Sound check. 1 2 3 Uh good morning everyone. Welcome to the city council meeting. Um the final city council meeting of this term of office. So that's uh that's great to be here with all of you today. I'm going to start of course with the um calling of this meeting to order. Uh and uh since we do have quorum, we are going to please ask you to stand for the singing of our national anthem if you are able please. our home and native land. True love in all with glowing hearts. We see the rise of true north and flame. From far heaven, we stand on God for thee. Lord keep our land. Glorious and free. Oh can we stand on God for thee? together. We stand on the Thank you. Please be seated. The city of Hamilton is situated upon the traditional territories of the Eerie, neutral, Kiron, Wendot, Honosi, and Missagas. This land is covered by the dish with one spoon wampam belt covenant which was an agreement between the hodnoni and anishabek to share and care for the resources around the great lakes. We further acknowledge that this land is covered by the between the lakes purchase 1792 between the crown and the missagas of the credit first nation. Today, the city of Hamilton is home to many indigenous people from across Turtle Island, North America. And we recognize that we must do more to learn about the rich history of this land so that we can better understand our roles as residents, neighbors, partners, and caretakers. Members are reminded that all electronic devices are to be switched to a non-audible function during council meetings. Uh members are also reminded of the five-minute time limit when asking questions and or making statements and that no member of council shall speak more than once on any matter at a council meeting without passing a motion to do so. Uh before we get into our agenda today, I just want to take a few minutes to speak to all of you, not only as your mayor, but as a colleague, uh both counselors and staff um as we sit together for the final council meeting of this term. A lot has changed in the last four years since we first sat together around this horseshoe. When we started, uh, this city was facing enormous pressures. We had little finances. We had zero friends and senior levels of government and critically underfunded infrastructure across Hamilton needed urgent attention. So together, we made some really tough decisions. We asked more of taxpayers in the short term so that we could address the most urgent needs and keep Hamilton moving forward. But I knew Hamilton taxpayers couldn't and shouldn't carry those increases long term. And I think we all realize that, especially in today's climate, we need to keep on top of the other levels of government and fight for Hamilton's fair share. I've had the immense privilege of representing Hamilton at those tables with the province and the federal government, making the case for our city, for our priorities, and for the investments we need. And together we have brought home nearly a billion dollars in public investment. In fact over a billion dollars at the latest count uh in public investment over this term. Not everything we needed particularly uh operating funding on some of our most important issues, but including most recently the historic $572 million infrastructure investment announced just a few weeks ago. That investment will reach every corner of Hamilton. every ward will benefit and that is something all of us around this table can be proud to have helped deliver. We've also seen more than a billion dollars in private investment come into Hamilton with success stories like the TD Coliseum, Adomv, Amazon, Atlantic Pack Packaging and so many more helping to drive over 7.7 million square feet of new commercial and industrial development. Together we created opportunities for families uh to live and work here in Hamilton. We fought to protect Hamilton workers and to create and keep good jobs here at home. And as we see what our steel workers at Stelore are facing right now, we know we cannot take our eyes off that goal. We've dealt with the compounding homelessness, addiction, and mental health crises that have tested our city and forced us to make some incredibly diff difficult decisions. But through those challenges, we kept moving. We built housing. We innovated. And we invested in critical services to support the most vulnerable members of our community. We even experienced a cyber attack. It disrupted city services and challenged this organization in ways that none of us could have ever anticipated. Nevertheless, we persisted, resolved to uh the opportunity of building new systems that meet the demands and expectations of today's modern world. We faced head-on the issues of public safety and crime with focus and determination. We're now seeing a reduction in shootings by 50%, autotheft by 36% and break-ins by 29%. No doubt there's still much more work to be done, but I can say with confidence that with the help of our partners at Hamilton Police, we're finally moving in the right direction. We made housing a real priority and have 2100 affordable and supportive homes in the pipeline across Hamilton. In fact, many are already built, some are still under construction, and thousands more are following close behind in the pipeline. We added tens of thousands of hours of transit service and put new buses on our streets, helping Hamiltonians move across our city more sustainably, efficiently, and affordably. And major projects like the Jamesville and LRT, which were stuck for years, finally started moving. I could go around this entire horseshoe and name something that each of you has fought for, and in many cases more than one thing. many things, issues you brought to this table, a neighborhood you stood stood up for, or an idea that has made this city better. You fought for your wards, you challenged your staff, you challenged each you challenged our staff, you challenged each other, and sometimes you even challenged me. But through all of it, we pushed this city forward together. So, I just want to say thank you. It wasn't always easy. It was often contentious. Uh but here we are at the end of this term and I think it's important uh to identify that uh that we've come through some some very interesting years. Um I I want to say that uh the other part of this team of course is our city staff. Some joined us during this term. Others have spent their entire career serving this city. Thank you for your commitment to Hamilton and to the more than half a million people who rely on you every day. You've helped us meet the challenges of a growing city while continuing to deliver the everyday services that keep Hamilton going. You carried this organization through a cyber security attack. You have helped us respond to unprecedented pressures in housing and homelessness. And all and through it all, you kept our roads moving, our water running, our buses operating, our recreation centers open, and the countless other things this city depends on happening every single day. So, thank you. And finally, to our residents, we thank you for the privilege you granted us to be your voice and for the trust you placed in us to run this city, your city. You inspire us every day to be better, to work harder, to deliver more. You have written to us, called us, delegated before us, stopped us at community events, and occasionally even shared your thoughts with us in the grocery checkout line while my ice cream melts. Um, and that is exactly what this city needs and thrives on. People who care, people who participate, people who show up for their community. We might not always agree, but all of our voices make this city better. Now, there's still some important work left ahead of us today on our very last council meeting. So, let's now turn to the first item on the agenda. We'll go to the approval of the agenda. Can I please have a mover and a seconder to approve the agenda as presented? >> Moved by councelor Casar, seconded by councelor Nan. Are there any amendments to the agenda? Seeing none. >> Oh, councelor Alex Wilson, please go ahead. >> Apologies. Thank you. Through you, mayor. Just a small request if we could move statements by members to after we're finished business given this is our final council meeting. So that would involve moving statements by members to after close today. Um just given that we have some business enclosed um and that might be nice to do at the end of our meeting. >> Move the member statements to after closed. Uh okay that's an amendment to the agenda that's moved by yourself seconded by >> uh councelor Nan. >> Sure. Yeah. >> Okay. Do we need a electronic vote for a change to the agenda? Clerk. >> Yes. Okay. So we're going to take a minute to get the electronic vote up. Um so just to make it clear what the um the motion is to move the member statements to the end of the agenda uh recognizing that it's going to be a a long day and there might be people waiting to uh uh to um the end of the day to get their item dealt with on the agenda. So the vote is in front of us. So are if those in favor of moving member statements to the end of the agenda, uh we just identify your your vote and those opposed same. And that carries 15 to zero. Thanks very much all. Uh declarations of interest. Oh, sorry. Oh, yes. Sorry. The agenda on the agenda as amended. All those in favor? Any opposed? That carries. Thank you. Uh declarations of interest. Members of council, are there any declarations of interest? >> Oh. Uh, councelor McMe uh, please go ahead. >> Yes, thanks your worship. Um, item 71 of the audit and finance committee. Uh, my youngest daughter is mentioned and so I should declare a conflict. >> 6.1 on AFNA. >> SE 71 >> 7.1 on AFNA. >> FCS26010. >> Okay. Thank you. When the time comes, we'll have a separate vote for for you to be able to declare that council. >> Very good. Thank I appreciate that. Thanks. >> Absolutely. Um any further declarations of interest. Okay. Seeing none, we're going to head into the ceremony ceremonial activities. Uh and this is a particular recognition of a Hamilton resident uh 16-year-old Safyan Zumsir Zamsir uh on a rescue uh very brave rescue uh that uh this young person undertook. So I'm going to call on councelor Casar uh to please recognize Sufyan. Please uh join me. >> Thank you. Hey, maybe if Sufian can come down and any family who would like to join, you're welcome to come down and join us here with the mayor. your dad. >> Okay. This morning, I'm very pleased to honor a W12 resident, 16-year-old Sufyan Ser right here. On September 5th, Sufyan and his family were near the Royal Botanical Gardens Fishway at the canal connecting Koots Paradise in the Hamilton Harbor. And this is, of course, on the recreational trail that connects Princess Point to Bayfront Park. What should have been a fun-filled family afternoon quickly turned into something much more. As Sufyan was preparing his fishing lines, he noticed a young boy in the water on the other side of the canal showing signs of distress and calling for help. Fortunately, Sufjan had recently received his National Lifeguard certification, and he did not hesitate to put his skills into action. He jumped into the water, made his way over to the struggling boy, and brought him safely to shore. Fortunately, the boy did not sustain any serious injuries. Sufyan, you are the type of person we should all strive to be. Your quick thinking and bold action were nothing short of heroic. On behalf of all the city of Hamilton and all my council colleagues gathered around the horseshoe today, it's my sincere sincere privilege to present you with this commendation acknowledging your brave bravery and selflessness. Congratulations. Good morning. Thank you very much. And uh Safhan, I'm sure your family is very proud of you and we're proud of you, too. Enjoy the rest of your day. Uh so we are now on to um adoptions uh of minutes of previous meetings. Uh, starting with CL26017 September 9th, 2026. May I have a motion to adopt the minutes of the September 9th council meeting as presented? Moved by councelor Wang, seconded by councelor Spataphora. Any comments on these minutes? Seeing none, uh, we'll go to the vote. Uh, all of those in favor? Show of hands. Any opposed? That's carried. Thanks very much. Uh, we are on to items for information. May I have a mover and a seconder to receive the lobbyist registar inquiry report? A move by councelor Cooper, seconded by councelor Wang. Uh any discussion on this? Seeing none, we'll go. Oh, sorry. Uh councelor Francis, please go ahead. >> Sorry. Gotcha. >> Thanks, Mayor. And my questions to the lobbyist register, David Begoian. And paragraph 73 of the uh September 24th report states that no communication was identified between crosswalks and a member of council. On September 4th, your office received correspondence documenting uh direct communication between crosswalk and a member of council regarding Miss Shim. My understanding is that this communication was not included because it was considered outside of the scope of the investigation. I just want to get some clarification on how that correspondence was considered reaching uh reaching the conclusion in paragraph 73 please. Thank you. >> Uh thanks councelor Francis. Welcome uh welcome. I see uh Gojian. Nice to see you here. Did you hear the question? >> Yes I did. Um your worship. >> Okay. Can you please respond? Thank you. >> Councelor Francis. I did receive an email from you on September 4th. I I had made an initial inquiry of all members of council on July 22nd uh regarding communications with any of the principles who we identified of crosswalk communities. Uh the response to that inquiry on July 22nd was that there had not been any communications with members of council. You did subsequently email me on September 4th uh relating a communication that you had had with Ms. Jeannie Shim. uh one of the principles of crosswalk communities. Um and I acknowledge that I neglected to include that communication in my report for which I apologize. I did however consider that communication. In fact, we had a back and forth uh about the communication, me asking you for more detail about the communication you send sending back responses, including a text message you received from Miss Shim. uh that should have been included in the report and I apologize. I do intend to issue a supplementary report dealing with those communications. Uh but what I can tell you is I considered it then when uh you raised it with me in se uh early September and I considered it more recently uh when both the complainant and you contacted me this past Monday. um that you you were not uh able to recall this subject matter. The definition of lobbying in section one of the lobbyist registry bylaw requires that the communication be about one of the enumerated uh subject matters. Uh I could not be satisfied based on your recollection that any of her communications with you fell with any of those subject matters. And so I could not conclude uh those subject matters by the way are set out in paragraph 87 of my report. I could not conclude that her communications with you uh on the occasions raised in your in your email and and by her text message had to do with any of the enumerated subject matters. So I could not and and do not conclude that she engaged in lobbying in those communications with you. Councelor Francis, >> thank you. Appreciate that. Now, is that something that will be a part of a future report or is that as is verbally today? >> No, I intend Yeah, I intend to uh include that in a supplementary report. And I do apologize again for not including uh the communication and the analysis of it in in the uh report that's before you today. >> Thank you. Thank you, councelor Francis. Thank you, I see Begoian. Uh, any other comments or questions for our integrity commissioner? Seeing none, thank you for joining us um at the end of this term at council. Thank you for the work you've uh you've done for the citizens of the city of Hamilton. Appreciate it. >> Thank you, >> thank you. Uh okay, so then we're going to go to uh the show of hands vote on the report. Um, can we have a show of hands, please, for all those in favor? Any opposed? That carries. Thanks very much. Um, we're on to 6.1. We have a mover and seconder to receive the item 6.1, which is a resignations from the public library and the board of health. Moved by uh councelor Cretch, seconded by councelor Wang. You're doing a lot of seconding already, councelor Wang. Thank you for that. Uh, anybody wanting to speak to this these resignations? Seeing none, we'll go to the show of hands vote. All those in favor? Any opposed? That carries. We're on to committee recommend recommendations, folks. Uh 7.1 and 12.1, which is uh GIC uh September 28th, 2026. Councelor Moren Wilson, may I please have a motion to receive and approve the recommendations contained within the general issues committee committee's open and closed minutes of September 28th, 2026 and to receive the correspondence items. Thank you. It's moved by myself and seconded by councelor McMakin that GIC 26-013 being the open session minutes of the GIC meeting held September 28th be approved that the closed session minutes of GIC meeting held September 28th be approved and presented and remain confidential and that the correspondence uh respecting item 6.1 um Rand Alabed respecting advocacy for federal and provincial funding infrastructure partners to bridge regional drinking water disparities impacting nearby indigenous households from the following individuals be received. Rand Alabed and Sophie Ali. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um any discussion on these uh minutes folks? >> Councelor Clark please go ahead. >> Thank you Mayor and good morning. I'd like to speak to item 8.10 10, storm water utility fementation review and funding framework reassessment item number C. It speaks to that staff bey directed utilize one full year of Hamilton utilities building consumption building and customer data and I'm seeking clarification of any risk to the privacy of those customers because that is private information. Uh we'll go to uh acting city manager uh Ziggger. Please go ahead. >> Yeah. Good morning through you, Madame Mayor. Uh Mike Zigger, interim city manager, general manager, finance corporate services. The intent uh of the that body of work is not to use individual water account information, but to assess across sectors. And so the residential sector versus commercial sector versus industrial sector and institutional sector as an aggregate not individual account information. Thank you. >> Okay. And so to clarify again Hamilton utilities building is a separate corporation. Correct. >> Through through you madame mayor. No it is now uh in-house city of Hamilton operates the Hamilton utility billing function. So, we're running it as a department of the city or as a utility corporation owned by the city >> through you, Madame Mayor. It is a section within the revenue services division. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Clark. Uh, councelor Jackson, please go ahead. >> Thanks, Mayor Horvath. Good morning, and thank you for the wrap you did for this term of council. Well, eloqu eloquently explained. Um, on the same item, 8.10, 10 um through you to acting city manager Zagger on on the C part. Mike, I'm just getting a lot of complaints and is it because of the transition of what's happened from Electra to this new in-house division? Can you provide for public consumption some explanation, please? And I hope it's just not my office, but I've had a number of constituents, rateayers, and mostly seniors who are just frustrated with either getting the bill, overpayment of a bill, and uh and and the fact that they cannot make a proper connection with the city to resolve it through you, Mayor Horvath, maybe the acting city manager and as GM of finance can give us an explanation what's going on, please. >> Sure. Thanks, Councelor Jackson. Please go ahead, Jim Z or sorry for you. Uh, Madame Mayor. Uh, firstly, let me just uh again um recognize and appreciate um rate payers and residents patience as we transition from bringing the water billing function in house. Uh previously it was electric utilities who performed it and now it's our Hamilton utility billing team who performs it. So just wanting to start by recognizing and uh and again thanking constituents for their patience. With respect to the report uh why staff are recommending deferring for one years it's principally for two two reasons. One is the legislative changes that the provincial government brought forward with respect to agriculture land and managed forest lands and the fact that those uh properties are no longer eligible to have a storm water rate applied to those properties. Uh as well, uh staff recommended to amend the um application of the storm water rate to schoolboard properties. That results in shifts which brings us back to councelor Clark's question around why needing to review the water consumption data across sectors staff need some time to assess how those exemptions may translate into shifts across sectors including the residential sector and the desire to bring that information and analysis forward in 2027 prior to a final determination. in 2028. >> Thanks, acting city manager. Appreciate the explanation. Mayor Horvath, at the appropriate time, can I just have a recorded vote on 8.10, please, which is this storm water utility fee implementation dubbed the rain tax. Um, I'll just make a comment quickly that since the uh June of 2023 in the first year of this in a my humble opinion a rush manner to get this implemented, it's just been a roller coaster of a ride ride. I've heard it loud and clear at the doors. deferring it. I appreciate uh the intent to defer it by the majority of my colleagues to just get it right, whoever's here next term, but we're just dangling this very unpopular rain tax over the community and I just want to put an end to it. So, I'd like a recorded vote at the appropriate time, please, mayor. Thank you. >> Okay, we'll uh ask for any speakers on this item and then we'll do the recorded vote at that point before we turn into other uh items on this report uh or these minutes rather. Uh so councelor Casar, are you on this item? You're not. Councelor Clark, are you on this item? >> Okay. So, uh councelor Jackson has asked for a a separate vote uh on item 8.10 of the GIC committee's report. Uh so we will as there there's no further discussion, so we'll go with the electronic vote. And this is uh again this is the um the minute that uh basically receives a a report for the review of this program. Uh and that carries 10 to 4. Thanks very much. Um we are now then on to councelor Casar. Please go ahead. >> Thank you worship. I just wanted to request a separate vote on 8.9 which was ensuring pedestrian access to Jackson Street West and McNab Street South. Uh there was a inc camera report as part of the original report and I just wanted to be consistent with my vote. >> Okay. Thanks very much. Um is there anything I'm just going to do these one by one if that's okay because they're separate votes. Is there anybody else that wants to speak to 8.9? Seeing none, then we're going to go to that separate vote right away. to get it off of our table. And so the item is up uh and that carries 11 to three. Thanks very much. Uh, now we are back on to the speakers list and I'm calling on councelor Clark. Please go ahead. >> An item. >> Oh, it's not on this these minutes. >> No, >> it's not on these minutes. Okay. Councelor Jackson, is it on these minutes that you have a second? Uh, on these separate >> on different minutes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> On the GIC, I'm sorry. >> On these minutes, the GIC. Okay. So, please go ahead. >> My apologies, mayor. Just like 11.3. I want to thank councelor Alex Wilson and councelor Mark Tatison for in my absence uh moving uh the motion an inc camera matter uh moving forward on hopefully what will be in the future um a worthwhile project for the city of Hamilton and the community. Thank you Mayor Horvath. >> Uh thank you councelor Jackson. So I don't see any further uh speakers on this report so we'll go to the uh vote on the minutes that are in front of us. Nothing changed. So, they're the minutes uh as is. Could we please go to the electronic vote? Thank you. That carries 15 to zero. Thanks very much. We're now on to planning committee of September 29th. Councelor Tatterson, may I please have a motion to receive and approve the recommendations contained within the planning committee's open and closed minutes of se September 29th, 2026, and to receive the correspondence items. >> Thank you, Mayor. Moved by myself, second by councelor M. Wilson, that PLC 26013 being the open session minutes of the planning committee meeting held on September 29th, 2026, item 7.2 to be received and the recommendations contained therein be approved. And B, that the closed session minutes of the planning committee meeting held on September 29th, 2026 be approved as presented and remain confidential. And C, that the following correspondence items be received. Correspondence respecting report PEED23069C. And number two, correspondence respecting report PED26092B. And that's it. >> Uh, thanks very much, Councelor Tatison. That seconded by >> Councelor M. Wilson. >> Mosa. Thank you. Uh, any discussion on this? Uh, councelor Clark, is this the one you Okay, please go ahead. >> Thank you, Mayor. Item 9.7, housekeeping amendment for building bylaw 15-058. When I'm reading this, it's it looks to me to be the elimination of um a form that was required before demolition permit was issued and that was the disconnection of services. So, how does the city ensure that the demolition is safe that the electricity has been shut off that uh the gas has been shut off? uh through the chair, acting general manager of planning and economic development, Brian Haulingworth. Uh oh, I see Bob has joined us. Who can answer the question? Bob Nuttle. >> Welcome. Please go ahead. >> Good morning. Bob Nuttle, manager of building inspections through the chair. Just uh to respond to that question, the intent of the change in form, so it will be replaced with a new form that still requires all of that work, that good work to be done to ensure proper disconnection prior to demolition. The intent is to try to improve customer service and get the process of actual demolitions occurring in a in a much more rapid way. >> Yes, your clerk. >> Okay. So the motion doesn't indicate that there's a separate um disconnection of services form. So can you clarify through the chair? Just to clarify, yes, there there is a new form. Um it's going to be filled out at the time of building permit application. It just doesn't require the signoffs to be completed prior to permit issuance. So, we're able to issue the permit quickly, get the applicant mobilized and talking to the utility companies. So, they're still going to the utility companies prior to demolition >> and we're verifying that the utilities have been shut off. >> Correct. through the demolition inspection process with staff. They'll be looking to make sure those disconnects and that form has been followed to make sure the applicant is reaching out to the applicable utilities to make sure those service disconnections are complete. >> Thank you. My apologies, mayor. Sometimes when you're reading these paragraphs by themselves, it looks like we're doing something that apparently we're not doing. So there's still that affirmation that everything has been disconnected before the demolition occurs. So thank you very much. >> No, absolutely. That's what we're here for. So thank you. Uh councelor Paul's is it on this issue? Councelor Pauls or Okay. Okay. Uh please go ahead. >> I'm just um the correspondent respecting uh report uh 26092. It's 7B. the in objection to the notice of intention to designate 71 Claremont Drive, Hamilton Omnar Gate House, Claremont Lodge under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. I was reading I I remember uh this gentleman uh I think he's a lawyer, Mark Djon. He's representing Robert Barbini and Linda Onorato. And I was there when he was uh delegating uh and um saying the reason why the gate out is dilapitated. They spend uh I think uh almost a million dollar trying to fix it and and I remember asking about the safety of it and they said it's not safe and we know that buildings that are not safe it's important to take them down. uh you know what happens when uh uh kids adult go in a vacant lot a vacant uh place and uh uh things can happen. So the request from Mr. um Mark Dejon is that if we could postpone it till the next council meeting before we um plan uh to uh have this gate house under the Heritage Act. I know this is our last planning meeting, but maybe we could uh wait till the new council and look at it. Um the report says the uh the building is not in good shape. Uh and they need somebody to go in and make a right assessment. So, I'm going to uh request that we heed to the the letter to postpone it. If not, I'll be voting against uh designating it. So I'm just going to look to uh the clerk in terms of the procedural issue uh right now. >> Yeah. The the so you've already spoken to this um and so you you really you're not allowed to speak to something before you refer it or defer it. Yeah. >> And so um if you so that's not something you can do at this point because you've already spoken to it. So just hold on for a minute please. Um, just to confirm, clerk. >> Yeah. So, mayor, you have it correct. If we've spoken to an item, you can't move a deferral. Um, >> what about a referral? >> A referral. >> Same with a referral. >> It's the same. It's the same. >> Okay. So, that's where we are with this. Um, are there any further speakers on these minutes? >> I I'm I'm sorry, Councelor Jackson. >> Not on the site. Sorry. >> No. No. Not on this site. This is now we can you cannot refer or defer because you've already spoken. >> I understand. Could I have a separate vote as well? Uh the reason is this. When this was happening, I was there but then I had to leave because I had another bit and I didn't follow through with the the staff and um if you read the letter uh and everybody was there. Um we really need to look very careful at this building. So >> okay. Okay. Are there any uh so the separate vote has been asked for has been requested. Uh are there any comments? Any other uh speakers to this item? Councelor Cretch, please go ahead. >> There'll be a bit of a theme today, I imagine, about heritage designation. So, I'll just start now briefly by saying for the eenth time as Hamilton's council's representative on the heritage committee, I think it's really important that we understand what the heritage designation process is about. The heritage designation process allows for us to work with the property owner under the heritage permit review process with members of the community appointed to the heritage permit review committee and appointed to the heritage committee. like those members of the community work with staff on this. I hear mutterings across from me that this is wrong and shakingings of the head, but um I sit there and so I know how the process actually works and I'm sorry you feel it's wrong, councelor Pauls, you can keep doing it and I'll keep addressing it if you'd like. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't sit on the committee. So that process exists to ensure that the community and staff can work with property owners about issues they're having. This ensures that we don't have a process right now because it hasn't been designated. So designation protects that process and protects our heritage. >> Can I just interrupt you for a moment please? Catch councelor Cretch and I appreciate what you're saying. >> But saying that another member of council doesn't know what they're talking about. >> She was mouthing at me wrong. >> Okay. >> So I'm telling her she's wrong. >> Okay. Okay. But look it people come here and they say what they have to say but you know just saying you don't know what you're talking about is is really a bit disrespectful. So, I'm just going to leave it at that >> and ask that we're on our last council meeting of this session and I just ask that people treat each other with some dignity and respect. That's all I'm asking. And I think that maybe we can do that today. It's going to be a contentious day. There are a lot of contentious issues on the agenda and we need to show up with our best selves and and treat each other with some respect. So, that's all I'm asking. So, I'm going to leave it at that. And I I wanted to ask you if you wanted to finish off your comments because I did interrupt you near the very end. >> Yeah, I'll just say that I do think it's important what you're saying and talking about decorum. When I was speaking, the entire time I was speaking, the person across from me was shaking their head and telling me I was wrong and didn't know what I was talking about. I think it's important to maintain that decorum. If you see people doing that, tell them to knock it off. >> Okay, I will. I will. I didn't see that. I because I was talking to the clerk to get a clarification. But but thank you for that and I will. But it's not just my responsibility folks, right? It's each and every one of our responsibilities to uh to do this. So that includes you as well, councelor Paul's. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um now, so is there anybody else on this item? Seeing none. Okay. So we're going to go to the separate vote then. Oh, uh councelor Clark, please go ahead. >> Sorry. On item 9.1B, >> I'm struggling with the language that council not withdraw the notice of intention to designate 71 Claremont Drive, blah blah blah. You don't generally in governance put forth a negative verbiage because if it gets defeated, it then means the opposite. So, if you're vote against the council not withdrawing, that means you're voting to withdraw. So, I'm not sure why it's worded that way. And I'm not sure why it's in this motion. If the recommendation is to be approved, >> I'm just looking to the clerk first in terms of the wording of the motion and then we'll go to uh Director Quite. Uh okay. So the uh okay director quite please you're on first uh through the chair Ken Kite director of heritage and urban design. Um this report is in the context of an objection. So it's uh that is why the the language is opposed there. Uh we would happy to look to change it in the future to proceed with if that would help make it more clear. We have been using that language for quite some time. >> Oh, please go ahead. Oh, >> thank you. Well, I may not have caught this in the past. I've caught it today and it's a contentious item. I'm just trying to suggest clearing up the language so that if it goes down to defeat, the next council can't argue that you voted to do the opposite because you voted against not withdrawing, which means you're supporting withdrawing. Go ahead, Director Quite >> through the chair. Um, I'm wondering if Patrick McDonald from legal would be able to speak to this in terms of its implications. >> You could say you're voting to reject. You're voting. There's much different language that you could utilize. Quite frankly, that paragraph is not necessary. you're making a recommendation to approve the designation. So B is not necessary in my humble opinion. Thank you. >> Uh okay. So um I'm just looking to uh to determine whether there is an amendment that's necessary to this through legal. I don't see Patrick McDonald uh here, but I do see Solicitor Shields and I see uh city manager, acting city manager Zagger is also uh wanting to speak to this >> through you, Madame Mayor. We understand the interest of committee is to revise the wording to make it clearer and uh we can look to do that before the German of council today and if we can just be given some time before the German of council and come back with some potential revised language. >> Is that satisfactory? Uh councelor Clark. Okay. Uh thanks very much. Uh any further conversation on this one? Uh councelor Cretch please go ahead. very briefly I just I was involved in some of these discussions at the planning committee and elsewhere and I think the reason that it's written in the way that it was is because there was a request to withdraw. So I think the response is that we not withdraw. So I think that's why it was written in that manner and when there's not a request through the um process for notice of intention to designate when we put it out and no one says anything then it just kind of passes and goes along. My experience has been when someone requests that we don't withdraw that legal then puts in that language there so it's really clear there was a request. So if it changes or not, I don't think it materially impacts our decision, but I think you I think I understand why you're raising the point. When you read it out of context, it doesn't make sense, but in context, it does. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh we'll see if we can uh straighten that up uh to the satisfaction of uh of the um counselors to make sure that people have some clarity uh going forward. So we'll bring that back towards the end of the agenda. Uh on a different item, councelor Jackson, please go ahead. Mayor Horvath, can I just on 8.4 the ADU's additional dwelling units and 8.5 mid-rise residential implementation. Could I just ask for uh separate votes on both items, please? Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, we're going to go to those separate votes then uh uh right away. And so on 8.4 uh additional dwelling units, um the vote will be up in a second. This is uh PD26188.4. >> Yes. >> Yes. Uh that carries uh 9 to5. Thanks very much. Now on to 8.5 mid uh mid-rise residential zones. Uh same report 8.5 Uh and that carries 9 to five. Uh thanks very much all. Uh we are now on to the next set of Oh, no. Now we're on to the balance of the minutes uh that were before us, the planning committee minutes. So, mayor, just as we're looking at this 9.1 wording, I'm going to ask that uh council approve the balance, save, and accept item 9.1, and we'll just defer consideration of item 9.1 to be the end of our committee minutes. >> I see councelor Tatison ident uh indicating he would like to speak to a different item. Yes, >> please go ahead. I just want a separate vote on item 12.3 LS26018 appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal respecting official plan amendment applications to expand the urban boundary to include the white church lands. I'll just leave it at that. I just want a separate vote. >> Okay. Uh so we'll put that uh in front of us right away. Sorry. 3 And that carries 14 to1. Thanks very much. Now we're on the balance of the re of the minutes saved for 9.1. And that carries 15 uh to zero. Thanks very much. AFNA is next. Councelor Spataphora, may I please have a motion to receive and approve the recommendations contained within the audit, finance, and administration committee's minutes of October 1st at 2026 and receive the correspondence items. I believe there's also going to be an an amendment. So, we'll start with the the motion, please. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Thank you, mayor. moved by myself, seconded by councelor Morin Wilson, that the AFNA 26-012 being the minutes of the AFNA committee meeting held on October 1st, item 7.3 be received and the recommendations contained therein be approved and that the following correspondence item be received. Correspondence respect and report report FCS26074 development charges bylaw amendment to enable a DC reduction program agreement from the following individuals. Mark Perry. Thank you. And >> uh thank you councelor uh Spataphor. I know councelor McMin this is the one you have an interest on. So we'll be separating that out. Uh we have a speaker list. So we're going to go through the speakers list. Do you want to be on the speaker's list? Is that what you're identifying or >> two items you wish to speech? Okay. So we have councelor uh we also have an amendment. So how about Oh, he made the amendment. Okay. >> No, I'm moving the amendment. >> You're moving the amendment. Okay. Councelor Spataphora, how about you move the amend? Can we just we'll get the kind of the details worked out that we already have on the on the docket here. So we'll do the amendment then we have councelor Clark and then we have you. Okay. Councelor McMin, please go ahead with the amendment. Uh councelor Spaphora. >> Thank you mayor. It's moved by myself. Second by councelor Alex Wilson. Amendment to item 9.1 being an amendment to recommendations contained in the minute item 8.6 six of the GIC 26-008 respecting report CM260006 corporate continuous improvement program as approved by council on June 3rd 2026. This is being amended. You'll see um some changes in the subsections here. Um I'm not going to go through all of them. Um, but the amendment is in front of you. It was discussed at the last AFNA meeting and we just took the time to do the wording um, in order for it to come to council and the amendment to be voted on. So, it's on the screen. Uh, people can have a read through it. I can continue talking if people want me to so they can read it. If not, I will uh, be quiet now and hope uh, for any questions or not hope for any. Thank you. Okay, the uh there any speakers to this particular amendment? Uh we have councelor Alex Wilson. Please go ahead. >> Thanks. I just want to thank councelor Spataphora and finance staff for working with the motion with me over the past week since committee. I had some questions just in understanding the intent for clarity reasons because we are working off existing direction and so councelor Spataphora wanted to add some things to existing direction. So lots of the restructuring changes absolutely nothing. I know there's lots of crossouts and things like that. Just to be clear, um it's the same two to three extra points that councelor spatiff was looking to add, but just making it clear that the existing direction from the previous report's not changing and the only other change which wasn't done by myself, but what just there wasn't a funding source or an upset limit set at committee and so finance staff um added those components to the motion. Um appreciating again the mover and staff for working on those amendments between committee and council. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Wilson. Anybody else on this particular item? Councelor Clark. >> Thank you, Mayor. So if I saw the amendment correct, B has become C, but C now being former B, it still contains language that I found odd that council would direct the city manager to procure the services of an external consultant pursuant to policy number 11, non-competitive procurement, to complete continuous improvement procurement exercise. it doesn't quite fit with what we're trying to accomplish. One would think that we would be going out to competitive bid for that consultant in order to get the best value for money as opposed to simply giving it to a specified consultant. So, if I could hear from staff, this is a little bit concerning for me. Uh we'll start with uh acting city manager James or acting city manager Garrett please. Thank >> thank you madame mayor. Uh as staff understand the intent is to expedite this work and uh recognizing that a policy 11 allows uh staff to engage a vendor through a single source. It is our intent to reach out to a potential uh number of vendors, two to three vendors and to scope out the work and uh understand their past experience, capacity and value with respect to this work and again the understanding is to expedite this process and the single source would allow staff to expedite the process. >> Thank you. Um, is uh Pat Leechman with us today? >> Yes, she is. Director Leechman, please go ahead. >> Thank you. Just a question. Oh, sorry. If if I recall correctly, >> um, a year, maybe two years ago, I moved a motion to find efficiencies in all departments and that was given to specifically director Leechman. Can she speak to what she has been doing along those lines, please? >> Uh yes, good morning. Pat Leechman, director of enterprise portfolio management and transformation. Thank you for the question and through the chair. Um yeah, the corporate uh continuous improvement program was put in front of council in June of this year and approved. Uh that program is the um structure and framework with which we can then drive more um robust continuous improvement across the city and take the pockets of good work that's being done and bring it together and through communities of practice and identification of efficiencies use better tools and and um metrics to be able to drive that. Part of that uh in the appendix was the approval of the opportunity to do a procurement review. Um, so that was just approved in June. We've been working with our colleagues in procurement uh over the summer and we welcomed councelor Spataphora's motion because it brought a little bit more opportunity for us to drive it a little bit faster. Um, concern being the time it takes to uh expeditiously secure uh a consultant. Uh so there was uh quite a bit of discussion and uh with with councelor Spataphora as well as staff uh and and the motion was reviewed. councelor Clark in light of of trying to move forward expeditiously. Uh so the work is all aligned. We're all on the same page. Uh and we welcome the opportunity to drive uh as as general as interim city manager Zagaric said uh talking with a few vendors uh as we've been finalizing scope. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I appreciate that that clarification. Um, if I may, um, I believe I'm asking for a separate vote on item C then because B became C. If the language about uh, policy number 11 is in C, I'd like to have a separate vote on that. Um, and with the greatest of respect to our staff and to my council colleagues, um, expediting procurement always puts the risk on the municipality that we're going to pay more than we should be paying. It's it's really that simple. The the the the profit bearing private sector sees an opportunity that we're not going out to competitive bids. So their product, their service is not going to be compared to others companies and other value propositions from other companies. And so it creates that problem. And I've been saying this, no disrespect to councelor spatterfor, I've been saying this all term, questioning how many of these we are doing um because I work with other agencies that automatically does uh a competitive process. Three bids. If we don't get three bids, then we don't proceed with the project. And so, um, it concerns me that, ironically, in a motion to find, um, efficiencies and savings for the municipality, we're going to send it out to a non-competitive bid. I can't support that. So, I'll vote against item C, please. Thank you. >> Okay. And I'm just going to Thank you for that, Councelor Clark. We have a couple more speakers. I don't think you're on these this particular item. Uh, councelor McMin, you're not correct. you are on this one or are you not? You're not. Okay. But councelor Spataphora is uh and you've only moved the motion so you wouldn't you haven't really spoken to it. So we'll uh >> we'll have you up. >> Thank you, Mayor. And again, just uh to councelor Clark's point, it was I don't want staff I don't want people to think that it was staff's idea to single source. It was my idea to do that. I brought that forward. Um, and I don't think councelor Clark's uh comments are completely out of line, but I've also seen procurement process where we get three bids. I think at AFNA at the same time, we had uh a report on a procurement process that went through the full process. We had a number of uh bids, the lowest bid one, and then we ended up paying more anyway. So, I don't think there's a perfect um a perfect way to do this. Uh for me expediting the process was strictly because I feel we need to be able to deliver projects quicker in the city. I think that's what the taxpayers are expecting of us. Um and the reason uh one of the changes in my motion you'll see is that it directs the city manager which means if things go poorly sorry about that acting city manager um it's on it's on the city manager. >> Yep. >> There is a line of accountability that leads right to that individual. Um, and uh, you know, I think for me, I I'll put my trust in Mike to allow to make sure this process goes as quickly as possible. We find the best person that can do the job for us, which in turn will deliver hopefully some roads and and some of that important work to our taxpayers as soon as possible. But again, I I understand councelor Clark's concern. It's been one of his all terms. So, thank you. >> Uh, thank you, Councelor Spataphora. So now I'm going to ch speak uh I'm going to ask the clerk to walk us through how we get this uh amendment and then the vote on the item C. You walk us through that so everybody knows how we're >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you, mayor. So through you uh first we'll have the vote on the amendment which I do not believe changes clause C. It's just the amendment to the remainder. It just changes >> which the order of it. Sorry. Could we throw it up so we can confirm? >> And what I want to confirm through you, mayor, with the counselor, is if we're looking to a separate vote on the amendment to the clause or the clause as amended or both. >> You see why I asked the clerk to do it? Okay. So, there are amendments to it. So, my first question is are if we're comfortable with the amendments, then what we would vote on is the amendment to the motion in the minutes first. Then we could hold a separate vote on clause C as you requested, followed by a vote on the balance of the motion as amended. So, there would be three votes. >> Oh, okay. >> Unless your objection is to the amendments to the clause as it was. Okay. So that's what we would then do. So vote on the amendment to the motion, then on a separate vote on clause C, the new clause C, and then a vote on the motion as amended. Okay, we all clear? Okay, let's get the first vote up, which is on the amendment before us. >> Thank you, uh, Clerk Trenum. That carries 15 to zero. And now we're on to item uh C, the new C, which is 9.1 C, which is uh asked for a separate vote by councelor Clark. So, we're on 9.1, the new C that we just approved in terms of the new motion. And that carries 14 to1. Thanks very much. Now we're on to the balance of the motion as uh as amended. Uh that carries 15 to zero. Thanks very much everyone. Uh now on the balance of these minutes uh as I know that councelor McMakin is uh next on the on the roster so please go ahead councelor McMin. >> Uh thank you. Just a footnote I did declare conflict on 71 and it's recorded. Um and but the item I want to speak to is 81. >> Okay. All right. >> Was a an a letter of correspondence that was received from Mr. Mark Perry, who's a constituent of mine who's desperately wanting to become a farmer and there's some history of his family's farming commitment and I'm sorry to say some conflicting bylaws that are even even I as a former minister of agriculture having a little bit of trouble figuring out. Um he was looking for a waiver of a development uh charge fee as a farm farm uh building. Um and that would have been possible at one point. Um saved some competing um interests with impact and and the assessment there as well as the need for an agro agricore permit. Um Mr. Perry is here today. Uh and uh he and I spent this this arose a couple days ago. So this is kind of very ad hoc but he's his major concern is that in receiving the correspondence that does not preclude his coming back when he has the impact things sorted out and the agricore certificate acknowledging that he's a farmer um to take advantage of the benefit that avails potentially from the city. So I just want to flag that here. I I don't believe it does prevent him from coming uh forward at a future time and it will also be a new council. So uh I believe that that's uh that's okay. But let me ask the clerk just so that he has the sense of uh >> one one one more thing I should mention um to be completely transparent. He did he did go to the committee of adjustment on two items both of which were unanimous unanimously endorsed which is actually what has created this >> okay >> this dilemma. Yeah. I I don't know whether there's a anything that we can confirm, but perhaps what we can do, councelor McMin, is uh uh is provide that confirmation to you and Mr. Perry and uh we'll make sure that that uh that information flows. >> I appreciate that your worship and I think Mr. Perry does as well was our understanding. Okay. And I will work with Mr. Perry to help with the agricore. >> Okay. Very good. Uh thank you. uh councelor Clark uh on these uh minutes. Okay, please go ahead. >> Item 10.1 the Glambert Community Recreation Center water wastewater service wastewater services can't talk today. Um the second whereas states uh within the protective countryside of the green belt plan. So can I hear from staff? My prefuncter read of the act indicates that institutional land uses are permitted within the green belt plan. Would this project be classified as an institutional use? >> Is this on the AFNA minutes? Councelor Clark, I think you you've skipped to the ne we haven't completed the entire AFNA minutes yet. >> Okay. My apologies. >> So, you're on to the next report. Okay. So, that's fine. We'll we'll hold you over for then. I don't see anybody else on this particular set of minutes. So, we're going to go to 7.1 first uh which has to be voted on separately so that councelor McMin can uh identify his interest. So, we'll put that uh vote on 7.1 in front of us, please. Councelor McMin. So, you're going to be abstaining from this vote because of your interest. That carries 14 to zero with one abstension. Uh thanks very much. Uh then on the balance of the minutes as amended. Uh and that carries 15 to zero. Uh thanks very much all. We are now on to the next set of minutes minutes which is uh emergency and community services committee. Councelor Clark, may I please have a motion to receive and approve the recommendations contained within the emergency and community service minutes of October 1st, 2026. Thank you, mayor. It's moved by myself and seconded by councelor um Robert Cooper that the ECS26-008 being the minutes of the emergency community services committee meeting held on October 1, 2026, item 7.4 be received and the recommendations contained therein be approved. Thank you, Robert. >> Okay. Thanks very much. question then. Councelor Clark, did you want to speak to an item in these minutes? >> Gotcha. >> Uh just in in general, if I may, as the chair of ECS, I wanted to thank all the members of the committee and our staff. Uh we accomplished a great deal in the last 12 months. Uh some of it has been rather controversial, but um we did our very best to ensure that the public had an opportunity to speak to us on any of the issues and we had a robust conversation on many different issues and in the end we moved forward with the projects that we've approved and I think it was a successful year. So I do want to thank the staff. uh while it's a small committee um it is a mighty staff that does a great deal of work for this municipality and I want to thank all of them. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor Clark. Uh so then seeing no further speakers on the uh committee minutes, can we have the vote please? That carries 15 to zero. Thanks very much. We're now on to public works uh committee October 2nd, 2026. Councelor Nan, may I please have a motion to receive and approve the recommendations contained within the public works committee minutes of October 2nd, 2026. >> Sure. It's moved by myself and seconded by vice chair councelor Casar that the public works committee 26012 being the minutes of the public works committee or final one that was held on October 2nd 2026 be received and the recommendations contained there and be approved. Uh thanks very much. Are there any speakers to these minutes? Seeing none, we'll go to the electronic vote, please. uh that carries 15 to zero. Thanks very much all. On to the next section which is the items for consideration. Uh clerk Trenum, please go ahead. >> Yes. So, so we can go back to the item that we just deferred which is item 9.1 of the planning committee peed 26092. The question was related to subsection B the council not withdraw the notice of intention. Staff have come back and advised a clarification. So the language would then read that council not withdraw the notice of intention to designate 71 Claremont Drive Hamilton under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act and proceed with designation pursuant to subsection 298 of the Ontario Heritage Act. >> Is that satisfactory council clerk? If the clarification achieves what you wanted to >> you can't sorry >> sorry go ahead. >> Uh that language clarifies it. There's no way anyone could find that confusing. So, thank you. Thank you very much. What I'll ask >> Thank you, councelor Clark, I'm sorry. >> What I'll ask, mayor, is just because it was moved and seconded prior that we just have a mover and seconder to amend that clause with that new language. Okay. And then we can vote on it as amended. >> Okay. Councelor Clark, are you prepared to move that new language? That's moved by Councelor Clark, seconded by Councelor Casar. Uh discussion on the amendment. on the amendment only. >> Mayor, >> councelor Pauls, >> I just want to make sure that I vote no would be appropriate. Like >> you voted no last time. >> Yeah. Well, yes, I voted no. So, >> okay. So, yeah, you would it would it doesn't change I don't think the intent of the of this of the item. It just clarifies the language. >> The amendment. Yes. But overall item, no. We didn't vote. Okay. Yet. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Just want to be clear. >> Thank you. Okay. So now before us is there I see no other speakers. So before us now is the amended >> B. >> So this is the Yes. the motion to amend clause B. That's right. >> And that's moved by councelor Clark and seconded by councelor Casar. And that carries 15 to zero on the amended item B. And then we're back to the 9.1 clause as a whole. Uh item as a whole. There we go. And that carries 13-2. Thanks very much. We are now on to uh items for consideration. Starting with 8.1 um enterprise asset management project update and implementation uh partner standardization extension. Uh I believe we're going to do these one at a time. Am I correct, clerk? Or are we going to do them all in one bunch? This is 8.1 and 8.1a. >> So, uh with this one, mayor, um 8.1 is, uh was referred here. So, uh it is the recommendations as they are in the report. Uh 8.1A is a supplemental information report that does recommend that council amend uh the recommendations in 8.1 to add an additional clause D. So, what we'd be doing is moving the recommendations of 8.1 and receiving 8.1A and then staff are recommending that council move an amendment to that to add the new clause D that is outlined in the supplemental report. >> Okay. >> So, we're going to go ahead. Just to clarify, the the the motion to move would put the recommendations in 8.1 on the floor and it would to receive 8.1A written and included within 8.1A. Staff are recommending that council amend that to add an additional clause that is detailed in 8.1A. >> So, we have to have the original report on the floor before we can amend it as recommended by staff in 8.1A. people understand the process we're going through here. Okay. So, we have a speaker list starting. Uh, councelor Spataphora, please go ahead. >> Oh, sorry. We need a seconder, a mover and seconder of uh of the item that's in front of us. Councelor Nan, sorry. And councelor Casar. Thank you. Please go ahead. Councelor Spataphora. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, my apologies. I I try not to do this, but I was not at GIC when this item was um discussed. So, I have some questions that may have been raised previously, and I'll apologize in advance for that. Um just to start, I have some some real concerns about um this report. So, my first question um is just around the original budget. um and completion date for the EAM project. Um what those total projected cost and completion date are now. So if I can hear what they were previously when we thought this was work was going to be complete and how much it was going to cost and where we're at now and what the projected cost is today through you mayor. Uh thanks very much uh city manager Zagerk uh and then perhaps uh Director Leechman or Director Leeman first. It's up to you city manager. >> Yeah, thank you for you Madame Mayor. I will direct it to Director Leechman. Uh I know that the content is on page starting on page 4 of 21 of the report, but I'll ask Director Leechman to respond. Thank you. >> Please go ahead, Director Leechman. >> Yes, good morning uh through the chair. Thank you for the question. And the original project was approved in 2020 at uh 13.1 million and expected to be done in four years. Uh the project met many many challenges. Right out of the gate, we were horribly delayed because of COVID. Um I won't list all the challenges here. I'm sure I'm going to get more questions on that, but today the forecasted amount to finish the project is 28.9 million and we expect to be done by the end of 28. Thank you for that. So, um my question was going to be based on the reasoning. Uh obviously CO I hear is is one of them. Um I guess I guess my next question is um there's $2.1 million in additional funding being asked for. Um is there anything that could have been done or can you talk specifically as to what happened in order to how we could have possibly avoided the additional funding. Do you have a few items or situations that occurred that caused this additional funding to be needed through you, Mayor? >> Director Leechman. >> Yes, through the chair. Thank you for the question. Uh, as always, we're looking at what can we do to do it uh to improve and make make sure that things do not happen again. There have been so many external pressures on this project uh starting with COVID, starting with the major cyber attack that we experienced. I don't believe in excuses, but as discussed in GIC on last week, I appreciated councelor Nan's question because it gave us the opportunity to really explain how much cyber killed this project almost. Uh we lost four years of work. We had to rebuild that. So an extensive amount of the funding that we're requesting now is is continuing to to come back out of cyber. That said, counselor, there is ongoing resourcing issues. Um I'll give you an example. Right now we are four resources short of the core on the core team. Uh we are we are now going into our fourth round again after repeated rounds earlier in the project of trying to bring resources onto this team. Uh we've hired a supervisor. they were here for a very brief period of time and have chosen to leave. Um I'm not sure their reason reasoning trying to get the expertise and the right resources identified have been have been hard. Um I will add that uh Nag Niagara region is paying $20,000 a year more for the same resource that we're trying to hire right now and that resource is hybrid not uh not partially hybrid as we have here. So trying to get the right resources on the project team is an ongoing battle. Uh so between resourcing between external attacks um we've done a number of things to help uh overcome this in terms of me being in my role and bringing in an entire new governance structure a whole new enterprise portfolio management uh approach in terms of how we deal with enterprise projects of which this is one. Uh we've looked at uh a new resourcing model for internal resources. We've looked at uh developing the future state model for this project. There's a number of things and I can go on and on and on in terms of what we've done to improve and make sure this doesn't happen again. >> Thank thank you for that answer, director. And I I I can appreciate um you know, all those those challenges that um that staff yourself and other staff have had to deal with. the here's here's the issue. Um >> so so councelor, you know, you're beyond your your five and so >> I'll go on a second time. >> You go on a second time. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um well, I'm sorry. You're going to move to do that right now? Okay. So that's moved by councelor Jackson and seconded by councelor Tatison that councelor Spataphora can continue on uh beyond his five minutes for another five minutes. All those in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Please uh continue then. Councelor Spataphor. Sorry to ruin your train of thought. >> Oh, sorry. >> And I hope not to use uh the additional five if I can to keep this uh conversation moving. But um in all the things that were talked about from the director and um you know external and internal pressures and recruitment pressures, the one area that I find myself struggling with is the amount of money we're spending and what value that's brought. um to our residents. So, when I look at this project, by 2028, I think we're going to, and correct me if I'm wrong, I around I think we're going to be around $28 million. So, we've spent $28 million and if I went to talk to my residents right now, I can't tell them what we were able to achieve with the money we've spent. And I understand of the external and internal issues, but at some point that we got to change, you got to change direction. You got to change scope. You you got we can't continue to go back to the well over and over and over again. Um hoping that we're going to get a different result. What's going to change from the retention and recruitment standpoint? We're going to pay more. Okay. Okay. So, we're going to offer more than Niagara. At the end of the day, the one thing I can't sell out of this entire thing is what we've done since 2020 and I think it even even before that. Um, we're going to spend $30 million over a 8 to 10 year period. And at the end of the day, when I if I was sitting in front of my resident right now and I asked someone to explain to them the value they got for their $30 million spend, I don't believe the value is going to meet the number. I think you're going to see a shortfall on value and a very large number at the end. And that's extremely concerning for me because this program, from what I understand, is supposed to find efficiencies within the city in order to help our staff do a better job in order to help our taxpayers. And that pathway or line, I don't I don't see it. I'm going to I'm going to have a real hard time supporting additional money for this project. I think we we need truly what I think this project needs is a value. We need to be able to audit the value we're getting from this project. We've spent a long period of time here and if we can't have a direct couple sentences showing this money is going to deliver this for taxpayers, I don't know how we continue to give money and give money without being able to provide our taxpayers with that answer. So whether it's an audit on the value we're supposed to get from this and what it is going to be because I don't I don't see that now. I don't think we have that information. And you know, we're also asking for single sourcing from the consultant that's been on this project, I think, for the entire time. Is that the right person to do the job if they haven't been able to provide us much value up until now, but those are my comments. Mayor, I I saved us uh almost uh two minutes. So, thank you. >> There you go. Thank you very much. Uh councelor Spataphora, Councelor Casar, please. on the same item. Yeah. >> Yeah. Same item. Yeah. Thank you very much. Uh enterprise asset management is a complicated topic and I think it's challenging for uh our colleagues to fully understand if we don't have a background and certainly it's hard for the public to understand and I appreciate what councelor sp. It's very difficult to communicate to uh individual residents on this topic and value for money. Uh we do need to put effort into that and just generally I think we need to do a better job of explaining what we do and why it's important. and this the report and the supplementary report are quite dense and there's a lot of um information in there on topics that aren't you know easy to understand. So my question through you mayor to director Leechman is to maybe pick up on some of the comments from council spat because I think they do uh deserve a response but also speak to the opportunity cost if we don't move ahead with the recommendation in this report with uh specifically but not limited to continuing with the the contractor the consultant that's um doing the work now and the additional investment that is outlined in the report um 21 pages but maybe if the director could just bring that to light a little bit in a way that the public can Understand. Thank you. >> Uh thank you councelor Cassar. Uh director Leechman, did you understand the question? >> I believe so. There's a lot there. Um through the chair, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to respond. Uh first of all, there was a very robust project uh sorry, a very robust business benefit done on this project when it first started, which identified over 28 million right out of the gate in in savings. Uh and then about 100 million plus in cost avoidance. That was a robust business case that was done by approximately 80 people in public works at that time. Um that business case still holds water. Um I'll I'll quote um in terms of what the where the public is going to see value in this absolutely they're going to see value. Uh everything that they look at everything that everything you look out the window all of those assets are are going to be managed by this system. And if we're not proactively managing them with a system like this, then we have a fragmented approach to our our asset management work, which allows for for less effective decision- making and less efficiency in how we do our life cycle asset management. That's huge. So from the from an from a taxpayer perspective, and I'm I'm going to use St. Cathine's as an example because St. Catherine's did a similar system and they identified a 1% and I think Hamilton will be higher than this because we has a we have a larger portfolio but capital cost efficiencies of 1% alone for St. Cathine's which they've already validated through implementation of their system uh from an integrated asset and work management solution that over the 10 years estimated for St. Cathine's alone at over 20 million in capital cost efficiencies. That's real. So I, you know, if I were a taxpayer, I'd be looking for a solution that's going to bring more efficiencies and get greater benefit out of our tax dollars. That that is something that is very real for the taxpayers. Um, in terms of the pain that if we don't move forward with this project, uh, and so first of all, appendix A speaks to the challenges and it speaks to the highlights, some of the milestones that we've we've made. It's in visual format for easy following, but it shows in there the the parts of public works that we have successfully implemented the minimum viable product. We have over 60% of public works assets in the system right now. So, there's been a lot of successes. The current implementation partner has not been on this project from day one. They were brought in following uh some issues with our original implementation partner and our new implementation partner has been doing an excellent job. And I can demonstrate value for money because we're continually looking at other opportunities outside because we are so resource constrained to add additional resourcing to this project through other agencies. And I can tell you that they're much more expensive and don't bring the the expertise and um efficiencies that this vendor does. I want to speak speak quickly to the current situation though because of cyber we we were forced to go with minimum viable product which has has been implemented as I say in many areas of public works. However, it is not the full system yet. That was by plan because of cyber because of that my colleagues in public works are greatly struggling. they they are having to uh continue to use some manual processes for the processes that are still outside of EAM. They are working overtime. There's impact on staff morale. It is not a good situation and we need to fix this by finishing implementing those parts of the system and then go back to those areas that need the full system implementation. There has been a lot of good work done to implement this system so far and we've been hit by a lot of issues that have been outside of our control. I think council knows I'm all about accountability. So things that have been outside of our control, things inside of our control, we've been working to fix as quickly as possible. counselor. I myself or sorry through the chair. I myself went to the office of the auditor general before cyber and I suggested that they put this project on their radar screen as an opportunity for a value for money audit and they explained to me at that time that they would be happy to look at that when the project was complete post cyber. I had a follow-up conversation with the office of the auditor general reminding them that this would be a really good project to do a value for money out at on. And again, we had a good conversation. We've got all of our ducks in a row. We're ready to be audited at any time. Bring it on. We've got everything in place. We can clearly show where things have gone wrong and what we've do what we have done to fix that. So, we are definitely on the radar screen of the OAG brought there by me. >> Uh, thanks, Director Leechman. >> Just a closing comment if I may. >> I'm sorry. >> May I just make a closing comment? >> Yes. much of your time was taken up by the um by the response and so please go ahead then. >> Yeah, thank you just briefly. Uh thank you for that response to the director through your worship. Uh and the report does go into greater detail on some of the impacts. Uh and I thank the director for responding to the request from committee to come back in a very short time frame with that much needed extra context. uh and I have full confidence in the director and really appreciate the work that's been done, the responses that have been provided and how important this work is and as has been indicated there is value for the money and a cost if we do not proceed with these recommendations. So, thank you very much. >> Uh thanks councelor Casar. Uh councelor Cooper please. >> Thank you chair. Um first of all just before I proceed my comments I want to recognize former longtime MPPP and Stony Creek Councelor Paul Miller is here today. Thanks for being with us Paul. Thank you for all you've done for the city. Um, you know, we had this conversation at the beginning of the year where we were behind on a bunch of projects. We were told resourcing was a problem. I remember asking, have we solved it? I got assurances we had. Here we are in October having the same conversation. As a project professional, there's three things I look at to whether a project's going to be successful or not. Scope, roles, responsibilities, and governance. At least two of the three we have problems with right here. I think we can't continue to throw money against problems and expect better results. You know, if if this fundamentally isn't working, we have to make a change. And if we think that just by continuing to sign off of more and more money that eventually we're going to get to done, I can give you a long list of projects that have gone down a path like this and I can tell you where they ended and was a positive. So, I think we have to acknowledge the fact that you know what, we have problems with projects right now and we have to look at how we're going to fix it. And the answer can't be always throwing more more money against problems. So, I'll leave you with that. >> Thank you, Councelor Cooper. Uh, councelor Clark, please go ahead. >> Thank you, Mayor. I have uh two questions and I'm hoping that I'll get brief responses if possible. Uh, the first one is with regards to potential risk. So, if I understand correcting, we're taking the original 11 enterprise asset management systems and turning them into one. Does that not create risk for the municipality that if that system fails, all of those 11 departments are down? >> Director Leechman >> through the chair. Uh no, we are on a cloud-based solution uh with a so through our um solution provider that is is through the cloud and uh we have backup processes in place as well. I'm not sure whether uh Cyrus wants to speak in wants to jump in here. H >> I'm sorry. How does it being on the cloud make it secure? >> Cyrus is going to respond. Please go ahead. >> Yeah. So I would um I can add to that. So a lot of our systems reside on with vendors on uh cloud-based systems. As part of those systems, they have uh both dual hosting across various data centers and redundancy controls as part of that delivery. Uh our experience has been that um using uh cloud solutions uh provides us with more resiliency uh than often having a uh an on-remise solution. And I would say the majority of our core systems uh that we use uh our large uh enterprise uh software solutions are all cloud-based and we build resiliency into how we um have availability for those systems as well and I would say that they're actually present less risk than us hosting uh solutions within our infrastructure. So help me understand again from a perspective if it's in the cloud, how is it more secure than having more than one EMS here within our municipality. You're taking 11, merging them to one. It looks efficient but I've got many questions as to what happens when you merge 11 systems into one. Uh so what I can say is that um having 11 systems uh the overhead licensing the integrations that are required the inefficiencies that come out of having uh those and I think director Leeman spoke to some of the original business cake work that was done is this is standard practice. So Toronto standardized EAM they spent 80 million Montreal standardized EAM solutions 66 million. Edmonton has a combination of a single SAP uh ERP EAM solution 113 million uh Winnipeg I believe they spent about 20 million >> standard I asked about the risk >> taking it from 11 to1 I don't really care what other municipalities are doing I'm talking about the risk to this municipality by doing what you're proposing so who has assessed the risk for us and please don't tell me it's one of the two vendors. >> So, I'm going to I don't know. I think this is back to um back to Director Leechman. Um so, if you wanted to take that uh Director Leechman um unless unless you wanted to respond further. >> No, that's >> No, no, I don't mean I don't mean you, Councelor Clark. I'm just looking at uh >> uh Cyrus. >> Oh, you're looking over me. My >> apologies. I'm sorry. I don't mean to look over you. I certainly don't overlook you. Um, >> sure. So, sorry. So, specifically to the question, there are redundancies and I think the risk to the organization is mitigated by the fact that the vendor has backup solutions in place. We do security assessments on our vendors. uh and the system is effectively dual hosted as it relates to having redundancy in the way the system is architected and made available to us through the service provider. >> Thank you. And the last question is with regards to the existing procurement policy number 11 non-competitive procurement. So in this case the current vendor Hexagon Intergraft Canada ULC previously Info Canada is one of two standard vendors. Is connect data solutions the other vendor? >> Yes, that is correct. >> Thank you. And so how did we come to decide to do a non-competitive bid for this process? I know I've asked it before. I'll I'll keep asking it. I'm I struggle with the value for money for the taxpayers if we are not asking other vendors to tell us what they could provide and how much it would cost through the chair. Uh, excellent question counselor. I think it needs to be recognized that this is a complex system and to put it out for competitive procurement as we've we as we learned when we when we went to initially uh head in the direction uh in 2019 of this system we were unable to find any other vendors on the marketplace when we were when we were looking at our options. So at that time what council approved was the this the solution provider and using the solution provider implementation partner skill set as we as we progressed through that work we learned of the complexity of Hamilton processes and we learned that one of one of hexagon's partners so they're all if you uh in these complex systems there are partnerships that are established so that there's an understanding of the of the system provider and then kind of approved partners in the world. Um, Connectado is one of those approved partners. They're much they're a Canadian company. They're much closer to home and they had the specific expertise. They implemented Metroinks. They've implemented other solutions uh other using this solution for other uh organizations in our area. they had a better understanding of Canadian municipal requirements and so they they made a better a better partner at that time uh given the complexities that we had learned. >> Um I'll just make one last comment using Metroinks as an example of success in handling complex projects. They have set some records in terms of cost overruns on light rail transit in the Toronto corridor. So, I still have concerns. I'll be quiet now. Simply vote against it. Thank you. >> Uh, thank you, Councelor Clark. Councelor Moren Wilson, please. >> Thank you. Um could I just get a few questions to go back to the principles of the project and the purpose of the investment um with this uh enterprise asset management project? What what problem are we seeking to to fix? What's the problem statement please? >> Dr. Leechman, >> thank you for the question through the chair. our asset management there. I always look at the world through opportunities. Um we were inefficient and ineffective in our asset management. We were dis disjointed and um we had the opportunity to bring greater efficiencies and reduce costs for the city. That's the short problem statement that we are trying to solve. Going from reactive asset management to proactive asset management. Thank you. Um I think we've uh I think it's fair to say we've um heard some uh dissatisfaction with perhaps the completion rate of some of our our public works. Uh and I'm wondering does this kind of project would it uh support or deplete our efforts to organize internally and to support our work on capital capital works please director Leeman >> through the chair uh it would definitely bring efficiencies and greater effectiveness to how capital is done. Think of it as one-stop shopping where everything that you need to effectively manage assets is all in one system. It allows us to create and and have better decision-m through integrated data that all groups have have access to and it allows stronger life cycle management through engagement where engineering services would have a view of across the board of of the work that they need to do. Capital projects. Um so if you think about the stages of life cycle management um acquisition is the first one and rehabilitation is the fourth one. Those are are greatly linked to capital management and are part of they're inherent in this system and how the system manages assets. So yes would make us greatly more efficient in our capital execution. >> Okay. So in summary it would help in the execution of works. >> Yes that's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. I think a question was asked about uh opportunity costs, but um if I could just have some clarity on um the risks of doing nothing. Uh what are those in terms of our ability to fulfill our core mandate which is to uphold the integrity of our capital assets that are owned by the residents of this community and the residents to who have yet not lived in this community. Um C could I just have some clarity about the the risks financially and in terms of the integrity of those assets and our capacity to fulfill our asset management responsibilities as regulated with not moving forward. It's not a setup. I really am trying to trying to understand through the chair. >> Thank you for the question and through the chair. I'm going to start off and then I think you need to hear uh general manager Kennedy's voice in terms of what is what public works is experiencing. Um but to start out in terms of of the opportunity cost, uh it's huge. Uh the business case had identified over 100 million in potential cost avoidance in in terms of moving forward with this system from an opportunity perspective. I am and I I hear the councelor's concerns today and I greatly respect and and uh hold them uh hold them seriously. But my concern is if this doesn't get approved today, uh we're talking about a delay of one and a half to two years of going out to external procurement that's going to you lose loss of knowledge, expertise, our implementation partner will more than likely be gone. Um, I also want to and director Kenn or general manager Kennedy can speak to this a bit more, but public works right now for those groups implemented is is um finding about 400,000 annually in overtime costs. Uh, we need we need to resolve that bleeding. Asset management would become fragmented. It would be hard to manage infrastructure, our life cycle of assets, and it would limit our ability to proactively plan. operational inefficiencies that exist today in public works where general manager uh Kennedy's staff are having to use overtime and manual processes to augment the the systems that the processes that are in the system today would continue and the bottom line to all of this is that staff morale is starting to suffer with this. I'll end there and and see if ask if if general manager Kennedy wants to add anything to that. >> Uh thank you Jim Kennedy, please go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh Jackie Kennedy, general manager of public works. Um so we are at a point as as is indicated in the report where several divisions have received the minimum viable product roll out of EAM um and and are working through uh the learning curve of the system uh as well as um a system that is not fully built out to support the endto-end processes um to do the the work and to integrate into the system. And so while there are um there are benefits to having it all in one system at this point, those full the full effect of those benefits isn't realized until we have um further work done to advance from minimum viable product to full buildout. Um and so we're still working in a fragmented environment and many of you um counselors have have heard me respond about um where did a work order go? um why aren't we receiving timely updates on on these things? Um and part of the reason for that is because we need this system to be built out to the full extent of its capabilities. Um without doing that, we're going to remain working within the system of EAM as well as pairing that up with um to some extent some some um some systems that have been put in place in a temporary basis um since the cyber incident. So for for the the two and a half years since then, some of the systems that we relied on pre-Cyber um are are not put back in place in the um in the time of of waiting and working with the EAM roll out. Um and so it is really critical to um public works effective and efficient operations to to see this through um and to finish that build out. Uh, Councelor Wilson, I know there's been a lot of explanation from staff, so please go, please continue. >> Thank you. Um, it seems to me that uh the the recurrence, the impact of the cyber incident for me, it's um kind of like knob and two, right? It's not really sexy. You don't see the investment. Um I really prefer a nice kitchen. Uh but in the absence of that I can't get insurance and my house is not going to function safely and optimally. Um and for me that has been the lesson of cyber two decades or more of underinvesting in a knob and tube and we're paying for it heavily. And while I appreciate the comment of we don't care what happens uh in other municipalities, if if this is a best practice that is in operation to billion dollar corporations other in other places and we cannot do it and deliver here then we are yes underperforming and underdelivering on the most critical of assets and our capacity to manage and deliver them on time. So, it's uh I I appreciate the assistance in understanding the problem statement. Thank you. >> Uh thanks uh councelor uh Wilson. Councelor Spataphor, you're going to go on for a third time, but we have other speakers first, but you'll have to get a motion. So, councelor Cretch, please go ahead. I find myself in the same spirit anyways of councelor Moren Wilson about this issue specifically when we do think about the context of this being a billion dollar corporation. The number one thing I've talked about with residents has been their perception or concern about how the city is doing things. But when you start to actually get into that conversation a bit more and explain it, the number one word I use is coordination. If we can't coordinate what we're doing here, we're going to continue to fall down the stairs. That's it. And this will help us to ensure that we can coordinate, make sure that projects get delivered, make sure that our asset management programs are happening in the right way. We have so much more work to do. We haven't even started. There's things that this project will allow us to unlock in terms of some of our natural assets and things like that. Um, we'll free up some time for people to do things. And I'm I'm really alive to I suppose some of the things that the director has mentioned that have been out of our control. And I appreciate the course corrections along the way. Some things that you can't course correct for. But when we noticed the performance of the previous vendor wasn't up to our satisfaction, we found a way to course correct. And we're now with someone who's performing well. According to the director, when we had the hiccups we've had with COVID and other kind of problems with cyber security, we found a way to start again and and reboot. And those things came with associated costs. No one's denying that. No one's happy about that. But if we don't proceed with this, we risk losing the progress we've made and frankly setting the city back. We can't keep acting like this is a town. This is just a collection of ideas. This is a city with many, many people in it. It's one of the largest municipalities in the country geographically, which means it's very difficult to coordinate here in a place like this as opposed to some of our neighboring municipalities. There's so many challenges we face here in Hamilton other municipalities do not face. So, I know it's a difficult decision to make and their criticisms have been valid that have been aired here today, but I do think we have to move forward with doing this or we're going to end up um regarding it later. >> Uh thanks, Councelor Crutch. Councelor Nan, please. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um just a quick question through you uh to staff to quantify the totality of this project and its work with the provincial mandate that every municipality needs to have robust asset management systems and that those robust asset management systems need to evolve and also be able to fulsomely tell the picture in order for municipalities to work with the province to secure the funding. and our asks and more importantly fulfill the mandate of the regulation that was passed in 2019 or something like that. Could staff just comment to how this project fits within the municipality's ability to meet that mandate proincially mandated requirement? >> I'm just looking to the bench. I don't know what whether that's the city manager, whether that's the GM GM Kennedy. Please go ahead. >> Sure. Thank you. Um through you, mayor. Um the uh it it certainly does that. This is this is the backbone of our future asset management systems um to allow us to um to be organized in how we approach the work, how we do um proactive planning um and we look across the the city for for how we move forward. Um and and so yes, this is part of our strategy on on how we respond to the legislative requirements. Thank you for the question. And we'd also have a city city man acting city manager Zeraric would like to add something as well. Please go ahead. >> Three you madame mayor. Ju just to provide some further context. Uh I'll just remind remind committee that uh municipalities embarking on asset management extends back to a requirement back in January 2018 when the provincial government brought in regulation that required municipal councils to approve asset management plans and financing strategies that triggered the requirement for municipalities to embark on this work and make these investments so that municipalities can make informed decisions with respect to the state of their assets. ass and how municipalities are going to ultimately fund uh the repair and replacement of those assets. Thank you. >> Yeah, thank you. And I think that's really important context to keep in uh mind as council as we're considering this report and its recommendations and perhaps mayor I will I will appine that the reason that there are so many examples of municipalities across Ontario that were cited by staff previously is because every single municipality across Ontario is embarking on this effort. um because it is proincially legislated to it's a requirement for every corporation, every municipal corporation to fulfill. Um and then more importantly for us as the city of Hamilton, the pieces here that are really critical for me, um you know, having the privilege to serve for two terms now and seeing what what the result of having a fragmented system that is incapable of communicating to itself um has has led to. Um, and for our residents, that is a municipality with crumbling infrastructure. Uh, it's a municipality with an estimated 5.2 billion dollar deficit when it comes to infrastructure. We have an obligation to demonstrate to our community that we have a clear plan and the capacity to plan effectively to address that deficit. Um, so, you know, I do appreciate my colleagues, you know, getting into the rigor of this. I think it's important to challenge uh information when it comes back, especially when it results in millions of dollars investment from the city and our public funding towards these systems. But um we are in a position where not doing this would cost the municipality more and uh that clear that case has been made very very clearly. So happy to support the report that's on the table. Thank you. >> Uh thank you councelor Nan. I have second uh time and third time speakers on the list. Is there any other firsttime speakers to this item? Seeing none, I have a couple of uh brief questions as well. Just um just in terms of how far along we are in this process, I think the number was 60 something%. Can you please uh confirm? >> Yes, through the chair. Approximately 60% of public works assets are in EAM now. And so we have about 40% more to go >> from an asset through the chair. From an asset perspective, yes, the groups that are live uh are um transportation, environmental services, uh waste management, fleet, and transit. >> Okay. Uh I appreciate that. Um and so I guess the other question I would have I'm sorry, through the acting or through the uh deputy mayor, uh sorry, councelor Wilson. Um, so is there so if we were to stop now and discontinue our progress in this regard, some of the complaints that we all hear and that I hear as well uh and that we heard during our budget um uh discussions last year around in our in our public uh meetings and that people are talking about on the campaign trail regularly like potholes, sidewalks, infrastructure falling apart, uh etc., et, etc., etc. And we're on the cusp of building new infrastructure, by the way. $572 million worth of new infrastructure, folks. Like, we have to get it together when it comes to this kind of investment and making sure that that investment is looked after over time. It has not been. We have struggled through this term of council to answer to why our infrastructures crumbling, why our roads aren't being done, why our water manes are breaking. These are the things that people are talking about constantly. And what our staff are saying is because we don't we're not coordinated. We don't have the capacity to manage the amount of infrastructure that we currently have on our docket and we're about to get a whole bunch more. And so I guess my my question would be what is the sunk cost of having 60% done? Now I get what the cost is in terms of morale which has been spoken about. I get what the cost is when it comes to the cost of overtime. And maybe somebody has the figure of what those 4,000 hours or I don't know what the number was anymore, but a figure of what financially that costs us to have all of that overtime. Morale, as people who are business folks around this this table know very well, as we do as counselors as well and the mayor, the morale is important for an organization. So, we can't really quantify that financially. But when it comes to the cost of um of the overtime, that's got to be a significant order of magnitude. I don't know uh acting city manager whether you have that as your with your uh your hat on as uh as our general manager of finance, but is there some kind of understanding of that? Uh I think uh I think director Leechman uh is also prepared to respond. So up to you. >> Yeah. through through the chair. I'll start and then I'll invite Director Leechman to add. Uh the report does speak to uh just within public works, it amounts to approximately $400,000 a year as it relates to the overtime impact. uh what we haven't quantified is the impact it has in terms of morale and uh so the combination of the overtime and having to do all the workarounds uh are are impacting what we've heard in terms of morale and moving off of the minimum viable product and moving to the full functionality should mitigate both of those factors. >> Thank you. Um, and then on the sunk costs piece, >> uh, through the chair, I'll ask director Leechman if she has that information. >> Uh, through the chair, are you asking madame mayor what we spent to date? That's just shy of 20 million. >> Okay. So, thank you. I appreciate that. And so, this is for us. This is a crossroads. We either keep doing things the same way, keep getting the same complaints, keep not keeping up with our infrastructure. The next council uh is going to end up with the same kind of complaints that we've had, the same kind of problems. We've already put a significant investment into this system. Now, I know we're on the even of an election, and I know it's easy to just go on to the doorstep and talk about the waste of money. Uh but this would be a waste of everybody's money. not only in terms of the the the infrastructure deficits that we have, but in terms of what we've already invested, we have to push this city forward, folks. And yes, it's tough and you know, it's difficult and we don't want to talk about spending money right before an election, but what we're doing is we're investing in the future of this city and in the infrastructure that everybody's complaining about. Everybody's complaining about it. If if one of you can tell me you've never heard an infrastructure complaint on the doorstep, whether it's during this campaign or whether it's the past four years, then I will be gobsmacked. So when you have problems, you got to solve them, people. You got to solve the problems. And sometimes that is expensive. So I want to ask this question. Ironically, I believe, and I might be wrong, that this is actually a capital project as well. So we're talking about our capital assets. We're talking about the management of our assets. This is a capital project as well. Am I correct >> through the chair? Yes, that is correct. >> Okay. And so the financing of this project isn't going to hit the taxpayer uh in one big um blob. It's going to be financed over time, which is also what we do with our assets. We finance them over time. Am I correct >> through the chair? That's correct. It depending on the assets, it's either funded from contribution. It could be deaf funded or funded from external revenue such as the federal funding can candidate community building fund. Those are typical uh funding sources for the city's tax supported program. >> Okay. I know I'm I'm over my time. I can see the looks between the uh >> same you gave everyone else. But yes, if you have a final comment before getting back on. >> I'm I fine. I've asked the questions I I needed to ask and I appreciate that uh that you cut me off. I do appreciate that. I'm not kidding. >> Uh chairs, back to you. Uh thanks very much. Uh so we don't have any other firsttime speakers on this item. Uh but we do have uh councelor Clark as a second time speaker. Please go ahead. C Oh, sorry. We need the Oh, wait. >> Hold on. Okay. Moved by councelor Cooper, seconded by councelor Jackson. Uh councelor Clark, please go ahead. >> Oh, sorry. All those in favor? Any opposed? Go ahead. Sorry. Thank you, mayor. There's been a great deal of discussion around the room. My questions were specific to the risk of the system and the moving from 11 enterprise asset management systems into one single enterprise asset management to be governed by two different companies. And my concern remains about that risk. And if I'm looking at the item B and C correctly, um we are seeing a significant increase again in this program. So we're shooting up to $5.6 6 million um between now, which is 650,000, 2.3 million before the budget is approved, and 2.37 after the budget is approved. There's been a great deal of discussion um and a lot of innuendo. I am not arguing that we shouldn't be doing asset management. Asset management, as some of my colleagues have pointed to, is a provincial legislation that requires all municipalities to do that. My question is about the security of the system and the risk of the system when it's in the cloud under a private company's umbrella and not within this corporation's purview. that provides significant risk to the municipality. So, I remain concerned. I disagree with the non-competitive procurement. I have in the past. I'll continue to do that. But all of the talk that I've heard, I didn't hear people except for Pat Leechman address the answer with regards to risk. And nobody has stated definitively that there is no risk. There is risk if you buy a system that is kept in a private company's system in the cloud and you're a license to use that system. That's the risk and it's significant and we are buying into this that these are two large companies. That's why we're going with them. They they have the technology. They have the the the knowledge and and they've assured us that there's no risk. I can tell you that prior to the cyber attack, we had similar asurances as a council. Thank you. >> Thanks, Councelor Clark. Um, councelor Morin Wilson for a second time. Uh, moved by councelor Spadaphora, seconded by councelor Jackson. All those in favor? Any opposed? Uh, please go ahead. Uh, councelor Wilson. >> I'm sorry. Thank you. I um I've always been uh very open with my colleagues about my limitation on understanding it stuff. Um so if if there is uh there's a conversation of of risk, I certainly want to understand it. And if I may, that will be the basis of of my second series of questions. Um I would like to better understand uh my elementary understanding is there's there's no way we can eliminate any element of risk in anything that we do in any system uh in life. Um so may I have an understanding of the risks that were present uh that maybe during cyber what risks were present there that perhaps exposed us in terms of where information was held or whatever. Can you help me understand? And then can you help me understand how we're mitigating risks with um the concern that my colleague has raised about uh going elsewhere? Can I can I just have a very simplified overview of the before and after risks, please? >> Uh thanks uh councelor Wilson. Uh Cyrus, please go ahead. >> Sure. >> Chief information officer. >> Thank you for the question. Um and I think any uh technology solution uh presents a a host of risks. >> Yes. Um I think what we have seen and observed uh to your question counselor um is that uh larger enterprises who deliver services for multiple customers have a significant uh in and incentive and robust plans as it relates to resiliency and availability. So as some examples are um our office environment uh that we use you know Microsoft 365 is a cloud solution our ERP interim ERP is a cloud solution our telefan system is a cloud solution our customer relationship management solution is a cloud solution our point of sales our um um our public facing citizen services through my hamilton.ca CA our computerated dispatch. These vendors provide solutions to multiple multiple businesses, carry huge lines of business and they have the expertise and the business mandate to ensure that their systems are resilient. Whether it be through the third party regulatory requirements that they're required to meet, whether it be through audits uh and compliance requirements, whether it's through how they've structured their systems through availability of backup and high failover, that type and depth of infrastructure is challenging for a municipality um to host. If you think about one, let's take one any application, you know, you have a data center that has our information in in Vancouver, you have a data center in Toronto that has our information. There's an issue, there's connectivity, there's challenges. Those vendors are managing that cut over and switch over to ensure 99.999% and often cases of availability of those systems. We just are not um uh set up to provide that level of resiliency. um and service availability and we experienced that during cyber in which that we saw you know 80% of our systems impacted the 20% that were not were those that had some of that resiliency through third party cloud provided services I hope that answers the question so what I heard then please is that it is our practice throughout this corporation to use these external uh partners and these cloud-based on on everything we do, my my emails and the like. And then I I'm seeing affirmation from um Mr. And the second thing I heard is that um in fact uh our cyber incident we were exposed for not um having uh external with parties whose core business or only business is to uphold the safety and security of information. Did I hear that correctly? Because I am genuinely trying to understand this >> chief information officer. So that's an exposure that we had and this would correct it. Thank you. I understand a little bit better. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh councelor Wilson. Uh so we need a motion for councelor spat to be on for a third time. Moved by councelor Wilson. Seconded by councelor Jackson. Everybody in favor? Any opposed? Uh please go ahead. Uh councelor spata. >> Thanks Marin. Again, I apologize since I missed this discussion uh at GIC and I thank uh my committee members and council members for allowing me to speak. Again, I just I have a few questions and and a couple things I want to point out. I just want to be clear, I never mentioned that this program was unimportant or not needed. For sure needed and uh for sure important. As for underfunding in IT, uh before I was here, I believe at the time of the cyber attack, the IT reserve had $12 million in it. So, I don't know if it was underfunded or just not executed on. Uh, and again, I listen, we all know I'm not the smart person in the room, and that's clear by everybody else. So, that's why I need some more uh questions. Mayor Horvath. Um, see, we educators agree. I think I've done okay. Uh, so we had a third party on this. I just want to confirm something. And please, if staff can keep, if they can, I understand it's complex. Um, so if you need more time, but if we can keep the answer short so I don't have to go on again. We had a third-party consultant that worked on this. We lost data during cyber. The data would the third party not have their data um that they would have had during this collaboration we were doing with them. I would assume their third party IT or data whatever you want to call it would not have been affected by our cyber through you. I don't know if that's Cyrus or or D I don't know who wants to take that. >> Uh go ahead director Leeman. >> Thank you for the question. I think we need to separate out the system itself which we were in the midst of of designing, developing and building from the actual work to create the system and the processes in the system. So when cyber hit we uh so no the implementation partner that we're currently working with councelor through the chair is is all about helping us to design and configure our processes in the system. What we lost was all of that work which was on our uh Hamilton SharePoint site. >> So every all the work that was done was on our site just to confirm that work that was done with that third party >> for the most part. Yes. Correct. To through the chair. Uh my next question uh if you can explain um to me what it what it means. So page 7 of 21 says at the end of the chart it says that we have 75 and this is how I interpret it. So maybe I'm interpreted wrong so please forgive me if if I am says 75% confidence that the 30 the 28 call it 30 million we are going to spend is going to achieve what this project was supposed to do. Did I do I understand that correctly? We have 75% confidence that at the end of the 30 million and the work that the teams need to do, we'll achieve our goal. Is it through you, Mayor? >> Director Leechman. >> Thank you for the question through the chair. No, not quite. Uh the 75% confidence is our confidence that we with the funding that we're asking for that we won't be coming back to ask for more funding. Your I think where you are headed counselor is more around the is the system going to do what it says it's going to do. I can guarantee that with 100%. >> Oh, I I totally agree with you. I think when the system's actually up and running and working, it's going to do what it's it's going to do for sure. Um, last thing, I think this is for um, director of IT or chief digital officer You mentioned other municipalities and their EM process and what they spent. And again, I could have missed this portion. Did we do any benchmarking against those municipalities for what we've spent, what they've spent? Is there any of that work being done? And if there isn't, can we do that work? So we can compare ourselves and where we're at in our journey with where they're at in their journey. How many millions have they've spent? How many millions we've spent? Can we do that benchmarking since it was mentioned that there was Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, I think a few others through you, mayor. >> I'm not sure who can respond to that uh question. So I'm looking to the bench. >> I'll take that to start and if Director Lee wants away chime in. >> Um at this point I'm not aware of any actual benchmarking we've done as a comparator. Uh if that's the direction of council, we're happy to take that uh information away um and uh act on it if that's council's uh wish. But I'll turn over to director Leechman if she has any other commentary um that she wants to add. Director Leeman, >> very quickly through the chair, there was benchmarking done at the very start of the project. Um I believe that information would need to be updated. >> Okay. Um do you need direction to update that director or do you think that's something that you can um along the way here bring I mean if if you're saying it's from the start of the process, I'm assuming we're talking 2018 or 2020 somewhere around that. I I don't know that I think we need updated information. I mean, I'll move direction if we need, mayor. But if if the director is going to provide, I don't need to move that direction. It's whatever you guys think. >> Um I I one of the things that we've experienced is if we don't provide the direction, sometimes we get worried that uh we don't get the reports back. And I know that's been a challenge that you've identified as well, counselor. So >> I I have a final comment and then I'll move that direction if that's okay. Um, again, I just want to be clear that um, no one's questioning the need um, for the program or the the legislative requirement for parts of the program. I think um, you know, we're I hope we're on a path. I mean, we've invested we're invested now. I would say transparency, accountability needs to um, bubble up to the top here. It's if everything goes perfect, it's going to be a 10-year process and $30 million. And that's if everything were to go okay. And I know it's a continuing process. I've learned that today. I'm learning things cuz, you know, again, not the smartest guy around. So, someone told me this is a continuing process. So, I understand money is going to have to continually be spent to update our systems to make sure we're delivering for our taxpayers. Um, which I agree with. But just again, transparency and accountability around a 10-year process. $30 million we're going to spend. Um, and you know, for the taxpayers sake, I hope in 2028 when we're some people are sitting here um that the $30 million and the program is up and running. Um, cuz I don't know, I'm a little nervous about it. But anyways, I'll move motion uh and if someone wants to second it to add benchmarking to the work that's in this. Thank you, mayor, for seconding that to add bench update the benchmarking that was currently done at the beginning of the process and update that benchmarking to um 2026 or current um information that would be available so that we can have a better view of uh where we stand um in money and um sort of programming if that makes any sense. If the director wants to change the language, I'm open to that. Thank you. Thanks, Councelor Spataphor. I'm happy to second it. Can I ask just whether there's a an opportunity for um understanding what a report back might be available on the benchmarking, how how long that might take so that we can add that >> uh through the chair. Uh just for my clarification, that doesn't delay the decision today. Is it is it is are you looking for Okay, thank you for that clarification. Uh we we could probably do that within the next couple months. >> So um well it's only October now, right? So >> first council meeting >> end of Q1. I don't know. I mean I'm I'm thinking is there an opportunity to have it done when the first council meeting takes place or or do you need it till January Q1? >> If the counselors hap I see Cyrus wants to say something. I think if we aim for early Q1 with a hope to bring it back sooner than that, um I see if Director Leechman's in agreement with that timeline. >> Yes, I support that. >> Okay. So, if possible before the end of the year, but no later than Q1 of 2027. >> Okay. So, that's the um the motion that's in just in terms of what we're doing procedurally. We have a motion on the floor that's uh that uh came from the discussion. We're gonna do that first. Okay. Is that all right with everybody? Um, so it's moved by councelor Spataphora and seconded by myself. And there any speakers to that motion? Councelor Casar, please. >> Thank you. A couple things just through you mayor to the mover. Just understanding that this is in parallel to the recommendation before us. It's not meant to be a requirement in order to approve the recommendations. >> Yeah. No, it's okay. Just making sure. >> Okay. And then secondly, uh how does the benchmarking is that going to assist staff in doing the work and will it impede or slow down anything? So is it going to add value and will it slow anything down? >> Uh thanks very much councelor Casar. I'll look to director Leechman or chief information officers >> through the chair. We're always happy to provide information back to council. Um, we will do our best to make sure it doesn't impede or slow us down. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Uh, thanks, Councelor Casar. Um, I don't see any further discussion on the item of the uh motion. So, we'll go to the vote. Uh, we'll take a electronic vote, I believe, or >> Yeah, it would be a an electronic vote. Mayor, I'm just confirming. So, this is because you already have something on the floor. This is an amendment. You're adding this clause to the motion that's on the floor. >> Oh, okay. >> So, what the vote right now would just be to amend the motion to add the following clause that staff report back to council in Q1 2027 with updated benchmarking associated with this project, including current information to provide a better view of cost and programming. >> Okay. So, then we'll vote on that that amendment. uh as was described by the clerk. All those in favor Oh, sorry. We got to go electronically. It's uh the votes up. That carries 15 to zero. Uh, thanks very much. So, now we're on to the uh the report that's before us with the amendment that staff had provided. Am I correct? >> So, yes. And we can put this up if anybody needs it on the screen, but essentially staff have recommended the added amendment which needs to be moved and seconded to be added to those recommendations. >> Okay. I don't see any further speakers on this. Uh sorry >> I'm sorry. You needed to wanted to speak to item A. Councelor Clark >> item A separately. >> It's procurement issue. >> The procurement issue. Okay. Uh so the item is before us. Can we put it up on the screen please? Just so that everybody's very clear as to what we're doing. So this is the motion that's before us. There's uh item D and E are the added pieces. One was the uh report back. Um, and then the other was uh the one that the staff added as a result of our conversation from the committee meeting. >> I'll just confirm. So D has now been added. That's what you just voted on. So this is now your motion. A through D. We need a mover and seconder to add E as was recommended by the supplemental report. >> So that's moved by councelor Nan and seconded by councelor Casar. Uh so just on the added item E from the staff report, can we put that one up please? This is the added information that the staff were asked to bring back from the committee to this council meeting. and that carries 15 to zero. And so I think now we're on the Uh, councelor Clark, please go ahead. >> Sorry, mayor, we kind of got lost in in the conversation. So, I'd like to to vote against item A because it is a >> a policy 11, single sourcing, and I continue to have concerns. Thank you. >> Uh, thank you. So, then we'll pull item A uh for a separate vote. Um, so on item A then, can we put that in front of us? >> Thank you. Uh, and that carries 10 to five. Uh, thanks very much. Uh, and now I believe we're on the the balance of the item. Can you put that up too, please? and that also carries 10 to 5. It was a tough discussion. Thanks very much everybody. Uh and thanks to staff for helping to clarify the questions that uh counselors had. Okay. Uh we are now at 11:56. So what do we have next? We have Okay. Um, we have lunch. No. Do we have food? People want food now? >> No. You want to keep going a little bit? >> I'm just looking around. Just trying to get a sense of uh people want to take your break now? >> People want to take a break now. Okay. All right. So then So if that's all right with folks, we'll um uh we've got a half an hour break. Uh so uh we need the motion to res No, we don't need the motion to recess. We'll we'll we'll come back for at 11 uh sorry at 12:30. We'll be back folks. Okay. 12:30. Thanks everyone. Thank you. Apologies for the short delay here and getting back uh rolling by 330 or by 12:30. Uh we're on 8.2 now. General general issues committee outstanding business list update. May I have a mover and secondary to put the revised outstanding business list for GIC on the floor, please? Moved by councelor Gretch, seconded by councelor Wang. Uh is there any discussion on this item the updated list? Seeing no cam uh councelor crutch please go ahead. Thanks very much. This was add to the agenda at my request because I wanted to make sure there was an explanation for each item as to why it was being moved down the road. And so I want to thank first the planning committee and legislative coordinator Kelsey because we haven't had an ability to actually track some of these issues before. So what happens is they come to come to us, they just have a date on them and the data is just changed and we don't know what's going on. So this is hopefully toward a process where we're eventually going to have a list of all the outstanding business items for every single committee with reasons on there for anytime they need to change. A couple things to note from this that I think are important. what we're seeing in terms of individual things and individual wards. I'll leave that toward counselors to to quibble with. But in terms of improved enforcement of snow removal bylaw to assist seniors and persons with disabilities, which was moved a while back now, staff are clearly saying they can't meet that timeline and are going to need to push that to a future winter. So, I'm just saying that out loud because I think these changes are actually very material changes to the outstanding business list. And if people don't know that's happening, they should. And again, there's detailed written response now from staff on the OPL telling you why that's happening. Also, uh same with green building standards implementation, waving street festivals, fees for use of on street parking spaces and pedestrianization on a collection of streets for the for the on street festival fees and the pedestrianization. I think that makes sense to delay them because we now have a downtown revitalization strategy and that revitalization strategy is changing a lot of the timelines there and we're trying to do this work in a more coordinated fashion. I'll just leave it at that. I think it's good to have this information in front of us and know the reasons why. I don't think there's anything that can be done to avoid these things, but we should know and the public should know why it's happening. Thank you. >> Uh thanks, Councelor Crutch. I don't see any any other speakers uh to this item, so we'll go to the electronic vote, please. the amended the amended um outstanding business list 8.2. Thank you. That carries 14 to zero. Thanks very much. Uh we're now on to 8.3 uh and 8.3A which is development of an adequate temperature bylaw and pilot program in ward 2 and then correspondence respecting uh that report. So uh peed26074. So may I have a mover and secondary to put the recommendations in the report on the floor and to receive the related correspondence? Moved by councelor Cretch, seconded by councelor Alex Wilson to put the report on the floor and receive the correspondence. Uh um any discussion now that it's on the floor? We have councelor crutch, please. >> Thank you. I would like to move a series of amendments to this report and I've circulated those all to my council colleagues as soon as I could. Before you do that though, I wanted to ask acting general manager Brian Hollingworth if he could speak to the amendments I'm putting forward and the staff process around those. >> Uh thank you for that opportunity through the mayor to councelor Cretch. Um we're we're really pleased to bring this uh bylaw forward respecting an adequ adequate temperature bylaw. It it dates back to council direction in as far back as 2023. Uh the adequate temperature bylaw, if approved, would establish a maximum uh indoor temperature of 26 degrees Celsius in rental units and requiring landlords to provide adequate cooling measures to achieve that standard. So, we're talking about air conditioning. Uh the development of this bylaw uh we recognize has taken some time uh with input from many stakeholders and in the in the context of some changing res legislation at the provincial level. But staff are confident here today that that what's being put put forward uh is is is uh is sound. Um as noted in the report, the bylaw would be it the first of its kind in Ontario. So we want to get this right. We we also recognize that there's there's different perspectives in the in the community and perhaps on council on the scope of the bylaw and related recommendations and and some of those include geographic coverage as to whether it should be uh applied to W 2 or citywide. Uh the dates of applicability which in the report as you've read uh recommend from May 15th to September 15th and as we experience climate change maybe those dates uh will will expand. Um so it could be you know considered for the entire year uh for example. Um there's also some feedback with that we've re received on whether it should be a pilot or or a permanent program. And finally with respect to the question of of funding um the report recommended that it it be referred to for consideration to the to the budget budget process but there may be other mechanisms that can um allow us to advance things in in the meantime. So, just with that, we recognize the importance of of addressing extreme uh heat on Hamilton residents and look forward to council's consideration of this bylaw and staff are here to answer any questions that you may have. >> Uh, thanks very much, um, Councelor Kretch. >> Thanks very much. I appreciate that overview. And so, I sent this email out to all of my colleagues, but if the legislative coordinators will put the amendment up and so I can table it. Seconded by councelor Nan. essentially and briefly want to say that how we've constructed this didn't exactly follow along with council's direction in 2023. For those of us on this term of council, you remember the same thing happened when it came to the renovations bylaw. We put a specific direction in place. It didn't come forward exactly as we had directed. So then we had to adjust and amend that on the floor and we're back in that same spot. And I recognize just to be fair that there's been a number of people inside and outside this role. Every time staff have had to bring something forward, they've had to go back, review the original motion, have a discussion with people, get the history, and then try and bring it forward. So, I I just think we haven't hit the mark here. The reason why this is being proposed in this manner is to avoid a few pitfalls from occurring. Number one, we unanimously supported the maximum heat bylaw already. So, that's done. And so, we have to make sure that we actually have a gap fill between now and when the budget is approved. If we don't do that, then what will happen is we will wait till the end of the budget process to approve this in March and this won't be in place for next summer because we have to give at least six months of time for people to actually comply with the bylaw before we implement the bylaw. If we implement it in March, then the compliance won't start till the following September, which means this won't be implemented till 2028. For those following along, this is supposed to be implemented in 2024. So, we're now two years behind. Uh three years, we'll be behind. if we wait, we'll be four years behind, which I don't think is acceptable considering again we all asked this work to be done much earlier in this term of council. So the first thing is that sorts this problem out. Also, uh we never directed this to be a pilot. We directed that we implement the bylaw, not implement a pilot. We're real clear around here when we want something to be a pilot and we put the word pilot in and so that wasn't the direction. Finally, I'm, you know, I'm happy for us to approve something in W 2. Obviously, if we do that, the majority of tenants in buildings would be supported through this. So, about 50% of the tenants in buildings live in W 2, but if you know this, 200,000 tenants live citywide. And I don't think it's it's fair to do it just in W 2. So, I think it should be expanded citywide as well to make sure that's that's again the direction that we gave was citywide, not confined to a specific ward. And uh as the director also mentioned the dates, so science tells us now we shouldn't have May 15th to September 15th as dates. anymore. Those should come out and it should be based on the actual temperature. As you might know, our first heat warning in this term of council, I'm sorry, in this calendar year was May 2nd. Um, that was our extreme heat day. And the last one last year, I think was October, it was after uh well after September 15th. It was in October. So, those dates don't make sense anymore and we have to take those out. So, this amendment deals with those four things. Um, and that's the amendment I'm putting on the floor and asking for council to support. And again, I support the original pilot if this doesn't pass, but my intention is that we do get this right, and I think resident renters are asking for us to get it right. >> Uh, thanks, Councelor Crutch. Councelor Clark, please. >> Uh, thank you, American. I ask staff a question with regards to this item. Um, do we have an understanding of what the costs are going to be to retrofit some of these large apartment buildings that are not exactly current in their design? >> Uh, Dan Smith, director of licensing and by services through you, Madame Mayor. uh we don't have an understanding of what those costs are and which is partially the reason that we um have put forward a pilot program so we have time to understand that from our stakeholders. >> Yeah, I I I don't I'm not opposed to the pilot so we can get a better understanding of of what the program is all about. Um, I am concerned um in that most of the structures that I've seen in in in the city of Hamilton, not just downtown, because there's some on the mountain as well, um, don't have the ability to install central air because of the design on the building. So, I'm I'm trying to understand what costs we are going to put on the backs of the tenants because if we order the landlords or property managers to retrofit the buildings to put in cooling systems in every apartment, that cost will be a municipal fee from the municipality. We forced them to do that. they will go to the landlord tribunal and go for an above guideline increase and tenants rents will go up to pay for that. Um because the landlord is not doing it for free. So I'm I'm trying to understand have we really assessed those costs so we know the ramifications and unintended consequences of doing what is being proposed here. I think it is noble. I think it is needed, but I'm struggling on the costing. So, do we have any of that? >> Uh, Director Smith. >> Uh, through you, Madam Mayor. Uh, so what we do know, but to answer your question simply, we we don't know the costs. Mhm. >> Um what we do know is that through consultation with property owners and that could be anywhere from individuals renting um portions of their homes or apartment buildings um that these will be capital costs for them to incur to incur uh and they would be moving forward with application for AGIS is what we have been told >> and they would do the AGI not just on the capital costs um director, but they would do the AGI on the electrical cost as well. Um so so that concerns me because we don't have a good idea. I mean, if the council is determined to do it, I would suggest the pilot so you could really get a good handle on it. Suggest the pilot be an award that has a large component of of multi-residential buildings, which historically is is council's award. Um, but I I worry about doing it across the entire city without having that information because the downside to this, although everyone will be cooled, will be um rents going up across the city. Thank you. >> Thanks, Councelor Clark. Counselor Jackson, please. >> Thanks, Mayor Horvath. Um, I was prepared to support what was here before us, the pilot program in W 2 and with the additional cost staffing be referred to the 27 budget. But with all the amendments, and I appreciated being alerted in the last 24 hours by the W 2 counselor, with all the amendments, it sounds like it's more action item uh today and none of this will be part of whoever's here starting in the 27 budget process. If I could ask through you to director uh Smith Dan, if you recall in the 25 budget, I tried to pause I think it was 12 additional hires FTEES because you had just hired 10 FTEEs to both cover off the apartment inspection bylaw as well as the renovations bylaw. I was outvoted in that budget 11 to five. And so I think roughly you have 20 22 new FTs in the last 18 months. Um could you give me the status of the work that they're doing please through you mayor Horvath. >> Thanks Councelor Jackson. Director Smith please. >> Uh through you Madame Mayor. So the the staff that are associated with the renovations work that we had done which uh links up both with the renovation license and relocation bylaw and the safe apartments bylaw. Uh those staff have been hired. We have a full complement of staff on that team. Uh and they're currently undertaking evaluations, inspections, and audits of um purpose-built apartment buildings across the city of Hamilton, which began um in January of this year with the hope of having all inspections and evaluations completed by September of 2027. >> Councelor Jackson. >> Okay. So, what you're saying is they're all extremely busy and none of them could potentially be available if this is passed today. Well, I had hoped in its original recommendation form that you would need all these extra bodies pending the budget of 27 through you, Mayor Horvat to Director Smith. >> Director Smith. >> Through you, Madame Mayor. So, they are available to assist and we do intend to use their support. However, if uh we were to just utilize those staff members, the work on the safe apartments bylaw would be significantly impacted and timelines for not only that program to be completed when uh in where we agreed to a timeline with through council. Um but it would slow down enforcement of um buildings that may not be complying with an adequate temperature bylaw as well. We'd have to share the work. was the Hamilton District Apartment Association um consulted and I I want to get on the table Mayor Horvath. Uh this term of council I have supported the uh renovictions bylaw uh championed by councelor Nan. I supported the apartment safe inspections by law as well, feeling it was necessary, he hearing many of the stories from tenants that couldn't that couldn't have a voice for themselves in terms of um any conflict with their landlord, which they didn't want to lose their homes. I was part of a council's pass that had the May 15th to September 15th extended time for the air conditioning to put be put back on. Through you to Director Smith, I'm really getting concern that landlords are all being lumped together. I think there's some darn good responsible small midsize giant landlords in our city. And for those that are derelic Mayor Horvath, for those that we've heard the horror stories and have taken advantage of loopholes, that's why we passed the renovations bylaw. That's why we passed the safe inspection bylaw. I'm getting a little bit concerned that all the landlords are being lumped together. Through you to uh Director Smith, exactly what form of consultation took place with that industry, please? >> Director Smith. >> Uh through you, Madame Mayor. a few different as uh levels of consultation. The first was a survey that was done that gave the opportunity for landlords property owners to provide information. Uh and then we also met individually with the um Hamilton District Department Association to um speak with them at length about what this program is um scoped to achieve. >> Mayor, if I need to go on a second time or can I kind of try to wrap up in a question or two, please? >> Yes, please go ahead. >> Thanks for your indulgence. What was the flavor of their response uh to what you were bringing forward today? Director Smith, I'm not asking you to speak with for them, but since you did have that consultation by survey and in person, which I'm grateful for, what was the flavor of their reaction, please? Through you, Mayor Horvath. >> Director Smith. >> Through you, Madame Mayor. Um well, first I'll say is I did provide some written correspondence I think which is attached to the uh agenda that identifies specifically in their words how they feel about the program. But our understanding is that they're understanding and supportive of the idea of providing support for tenants. Um they are not as supportive as of a full adequate temperature bylaw. They identified a number of things the province has started to do and have implemented um and would like uh us to have further dialogue move. >> Can I ask whoever's phone is ringing to please uh take care of it and put it on a non-audible. >> Thanks Mayor Har. I appreciate that. >> Sorry Dr. Smith, did you get >> Director Smith? Were you completed there? you were saying about there were concerns about possible overlap or something that with the pro what the province is doing >> uh through you madam mayor. Yes, they had they had mentioned those items as part of consultation along with a number of other items. >> Okay. Thanks Director Smith. Mayor Horvath I wanted to support the original the pilot um targeting W 2 the concentration of the small midsize large apartment buildings there. I'm aware of the provincial uh work that's underway as well and um concerned about costs going into the 27 budget. And if this matter overall isn't referred back and if councelor Cretch's amendments are carried and are the order of the day, then I'll just have to vote against that because of what I had come in originally to support. Thanks, Mayor Horvath. >> Uh thanks, Councelor Jackson. Councelor Alex Wilson, please. Thank you through your you as chair. I just want to say I'm incredibly uh supportive of the amendments to this motion and think that they do a excellent job of reconciling what we've heard from community feedback. Delegates have come forward every single time that this program has been delayed to share their stances. And as a result of the program coming forward at the very last council meeting, um not necessarily at committee, not having those chances to provide delegations on this specific bylaw in front of us, we have the written correspondence that's been sent in as well as what delegations have been received in the past on this matter. Um I certainly recall when delegates have been asked the question point blank, do you still support a maximum heat bylaw even if it means that you get an AGI increase in your building? We've overwhelmingly heard the answer is yes. I want that. And so, do those delegates speak for every tenant in the city? Absolutely not. But I do think we have a responsibility to carry forward that when asked that question, we have consistently heard an answer from those advocating for the bylaw that yes, they want a maximum heat bylaw. Yes, we've also heard that they want it now, not in 2028. Um, and so I'd encourage folks thinking about the amendments uh put forward to think about um you know, the ability to look at them as a package or look at them as individual amendments as well. Um, I for one certainly think that we need to move forward before the summer of 2028 with providing maximum heat protection to some tenants in this city. Absolutely. Um, I'm confused about the comments of saying, "Well, I was originally prepared to support a downtown pilot as we as we had all planned for." The mention of a downtown pilot is less than 10 days old. That's new information that's counter to the direction that was originally proposed by council. So, I'm not bound by what was in ideas of 10 days ago has to be the implementation of this program. Uh, the model put forward in 2023 was citywide. If what staff are telling us is we need a phased implementation to get citywide, then sure, we can start smaller and phase up if that's a logistical consideration. I'm certainly on the side of let's get going bigger and faster. But if we do need to steady or move slowly or move cautiously, I'm open to those conversations with colleagues. But I think what we've told folks pretty consistently over the past 3 years, told uh tenants, told seniors in these buildings waiting on extreme heat is we care. We're listening and we're going to do something about it as soon as we can. I don't know that the process of getting here has made people feel like we do care. I don't know that the process of getting here has made people feel like we are going as fast as we can. But right now, whether the choices in front of us are perfect, whether or not there's funding associated with them or not, we do have an opportunity to follow through on the commitment we unanimously made back in 2023, which is, yeah, we heard you in the election. We've heard you at every consultation opportunity since the election. We've heard you at every consultation opportunity in working on this bylaw. This remains important. We care about people dying from extreme heat in our city, and we're going to do something about it. not moving forward with a bylaw today. I don't believe we can send those three messages to residents saying that we care, we've heard them, and we're going to do something about this quickly. I think we need a bylaw today. Thank you. >> Uh thanks, Councelor Wilson. Uh councelor Nan, please. >> Thank you, Mayor. And um yeah, also happy to support the amendments here um primarily because of the health impacts that have been reported by our residents and also that which has been discussed at the board of health in terms of with the increase changes in temperature that are not only anticipated but very real and very much happening here today now in Hamilton. Uh we know that those who are most vulnerable to extreme heat are older Hamiltonians, youth, and those living with chronic illnesses. Um and that they are impacted the most. Hamilton has the highest concentration of people living with disabilities. And so that does require our, you know, very many landlords uh and those who are in the business of providing rental properties to ensure that their homes are safe for the people who live in them. And I don't have to go into the moral argument there. It's just a fact, right? Temperatures continue to rise. Uh we're in a super El Nino year. We're anticipating to have the hottest fall after this little cold snap that we had with temperatures climbing back into the high 20s. And what we know of a lot of the built forum and I appreciate councelor Clark's point that there are a lot of older residential properties across the city. Um retrofitting the entire building is a massive cost but I don't think that this is this bylaw is requesting that specifically. There are opportunities to look at room specific solutions that are much more affordable for those who own the properties to implement. Um, and in W 3, we're the second highest concentration of tenants in the city with wards 1 through 5 having the highest existing renter population in the city of Hamilton. Wards 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 have all reported having the highest rate of increase. That's okay. Uh, the highest increase in renter population. So, your communities are where renters are moving. Your communities are where renters are finding housing. We don't have any guarantee that those new developments provide temperature, adequate temperature control either. And I think as we're thinking about how do we ensure Hamilton remains a safe community that we have to look at dignified, safe housing as being part of the solution. I think the need for the bylaw is really clear. Uh I would agree with my colleagues who say when council moves direction, the direction is very clear. Uh it's regrettable when we have to pull back and push back or send back uh report recommendations in order for them them to come back to follow the direction that was originally posted. I.e. the anti- rent eviction bylaw was sent back almost three times if not I think it was the fourth time that we got the report that we actually finally approved it. um in order to get it right. So I think I hear my colleagues hesitation um but at the same time uh there's an opportunity to pass what's been proposed here today and continue to make iterations in future years as information comes forward. You know we've learned a lot through the renoviction bylaw. There's a 930% 38% increase in the number of people who are facing N13 evictions. By one year of implementation of the program, 20 known N13 eviction notices were distributed in the city of Hamilton. That is a drastic way in which the municipality has fundamentally changed the experience of renters in our city. And when we have 200,000 Hamiltonians who rent, I think we have a duty and obligation to make sure that we're looking at the full scope here and ensuring that uh we're putting forward bylaws that respond to the reality that's in our community right now. So happy to support it. Thank you. >> Thanks, Councelor Nan. Councelor Casar, please. >> Thank you, Mayor Horvath. Uh I just have some questions about the amendment and the implications. Um so first and to confirm what I think I read in the report. So first on moving beyond the proposal and the staff recommended recommendation beyond war two to city be citywide is that something that's can be implemented before next summer >> uh through you madame mayor. So, uh, what I would say, I mean, is it would be extremely difficult because the the staffing that we've identified to support a pilot was staffing that we identified that would be sufficient for Ward 2 because of the unknowns um of what this program could bring, it being the first in Ontario and to be honest, the first in Canada because New Westminster is only at night. This the first 24/7 one. There's there's a number of things we don't know and one of the things is the number of complaints that we'll get. Um the difficulties that landlords may have retrofitting their building or securing adequate equipment if it's a room specific solution. Um so we scoped this program in as a pilot um understanding what we anticipate the impact to be on staffing and resources for W 2 only. So if it were approved as a citywide program um right now we'd still only have uh resourcing for these four officers should they be approved and that would be difficult to address every unit in the city that way. Yeah, I understand. I'm very interested in having something in in place for summer 2027. That's why I'm asking these questions. I'm very supportive of this bylaw. I'm just frustrated by the implementation challenges that we're now discussing. So, similar question then about the funding source. If it's if the amendment, which is to use a reserve, is carried today, does that allow Let me say it the other way. I thought I heard from councelor Cretch if we wait for the budget for it to be approved in the budget then there's a risk that it doesn't actually get implemented for next summer and then does having a reserve identified today increase those chances can you tell me where each of those are along the spectrum of certainty for next summer >> through you madame mayor so um first I'll speak first I'll speak to the original report recommendations and then the amendment >> can I just stop at this moment I'm sorry we didn't officially put the amendment on the for we put the report on the floor but not the amendment. So let's just clean that up and continue the conversation. Okay. Is that all right? The amendment. This is what I'm being told by the clerk. So moved by councelor Katch and seconded by councelor Nan that the amendment's on the floor. Okay. I'm just look I'm just uh the cler the clerk has said that we didn't do it. So he's asked me to do it. >> We had the original report put on the floor mayor. That's all. Not the So, can we have a vote on that then to get the the thing on the floor? >> Oh, okay. Oh, wait. Just a hands vote. >> It's just now we're discussing the amendment. >> Okay. >> The amendment's on the floor, right? It's been moved and seconded. Sorry, folks. My gosh. All right. Sorry. I'm very, very sorry, Director Smith. I just want to make sure we're doing it properly. I'm very, very sorry, Councelor Gasar. And so is Clerk Trenum. Uh, please go ahead, Director Smith. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor, and through you. Um, >> so the pilot we approved, we do believe that we can have in place by the uh by next summer. Uh, we do intend to implement it and start um that work in in June of next year, June 1st. Um, should we expand citywide because of some of the unknowns and trying to uh understand what the staffing implications are and resource implications are of a citywide program. I think it would be difficult to start it next summer. >> Okay. Uh through you mayor Horvath. Councelor Kretched made a comment around need to give 6 months notice in order for the program to be in place and that if we waited to February March next year that we would not be able to put it in place. So that's that's a little different than the funding piece of it. So could you help me understand that because I want to make sure we're making decision based on all the factors that would impact some kind of implementation next summer >> through you madam mayor. So the we would we have a transition plan that's attached as one of the appendices of the report. Um and if it's the pilot program we're speaking to, we'd be able to follow through with that transition plan. Um we'd be begin hiring around the March date and have everything ready to go for for June. Um, I think potentially what councelor Cretch may have been referring to, and I could be could be wrong, I may have misunderstood, was one of the alternatives in the report spoke to what a citywide program could look like if council wished to approve a citywide program. And if that was to be approved, we were going to require some extra time in order to understand the resource implications and financial implications of that, which would then delay until the next summer. >> Okay. Thank you for clarifying. One final question then was around the dates May 15th, December 15th or to September 15th and of course we've had extreme heat or hot days outside of that. So if that date range is removed, does that have a significant impact on being able to implement as with the cost and FTEEs that are proposed in the staff recommendation >> uh through you madam mayor? I don't think it has a huge implication to it. Um what we don't know is this this the amount of complaints that we'd get before May 15th or after September 15th. Um that may implement that may get in the way of um the service delivery that we're hoping to guarantee with this. Um what we did with those dates is we use we we created those dates because of what we have um learned through the research that we've done. Uh the provincial government uses dates very similar to this. Other municipalities use dates similar to this. Um our heat bylaw that we have in the winter basically plays the opposite months of the this one is. So we were using best practices and what we had learned through our research and implementing these uh dates or putting these dates into the bylaw. However, one of the things that we would have done and we recognized that it would be an important part of our review is to understand if these dates worked as part of the pilot and when we brought back uh report to um share what it would what what a citywide program would look like, this would be part of that review. >> Okay. U that's helpful information I'm going to consider, but we have to have something at least start this this year. So, >> thanks Councelor Casar. Thank you. Uh councelor Spataphora, please. Thank you, mayor. And obviously, I don't think we're we're here debating whether or not uh a maximum temperature bylaw is is needed or not. I think it's more around making sure that we uh do it the right way. So, I I understand maybe a pilot approach with staff's recommendation based on um you know, some of the concerns you may have had. I just have a question first about provincial legislation. So, I understand the province has started this process or they've had a reading on on legislation. If they pass a legislation a year after we do, um could that affect what we have here and could that uh force us to make changes to our bylaw through you, Mayor? >> Director Smith. >> Through you, Madame Mayor? Yes. It could very well impact the program that we're putting together. >> Do you I don't know this. Do you have any idea um where the province is at with their legislation? Do they have any timelines on their reg on their legislation that they I believe is has been talked about. I just don't know where they are. >> Just getting an answer. >> Thank you. >> Uh through you, Madam Mayor. Uh sorry about that. I was just confirming. So there are two that are pending a second reading. Okay. No timeline though. No specific by this. They they didn't tie a year to that. Next year this No. Okay. I see someone behind you shaking their head, Dan. So, appreciate that. My next question is if this goes into effect um and we start an inspection, I guess we go to an apartment building. That apartment building needs to be retrofitted. Does that mean some of these 20s story buildings have to be retrofitted by June? Like what when is when are landlords that own obviously a lot easier if you're in a single family landlord and you have to install an air conditioner the home that that's pretty simple process. If you have a 20story building and you got to retrofit it, are we expecting those landlords to come here and say, "I need an extension. I need some time. I got to get pricing. Uh, I got to find a contractor that's willing to start or able to start. Like that's all the minutia that I think is is the concern because if we're going to start ticketing landlords because or or finding them because they don't have their building retrofitted, like are we giving them a timeline to retrofit? >> Dr. Smith. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, thank you for the question. So, uh, we do if if the pilot's accepted and approved, then we would expect that people begin immediately to try and figure out what the best option for their building is. We have a number of different options for them. One could be a retrofit of their property if that's what they choose to do. Uh, others are room specific options where they can potentially use window air conditioning units provided they're installed safely and correctly or portable units within within a room. um be telling a property which one to choose. It would be up to them. However, we have an exemption process built into the bylaw. That would allow a property through a qualified professional to bring us information as to why they couldn't apply either immediately, long-term um with a number of different uh expectations uh to provide to it would be myself um for for review. Um, and that could happen if they want to do a large retrofit and they need time to do that, then there's a process in place where they could apply uh for that. But without an application of an exemption, we would expect them to be in compliance when the program begins. >> Two I don't know, two final questions. there. Um, currently, um, a tenant could put a window unit or a plug in. Uh, the other you said two options. One was a window, the other one, I can't remember what you said, but those two options, which are not retrofitting, those currently can be put in now >> through you, madam mayor. Yes. Uh, yes, they they can. Provincial legislation changed in April of this year which permitted tenants to install their own air conditioning units regardless if it's in their lease or not. >> Okay. Um and uh I had one more question. I think I forgot it. >> Anyways, uh I um I think some of the answers you provided for me clearly show me that I think a pilot makes more sense. We have provincial legislation that uh is expected to be read at some point here over the next little while whenever they go back to work. Um and you know there are tenants that can put in a unit which may be cheap like if if someone does a a massive retrofit that increase to their rent may be more than um the cost of putting a unit in their um in their room in their in their apartment. So, I think the pilot allows us to get some well needed information before we go on something that's never been done in this country, right? And I I get we want to be leaders in all that, but we also want to be leaders in a way that's responsible for everyone. Not and I'm talking about the landlord tenant. I'm talking about just taxpayer money, all those things. So, I appreciate that. I I I be on for a pilot, but citywide is something I don't think we're ready to do. Uh thank you, mayor. >> Uh thanks, councelor spat for councelor Pauls, please. Thank you very much, Mayor. Um, you know, um, canvasing, I went to buildings and some buildings are really old. They're, you know, 40, 50, 60 years old and they're 10, 18tory ones. And, uh, I think um, it's significant capital cost for uh, all these uh, apartment to retrofit because uh, ventilation system and uh, the windows and insulation there's lots. But I don't think any of these apartments and maybe I'm wrong uh oppose of somebody having a air conditioner. I think was it last term we the most vulnerable people we said we would help them with an air condition uh to put. So I don't think any probably of these uh older apartment building are saying no you cannot uh have a unit uh placed properly in your window. I think that's uh common sense. But my question is, so for me, it's significant capital cost for our our apartments, the people that own them that had them for years and years. um operating I'm sure it's going to be more expensive because electricity and when they have written um let's say um a program that uh they pay x amount of dollars and all of a suddenly they have to pay electricity on they want the tenant not the tenant uh the landlord to pay also the electricity I think it's an added cost so we really have to look at everything here but I agree that the most vulnerable the most people that suffer in the heat and we need to help them. That's definitely on the table. My question, the only question I want, what about Hamilton Housing? Are they going to be retrofit all of them or are they uh I just want to uh know about Hamilton Housing because a lot of our honorable vulnerable people live there. So, are they being retrofitted to? >> Thanks uh councelor. I'll look to staff >> through you madam mayor. So, at this point, Hamilton Housing is not scoped into the pilot program. Um, we have yet to establish um some of the building upgrades, installation, and operating costs that it would result from retrofitting Hamilton housing uh buildings, funding that would be required um and just the opportunity for compliance at this time. Uh we do want to continue that work and as we're working through the pilot continue to work with um our uh colleagues in housing to understand what those costs and implications are and I believe as a result could lead to further council decisions as it relates to that type of work. So to me, um, these Hamilton housing is so important because there's a lot of people, uh, that live in them that are vulnerable, and we're saying we're going to give them more time to to see the cost. And I I just there's a disconnect here. I don't understand where we could ask a landlord that has a building 60 years ago has didn't have rules for, you know, uh, this heat bylaw. uh and all of a sudden we're saying no, you have to retrofit. Uh so and maybe but they're not saying not to put a single air conditioner. I think uh those people are able to and I'm sure every landlord would say that uh would be okay. So to me because of that I I I cannot support wide uh city for this bylaw. you want to do a pilot war two that's fine you know uh go ahead but I think uh we have to really look at this so that's my opinion thank you >> thanks councelor Paul's um I don't see anybody else on the speakers list but I would like to speak to this as well um and I listened carefully to the conversation because it's an important one uh because we all know that climate change is getting worse and the heat events are getting more severe here uh and it is affecting people's health. Uh we've been having this conversation for some time. Uh and I do understand how uh how important it is to to address uh these changing situations that are causing uh tenants, particularly lower income tenants, uh to really be at risk. And I think we all around the table have um identified that as something we're all very very uh concerned about. Uh I do have to say that uh I know that this particular report uh wasn't brought to a regular committee process. So there were no open delegations although I do respect the fact that there have been delegations on this topic more broadly uh over uh over a number of years since it was first brought forward. Uh but this is why these kinds of reports and motions don't belong at a council table. Right? the the the way to address these things is through a proper public process that allows for delegations which happens at committee. Uh so that's one of the flags I want to put out there. I I also want to say that there's I I I want to say that I'm a little bit concerned of the suggestion that that perhaps our professional staff are not providing their professional uh advice and and that's what we hire them to do. That's what we asked them to do. Uh when they bring reports forward in response to council motions that are basically tempered by their professional advice and their analysis as to how to move forward, then suggesting that they're doing something untoward is something that makes me a little bit uncomfortable. And maybe that was not meant to be the suggestion, but we do have a governance role here. uh and we do have to be in a position where we're making decisions uh with all of the information uh that's uh appropriate uh and timely and that is informed uh by the people who do the work for us who we've hired in their professional roles. I I also know that we have changes that are coming and changes that already came uh in terms of the requirement to put air conditioners in if a tenant or to allow a tenant to put air conditioners in. that doesn't address really low-income tenants who can't can't afford uh to put an air conditioning conditioner in on their own. So, I think we all recognize that there's a gap there. And I know particularly with tenants that have um um health issues. We have a program that helps with the cost of the air conditioners, but it's not broad enough uh because it only captures certain kinds of of tenants whose health is jeopardized by the heat. So this is also a gap uh that we know that we have. Um I I do also have worries about the cost of of rents um and the pass through uh ability that landlords have for capital expenditures, the over the uh guideline increases. Plus some tenants, we went through a metering process in Ontario where a lot of landlords decided to submeter uh and so some of those tenants are now actually paying for their metered electricity themselves as well. So it's not a group kind of shared cost. So that makes me a little bit worried particularly when we're talking about um our housing and homelessness action plan which identifies homelessness as our number one priority to prevent homelessness. And the last thing we want is to be in a position where people's costs of housing which are already out of control are then made even worse uh by by by a decision that that we make. I don't, you know, I don't, how do I say this delicately? Um, I don't put a lot of faith uh in the eventuality that the province is going to step up on this. If it's if there's two pieces of legislation that both have only had first reading, it's up to the government to decide what their priorities are in any session. Uh, and as as my colleague, Councelor Clark would know very well, that doesn't always that that doesn't always happen. you can get to the end of a session and um bills stay at first reading and never get introduced for second reading or regulation or third reading or regulations or royal ascent. And so it's a very long process and I don't think we should be unaware of that either. It's a tough decision that we have in front of us. There's no doubt about it. But I really do believe that the the right thing to do here is to to move forward uh but on a pilot basis. I think we learned a lot from the piloting of of uh previous uh uh initiatives and I think that is the most responsible thing to do. So when it comes to the the vote on um oh I've got 4 seconds left when when it come left when it comes to the vote on uh the amendments the amendment I'm not going to support that but I will support the staff uh the staff recommendation. Thank you. I'll take the chair back. Um, okay. So, now we have some more um speakers on the list. Uh, councelor Moren Wilson, please. I'm always um mindful when we frame matters of basic subsistence as good enough for the likes of you. that um a bed is good enough for the likes of you. And then we also ignore the costs of not being good enough. Um the cost of displacement because you cannot spend another night in a place which you know uh is going to cause your life or your capacity to make your shift the next day. These are the costs that don't show up on your rent. The costs of sleeplessness. Um the costs of uh frankly being poor are enormous. And uh I think we underscored the urgency of this matter a number of years ago. I'd like to underscore the urgency of this matter with our professional staff whom I respect very much. I'll be supporting the amendments. Thank you. >> Thanks very much. We now have councelor Casar, please. >> I think it's just a procedural question about the amendment because what was put up on the screen just it's just like a looks like a separate outcome and not changes or amendments to what was recommended. So, I'm just procedurally trying to understand how we go about this because there were and what councelor Cretch had circulated to us yesterday was four different items and it looks like what's written is just a version that incorporates all those things but isn't actually okay. That's kind of what I was hoping to see to understand the different pieces. Okay, so uh I think we just need to look at that. Councelor Kazar, you have the floor still. Sorry. >> Oh, >> go ahead. >> Um, okay. That was a lot to digest. I don't know if anyone else is feeling that. Um, just my quick scan, some of the the numbers changing from a 19-month period to an annual number didn't seem to make sense proportionally. So, I'm really struggling to be able to digest the amendment. Uh, so I guess at this point, it's really hard to confidently support that in whole or pieces of it without having been able to digest that. So, I it's just procedural frustration. Uh, so I'm kind of left in a difficult spot. >> Uh, thanks Councelor Casar. Um, so now we're we're on to I think that was your second time speaking. Um, so again, this is, you know, my bad. Didn't have a vote. Uh, but we now are populating list with second time speakers. Uh, and uh, Councelor Crretch is on that list. That's moved by councelor Tatison and second by councelor Spataphora. Councelor Crutch, please go ahead. Thank you. I can't emphasize enough how last minute this is, and I'm not blaming anybody for that specifically. I'm just saying like my amendment here came from staff to me during the meeting. So, if it's not completely polished up in the way that we'd all love it to be, I completely agree. So, we've been trying to work on it because the report came out for the first time on Friday, right? Then I've been working with staff to try and figure out what the things needed to change were. I sent a plain language version to everybody and then staff said, "Hey, I took those four plain language things. We put them together in this form of this amendment." Um, as you can imagine, I've been in this meeting talking to all of you and not sitting here rigorously reviewing this amendment. So, it's not going to make perfect sense, but I think the email I sent you should be helpful. That's why I gave the opening remarks I did saying, "Here are the four things I'm trying to change." Those have all been addressed in our conversation. And I think staff have replied by saying we think if those four things are changed, it won't really work with the pilot recommendation we put forward. I think that's a choice we have before us, right? Either we want to push ahead and implement the 2023 uh recommendations outright that were put forward by council or we're going to go with staff's recommendation of this pilot in W 2. That's a choice before us. So that's what the amendment is really about. I'm not sure it's going to be helpful for us to sit and try and pick the amendment apart and try to figure that out. Um this was done as quickly as possible to get something on the floor. Hopefully that makes sense to everybody, right? The four things I put forward and that's what we're at. And if this isn't approved, I'm I'm I'll vote in favor of the pilot, right? Again, I'm trying to get to a place where um those who've fought for this amendment and fought for this program for many many years, long before 3 years, by the way, just since we approved it in 3 years, have asked for these things. So, that's this is coming from the community. These are the asks from the community from renters. As a council who represents 25,000 renters in one word alone, I can tell you I know what what they're thinking, what's on their minds, what matters to them, and that's why I'm bringing this forward because it's genuinely coming from a place of having spoken to them. We did a renter survey this term of council. Uh 600 people replied to that just in W 2, which is a pretty impressive number for a ward level survey. And this was one of the top issues that people raised. So, I'm just letting you know what people are saying, and that's why the amendment is here. Again, I think it's pretty straightforward what I'm proposing. If folks don't want to support the amendment, you want to support the pilot, no problem. Just vote no and we'll vote on the pilot in a second. Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Councelor Crutch. Um, Councelor Clark for a second time, I believe. Uh, have you have you spoken to this yet, Councelor Cooper? >> Oh, you're moving that. Okay. So, Councelor Cooper moves uh that and that seconded by uh Councelor Wang. Uh, please go ahead, Councelor Clark. Yeah, I I think I spoke on the first item before they actually formally moved the amendment, but it doesn't it doesn't matter. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the second one. Um, I'm not supporting this and I'm not supporting the other one. We are three weeks before a brand new council takes office or three weeks before an election that will bring in a brand new council. And we at the last minute are making this decision that will have ramifications on every tenant uh in the city or perhaps W two or perhaps W three. Um and what I saw the first time has changed dramatically. It's too fast. It's on the fly. I can't support it. >> Thank you. >> Uh, thanks Coun Councelor Clark. I don't see any further speakers on this item. So, we'll start with the amendments to the staff recommendation uh the staff report I guess more appropriately. And, uh, we'll put that vote up on the amendments. I'm sorry. This is a >> Yes. Councelor Crutch's amendment. Yeah. >> What's the matter? >> We're having a techn a technological uh hiccup. >> It'll just be a moment, folks. Tom thumb. >> Do we need to go to a another kind of vote? Okay. >> So again, this one is on the amendment. Uh, and the amendments defeated. Uh, 10 to five or five in favor, 10 opposed. Now we're on to the staff report with the pilot. Um, can we have that vote up, please? Uh, and that carries 12 to three. Three opposed. Uh, thanks for that. Uh, we're now on to the next um the next item on our agenda. Thank you for your patience, folks. We're now on to the next item of on the agenda, which is the uh audit uh and finance um AFNA. Oh, no, this is an audit report. Cyber security followup follow-up audit phase three roadmap assessment. May I have a mover and seconder to defer consideration of this report until after the close session because we'll be getting some legal advice. So that's moved by councelor Crutch and seconded by Spataphora. Show hands. All those in favor? All opposed? That carries. Thanks very much. Um, we are now on to PEED 24007A. Uh, recommendation to designate 84 York Boulevard, Hamilton Philpot Memorial Church, Ward 2. May have a mover and seconder to put the report on the floor. Moved by Councelor Crretch. Seconded by Councelor Nan. Uh, any discussion on this matter? Uh, councelor Wilson, are you legacy or are you on? Okay. Please go ahead. Councelor Wilson, please go ahead. >> Uh, thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, on 8.5, I would kindly request if the matter could be deferred until after private and closed. Um, because, uh, I think there are some matters I' I'd appreciate some counsel on. Thank you. >> Uh, thanks, uh, councelor Wilson. So that's that's moved to be deferred till after closed and that's seconded by councelor Cooper >> to to go into closed matter. >> Thank you >> to go into closed to have some some advice legal advice regarding this matter. >> Yes. Council Cooper seconded it. Yeah. And then uh show hands please. Thank you. That passes. Um, amendment to item 13 of planning committee report 18002 uh, etc. Councelor Casar, would you please present your motion and advise of your seconder? >> Thank you, Mayor Horvath. It's moved by me, seconded by Council Wang. This is largely I'd call it an administrative motion to do with uh, a meeting in 2018. So, uh, couple terms ago, I guess, uh, for a development in Ward 12, there was a requirement that and I guess a holding provision that the developer would need to put a public trail. And since then, it's been determined, uh, that the wood lot that they would put that through is not really suitable. And there's now a project to provide um, active transportation along Garner Road. So, it also is redundant as well. So, it's in everyone's best interest just to remove that condition from I believe it's the site plan. >> Thanks, Councelor Casar. Um, councelor Spataphor, did you want to speak to this one? No. Legacy. Okay, no problem. I don't see any further speakers uh on this uh item. Uh so, we will go then to a vote. Uh can you Oh, thank you. There it goes. It's on your screens. That carries 15 to zero. Thanks very much. Uh on to the next item. Vincent Massie Park phase 2 project uh 7th Avenue ward 7. Councelor Pauls, would you please present your motion and advise of your seconder? >> Well, hold on, hold on. Let me get your microphone on there. Councelor >> mayor and a second by councelor Cooper. I just want I'll speak to it and then I'll I'll uh read it. Uh basically, I bought a school at near Vincent Massie about 5 years ago. It took a year to take the school down and it's a nice parcel land and on one side we have all the playground but on the other side it's just plain piece of grass and it's been four years trying to plant things. So uh this motion is to move it along to make sure that in uh we start right now and that in 2027 it will be completed. So the motion reads as whereas the city of Hamilton's adopted goals and policy supporting increased urban tree canopy biodiversity uh neutralization and climate resistance and whereas residents participating in the Vincent Massie Park public consultation process of identifying areas of the park for additional trees and other biodiversity supporting planting and Whereas a substantial portion of the central area of the park can remain available for future pathways, recreational facilities, and other amenities to be determined through the broader landscape design process. Therefore, be it resolved that the staff be directed to proceed with the planting of trees and other biodiversity supporting planting of Visen Massie Park beginning in the spring of 2027 using area identified through the community consultation process that these plantings include where appropriate native trees, shrub, trickets, pollinator gardens and other biodiversity supporting vegetation. That this biodiversity planting proceeded independently of the border landscape design process so that planting can begin in 2027 without preventing or delaying the future design and development of other park amenities. The substantial portion of the central area of the park remain available for f further recreational anemities, pathways, and other park features to be determined through the landscape design process and that the staff provide an implementation plan and planting schedule in advance of 2027 planting season. So, basically, I want this part to move along and I'm so glad that um this motion uh I could put it through and uh I talked to uh Cynthia Graham and uh the staff and they're all good with it. So, thank you and I need your support. >> I don't see any um any speakers to this. I would just assume that this is part of the annual budget that is normally provided for these kinds of activities. >> Y >> Okay. So the the um motion's before us uh and the vote is now up. And that carries 15 to zero. Thanks very much. On to 9.3. Extension of citizen appointments uh to agencies, boards, and subcommittees. Councelor Morin Wilson, would you please present your motion and advise of your seconder? >> Thank you, Mayor Horvath. It's moved by myself and seconded by councelor Ted McMein. Uh this is just to extend those who are volunteering um primarily their time in service to the city's agency boards and subcommittees. Uh their appointments are set to expire October the 26th and we'd like to align it until uh their successors could be chosen. Um it lists a number of uh committees and I I know I speak on behalf of all members of council in thanking these uh citizens for their their time and talent. Thank you. Uh thanks councelor Wilson. Uh councelor crutch. >> I appreciate that this is being done. So this is a good to have a formal motion in place to make sure that people understand what's happening. When I talk to most people who are on these committees, they're not necessarily aware that their term continues. As someone who sat in the selection committee this term of council, it's a very valuable experience. A lot of work, a lot of meetings, a lot of discussions with people one-on-one. The number one thing that came out of that discussion for me in terms of this motion was people's overall absolute unanimous frustration with how long it took to get new people appointed. So whatever we do next term, whoever is in charge of that process next term, I think it's really really important that we do whatever we can to expedite that timeline. It means having more people join the selection committee process, setting up teams there, we all pitch in in some small way to get that done and make it happen more quickly. Great. Maybe there's other reforms we can think of. But no matter what, everyone said that they were so frustrated they were left kind of sometimes up to almost a year and a half or a year after the term of council had happened, they were still sitting on this committee. And then what started happening was people dropped off and then the committee became dysfunctional. In fact, what we're doing at the Hamilton Farmers Market Board right now is we're doing recruitment in advance so we can make sure that the recruitment is lined up with because we've had so much attrition for this very reason and we have a new board structure there. So, we have to do it anyways. But it's really crucial that the next term of council gets this right. So, I'm saying this out loud and hoping that everyone's listening. Thank you. >> Uh, thanks Councelor Crutch. Councelor Clark, please. >> Thank you, Mayor. Can I ask the city clerk, the bylaws that exist right now for citizen appointees, does it indicate that they continue in their term until they are replaced by the next council? Uh through you, mayor, a number of the appointments that were made for the majority of our committees had that same wording. The ones listed here today did not have that wording and they end on November 14th at the end of this term of council. Thank you. >> Which is why we're recommending this. >> Thank you. Can I ask and I'm sorry for catching you off guard, but um the Hamilton Conservation Authority is being merged with the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, Halton Conservation, and Credit Value, Credit View. Um Credit Valley, sorry. We have citizen members on the Hamilton Conservation Authority. The new Western Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, we've been told by the province, will be inaugurated February 1 of 2027. And so I just I want to verify that our citizen members continue in their role until they are either replaced or this new conservation authority is put in place. >> Uh through your mayor, my understanding is that yes, that is the case given all the changes that are happening in the timeline for the new board. >> Thank you. And I want to thank all the members on the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority. Um they have done a stellar job this year. It has been very stressful especially with the merger. It's been challenging for our staff. Um lots of rumors and questions. We're concentrated on protecting the watershed no matter what. And so um I think our appointees around this table and our citizen appointees worked well together to keep that focus on the watershed. Um, notwithstanding, there are going to be significant changes coming down the line. So, I want to thank them for that publicly. Thank you, Mayor. >> Uh, thanks, Councelor Clark. I don't see any further speakers. I just want to also lend my appreciation on behalf of the rest of council and the citizens of uh, Hamilton for the volunteer work that these various committee members uh, that we are extending uh, as well as all others that have participated in one way or another in various committees and subcommittees. Uh our gratitude is uh is immense. Thank you. Um okay. So then we have that motion in front of us. I don't see any further speakers. Can we go to the vote please? Thank you. And that carries 15 to zero. Thanks so very much. We're now on to item 9.4 Four, electric scooter safety, youth education and enforcement. Uh move. This is councelor Paul's motion. Councelor Paul, can you please uh present your motion and your seconder? >> Thank you, Mayor. And >> Cooper and uh before I intrude the motion, uh I want to tell you how important this is to me. As I've learned while speaking to people at the door and receiving calls from residents, this matters important to all people around the city of Hamilton. I also want to talk about my experience. While I was talking to people at the door, we I had four people on the scooters in the middle of the road going at least 30 or 40 kilometers per hour having fun without helmets and often they're riding double. Uh they're waving in and out of senior pedestrian and parks and also in children's park uh where they are. They go weaning in and out and uh a lot of them even at night uh my husband and I were driving. We saw someone we just missed them. There's no light on these scooters and they're very dangerous. So this is the reason I decided to do something about it because at the door beside potholes beside taxes scooter was not up there and uh therefore I thought I would look into it. Um I asked u superintendent uh Dave Henneck to be here and I'm glad he's here. He came this morning and I told him go go back and I'll give you a call. So I was looking around if he was here. So I thank you. So, I'm going to read the motion and then if you have any questions, uh either uh bylaw or uh police involvement, we could ask those questions. So, I'm going to read the motion now. >> Councelor Paula, you you pretty much spoke to the motion already before before you read it. So, >> can I read therefore then? >> Can you read the therefore? That's a good compromise. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Therefore, be it resolved that the city staff be directed we report back to appropriate standing committee on the current use of personal electrical scooter in Hamilton, including available data on complaints, collisions, injuries, and location where safety concerns have been identified. that the Hamilton Police Service and City bylaw Informant be requested to provide information regarding enforcement of the minimum age requirement, helmet requirements, and other applicable electrical scooter regulation. that the staff be directed to develop develop recommendation for increased public education and awareness particularly targeting children, youth, parents and schools regarding the legal age requirement, helmetate use and safe operation of the electric scooter. that the staff be directed to investigate opportunity for increased enforcement in areas where residents have identified recurring safety concerns including parks, trails, sidewalks, school areas, and other high pedestrian location. The staff be directed to review Hamilton existing electric scooter regulation and identify any amendments and additional measure that could improve public safety including designate area of operation, parking requirements, speed management, signage and enforcement. that the city engage with the provincial with the province of Ontario regarding the city's experience with electric scooter and provide any recommendation that may assist in strengthening the provincial pilot program before its schedule conclusion in 2029 and that staff be directed to report back to council with recommendation where appropriate proposed amendment to the city's applicable bylaws. So therefore, um this is important because I just was reading today that even Whitney um is having a bylaw where even parents could be charged if the kids drive under 16. So this is important. So uh uh if you have any question for staff um or for um Superintendent Henick, you're welcome to. >> Thanks very much. Councelor Paul's. We have a speakers list starting. Uh councelor will or counselor Jackson, you're first. Thank you, Mayor Horvath, and thank you, Councelor Esther Paul's. Very, very timely your motion. I remember uh last term, I think, when manager Peter Topovic um and his team uh Mayor Horvath before many of you were here this term, I think we began this conversation about the e- scooters, and of course, it's all part of the multimodal. Uh Tom, we got to provide extra opportunities for transportation, especially for young people. Can't afford a car anymore. Can't afford insurance, gas, uh they don't necessarily want to ride the B bus and maybe still the monthly passes too expensive. Tom, we got a And I remember back then in the last term asking some questions. I had trepidation. Where are these scooters going to go? How fast can they go? Um what what legally work uh what should they be doing in terms of protection? uh age limits, all that stuff up, parks, roads. Anyways, I put a lot of caution out there, but I went along with the fact that I was convinced, councelor Jackson, this is um a new way of especially for young people, not exclusively, to get around town. Fast forward now to where we are, councelor Paul's, thank you. I have learned and I've been in conversation with U. Manager Topic. I've alerted him. Uh, I've been in touch with the police, with bylaw, and here's what I've learned, Mayor Horvath. They're illegal on the city sidewalk, okay? But many of them use the city sidewalk. Uh, they're illegal in the parks and park pathways, but they roam through the park pathways. They really should be on our city roads, but I get the fact that that e- scooter is no match for a two-tonon car. I get that. So, I'm thinking to myself, ideally, they should be in the cycling lanes. Well, talking to many cyclists, they don't want these e- scooters in the cycling lanes either. So, we've got a conundrum on our hands. And enforcement, I've learned through staff. It's kind of like counselor enforcement should be over here with them. Uh they get supported by enforcement over here. Uh we're trying to educate to the best of our ability the community, especially those that are riding, uh how to do it. Now, if you're under 16, you can't even do it. Uh but if you're under 18, you better have a helmet. I can't remember the last time I saw an e scooter rider with a helmet. This is a massive, massive issue that could end up exploding Mayor Horvath in our faces. And many people, especially young people, if a municipality moves in the direction of banning, as I understand, some municipalities are considering or may have already done. It would be a sad moment in terms of removing an opportunity of multimodal transportation our community. But darn it all, the safety of our residents and pedestrians, especially on the city's sidewalks, has to be dealt with. I'm glad we're escalating the matter today. I'm strongly supportive of what councelor Pauls has brought forward. Thanks, Mayor Horvath. >> Uh, thank you, Councelor Jackson. Uh, councelor Casar, please. >> Thank you, Mayor Horvath. Um, my question is about uh the clause in here about looking for increased enforcement. I think it was just last week the police put out some u you know announcement around hey we know this is an issue we're looking into it we're going to focus on education rather than enforcement so whether um uh there can be a comment on that but how it's what options would staff see for increased enforcement are we is staff enforcing it today I thought it was police to enforce so maybe just some clarity publicly on who owns the enforcement and what staff could do with this motion specific to that clause Uh so we'll go to uh acting uh acting general manager Hollingworth and then maybe um maybe Superintendent Henick would like to also respond. So please go ahead uh >> through the chair. Um if if I may uh m Madame Mayor uh provide a little bit of context because I think it's it's important because there's there's different uh flavors of escooters and and by the way like from a staff perspective we're we're um very welcoming of this motion. Um but um having had some background on the the development of the e-cooter uh bylaws bylaws and legislation uh dating back to 2020 uh there was a provincial pilot as as has been mentioned which allowed municipalities to opt into uh e scooters and it included uh rules and regulations. For example, it dictated that this the scooters uh could go no more than 24 km an hour. They had a certain power limit etc. And at the time uh we saw a benefit in bringing in rules and regulations so we could actually in enforce these scooters. Uh what we've seen in the industry is the proliferation of um scooters that go way faster than 24 km an hour. Uh they have they can adjust the batteries so they have more power and acceleration. Um there's there's very little rules on them and you can you can buy them at at your local um store. Um, so that I just wanted to distinguish that our the bylaw that we put in place um, regulates where they can ride, how fast they can go, etc. I would also just mention for context too that uh, we do have a commercial escooter program in the city of Hamilton. You may have seen the bird scooters out there and similarly they abide by the rules. They're actually governed that they can go no more than 20 kilometers an hour and they they're geotracked. Um, it's not perfect but that you can't ride on sidewalks. So that that commercial pro project in in my opinion I I sorry for going on longer than needed but it's important to provide the context. The commercial escooter program also um hopefully means that people aren't buying as many um of these illegal type uh e- scooters. So it provides a good safe option for for commuters and al like um and with that I I will turn it over to the experts on enforcement. Uh please go ahead, Superintendent Henick, and then we'll go to uh Director Smith. >> Okay. Thank you. And uh through you, Chair. Uh the Hamilton Police Service I'll start with a statement, then I'll get into some uh questions for you. Uh the Hamilton Police Service recognizes the concerns being raised by residents regarding east scooter use, particularly involving youth riders, sidewalk use, and compliance with existing regulations. Current police data indicates e scooters represent a small proportion of Hamilton's overall collision picture. So to give you an idea, in 2025 we had 18 accidents or MVCs involving e- scooters. In 2026 so far this year we've had seven. So of the 18 16 were personal injury type accidents. And of the seven all of them were personal injury accidents. Uh this year we support continued monitoring public education and targeted enforcement where concerns are identified. Right now we're focused on educating youth, parents, guardians, and caregivers about the legal requirements associated with owning and operating an escooter. Our focus remains on compliance with the rules and the safety of all users of roads, pathways, parks, and public spaces. So um much like other people in the community taking some time to understand this program, what it looks like, what the impact is, I can tell you I was unaware um of the impact on the hospitals when we obviously when we got the motion, we took a look at our own data in house to kind of see what story that data told. And as you know, one of our responsibilities under the community safety and policing act is crime prevention. So, we like to start there. And just a couple of hours ago, uh I got off the phone with um Nicole Wende. She's a trauma service resource nurse at McMaster Children's Hospital. And uh I was shocked by the data. So, from September 2025 to September 2026, they had 73 trauma incidents at uh brought into uh McMaster Hospital. 29 of those uh 73 were admitted. Only 15 of those 73 people were wearing a helmet. The average age people coming through obviously it's a children's hospital so it was between the ages of 7 and 17 with the average age being 12.7 and uh to give you an idea about helmet use uh 20% of the individuals brought in of those 73 people in 20 or sorry 20% of individuals brought into the hospital in 2024 were not wearing a helmet. In 2025, that number rose to 58%. In 2026, the number is 80%. So 80% of the incidents that they're seeing there at McMaster Children Hospital aren't wearing a helmet. And uh to quote Nicole, she said, "These are only the patients who have required a trauma team fan out in our hospital." that the number of patients we have seen due to minor injuries or mechanisms from escooters is far higher than even these numbers are showing but the population uh has been a great number of the summertime traumas we've seen so far this year. So I I share that because that's helping to inform and I think what the motion is helping to to identify as a public health issue. So, I know I've directed our team to uh communicate with our hospital partners uh to reach out to public health and to jointly come up with a public education campaign around this. We're heading into the Christmas season. Quite frankly, many parents um uh to quote Nicole as well when they speak to the parents, many parents don't know that their kids aren't allowed to ride the escooters or that they have to have a helmet or what the age requirements are. So it's it's certainly incumbent upon us and I think we should be starting with a strong strong public education public health education campaign uh for the community. We have enforcement options in those unique unique circumstances. Um I think further uh what she explained that most of the uh individuals that they are seeing there um have been e scooters hitting cars not cars hitting e- scooters and uh so share that and I have some additional injury data if you're interested but uh I hope that answers your question counselor. >> Thanks very much. Uh did you want to did you want to hear from uh director Smith? >> Yes just about the how staff would enforce as per one of the clauses here resolution. >> Thank you. Please go ahead. Uh, Director Smith. >> Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. >> Got lots of prime time today. >> Thank you. Um, >> just going to say first that we support the motion as well. Like the work needs to be done for sure. We do struggle with enforcement on this. We have uh lack of authority to stop people uh when they're moving uh on these types of uh this type of equipment. um where our enforcement generally sits and where we've got a lot of our our complaints from a staff level, city level is in parks. Uh we had started um I personally started some conversations with director Cynthia Graham on this as well cuz obviously um when some of the regulation in the parks bylaw was was created, it didn't consider uh this type of activity. Although there is some regulation in there um that pre that prevents it or prohibits it, it's the actual ability to enforce it that we're having a difficult time uh getting a handle on. So I appreciate uh Superintendent Henick's overview of that. It definitely covered a lot of good aspects there. um supportive of all that, but but we do struggle on the enforcement side of things and and this motion will help us understand what um some options are for us and maybe where we can turn to support uh some of the work in the parks that we're we're having some difficulties with. >> Yeah, great. Thank you very much. And it's a topic also I've heard uh very often in war 12 and we probably've all heard. So, yeah, it's important work. Uh, and just I've been I've encountered a swarm of kids on scooters coming across a roundabout in the Middlelands and going the wrong direction and potentially putting themselves in danger. So, education, I agree, is important. I've also seen individuals uh using them responsibly and to what councelor Jackson was saying earlier, you know, it is a good micromobility option. So, hopefully this work is going to be able to focus on correcting the behavior we don't want to see and allowing the behavior we do want. So, I I will support the motion. Uh, thanks very much, uh, councelor Casar. I don't see any other firsttime speakers on this item. Um, and so, oh, I see councelor Cretch, please go ahead. Thanks. I think one thing missing from the discussion about this that's important is the technology itself. And so for the pilot the city started with the bird escooters specifically there's a governance inside the technology for e- scooters. So you can set up geo fencing and other kinds of fencing for the e- scooters that will allow them not to go certain places. But geographically that's been a bit challenging in the city of Hamilton and some of our narrower corridors, some of the places where there are sidewalks. But technically speaking there's a way to prevent these scooters from going in certain places but it's not really working. So, I think something that needs to be investigated is really how that technology can be improved upon because it does work in other cities. When I've been traveling outside of Canada, outside of Hamilton, I've used some scooter technology. And if you go in the place you're not supposed to go, it just slows down and then stops. And so, um, in W 2 specifically, there's a lot of narrow corridors and narrow sidewalks. And so, if somebody wants to park their scooter somewhere, like I'll give you an example of like Augusta Street, all the patios go right up to the edge of the sidewalk. So if someone parks their scooter in on the patio and locks it up there, then of course no one can get down the sidewalk anymore. So in areas like that, I reached out to Bird directly and said, "Hey, this isn't working." And so they set up a geo fence in the area and they can't be parked there anymore. And it stopped the problem from happening. So I think there needs to be some more kind of that way of ensuring that we're talking to the scooter companies that we do have control over, specifically Bird because it's a city pilot, to ensure that their technology makes sense, it works, and it's being improved upon. has to be a mandate be put forward as part of that ongoing pilot. So, I'm not sure if there's some place to consider that or staff have anything that they can say about that, but it's a big concern and we're I'm trying to deal with it when I see things popping up and residents reach out, but we need a systemic approach to saying, "Hey, you shouldn't be able to ride a Bird scooter on the King Street sidewalk. It should just stop functioning." But, dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of people are riding them on oneway streets. That's the problem we have is there aren't safe places for people to go. there aren't safe bike lanes and a safe bike lane network or mobility lane network. If we had a safe connected mobility lane network across our cities wouldn't be a problem, but we don't. And so people say, "Well, I want to go this direction, right?" And they go on a sidewalk. So part of that is our problem. Part of it is the bird system and other systems that exist. So if we can get bird to do it really well, then perhaps we can move that geo fencing to other technologies and require in the city of Hamilton that everyone do it. So I want to introduce that to the conversation because it's something that I deal with on a regular basis. Staff any have any thoughts on this >> uh through the chair. I don't know whether we have staff from sustainable mobility but I have uh talked to them in in advance and and got some figures. And just to confirm what you're saying is the technology does exist um to slow them down to 12 kilometers through parks for example. Um, one of the issues as you mentioned is that kind of our side some of our sidewalks are really narrow. So the GPS systems don't work as well in as they would in wider corridors. Um, staff do work with Bird uh, our commercial e scooter uh, provider on a daily basis. Uh, they reported to me uh earlier u this week that there's been zero indust injuries on the commercial scooters reported by bird this year. That doesn't mean that there hasn't been some injuries, but they do offer uh probably a safer alternative to some of the um the illegal ones. Um but yeah, I think point taken, this we don't even need it in the motion. Um we've we'll take that direction to uh work with our provider to ensure they're as safe as possible. >> The reason I mentioned is because you couldn't have a wider sidewalk on our city than the one on King Street. So, we should have good enough technology to deal with this King Street sidewalks. And that's where I see a lot of this happening and it's a major pedestrian corridor and it's very unsafe. Last thing I'll say on this, this is really important, is we talked about this across every aspect of our city in this entire term of council and it's been my favorite thing to say, so I'm going to say it again. Design, design, design. Enforcement only helps with 15% of the picture. We know that it's an 8515 ratio. So, if we design the system so that scooters stop when they hit a sidewalk, right, then we're not having to ask police officers to chase people down. Also, and most police officers have told me this, uh people who are violating the law can see them coming because they're in a uniform and they just run or scoot, >> wait for it, take their escooter and keep going the opposite direction. And there's nothing anybody can do about that. So, we have to set this up so that the design makes sense and that that the design of the system prevents this from happening. We will never change human behavior, but we can change how our streets are designed. Thank you. >> Uh, thanks Councelor Crutch. I don't see any f other firsttime speakers to this. I do have one comment myself though, so I'll pass it over to councelor McMaken. Um, or was it councelor Wilson who was a former prior to councelor Alex Wilson? >> Councelor McMaken, if you don't want to just take the chair for a sec. up to the task. >> You're up to the task. Right on. Okay, I won't be very long. Just kind of following up on the um the issue of where this is happening. Um even what I've what I've experienced and what I've heard from constituents is even on the bike lanes, uh there are people that are just they so even on the two-way bike lanes, hordes of kids like zipping down the bike lane and somebody's coming from an apartment building downtown, for example. I take Hunter Street as an example. uh an older people. It's a It's a It's a NORC. People know what that is. A naturally retire a naturally uh whatever occurring retirement community. That's what an orc is. So, lots of seniors in these buildings and they come out of their front building and they're the front of their building, they're going to walk to the market, whatever, and next thing you know, they nearly get blown off their feet and it's very very uh it's very very uh frightening. and um and terrifying for them. So, just to say I I don't disagree. Uh and I think that this is a very timely motion and so I appreciate it. Uh and I look forward to to to really getting this speed um addressed at least for the ones that we can uh that we can manage and hope that we see some action from others that can address the uh the other ones. So, uh keep on with the education. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'll take the chair back. Councelor Rakin, thanks very much. Uh, councelor Pauls, did you want to speak uh to this uh one last time? >> Uh, one last time. Okay. Can we get a motion to allow that to happen? Moved by councelor Jackson, seconded by councelor Cooper. Please go ahead. >> Last um, Superintendent had another question. But right now for the bird, uh, how come there's no helmet attached to the scooter? You don't expect people carrying their helmet everywhere and then saying, you know, so I've been to uh Waterloo, they have a helmet attached to theirs and we don't. You have to have a helmet. And I want to know also, how do they know you're 16 and over? Does it have a a buzzer? And does it have light? Three things. >> So helmet, light, and um speed control. >> Yep. >> Helmet. >> Oh, light and age. like an age how because I've seen kids and then you know what they do as well and honestly they throw them in somebody else's yard. I've seen a bird I I went to the house they finished and they literally throw them in somebody's backyard. So I want to know why we do not have a helmet attached to the bird. >> Uh thank you. It'd be pretty funny seeing a bird with a helmet. Sorry >> it's getting late in the day. Um, I don't know who can respond. I guess uh acting GM Haulingworth, please. >> Mayor, I know that was directed to the police, so you're welcome to comment, but um the the reason why the commercial ones don't require a helmet is because they're not required. A helmet's not required by law unless you're under 18. Um, in order to rent a a bird scooter, you have to be 18. You have to have a credit card. You have to go through a vetting process. Uh, councelor is correct that there are some other municipalities that that do do have the helmet. There's debates on whether that's effective or or not. Um, and then your second question was, sorry, I'm sorry, councelor Pauls. >> They have lights on it. >> Uh, lights. >> I believe our our bird scooters have a tail light for sure. Um, but there's a website that uh Bird has and it has all the uh functions and features of our commercial scooters. >> Okay. So, uh, does the the scooter know if you're Everybody now has credit cards. I know my grandkids, I'm sure everybody does. Uh, can any Does it say you're 16 or not? Like, or 18? You said 18. So, >> because I've seen kids ride that one. >> Go ahead. >> Through the chair, I I can confirm offline, but I believe it does. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, that there's a It's hard to verify an age. There's no doubt about it. So, uh, thanks very much for this, uh, discussion. Oh, councelor Tatterson is also, um, and then, uh, councelor Cooper or Oh, you're waving. Oh, welcome back. Did you miss us that much? PP Bey M P Jeff Bey has joined the crowd. Uh, nice to see you. Welcome back. Um, so >> seats right here. >> So, so counselor Tatison, you wanted to speak to this as well and then maybe we can wrap this up. Okay, please go ahead >> into Superintendent uh Bennett. Um, one of the biggest frustrations out in uh our area are the young kids riding them in the parks. What can citizens do right now? I I really honestly respect and and thank Councelor Paul's for this motion, but what can citizens do right now? Are they allowed to call the police? Do they call bylaw? Can you just help us with how parents or not how parents how how citizens who have issues that are narrowly missed that are sometimes hit by children driving these things what can they do at this point in time? >> Uh thank you for the question and through you chair. So, if a citizen encounters um someone operating a scooter in a in a park and it's a driving complaint essentially inside a park, um it'd be no different if it was, you know, say like um a motorcycle or something like that that would be driven in the park. That would be called into our non-emergency line typically and um it a response would be created for our officers to respond to that uh based on our priority response system. So, Councelor Tatterson. Oh, did you shut off here? Please go ahead. >> So that priority response system, I know there's like serious crime happening all over the city. What kind of response can citizens expect from the police? >> Great question and through you chair. Uh it depends on the day and the time that the call is generated. So, uh, depending on, you know, we have typical es and flows to our calls for service based on, uh, demands. Um, and so it really depends on the time that that call is received by our communications and what other pressures the members are facing at the time. >> If a citizen could identify the residence that the child lives in, would that be beneficial to police? >> Of course, it would give us the opportunity to follow up. >> Okay. Thanks so much. Thanks, Councelor Tatterson. I don't see any further speakers to this, so uh can we um please go to a vote? Votes up. carries 13 to zero. Thanks so much. 9.5 Glenn Brook Community Recreation Center. Councelor Tatterson, would you please present your motion and advise of your seconder? >> Thank you, mayor. Moved by myself, seconded by councelor Wayne. Glambert Community Recreation Center, Water and Wastewater Services. Whereas the proposed Glambert Community Recreation Center is a vital municipal priority that directly impacts community well-being, economic development, and quality of life for W 11 residents and must be placed at the forefront of infrastructure planning and execution. And where is the site of the Bimbrook Arena at 4300 and 4280 Bimbrook Road is situated outside of the Bimbrook settlement area and within the protected countryside of the green belt plan and therefore does not qualify for municipal sewer and water connection under the policies of the green belt plan or the rural Hamilton official plan. Therefore, be it resolved that the Glamrech Community Center that sorry GL that the Glamrech Community Recreation Center as a municipal priority for War 11 be confirmed. I believe that was also already done back on April 30th, 2025. That the preferred location for the new recreation center, indoor pool, gymnasium, and walking track is the city-owned 27 acres at Glamrook Arena at 4300 and 4280 Bimber Road be confirmed. and that staff be directed to prepare a draft official plan amendment to establish a sightspecific policy area in volume 3, chapter B, rural sight specific areas of the rural Hamilton official plan to permit the extension of lake-based municipal water services and municipal wastewater services to service lands located at 4300 and 4280 Bimbrook Road and to give notice of the draft official plan amendment and to later hold a public meeting in accordance with the planning act before council considers the amendment. So if I can continue, this is only a motion to draft a bylaw amendment to look at taking services to those 27 acres of recreational land where the existing Glamrook Arena is already located. Doing so would be advantageous for long-term operational costs and allow the rec these recreationally zoned lands to reach their recreational potential. So again, it's in the green belt, but what's the purpose of the green belt? It's to protect farmland, watershed, wood lots, green space, and animal habitat. I support all of that, and none of that is compromised if this motion is passed. This is not precedent setting. Recreational facilities are permitted to be built in the green belt. The motion before you today simply directs staff to prepare a draft amendment for some later point in time once the accompanying report is brought forward to conduct a public meeting where the public can come out and delegate and where future council can then decide on the matter. This merely gives staff direction to prepare for the public meeting. That's it. On this issue, as we say out in the country, it's time to plow or get off the tractor. The people of Glamrook have waited for 47 years for this pool and rec center and we need direction to follow this optimal path which is reasonable and best for all residents of Glenn Brook or chart another way forward. This motion helps us find that way sooner. >> Uh thanks Councelor Tison. Uh councelor Wang please go ahead. >> Thank you. Just a question to staff and just on process and the ask because I know that councelor Tatison has asked for this report previously and I vaguely recall that uh GM Hollingsworth said that there was a report coming. So I wonder if we could just get a little bit of clarity on where that report is and what's what's the sequence of events that might happen um should this motion move forward. Uh, thanks Councelor Wang. Uh, GM uh, sorry, acting GM Hollingworth >> through through the mayor to the counselor. I I can start out um and then other staff perhaps from public works can can join in it. But uh, the motion that that you're referring to was from April 30th, 2025 and there was uh, three therefore be resolved. One was to identify this um, location as a priority for Ward 11. Uh the other ones uh the second one related to completing a fe feasibility study uh that looked at uh servicing um uh and and some other uh considerations including an analysis of future official plan amendments that might that might be needed and then um that staff be directed to prioritize a new Glen Brook recreational center uh to be built on the preferred site. And I'm summarizing very generally uh but this um uh motion is is a little bit distinct from that in that it it specifically speaks to the the planning aspects of it and um I do invite Anita Fayback if if that that didn't answer the question to uh provide more detail andor facilities. I didn't answer your question on the status of that work as well and uh uh a lot of the work has been done uh by multiple departments including those represented at the top uh facilities and and recreation uh as well as growth management and Hamilton water. And so we've we've been doing work in the background. We're just not quite there on reporting back on the um servicing uh questions, but that's in in parallel with this motion. Thanks. >> Uh thanks. Did you want to hear from uh director Febach? Please go ahead. Director Fayak. >> Good afternoon, Anita Fayback, director of planning and chief planner. Um so as uh acting GM Haulingsworth indicated, they are uh separate um directions and motions. So in terms of the uh motion in front of council today, um it would be to draft an official plan amendment and then schedule the public meeting. So in terms of the sequencing um I mean we haven't really talked through in terms of how that would work but I would um suggest that the feasibility study um may maybe should come first in order to uh lay out the sort of the foundation and the facts I would say and that the motion in front of council today is again to just draft that official plan amendment and schedule the public meeting which would give the opportunity for the public to have their say. um through you mayor then as GM Haulingworth has said that there's a whole pile of different reports coming from that previous motion in April 2025. Just the question around when do we expect to see that information because I as I understand it we are doing two separate actions here that April 2025 is a different thing than what we have today. So I just really want to understand what is the sequencing happening in that regard >> in terms of when is the 2025 motion going to be actioned in terms of a report back. >> Yes. >> Uh through the chair um just for clarity I hope I didn't say a whole pile of reports there there was a whole there's a whole pile of questions to be answered. uh that work is ongoing and I would see it being as as possibility bringing that back in December >> in December >> in response to the 2025 motion >> and then if so then perhaps my question to director Fayback then is that should this motion today move forward how does that sequencing happen? So it feels like we would get the April 2025 motion in December followed by a potential draft OPA sometime in 2027. That's what I'm understanding. So that's why I just want to get a little clarity on that one. >> Director Feba >> through the chair to the council that's correct. It would I would suggest uh possibly you know Q2 2027. >> All right. Uh thank you. I think that uh for myself um when councelor Tatison had talked to me about this it did feel as though that the the recreation um facility currently there was there since 1975. as I understood and uh it has been on Glenn Brook and Ben Brook's radar since 1979. So, it's something that the community has been asking for. It is already in existence. Uh and and I do believe that the information from the April 2025 uh report should shed some light into giving us a little more context before the OPA comes forward in Q2 2027. So my hope was just to help with clarifying some of that timing aspect of this. Thank you. >> Uh thanks uh very much councelor Wang. Uh councelor Casar please. >> Yeah thank you and thank you for the reminder that there is a feasibility study on its way. Um because I think it's important for us as governors to have that information before deciding to move ahead. So would I'll put some things out there. Will this be included in the feasibility study? Um, you know, what is the the cost for the building of it? Uh, the cost to put the infrastructure from where it ends today to bring it to that location, the impact on the recreation master plan and maintenance of existing facilities which we know in my ward and many others uh need maintenance. Um, so this just puts additional costs that the city has to fund. Would that be included and what other kinds of things would be in that feasibility study? through you, mayor. >> I'm not sure who's prepared. Oh, okay. Uh direct uh GM Kennedy, please. >> Thank you. Um through the chair. Um we've got a cross departmental team here uh to support this um questions on this motion and the broader response. Um director Paris from corporate facilities and man and energy management is here and can speak to some of those particulars. Thank you. >> Director, please go ahead. Good afternoon through your madame mayor Daniela Paraski director of corporate facilities and energy management. I can speak about the feas technical feasibility study which was completed by corporate facilities and energy management in 2025. So the purpose of the feasibility study was to determine the feasibility of constructing a new recreation center and evaluate the following. the preferred site which was Glen Brook Sport complex versus three alternative sites. Uh servicing options at the preferred site, building performance options and three options were considered and come up with a class D cost estimate. So for the first point uh the uh study recommends as the preferred site being Glen Brook Sports Complex and this is mainly because uh um it offers um a combination of benefits a site capacity long-term functionality and alignment with a community recreation vision. The second point servicing options, the study recommends public municipal servicing and um although both options were considered technical technically feasible, uh there are some concerns and there is further uh investigation required in terms of um um availab availability of groundwater uh aquifer capacity and regulatory approach. approvals, but again the the study recommends the municipal servicing. Um but again a major consideration is that the site is outside Hamilton's current urban boundary and requires either um yeah amendments or whatever needs to be done uh in order to get that approval. For the third point building performance options three options were evaluated. first minimum code, second net zero carbon, and the third one net zero energy. And the study recommends to go with net zero energy, which produce as much energy as the facility consumes annually. In terms of costing, three options were um evaluated and because the study recommends the net zero energy, uh the construction cost for that option was 136 million but the total cost of the project was estimated at 184 millions. So uh this is including everything soft cost and construction cost. Okay. Thank you, councelor Gassar. >> Yeah, just a wrap-up comment. I think it'd be it's really important to have a feasibility study to include that information the director shared and more like impact on recreation around the city and our plans to deal with that. We know that we have assets that are struggling today. So, before we add anything, I think we really need to understand that. And I admire what councelor Tatis is doing and leading for his ward. And absolutely there's a need for recreation uh across the city and there's a huge gap in in Ward 11 but I think we have to go through the process in the right order and understand the facts and the details and have a staff report before getting to the stage of an OPA which brings a public meeting yes but that's a decision point yes or no it doesn't allow us to understand it more deeply before proceeding. So, at this point, as much as I respect what councelor Tatison is doing and the work he's doing for his residents, from a governor's perspective, I won't support the motion today. >> Okay. Thanks, Councelor Casar. Um, Councelor Wilson, please go ahead. >> Thank you. I I'm just want to make sure I'm clear and understanding the the sequence of steps. So, this motion is directing staff, if it's passed, to prepare an OPA. Um, and that OPA, if I've understood it, uh, and this is where I need some clarification, that OPA would come before, after, or at the same time, uh, of the feasibility studies. Could I just get clarification? >> Uh, let's just take it back to GM Hollingworth, please. >> Yeah. um through through the uh ba based on uh what staff are are envisioning in terms of timing um I think the OPA might follow the report back that uh director Perishev was was referring to on the feasibility and the overall picture. Um so I can envision the sequencing that that coming forward in December. And then in the meantime, if this motion is approved, we would be working on uh the draft OPA amendment and um that so that go feasibility study have committee and council an opportunity to see that in its fulsome uh and then shortly thereafter we would be ready with the uh OPA. >> Okay. Um, excuse my ignorance. Uh, but the director of facilities just gave us a summation of the technical feasibility study. Do we have that >> through the chair? >> Through the chair? Yes, we do have the feasibility study completed. >> No. Has the council received it, I think. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. >> No. No. That's >> No, it's part of Yeah. So you've gave I respect and appreciate you gave a high level summation of a feasibility study that has not been submitted into the public realm and for this body's review. Is that what I've heard you say? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um are there any other outstanding feasibility studies uh that are informing uh this work this to determine the feasibility of this such as other servicing through the chair? >> I I don't know that that's uh for uh uh for you. I think it may be for the general manager uh Kennedy who I think already mentioned that there's a multi-pronged approach from a number of different departments that are working together to put the feasibility study in place but please go ahead direct Kennedy or GM Kennedy. >> Thank you um mayor and and just through you to the the counselor I want to make sure I understand the the question um you're you're asking about the feasibility of the servicing um to the potential facility. Is that correct? >> Through the chair, I'm I'm asking what is staff's understanding of all the feasibility work and its scope that you've been tasked with that will inform this ultimate decision. I've heard uh facilities. I just want to make sure that's that's exhausted or what other what else is in the scope of work in terms of assessing feasibility. So, the the multi-pronged group that we've got here includes Hamilton Water um to review and confirm the capacity from a water delivery and um water collection um and sewage capacity. Um we've got the director of recreation from uh healthy and safe communities uh as well to look at the recreational needs and the master plan um response on that front as well as the um planning folks who we've heard from as well and the um and the corporate facilities from uh functionality and the needs and the cost and the planning of how we would actually go about delivering um once we've agreed on an approach moving forward. Thank you. Um, so it sounds like we have four we have four studies, one of which has been completed, none of which have been submitted to the governing body. Is that the case? >> The report that will bring that all together is still outstanding. That is correct. >> Okay. Thank you. And if I could just help me understand what is the relationship between an OPA, which is a planning matter, and these feasibility studies. Presumably, and may please correct me, presumably the feasibility studies will determine the capacity and the implications and the costs of actioning this. um which is separate and distinct from an OPA to action. Is that the bench's understanding or director Fayback's understanding uh through the chair to the counselor? I believe I understand the the question in in looking back at the original uh motion as part of the feasibility it did include an analysis like a policy analysis. So I would say that would be the connection there in terms of so the feasibility would look at the uh the physical connections and the capacity but the direction at the time was also to look at policies as well. So so that's how that planning piece fits in into the broader feasibility analysis. So, um, may I ask if I have time on the recreational implications in relation to the master plan? Uh, we've heard a class D cost, which if I understand class D, it is the most preliminary of costs, the most basis basic of costs. Okay, thank you. I'm seeing a nod for those who are watching of 184 million. Again, uh the basis of my questions are not at all to undermine the importance of recreational facilities or the uh very admirable role of the counselor. It is one of good governance. So could I ask through the chair, what does this mean for those projects and the priorities set out in the recreational master plan including uh identified uh existing capital reinvestment programs through the chair. >> Judge Savor. Thank you madam through you madam mayor uh to uh the counselor Steve Savor director of recreation uh through the recreation master plan and through our implementation strategy three future um recreation community centers were evaluated uh amongst our list of priorities in in that strategy. Our recommended prioritized list for investments in recreation facilities includes renovations, repurposings and new builds. Uh the priority list uh considered a rating for both infrastructure index which speaks to the asset condition as well as a financial and site liability. Uh we also applied an equity index that focused on population demographics, social impact as well as levels of public support for those facilities. Specifically for this particular uh facility, Gladberg Community Recreation Center was rated sixth in priority as it relates to new builds. Uh we do have a separate rating list for uh the renovations uh list, but uh compared to uh an overall list u again Glamber Community Center was rated sixth in new builds. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Can you happy to go uh back on just to give a heads up? I am trying to understand the consequence of the relationship between the new build choice and what that means for our capacity to fulfill and address the existing. Thank you. >> Uh thanks very much. Uh next on the list is councelor Alex Wilson. But can I just um can I just bring some focus here a little bit? Uh I think what we're doing is we're asking all of the staff who are involved on this multi-pronged group to start telling us now what's going to be in the phys feasibility uh report uh that we haven't seen yet and they haven't put in they haven't put any legs on yet. And so I just I just wonder how productive it is us continuing to ask the questions that we know are going to be contained in that report. And I'm very respectful. I have all the same questions that everybody else has. But I don't know that having us kind of have those questions answered verbally without a report in front of us, we're basically doing the same work twice as a governing body. And I don't know that that's that's productive use of our time as we have a very long day ahead of us. Now, if I may, Councelor Alex Wilson, if I may, is that okay if I continue for a moment? Uh, and can you have the chair? Thank you. What I I want I would like just to confirm that we will have that full feasibility study in December. Is that is that the full feasibility study that we're talking about now is likely going to be able to be provided to this uh council or GIC uh in December. Am I correct? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. So I would actually hope for a friendly amendment to this motion that will help us move along which would be adding the words upon the completion of the feas completion of the fe and the completion of the feasibility study and the uh recommendations contained therein having been considered by council. In other words, put in words, put in add to the end of this motion just the the certainty that the OPA comes after the feasibility study has been considered by the council. So, I'm looking to the mover of the motion uh to determine whether that is in fact a friendly amendment >> through you through uh Oh, I have to do it. Okay, >> we're okay so far. So, um Councelor Tatterson, did you understand the request? I don't think there's quite a seconder for it yet, but just understanding if that's friendly or not, and then we'll proceed from there. Um, adding some language about after the OPA results come back to the end of the motion. Yes, that was fully the intent of this motion to come after the feasibility study. But the issue for me in saying that was that this is now 15 months overdue, waiting for the fe feasibility. So, why can't we be doing part two now while staff is working? It was originally said that I would have this report back in quarter 2 of 2025. >> Appreciating delay in the report and that's not in your control. I the question before you is if you're comfortable with the language being proposed and if that's friendly or not. >> I just wanted to just wanted staff or sorry, council to understand why I'm putting this forward at this moment in time. That was fully my intention. as with the mayor and I was going to say that in my second so thank you. >> So um it sounds like that's friendly. Um and so I mean the clerks will have to work on maybe the specific language. I don't know upon the completion of the feasibility study I think is the missing word but after that I think uh back to you Mayor Horvath. Does that capture the intent of your >> I think we need to have it clear that the upon the completion of feasible study being >> considered by council is that that piece that's missing or some type of deliberation >> and can we have a date on that for quarter 4. >> I'm going to pause for a sec just as acting chair turn to staff before we do dates. Does Q4 work for the folks making this report? Seeing lots of nods from different department heads. So that works. Um going to go back to the requester of the amendment. Is this satisfactory to what you're requesting? And checking in with the original mover, councelor Tatison, you're okay with the language you see on screen and it still remains friendly. >> Can we have that confirmed date the completion of feasibility study in quarter 4 of 2026? >> Oh yeah, >> thank you. >> So if that Q4 gets added in, you're comfortable. Um I think with that done then the mayor's changes were friendly. So we didn't need informal mover or secondary. Um, I'm going to return to you for speaking comments, but if you have no speaking comments, I'll just return the chair to you. >> Uh, thanks, Councelor Wilson, and thanks, uh, thanks, uh, Councelor Tatison. I I I really I don't I do have a few other things to say, and I'll I'll say them now. Or actually, you you Okay, I'll go ahead. Very, very briefly, though. These kinds of things take a long time to actually build. Uh, and when I've talked to a couple of people from this community, they're they've told me that there's there are young people that are at loose ends and and they have nothing to do. They they can't really find things to do. Uh, so they hang out at a Tim Hortons, for example, and that causes some consternation and ends up with, you know, some friction in community. And so I would I would just hope that what we can do and and maybe it's through a motion, maybe it's just through some direction here, is to have our staff, our our recreation staff, our our um community um um safety and uh Oh, Grace, I do it every time. Um well-being stuff. Look at what can be some interim solutions for young people uh in the community. And whether that be sh some shared space and programming with existing uh churches and different facilities, whether that be doing some of the work that we talk about around third spaces for young people that doesn't have to be expensive and uh and uh complicated, but I really think that because these things take such a long time, by the time something like this will actually be built, these kids, it'll be their kids that are going to be using this rec center. So, I'd like to work with the award counselor and uh and the staff to kind of come up with some uh some interim solutions to try to create some opportunities for young people to have things to do in the community. So, that's what I had to say. Thank you. Back to me. And now over to you, Councelor Alex Wilson. Please go ahead. >> Thank you. Um I want to appreciate the work of the mover in kind of really identifying local community needs and championing them here. I don't think there's any question that that's the intention behind this. It's a sightsp specific question about and you know from a sight specific angle I get it. We're moving a pipe down the road 500 meters. Why is everyone making this so difficult? I can understand that perspective. I don't share it. Um unfortunately and I'm not on I'm not in favor of the motion as a result. I think an important thing for me has changed in the context of how green belt legislation works. When we get to that official plan amendment hearing and we have a planning committee, we are both acting in the sense of because we've instructed our staff to put forward that amendment as both the proponent and the approver of this official plan amendment to go into the green belt. That's sometimes fine that the city wears both those hats. No general concern about that. The issue here though is that the public has lost their appeal rights. So, it's not just that it's the city making a decision, but it's that other people are no longer allowed to appeal that decision. Some of the checks and balances of our decision-m have been taken away via the provincial changes to the planning act um and the ability for non um uh commenting agencies typically is the language to to appeal um to OOLT. I think that's a huge huge huge frustration um to the green belt legislation and our ability to do proper planning in Ontario. When we don't have a clear set of rules and guidelines to protect what's in the public interest, we pit the public interest against the public good. No one wins. It's a lack of having a clear set of rules to protect the green belt, something that is in our common heritage, our common um ownership that makes me frustrated because there's not an appropriate measure at the provincial level to evaluate this proposal. Um I think those things have been taken away. Um and as a result, I don't think there's a fair process to have this conversation. Appreciating though that the mover has been quite clear that this isn't a pave the green belt motion. That's not the intention here. This is a how do we get the infrastructure that my community has been asking for for a really long time. That said, it's happening in the context of the planning act we have and of the participation rights that we have. Um, and I think it's really really important given the messages we've sent in the past, the stance we've sent, and all of the public feedback that I've received from constituents on this matter as well as past green belt matters as well to remain consistent that we support the green belt being something that's in public ownership and the public needs to have planning rights when it comes to how we develop and how we engage with green belt applications. Until Ontarians have their environmental rights respected, all development is put at risk. until indigenous communities have their rights respected, development is put at risk. Um, so I think it's a lack of clear provincial criteria that is risking these projects and delaying them, not necessarily municipal red tape. Um, but I appreciate that the council and the community are caught in the middle of those things. Um, at the meantime, um, I'm not able to support this motion at this time, but thanks for all the effort that's gone into uh, moving it forward. Thank you. Uh thanks councelor uh Wilson, councelor Tison. Oh councelor Jackson. >> Okay. Thanks councelor Jackson. Seconded by councelor Pauls. Councelor Tison please go ahead. So, >> so I very I very much respect uh council Wilson's um thoughts here, but I think saying things like this is a precedent setting and it can and it compromises the green the green belt, I think that's hoopla for me. Um I give these examples. Does this council know that on June 13, 2018, Hamilton City Council passed a motion from councelor Ferguson, seconded by councelor Puda to allow Ancaster Fairgrounds at 6:30 Turney Church Road, which is in the green belt, to connect to sewers. Then furthermore, on February 2nd, 2016, councelor Partridge introduced the motion seconded by councelor Pearson. It stated, "Therefore be resolved that the Aritza, which is formerly Oakrun Bakery, be permitted to connect to municipal water wastewater system." That motion carried. In both of these instances, nothing happened that compromised the green belt. The green belt is not built on a house of cards. It's firmly embedded in the psyche of the people of Ontario now. And we can thank Council McMaken for that and his government, his provincial government at the time. I say the green belt is stronger than ever and is in no danger anytime soon of ever being compromised. Premier Ford even said himself, "I won't touch the green belt." Extending sewers and water 600 meters down a roadway corridor to service existing recreational lands that happen to be in the green belt is reasonable. and saying that action compromises our ability to protect the ground. The green belt is not supported by documented historical facts or recent decisions that support the green belt against residential development within it. This is not an action so developers can profit. It's not it's for the good of the community, for the health and well-being of the community. It creates more recreation capacity through lower Stony Creek across Stony Creek Mountain across the mountain all over the Hamilton Mountain including Sackville Senior's uh rec center and into Ancaster and it does not affect farmland. It does not affect wood lots. It doesn't hurt the wershed or animal habitats. It's not for residential devel development. It's not for industrial development. It's for a badly needed rec center. And I'll rest on that. Thank you. Thanks, Councelor Tatison. Uh, councelor Morin Wilson for a second time. We need a vote. Councelor, uh, Wang and Councelor Nan. Thanks very much. Go ahead then, please. >> Thank you, Mayor. I am generally trying to understand the relationship between the feasibility studies and the work and this planning direction. Um, does the outcome of the feasibility work inform and affect the OP proposed OPA? Is one contingent on the other? Is if the feasibility study says it's not feasible andor it will cost this much, what is the relationship between the two? I I'm just trying to understand the timing of this frankly and why we're not waiting as a governing body for the feasibility work uh so that I could if I'm here be held accountable for that ultimate next step through the chair. >> Jim Kennedy. >> Yep. Thank you. And thank you for the opportunity to clarify. the feasibility report um will provide commentary on compliance with the legislation or the need to do uh OPA. Um and so um that that would be a step that would say whether the OPA is required or not, but I would invite Director Fayback to provide any clarity on that as well. >> Uh director Fayback please. through the chair to the councelor. I I don't think I have anything further to add other than it would the feasibility study itself would do an overarching policy analysis. The motion in front of council today is directing staff to prepare the official plan amendment. So um even uh the the direction is that you know uh even with the green belt policies in place and the rural Hamilton official plan policies in place that staff be directed to prepare the amendment and schedule the public meeting >> and and for me therein lies the rub. I I'm not sure I understand from a governance perspective why would we be directing an OPA when we A may not need an OPA or B um we don't know the conditions that will inform and affect that OPA um and C we're affirming this as a priority um but I don't know the consequence of that in terms of uh the other priorities set out um that uh go ahead of it from one to five. I I that's what I'm struggling with and I haven't heard anybody around this table say that uh there's no need. I haven't heard anybody say that uh we have lots of external externalities going on with youth today um in terms of their their well-being um and their needs particularly in a non-serviced area. But from a a sequencing point of view, I I I'm challenged with understanding the rush. And I know that's pretty rich given that this has been on the books for a couple of decades. But from a good governance perspective, awaiting those feasibilities to inform that OPA and the policy context, the policy context which is absolutely in our realm of responsibility. Um, that is my struggle. Thank you. >> Thanks, Councelor Wilson. I don't see anybody else uh speaking to this at this point. So, I'm just wanting to confirm where we are. We are on the amendment or we are on the main Oh, it wasn't. There's no amendment because it was friendly. Okay. So, we're on the um the amended uh uh motion that's before us. So, we'll go to the electronic vote, please. My bullet's not coming up. It's not coming up for some reason. Okay, that passes 9 to5. Thanks very Okay, we are now on to um let's see. Oh, correspondent uh correspondence 9.5A. Uh we just need a mover and seconder uh to receive. Moved by councelor Cretch, seconded by councelor Wil, Alex Wilson. Um, show of hands vote. All those in favor? Any opposed? That's carried. Thanks very much. Uh, 9.6, amendment to bylaw number 14244. Uh, who will be presenting this motion? Councelor, it will be councelor Cretch. Okay. It's not in my road map. Uh, please present prevent present your motion and your second, please. Sorry. >> Now for a thrilling motion moved by myself, seconded by councelor Narender Nan. This is mainly housekeeping. I'll briefly explain all happening here is that there really shouldn't be a fee for people to file a complaint with respect to the lobbyist registry, but we unfortunately have one in place. In the last term of council, we had a fee in place if people wanted to file a complaint against somebody with respect to the code of conduct for counselors and we took that away. But at the same time, we didn't take this one away. And uh people have reached out in official positions and said, "Hey, you know what? You should correct that." So, someone reached out to me and said, "Hey, counselor, you want to put this motion forward?" And we're here today. Thank you. >> Thanks, Councelor Cretch. I don't see anybody um on this item. So, we'll go to the vote. It's up. >> We're losing people. That's carried 8 to five. Thanks very much. Um, let's see. We're on the amendment to uh public works committee minutes respecting report PW25013. Councelor Nam, would you please present your motion and advise of your seconder? >> Me, right? Yeah, there we go. Uh thank you so much. It is very much a thrilling housekeeping motion. Also, um this one is uh an amendment committee and council me sorry council members will remember we did do this previous amendment. However, the proponent has changed their name. So, in order to ensure that they can be paid, um this motion is before council for ratification to ensure that um the city can pay the provost a division of Volvo Group Canada, Inc. with Nova Bus, Inc. Uh and appropriately re uh appropriately amended. And my second is councelor Scott. Thank you. >> Thanks very much. That's moved and seconded. I don't see any speakers on the list, so we'll go to the vote for the housekeeping amendment here. Thank you. Let's Okay, carried 11 to zero. Thanks very much. 9.8 8. Motion to reconsider decision approved at August 5th council to 2026 meeting respecting 10.2 of public works committee. Councelor Jackson, would you please present your motion to reconsider and advise your seconder? >> Sorry, councelor Jackson. >> Mayor Horvath Horvath, I will move by myself, seconded by W 5 counselor Matt Francis. If I could just get to the bottom line and the essence of this. Five years ago uh through a petition speed cushions were approved on this block of Moxy. If you recall this past summer due to a unique set of circumstances I asked for removal council was gracious enough to do that. Since then another petition was requested. uh more young kids, young families moved into the area. And so with the nearly 60% that's here before, it would, if approved, it would allow for the current speed cushions to be retained and would save any removal, reinstallation, whatever the case might be. So that's that's all this reconsideration. I want to thank DC McCrae for her tremendous help procedurally in helping me with this. Seconded by councelor Francis. Thank you. >> Oh, thank you. I don't see any um speakers to this surprisingly, but nonetheless um just teasing. Uh we'll go to the vote then please. And it's a reconsideration. So then we'll have to do the actual motion. >> And what's the number that we need? >> Five. >> Yeah, we'll have it. uh that carries 11 to nothing. Co please go ahead with your uh motion then councelor Jackson. >> So I might be able to help the council here. Mayor, so this puts the original motion on the floor which I believe was to remove them but we would like to keep them which means you need to vote down the resolution. So vote no because originally it was passed which is how we reconsider it and that will allow them to stay >> on this last council meeting. Did you all catch that council colleagues? >> Thank you city clerk Trenum. Thank you mayor. >> So to do what councelor Jackson's asking for we vote no on the motion. >> Thank you. Oh, >> councelor Jackson wanted us to vote no. So, Councelor Francis and Councelor Cooper have now changed to a no. There you go. There you go. Unanimous. >> Okay, we're on to notices of motion. First one is uh 10.1 Highway 52 North at Power Line Road. Councelor Casar, I understand you'd like to suspend the rules. Can you please advise of your seconder? >> My secondary is councelor Wang. Please go ahead. >> Yeah. So, this is just to wave the rules uh for >> Oh, it's to wave the rules. Yeah. So, we can just have the vote up to wave the rules uh to consider uh a motion without notice. >> Wang is councelor Wang is a seconder. >> Then wave the rules. Yes. carried 12 to zero. Uh, thanks very much. Now, councelor Casaro, could you please introduce your motion and advise of your seconder? >> Yeah. Moved by me, seconded by councelor Wang. Uh, so this is to do with highway 52 north at Powerline Road uh and appropriation adjustment. uh staff brought this to me on Monday uh because they needed some help with the appropriation of funds to move this capital project forward. So context if you know Summit Station Darian Crearyy that's the intersection we're talking about on Highway 52 as uh colleagues will remember uh we've approved a roundabout uh the we approved the EA for the roundabout some months ago which is going to happen and part of the road safety review identified that gap between now and when that roundabout gets built. Uh there is a concern as there has been for many years about having a left turn lane there to prevent additional AC collisions that have happened. So uh a budget was developed for this $450,000. The lowest compliant bid was more than that uh which requires this appropriation of $294,0001 2900 $294,160 from two other capital accounts. So two obvious questions. One, is there any impact to those other capital accounts that are listed here? And staff told me the answer is no. And the other obvious question is, well, why would we do a temporary work on this road if we're going to replace it with a roundabout? There's two reasons for that. One, because there is a real and present safety concern that we need to deal with. And two, uh there is the work that's being done today. Much of it will be um reused or it's going to support and be part of the work that will be done with the roundabout. So there is some throwaway cost if you want to put it that but most of it will be retained as the road there needs to be widened that will be incorporated into the roundabout design. So there's a small investment here in in safety for the moment because it could be a couple years. The budget needs to be approved on that roundabout. So we're making sure this road gets safer in the short term. >> Okay. Thanks very much. >> I don't see any speakers on this one. So uh we'll go to the vote. roundabout near Summit Derry. Okay, that carries 12 to zero. Thanks very much. Now we're on to 10.2. Review and update of the 40 Mile Creek flood damage redu uh reduction study. Councelor Clark, would you like to read your notice of motion? >> So, I can advise that councelor Clark, first of all, is not here, mayor. Uh but secondly, he did say that it would stay a notice of motion either way. >> Okay. All right. So the notice is before us and uh we'll just carry on. Correct. >> Correct. Okay. Um so now we are going to uh we've we've jilted statements by members till the end of the agenda. So we're going to go into private and confidential with a motion. Uh so prior to going into close session, may I please have a mover and seconder to allow external consultants Aaron Fer and Darren Jones from Valencia Risk to attend the close session portion of the meeting respecting respecting item 12.6. Show of hands vote. All those in favor? Any opposed? That's carried. Thanks very much. May I please have a motion to move into close session to consider items 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7. Uh >> and we just need to add mayor for the one item that was referred. Um that is to go into closed for litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals affecting the city or local board and advice that is subject to solic client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose. And that was for item >> 8.5 >> 8.5 >> 8.5. Okay. Uh and so then this is pursuant to uh 9.3 sub uh section 9.3 subsections A, B, C, E, F, and K of city's procedural bylife 21-021 as amended and section 2392 subsections A B C E F and K of the Ontario municipal act 20 uh 2001 as amended as a sub matter matter pertains to security of the property municipality or local board personal matters about identifiable individuals including municipal or local board employees A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land for city or local board purposes. Litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals affecting city or local board. Receiving of advice that's subject to local client uh to sorry solicister client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose and a position plan procedure criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by our on behalf of the municipality or local board. Show of hands vote. All those in favor? Any opposed? That's carried. Members of the public meeting will continue following close session uh portion of the meeting. When you see the members rejoin the meeting, uh council will wait up to five minutes upon reconvening in open session before proceeding with the meeting to provide members of the public and the media time to return. We're heading into close, folks. Uh let's take an extra two or three minutes so that people can have bio breaks because we're back in for a bit of a long haul, I think. Let's hope not. But thank you. It's okay. Hopefully, we'll get through this fast. If not, maybe you'll go first if you want to say some things if we get there. >> I'm sorry. Uh yeah. Well, let's see how it goes. If it gets really noisy, we'll ask them to stop for half an hour. Let us know when we're ready to go uh to go back into open. Uh thanks very much. Uh welcome back everyone members of council. We're now back in open session. Please ensure you're uh you're back in the uh open um portal of escribe and we'll start with 12.3 uh which is GFL strategy update W 9. May I have a mover and second on the following that report LS25015B respecting GFL strategy update be received and remain confidential. Moved by councelor Cut, seconded by councelor Jackson. Uh electronic vote, please. Uh that carries 14 to zero. Thanks very much. 12.4 Four, acquisition of property in City of Hamilton, W 2. May I have a mover and seconder on the F following that report PEED26189 respecting acquisition of property in the city of Hamilton be received and remain confidential. Moved by councelor Alex Wilson, seconded by councelor uh uh sorry, councelor Cretch. Um sorry, moved by councelor Cretch, seconded by councelor Wilson. We'll go to the electronic vote, please. That carries 14 to zero. Thanks very much. Uh uh 12.5 Auditor General Reporting of Serious Matters report 1000115. May I have a mover and seconder on the following that report uh AUD260009 respecting auditor general reporting of serious matters to council be received and remain confidential. Moved by councelor Wang, seconded by councelor Casar. Electronic vote please. That carries uh 14 to zero. Uh thanks very much. We're now into acquisition of land in City of Hamilton Ward 13. Uh may I have a mover and second on the following that the direction provided to staff in close section session respecting the acquisition of land in City of Hamilton Ward 13 be approved and remain confidential. That's moved by councelor Alex Wilson and seconded by uh councelor Ted McMein. that go. Let's go to the electronic vote, please. And that carries 14 to zero. Uh we are now on uh on the item where where I where did I Oh. 8.4. Yes, 8.4. Uh, >> why does it look like this? I thought we just did that one. >> Oh, right. Okay. I'm sorry. Uh, cyber security follow-up audit phase three roadmap assessment citywide. Mover and second are pleased to put it on the floor. Uh, councelor Wang, councelor Alex Wilson. Uh, any discussion? No. No discussion? No. Councelor Ted McBacon. >> We're where we're we're back to the staff report now as I understand it. Your >> cyber security. >> This is cyber security. >> Oh, sorry. I No. >> Okay. You're on a different one. Okay. Uh cyber security. So, I don't see any uh speakers on this one. Uh and so we'll go to the electronic vote, please. Mine's not coming up. Yeah, mine's not coming up. And that carries 14 to zero, please. Or thank you. Sorry. And now we're on to the one that uh we got some uh we moved to the end of the agenda. Uh we got some legal questions responded to. And just remind me what the number is again. 8.5. The staff recommendation is before us. Uh and um this is uh peed 24007A recommendation to designate 84 York Boulevard, Hamilton Philpot Memorial Church, Ward 2. A mover and a seconder to put the report on the floor. Councelor Cretch. Uh seconded by Councelor Casar. Uh and um do we have any speakers on this matter? Any discussion? >> Councelor McMakin. Please go ahead. >> Yeah, I'm I'm reticent to enter the frey here, but uh and I didn't say say I didn't have a legal question, so I I kept quiet when we were wandering around in in camera. Um, I I have a I'm I'm going to oppose I'm going to oppose the staff report and I I want to just explain a little bit why I think I have a different view of heritage. Um I I know a little bit about this uh congregation and its historic work a blue collar um labor ministry historic um um and they're wanting to substantially alter alter the form and style of the ministry that they deliver and have delivered for years in our city. They want to focus on an inner city ministry and uh uh like uh any group that wants to make an investment, they have to make some business decisions. You know, we talk about asset management in the city. You know, they're they're looking at their asset management. Their asset is they've got a piece of property that's worth a fair bit of money. Uh at one point they wanted to to sell it and build housing. And I think that maybe they've moved away from that. Who knows? Maybe they can get back to that. But but it seems to me that um it I've been in the building several times and and I I I appreciate the fact that it's got some heritage value as a building. Um but I'm I'm more concerned and more more appreciative is one of sits around this chamber and often asks questions. How do we support business in town? And and this is a business about about from their perspective a Christian ministry to reach out to the inner city and they want to manage an asset to do that. And um I I think we had a lot of serious doubt about the wisdom of designating the building itself. So I I just don't feel comfortable moving away from that that position. So I'm I'm going to vote against it. to not make some friends around the table, I suspect, but that's that's not why I'm here, right? Thanks. >> Thanks, Councelor Mikin. Uh, councelor Alex Wilson, please. >> Thank you. I hear trust and transparency so often as words that we have to hold ourselves accountable to and you know that's I think the standard the public has of us as well. When at planning committee, many of us sitting around that table did our due diligence in asking questions about what were the intentions, how did this navigate with various city policies. We heard answers from the applicant and their lawyer who is a professional planner understands the process. We then later in this process are getting different outcomes based on not that verbal understanding we had on the public record in committee. How can we maintain the public trust and confidence when we won't hold those who tell us something verbally to account for what they said where they say, "Oh, okay. Your plans have changed, but that didn't happen in a public meeting. The last thing that was done was at planning committee where promises were made." If you're going to walk away from those promises you made to the public, you should be able to do that publicly. I think that's just really simple. And so for me, um, I think despite the fact that this could be for an excellent cause, it could be for the best cause ever. We don't just rip up our city policies because someone asked us nicely, we don't just rip up our city policies because someone said, "We're going to try our best to meet them, but oh, it turns out we don't actually want to, and that's the end of the conversation." I think folks intention in how they engage in this conversation absolutely matters. Um, I think what we've seen is the city's been willing to work with the owners of this land in multiple different formats, but we are going to have a planning perspective that is about more than the bottom line for the landowner. We're going to think about the public realm in those conversations. And I would be happy to find a middle ground and work with the applicants on this, but I don't feel like we're getting any middle ground offered. I feel like we're consistently being asked to do the exact opposite of what was committed to in this committee and that I just I don't think inspires any trust or transparency in this organization to allow that as evidence-based decision-m. Thank you. >> Uh thanks councelor Wilson. I don't see any other speakers on the list. Uh I am going to speak very briefly. Um and what I'm going to say is this. We're in a space where we didn't want to be. I think we tried very very hard to find a solution here that uh met everybody's interests. What what we are going to end up doing though uh if we don't support this staff report, we're going to lose all the all the history of that building that was identified by staff in the heritage easement conversation that I think was had publicly if I'm not mistaken at the committee meeting. And so I I have a lot of uh sympathy for the the church and the situation that they're in, but our biggest asset is our downtown. And I think we need to start being serious about that. That's our biggest asset. That's our responsibility. And this staff report doesn't preclude uh further discussion with the with the uh with the proponents. What it does do is show the people of our city that we mean what we say when we say it. But we will continue to negotiate in good faith as a city in the best interest of our city. That's our responsibility when we do negotiations. Our responsibility is to to do what's best for our city and our downtown. We're doing so much to try to bring life back to our downtown. Almost $300 million investment with the TD Coliseum. Public or sorry, professional women's hockey league hitting the ice as we speak. The same with the American Hockey League, all kinds of concerts, all kinds of activities, bars and restaurants full. And we're doing a new downtown strategy, 10-year strategy. All why why are we doing all this? Because we recognize that our downtown is important and we have to not only protect it but continue to activate it and make it more vibrant and make it a place where where everybody recognizes the asset that it truly is. And on that note, I am not going to be uh voting against I'll be supporting the staff report and hoping against hope that the folks who would hope for a different outcome know that they now have an opportunity to get serious about doing the right thing that they promised to do from day one. So, I'll u leave it at that. I don't see any further speakers on the list. Thanks for taking the chair there, Councelor Alex Wilson. I'll take it back now. Uh, and we have the report on the floor. There are no further speakers. >> We actually just very quickly need a motion to extend before we move on to this vote. >> Oh, shoot. Oh, >> yeah. >> Okay. Uh, councelor Crretch, on the last day of council, you have >> you're going to vote against it. >> Just show a hand. >> Okay. That's being moved by councelor Jackson and seconded by councelor Alex Wilson. Show of hands, please in favor. Any opposed? And we're extending to 6:30. >> 6 o 6 o'clock. >> 6 o'clock. >> 6 o'clock. Okay. 6 o'clock. Okay. Um, thanks for that. That's carried. So now we have the report before us. Uh, I don't see any further speakers and so we're going to uh go to the vote. Please. This is on the staff report. >> Votes in. Are the votes up? >> Uh, the staff reports defeated on a tie vote. Okay folks, uh now we are on to um the member statements which we move to the back of the agenda. And so as is our uh what do you call it? Our uh habit our you know our tradition if you will the last last day of our tradition to uh please uh uh bring your member statements forward. Uh, councelor Morin Wilson, please. >> Oh, sorry. >> That's okay. I don't know if it's possible, and I I didn't think we'd be here at this time. Is it at all possible to move the bylaws up um so that I could vote on the bylaws and then have the member statements. Otherwise, I I have um I have an engagement that I have to go to now. And I'll >> It's your debate, right? >> Yeah. >> It's I mean, it's not a procedural problem. We would have to just amend the amend the agenda. That's moved by councelor Wilson and seconded by councelor uh cret. All in favor of moving the bylaws up. >> Any opposed? Uh thanks very much. We didn't need electronic on that. Okay. So then there you go. Uh we have the bylaws in front of us. I think the clerk is uh uh making sure that they're all in order. Uh and so item 13 is the bylaws. Uh, councelor Alex Wilson, may I please have a motion on the bills and the seconder? >> You may. Uh, it is moved by myself and seconded by councelor Nurender Nan that bills number 26169 to 26184 be passed and the corporate seal be a fixed there too and that the bylaws be numbered be signed by the mayor and the city clerk to read as follows and then 169 to 188 as follows. >> Okay. Uh, thanks very much. Can we have the electronic vote on the bylaws, please? >> Good luck. >> Good luck, counselor. That carries 14 to zero. Thanks very much. We're back on to member statements and uh councelor Paul's is the first one on the list. >> Yes, thank you mayor. I just want to thank everyone who supported the YMCA long walk home from the men's residence 72 kilometer in two days walk last week. Some of you here supported the walk. I know. And others showed up to cheer us at different stages. Thanks to the generosity of the community, we surpassed $40,000. We raised 52,200 with only 10 people walking. It was great. Second, this is an annual event I've been part of for years and it's really near to me and such a it's such a great cause and I'm sure you'll all agree. Step up for Wayside is about gathering the community together to support men who are working to uh towards recovery. The money raised helps provide important programs and services that gives them great access to lifesaving addiction treatment. It is a very touching and special morning, a fun community event, and most importantly, it makes a real difference in people's life. This year, it's happening Saturday, October 17th from 9 to 12 at 200 Harbor Front Drive. I'd love to see some of you there and to be part of it. Thank you. Uh, thanks Councelor Paul's. Councelor Jackson, please go ahead. >> Mayor Horvath, we are blessed to be, in my opinion, the best country in the world. I want to wish all my constituents a happy Thanksgiving weekend. Thanks, Mayor Horvath. >> Thanks, Councelor Jackson. I don't see any other speakers on the list for the final council meeting member statements. Councelor uh, Tammy Wang, please, and then councelor Francis after that. Please go ahead, councelor Wang. >> Thank you, Mayor. Mayor, I just wanted to take this time to reflect and to thank W4 residents, thank council, thank staff for all of this work in the last four years. I will say that it has been a lot of firsts first for me to ever sit at this council horseshoe first to do a lot of the things that we got got a chance to do. So, I do want to say thank you um and wish everyone well as we go into Thanksgiving weekend, but also just thankful for this last term. Thank you very much. >> Uh thanks, Councelor Wang. Councelor Francis, please go ahead. >> Thanks, Mayor Horvath. I just want to take this opportunity to sincerely thank city staff for their efforts in getting the Hamilton Canal Pier open on the Lake Ontario side. Uh this is a fight that dates back to 2021 when the federal government decided to close the pier down. uh but the community fought back and we were successful in bringing all the parties to the table uh to discuss this um and who would maintain pedestrian access and there's been a work in progress between the Hamilton Ashawa Port Authority the transport Canada public services and procurement Canada and the city city of Hamilton for four years now and to see it finally reopened and restoring public access is welcomed to our beach community and to our city and uh folks can enjoy this wonderful publica space once again and uh we've installed some safety features and you'll see some additional safety improvements over the coming seasons. Some railings um closing during uh winter and nighttime um by our fantastic Parks East supervisors and the hardworking team uh down at the Parks East department. And I appreciate all that they do and certainly they do not get the res recognition that they deserve, but I appreciate their efforts uh throughout my ward and especially on this file. And I just want to give a special uh shout out to city solicitor Lisa Shields and all of her all-star legal team, particularly deputy city solicitor Patrick McDonald, who's understood the significance of this file to my community and uh to our city and the many hours that he's dedicated to getting this over the finish line. Uh the back and forth constantly for years navigating these large federal bureaucracies. I just want to say that his work is so appreciated. And finally, uh, Director Cynthia Graham. Um, I'm sure she she will be relieved that, uh, she'll no longer be receiving weekly check-ins from me. Um, but, uh, she's been outstanding, and I just want to say how truly thankful I am for Cynthia and all of her hard work. That's all for me. Thanks, Mayor. >> Thanks, Councelor Francis. Councelor Spaphora, please. >> Thanks, Mayor. Um, just a comment. I thought this would be a fitting time for to finally have um I think one thing that me and counselor Alex Wilson are going to agree on. I think he's the only one that is not going to be back for sure. So, I wanted to thank him for his service around this table. Again, we didn't agree on much but um that's okay. We did it respectfully and I wish him all the best. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Spataphora. I appreciate that. Councelor Alex Wilson, please go ahead. I just said it. >> I was gonna say I'd like to thank councelor Spataphor both for edging me onto the list and then immediately going on before me. So, uh, no, and also for the comments. I really do appreciate it and the sentiment's the same. I just want to say that I think there's been days where I've loved this job. There's been days when I've hated this job and I'm sure I speak for everyone in this room, front bench included. Um, and I think my biggest value in this has been learning just how on the front lines um, municipalities are. I was talking to some folks on the CCAC, our climate change advisory committee recently. Um, and I think one of the comments was there when the fire comes, the electricity grid breaks out. It's not Queens Park that's coming. It is the city staff whose job it is not to do that job today that will be redeployed to solve that problem tomorrow. Um, and I think we've seen that throughout the continuous improvement that has happened throughout this term that I've been able to witness throughout the changing phases, the same phases. It's been wonderful to see, but also through some pretty big emergencies um that have happened this term. And I think being able to see that deployment firsthand has really convinced me that again, regardless of any partisanness or left or right or where we agree on anything, hopefully increasingly all of us as Canadians and all of us are realizing that it's time for a new deal for municipalities. It does not work. And our democracy is frankly suffering. Our democracy is suffering because we can't do infrastructure planning effectively. Um, and we are talking about uh pinching pennies to put towards multi multi-billion dollar infrastructure plans with zero support from the provincial or federal government. If every single municipality has their two biggest expenses are roads and water and wastewater, then the provincial and federal government's biggest budget lines should be road and wastewater and water, but they are not. We've heard from delegates just last week that nearby communities go without access to clean drinking water. In a time of nation building, our municipalities are ready to step up. this city is ready to step up. Unfortunately, I've not found that higher levels of government are even on the same page, are even aware of what's happening on the ground in our communities. And I think that has been so disappointing. And so regardless of any kind of political flavors that happen in this next term of council, regardless of kind of agreement or disagreement, uh what I'm uh very very happy to know is that there's going to continue to be strong leadership at the local level and our communities on our staff bench demanding that our city constantly finds ways to improve our response because the challenges aren't going away. They're just increasing. The pressures on cities are only increasing. Um, and so it's been a real pleasure and a real privilege to see some of the ways that we've been building capacity in this organization over the past four years and want to thank everyone for their roles they've played in that. Thank you. >> Thanks, Councelor Wilson. >> Councelor McMin, please. >> Yeah, I want to I want to thank Alex and I live in the same community and he's done a a stellar job. He always does his homework and uh is impressive. We don't always agree either, but it's it's been good to to know you, Alex, and I think you got a a great future ahead of you with whatever happens. I want to build on what Alex was beginning to say about senior levels of government uh your worship. And you you'll probably appreciate this as well, having served at a different level as as I have um as well. I remember the late great Hazel Macauan who was once asked to describe democracy. I was chairing a a public public meeting and I asked her, "Can you tell us what what your view of democracy is?" And she said, "Well, Ted, that's simple. The feds have got all the money. The province has got all the power and municipalities have or will soon have all the problems." And I thought that's pretty that was pretty prophetic. So So do and then she went on to say that she talked about the tax regime. And I don't know if you know this, but of of every dollar that Canadians pay in taxes, 47 cents of it goes to the feds, 44 cents goes to the province, and just 9 cents ends up with municipalities. and that level of government with the least capacity to uh finangle and uh and do do the kinds of financial things that the two senior levels of government have the power to do your worship. Um those are those are just some thoughts as we uh we end this uh this last council meeting before that uh the big day in October. Thanks so much. >> Uh thanks Councelor Mick Mikin. I don't see anybody else on the list. I I do want to just say and I said my piece at the very beginning so I won't keep you long but I do want to also thank Councelor Alex Wilson as well as every single one of you. It's been a journey. Uh we've made it to the end of the journey. Some of us will return. Um and um that journey was facilitated by really great staff and so I just want to once again uh say to the staff uh we really appreciate everything you do. We we know we don't make it easy on you and we haven't made it easy on you. Uh but um we're really really grateful for all your hard work and your commitment to the city of Hamilton regardless of who sits around this horseshoe. So thank you very very much. I really appreciate it. And on that note, there being no further business of the term of council 2022 to 2026, we are now permanently adjourned.