could go to the integrity commissioner as the last

resort. But. In the second part. Maybe justified in blocking users. Okay, here it goes. Preventing it from being overrun by spam bots. Or from disseminating abuseful, hateful or insightful communication. And I guess where I'm trying to understand. Where you're coming from. Is. What I might find. As offensive you might find is okay, or vice versa, so. Especially on the last. One. It's kind of similar to. Number three, where you're made aware. Alt see something? On my mayor Facebook page that he thinks. Is hateful. But someone else feels it's not. Are you or others going to come at me? Because I think it's just freedom of speech. So. In number two. That line. Is also from the integrity commissioner and was in the

previous one. And that was a question that I had for them, too. And so it would be based on like it would be the integrity commissioner who is the ultimate arbitrator for those things, like with everything else in our code of conduct, right? If you are unsure of something, then I guess. Like we usually do is we can contact the integrity commissioner and ask them what their opinion is. On this. So that you know whether or not you should get rid of it. But it would be a certain amount of our own common sense on what is hate speech. There's a lot of information online about. What that is constituted to be federally, because it is. A legal situation. But I didn't put that in there. So I'm speaking on behalf of the integrity, commissioner. So I'm not entirely sure, but I imagine that. Would be up to them ultimately. Okay. No, I appreciate that. I sincerely do. Thank you very much. So then I just have a question to staff. Staff? I'm sorry. You've been here all night, so I might. As well ask you one question. I and all of council have been,

I think, appreciative of Councilor Katen. Including the integrity commissioner, showing the back and forth, trying to land at what's in front. Of us here today. Have you had any conversations with the integrity commissioner, or is there anything to add of any concern with what this is at all.

Through you, Mr. Mayor. Staff were involved with working with the integrity commissioner and councilor Kate Nazis. Motions were worked on so there's no red flags or concerns in the wording as presented. The one thing I might note for members of council is that number three is a positive. Obligation on members of council. That's a little bit unusual in the code. We have a lot of negative obligations to say. Members of council may not do the following. Number three presented on screen right now is a positive obligation. So it requires that counselors are taking action in certain scenarios. So not to say that can't be included in the code. And not to say whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it is. Different than most of the provisions in the code right now. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. To the two of you. All right, well. I feel comfortable with these, actually. I really appreciate running them by the integrity commissioner. Councilor Koran said, and I think we would all definitely agree. Oh, my goodness. It is such a different world on social media, and I just got to say two very quick stories. One is probably what everyone knows about the irritarian flag raising that I did and I don't know if you saw my video, but. Oh, my goodness.

That was taken over by a lot of abusive comments, in my view. And I think it's one of the first. I can't even remember. I think it's one of the first posts I've. Ever removed because. It was just hijacked. The second one was, like, a couple of weeks ago. Where the police put out a missing person bulletin to the community. I think about a young girl. Like a teenage girl. And the first comment was from somebody that comments all the time on my stuff about how there are too many mosques in Canada. This is crazy. And this is the kind of stuff that politicians are not just me, by the way. I'm not trying to play the victim here. Politicians are getting inundated with this kind of stuff all the time. And it's terrible. And I would say. Women counselors and politicians, I think get it worse, and I know what I go through. So I applaud anyone else that's in those circumstances. So anyways, thank you. Councilor Caitlin. You've answered my questions. I'm fine with them. And I'll make sure that. My personal Facebook

account. Is like garage sales. Drumming Anakin with football. That's it. And I'll make sure that everything is separate. And I think we'll all do that because we all do. It. We all bleed over a little bit, but I think this is a reminder for all of us. To make sure things are separate as we move forward. As of today, so I'll be making some announcements on that kind of stuff for sure. Just to make it clear. So thank you very much, and I'll call the vote. No, but, Councilor Keaton. And correct me if I'm wrong, councilor Caitlin. Councilor. Cayton's example of like, if you have a personal page about boats or if you have a personal page, that's you and the family. You got to have some separation there. But if you start talking about, oh, the taxes are bad in this city or something like that, well, then you're kind of opening yourself up to be like, well, you're an elected official, and you're talking about that. So you got to be careful. I think that's. Where councilor Katen is going. I don't want to put words in. Your mouth, counselor. Caitlin, am I saying that right? For these specific actions, yes. I didn't touch the part where it says, We have to be polite, and we can't be abusive on any of our social media. So all of that is still subject to

it, so. This is just specific to these items. All right. Well, I appreciate it. Thank you. And with that, I don't need to separate them, right? Anybody? No? Good. Okay, I'll call the vote on all of them. Is anyone against? That's unanimous. Thank you, Councilor Cayton. And that, my friends. Pardon? Oh, yeah. The main motion now, as amended with. Those. And so the revised code of conduct for council on local boards included that attachment one to the report 2025. One nine six. Dated me six. 2025. Be approved as amended. I'll call the vote. Why is your hand up? No, it was already on the floor when I went to councilor. Keaton at the beginning. She put this on the floor right away. Yeah. So I'm. Going to call the vote. Is anyone against that one? Nobody. That's great. Thank you. And now we are at. The bylaws. Galler. It's over to you. It is your night. You are. Due at the bylaws. Can you read them on the screen there for us? To your worship that bylaws 20, 25, 21. 91 and 21. Serenity two

be approved. Subject to section 284. Eleven. Section four of the municipal act. Thank you. Richardson could have second that for us. Thank you. Everything good. I'm going to call the vote. Is anyone against the bylaws? Nobody. That's great. I'm going to go to probably the person that wants to do? Adjournment the quickest. Councilor Quran, are you good to move? Adjournment. Yes. Okay. Billings is going to move as a seconder, and I'll call the vote. Is anyone against adjournment? Nobody. That's unanimous. Have a great night, everyone. Thank you.