Transcript: Gore Park Rodenticide Phase-Out - Downtown Sub-Committee - March 2, 2026 | Summary 202

Soundtrack 1, two, 3. Soundtrack 1, two, 3. Welcome to the downtown subcommittee meeting for March 2nd, 2026. Like to call the meeting to order as we have quorum. Joining us are members of the committee Wakeford Walsh, Vice Chair Braithweight, Councelor Moren Wilson. I think I saw um member Panessa online and joining us also is Dino Mazic from the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce and I see also member Zarafh is also online. On that note, we'll get to our first order of business which is the approval of the agenda. And can I have a mover in a second or two approve the agenda presented? Move by Vice Chair Braithweight, seconded by member Wakeford. Thank you. Any discussion on today's agenda? Not seeing any. So, we'll do a vote by show of hands. All those in favor of today's agenda. Thank you. That's everybody. That carries. Declarations of conflicts of interest. Does anybody have a conflict of interest they want to declare today? Not seeing anyone. Now, we're going to go on to the approval of the minutes of our previous meeting, which was on November the 26th. Yes. Can I have a mover and second to adopt the minutes from our previous meeting? Moved by member Walsh, seconded by Vice Chair Braithweight. Any discussion about the minutes from our last meeting? I'm not seeing any. So, by show of hands, all those in favor. Thank you very much. That carries. Now, on to delegations. We have a delegation from Allison Hansen from Redenticide Free Ontario respecting the report on Gore Park. And I'm going to call to see if the delegates here either virtually or on in person. At this time, we don't see the delegate here virtually or in person. And so, what we'll do is if that delegate should appear later, we can always revisit the agenda and have the delegate give the delegation later on. On that, we'll move on to items for information. So, we're on to item 7.1, PW26009, urban pest control information for Gore Park. uh report has changed from being the rather crly by me named rats in Gore Park to urban pest control information for Gore Park. So it's the same report just more professionally named. Thank you to staff for that. And I need someone to move to put the report on the floor and second to do that. Moved by member Walsh, second by member Wakeford to put the report on the floor. Uh Cynthia Graham, our director of environmental services, is here to answer questions. Uh I will say that I have a bunch of questions that came in that I already asked Cynthia by email. So, what I'll do is I'll just pose those questions at first if that's okay with folks and then once we pose those questions and got answers, we can figure out what to do. We're going to try and treat this reasonably informally. Meaning, if there's things we want to see to take actions of, we can put motions on the floor to have those things happen, right? Um, if we want to see more information come back on a specific thing, we can ask for that to come back at the next meeting. Our next meeting is April 9th. Just one second here while I grab the questions and I pass the chair to Vice Chair Braithweight. So I think one of the first questions that was asked and to get some more information about is the geese. You talked about urban pest control. So geese as an issue because when you have a pair of geese in Gore Park, it's not the same thing as having a pair of geese in Bayfront Park. The geese have somewhere to go in Bayfront Park. in core park if they're right beside the fountain or they're in that area by the statue or they're somewhere else where there's poolled water um they can become really really aggressive and make that entire part of the park unusable. So just want to give you a chance to respond to what to be done about geese and how to how to deal with these situations in terms of trying to I don't know uh politely encourage them to uh have an adventure elsewhere through the chair Cynthia Graham director of environmental services. So, um, in in review of the park and its, uh, current layout and habitat, it wouldn't be expected that geese would prefer to live here because they tend to want to be next to water bodies and have um, you know, access in and out of water in a in a way that isn't obstructed. So there tends to be more geese in locations like Bayfront Park or along waterfront parks um such as that. However, um geese sometimes find themselves in locations that we wouldn't necessarily anticipate them. Um in this case, the uh deterrent for um geese is limited at Gore Park. Um the typical methods would be um some sort of you know loud noise or dogs or egg oiling or sometimes uh in the past even methods such as plet guns uh which would not be appropriate in a downtown urban park. Um so what we can do is uh looking at cultural and preventative um measures such as discouraging feeding which will also help with the pigeons and the rats. Um disturbing nesting conditions through horicultural practices. Um you know if there are nests being established possibly going in and um you know turning over those beds. um as well as where we can discouraging standing water that is a um a challenge with the current grading as well as with the overspray from the fountain. So staff are aware and we will do our best to try and minimize the habitat that is attracting them. Um but the other alternatives really are quite limited. Yeah. Thanks. I think what you'll notice, what I noticed and I think lots of downtown residents notice is that it probably is primarily the issue of drainage. So you end up with these pools because the geese aren't necessarily raising glings and having it parade around the park. Um that's not mostly the issue. The mostly the issue is that people are the geese are coming there to feed in those areas or eat the grass or do other kinds of things in areas where that water is just lying. Right? So some of the things you're saying like having people not feed the geese is helpful and you're going to put up signs, but if there's some way to deal with that by grading it differently, um that might be a way to do it. So thanks for that suggestion and if that's the work you're going to do, I think that makes reasonable sense. The things you suggest doing, I don't think otherwise would work. Um before we move on from geese are any follow-up questions about geese before I carry on. Okay, so the next issue is most more so about redicides and about trying to phase out that that process. I know you and I talked about this before the meeting, but there's a number of people in the community have called on saying, can we do this in a way that's not going to be harmful to birds? Redicides are harmful to our bird population. So, we don't want to have those redicides in the park, but we currently have a contract with a company. So, like how does that work? How can we phase it out? What does that look like? Through the chair. Uh, yes. So, in our review of the matter and in a conversation with um Bird Friendly Hamilton, as well as some others that reached out to us after the motion that asked us to prepare this report, um we did do a review of the city's corporate contract. The city's corporate contract doesn't include some of those alternative methods, which uh staff are happy to pursue. We would just need to do so through a separate procurement. So, um, as it currently stands, we have two bait boxes at the park which are not enough to actually remove a rat population but help to mitigate um the rat population at Gore. Uh the other context is that with Gore being situated in a downtown urban area um where there are underground utilities and basement and food sources and lots of places to hide um complete eradication is going to be difficult um in any sort of urban environment. So our our approach is to try and manage and mitigate um things like removing food sources, the feeding practices um you know reviewing the horicultural practices in the park can help. Uh when it comes to the alternative methods, um we can take uh the process would be that we would need to go out to an new procurement with another contractor that would be specifically identified as needing to have these alternative methods um available and and that they're qualified to undertake that work and then we could enter into a contract with that vendor. I am not sure if that would be an increase to our current contract um funding amounts um and if directed staff can go back and talk with procurement about what that process might be, if we would need additional other authority, what the term limits of the existing contract are, all of those pieces. So, somebody wanted to bring a motion to do that and we'd have to get a report back from staff is my understanding. Right. You're saying that we you could come back when. Do you think you could just just trying to forestall the the conversation for later through the chair? Um so I could have a verbal update at the next meeting with um with information on what that process might be. Um, as already identified in in our correspondence back and forth, the report timelines for a next meeting are challenging, but um certainly within two months I can have more information. Um, if it's within staff's authority and ability and funding to enter into a new contract, we can do that work. Um, but if there's additional funding required, then we can identify what that is. So, if I understand what you're saying, you could get a report back here for the June 11th meeting. That would be reasonable through the chair. Yeah, thank you. My last question I think there's some other questions about um sort of frequency of events in Gore Park and so I think there was a discussion about what frequent events means in the report and I think what you said was essentially this isn't something that's maybe booked by seat all the time but the point is that there's lots of different activities that are happening in the park that are programmed by other people. So I think it's what you meant by that. And the last thing on my list is um it's the signage question. So, if I have it right, and I could have it wrong many times, I've gotten it wrong. Wildlife signage in terms of feeding wildlife is not really present in the park right now. And that's what you're suggesting for the recommendation for around $10,000 is to make sure there's signage in the park talking about feeding wildlife. Is that right? Through the chair. Yeah. So the signage typically just lists the bylaw and then that gives the authority for municipal bylaw officers to go out and educate or find somebody to do that is is doing activities counter to the bylaw. So it's a very all-encompassing but not very specific signage. So if there was a desire to have specific signage that calls out the pieces of the bylaw that says thou shalt not feed wildlife, that would be an additional cost and we could do that work. Um I think the other piece of the additional cost would be a more targeted education campaign which um currently we haven't been undertaking but might be worthwhile if um people are unaware of the impact of their feeding activities um and uh just cleanliness of the park as contributing to the urban pest population. Thanks. Those are my questions. I'll take the chair back and I see that member Wickford has a question. Go ahead. just indicate. You just have to uh I should have said this at the beginning. Just press your button there and then once you do that, I can activate you. There you go. Thank you through the chair. Um I have a couple questions. Can I do both at the same time? Okay. Um, in terms of signage, uh, signage for feeding wildlife isn't present in the park, but there are also another another there are additional bylaws that could be enforcable that require signage strategically. Is there a way to do it at the same time? So, you mentioned the general signage um about enforceable bylaws. Um, is there a preferred approach uh through the chair? I think if we were going to look at additional signage, we want would want to make sure that it was consolidated, it was clear and encompassing. Uh, we do try and limit signage um uh you know being all over the place. Uh, why is the word escaping me at the moment? Um, yes, signage pollution. So, I think that's part of the reason why the signage is succinct and just names the bylaw, but in this case, there would be value in calling out specific things. We'd want to do it in a succinct and comprehensive way so that it just didn't result in all kinds of signs everywhere and then people don't pay attention to that either. Perfect. Um, my other question um was a comment around frequent events. So, I'm just wondering how um there are some events and I'm thinking specifically about holiday events where um some of the decorations might create uh habitats particularly for rats and whether we can look at um the events and how they take place in the park and how um perhaps we can make better choices that don't encourage wildlife through the chair. I'm happy to have those conversations. I know that over the last year um or two years, we have had some feedback about the type of decorations and what we were doing related to um you know, holiday events and and different things at the park. And we're happy to continue to have those conversations. If there's different things that you'd like to see or we could do that would improve conditions, um then we're happy to do that. Uh, I just if I could take a little bit of a liberty, I just want to do call out um that in the report we do mention that we're going to be taking those hydrangeas out along the strip along King Street. That is um I part of the strategy. However, those those removals are because those um plants are in poor condition. um and that but as an incillary benefit will help manage some of the habitat and and the um the burrows and things like that that are occurring at the park. So if there was an opportunity to do something different with respect to decorations and events in that space that could be an opportunity as well. Thanks. Thanks. And maybe if I could suggest that um member Wakeford, member Walsh, uh and maybe Cynthia Graham, you folks could get together and talk about that specifically in terms of the holiday programming because I think they're thinking about, you know, um v various different decorations that have been there over the years and how this might be making it party time for rats. Um right, I understand. Uh coming, is that your final question? Sorry, I have one more. Go ahead, please. One more question if I may. Um, I'm just wondering around tracking of calls uh for feeding wildlife and reported and enforced calls. I'm just wondering if there's any data through the chair. I don't have data with me at the moment. However, any calls that come in through the customer contact center are entered into our system and would then be assigned a work order and we could track them that way. I think that's the piece that maybe um we would encourage people to ensure um they're doing as they see that activity because I I get the sense that because that activity has been going on for so long there's just a complacency that this is something that happens not realizing that it's contributing to um you know the the urban past issues that we're seeing. So if people are calling in regularly, then our municipal law enforcement staff can can know to go out and and get a better sense of what the activities that are happening. Thank you. And I see we have member Panessa next and then to member Walsh. Member Panessa, you unmute yourself whenever you're ready and go ahead. Unfortunately, you're still on mute. It's okay. I I've spent a lot of time on Gore Park watching this issue occur and I would say the first thing is that the re the way they're coming up is from the black there's like these large black streets street lamps and they're coming up from the base and the base is made up of sand and they dig they dig through the sand from underneath and then they they come onto the park. So, in my uh limited opinion, I would suggest the best way of nipping that in the bud would be to figure out how to seal that up better underneath the base of the signpost. And I think you'd probably see a significant reduction in rats. Thank you. That's actually really helpful feedback for staff. They're not down there every day like you are. So, that's really helpful. Thank you, member Walsh. Good. Okay. Cool. Perfect. Thank you so much for the report. Um I think one of the main factors in the park is the food access. I know um we're really lucky in Gore Park to have as many trash cans as we do. There's like eight or nine in just the one small section and we've seen the rats running up and down into those. So, I think looking at whether or not rats are able to access those garbage cans would be very helpful. And then, um I just think with the frequency that the um bird seed is ending up on the ground, I don't know that signage or even an educational campaign to try and get people to report that or to stop doing it would be helpful. I think we do need some proactive enforcement down there just to have a bit of a presence in the park for a little bit to kickstart a bit of a behavior change. Uh would be really helpful. And then I was also just wondering um the report mentions monitoring of the bait stations. Does that allow us to see a trend in any way of if we're moving in the right direction or not through the chair? Um, I asked that question as well of staff and the challenge with monitoring of a bait station is the the contractor goes out and looks and sees if the bait had been eaten and if it's been eaten then they replace the bait. So, it doesn't really give us an an indicator of how many rats or if they're less rats because of the bait because we're not doing kind of a population count. It's really just monitoring the station and making sure that it's full if it's being consumed. So, um it it's it's a bit tricky to do that type of monitoring. Some of the other um suggestions for pest control might have a better way of of tracking population. Um but that particular one uh doesn't give us any data. Okay. Um and then just the plan to remove the hydrangeas. I understand why it needs to be done operationally. I just I think I'm frustrated with that being a trend in Gore Park. We've already lost I think four or five once beautifully planted planters that are now just bare mulch. Um so I'd really like to see a plan to restore those hydrangeas once um hopefully this rat issue has been taken care of. And through the chair um just to clarify that part. So um the hydrangeas aren't thriving in the current um conditions and so the the master plan always identified that area as a planted bed. The intention would be to remove them, restore the area, give it some time and then um plant it back through our horiculture team that they can then um keep their eye on it and monitor it. It may or may not be um suitable to plant back into that kind of hydrangeanger shrub, but something our intention isn't to leave it bare for the long term. Our intention is to restore it with something, but it does need a little bit of time to kind of regenerate after um the impact and the and the hydrangeas are removed. That's great to hear. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is member Moran. Go ahead. I think yeah that's on okay um yeah thank you very much and I think um related to that question I mean just overall is there obviously we're being fairly reactive in terms of rodent pest control is there a specific objective that we're looking at in terms of like total elimination um of of rodent populations within core park is there broader strategy this is tied to across the city um in terms of rodent or pest control and and what are those metrics just so that it's not just reactive kind of reduction of the population but that we're actually monitoring and can define what success looks like at a certain point through the chair. Um at this point uh the goal is mitigation of impact of the rats in the park. Uh the challenge is that as I mentioned in a large dense urban area, um it would require a pretty strategic effort across most of downtown to have an elimination strategy for rats. Um I know that the city of Hamilton has a rat um strategy. Uh that would be a larger city initiative and uh would need to encompass both public and private lands um as well as planning and development approvals and um enforcement in a a pretty significant strategy. There's um there's a lot of habitat and tunnels and places for rats to go. Um, so even eliminating them from Gore Park really would push them into some other location and not achieve what I think you're um suggesting. I think I mean having any sort of measurement though around what we're trying to achieve would at least help from a a tracking perspective when we come back to this issue at at council through the chair. I can speak with the team and see what we can come up with for reasonable measure. Um, as mentioned, it's difficult for us to have a population count. Um, but maybe there's other things that we can take a look at to see um if we're making a an impact or not. Um, I I wouldn't want to speak to that without sort of having a conversation with the operational team. Yep. Absolutely. And that's to be clear like my perspective on it is just if if it could be as simple as it's also for you as well too in terms of like this could just be constant issue and discuss in meetings if it's just so much as someone sees a rat. So it's like if we had actually a metric by which we could define like well actually no there there's no I know it's awkward to talk like you have to talk into the microphone. Sorry. If there is a significant reduced population control that you know we can point to wins. Okay. Thank you very much. Member Braithweight. Go ahead. Uh yeah, just to to just add to that. I think uh we have to be prepared that when LRT construction comes, rats are going to be probably the top issue for downtown once those roads are torn up. So I know my board's been talking about this as long as I've been there. It's a long time. So, it might be time now to look at some planning for what's going to happen when that construction finally starts and maybe this is a good test project for that. So, just putting that out there. Thanks. Yeah, the rats will get going, I'm sure, when the vibrations construction starts along a a large old corridor where they've been hanging out for a long time. So, what I have here are three things, I think. Yes. Oh, apologies. I didn't see that. Go ahead, member Panessa. Yeah, sorry. Um she beat the council beat me to it, but I was also in addition to the signpost was going to flag. There has been um lots of construction on Gore Park over the last 5 years. Um and so whenever there's construction, we always see mice and rats um leaking into other areas. And with the collapse of the that building that um happened last year um that probably caused another uptick in rats re shifting where they're inhabiting and stuff. So I don't know if that was explored, but the connection between construction and rat mitigation and like going forward, especially with LRT, that is very critical. So, I just wanted to flag that as like probably the biggest reason versus like some decorations on Gore Park kind of thing. Okay. Thank you very much. Really appreciate the feedback. So, at this point, it probably makes sense for tracking purposes to someone to refer the report back to staff with and ask to come back on June 11th with some additional information. And here's what I have. reducing the use of redenticides and trying to figure out what that looks like and coming back with a report about the procurement piece that you spoke about earlier in the meeting. Increasing signage including the signage that's specific to feeding wildlife. So not just bylaw signage but signage with pictures or words saying don't feed the wildlife and then education campaign which you also recommended paired with the initial bylaw enforcement. So if when the education campaign starts, whenever that's happening, asking for bylaw to go out and be present proactively during a period of time. Do those things all make sense and can you report back on those at June 11th? Would that be possible through the chair? Um certainly we can bring back additional information about the redenticides. Um uh the piece about this if I can just clarify through the chair. um increased signage and educational campaign. We did identify that uh we would need additional funding for that. So um I guess I'm not clear on what additional information I'm bringing back other than what what the educational campaign might include as well as the uh specific uh direction to enter into it with a funding source. Exactly. So I think we need to find a funding source which you don't have today. bringing that back saying this is what we've done here's the funding source we've allocated and we can work offline to find out figure out what that is okay because this is an important issue it's not it's a long-standing issue it's not an urgent issue but it's an important one so better get it right I think it makes sense since the only person not to have spoken on this is is councelor Wilson would you mind being the one to refer this and I'll second it and with those instructions so regarding the redenticides and reducing their use regarding increasing signage including scientists specific to feeding wildlife and finding a funding source and an education campaign pair with potential by law enforcement and we'll get that back on June 11th. I sent those notes I've set out a couple times to the clerk already. So they'll show up in the right way that is trying to do it on the floor. So on that note, all in favor of referring back to staff to report back on June 11th under those terms. Thank you very much. I think it's a motion by hands because not everybody has access to our electronic system in case anyone's watching along and wondering why we have a procedural aberration here. So that motion carries. terms of item information, we're on to the second one, which is PW. Oh, sorry, I forgot to say that we should receive the initial report. I apologize. We had a mover in second. Just need a raise of hands to receive the information report. Okay, that carries. Thank you. And the correspondence, we'll take that together. I'll just say that on the record. Also, the correspondent in 7.1A is also going to be received received in the same manner. 7.2 to PW26034, pedestrian safety at the intersection of King Street East and Walnut Street in W 2. And we have uh acting director manager. I'm not sure exactly what your title is at the moment. Acting director of transportation Mike Field here. There's questions to be asked about this. But first, can I have a mover in second or two put this item on the floor? Moved by member Vice Chair Braithweight, seconded by member Walsh. Are there questions for director acting director field vice chair braithway? Go ahead. Thank you for this report, Mike. That's great. I think the improvements will help for sure. I think um what I'm worried about is just uh the timing of the lights and that intersection is the biggest issue and I understand that's a huge undertaking, but it is something that down the line when we're looking at uh reconstruction and things, it'd be nice to to have that sorted similar to what they've done at Canon and Ottawa Street. It's made a huge impact on that neighborhood because of that. Um, and I understand that the data necessarily of the reporting in doesn't back up that there's been accidents, but a lot of people don't report those things and now unfortunately our pedestrians don't report near misses and stuff. We see it and our businesses see it. So that's what I hear, so that's what I'm reporting. So, um, I think improvements are great, but I think it'd be nice if we could do something a little bit more solid down the line to to improve the the flow of traffic there. Through the chair to the member. Appreciate those comments. Near misses are hard to capture um and uh many instances they they are on report, especially with pedestrians and cyclists. Um, we made some timing adjustments back in 2022 2023 as part of the uh immediate safety upgrades to main and king where we implemented leading pedestrian intervals at that so the pedestrians get to walk before all the traffic moves which is a great safety additional addition. I can review the consequences of um what you describing at main and canyon is called split phasing uh a traffic signal. um the uh corridor, King Street, Main Street, and then the uh north south roadways too. They're all in a um uh like a pre-programmed uh control where they're all coordinated with each other. So, if you made one adjustment to one intersection, we have to change all of them. Um so, that'll be quite the undertaking. The concern that I have with uh putting a split phase in there is that there will be increased delay to pedestrians which when we do that then there's even more of a tendency for them to cross illegally um or not illegally but you know cross without without that permissive um but I can look into it and and uh maybe provide some more information as far as what that may look like uh for us to do that. um and uh and then bring it back either to this committee or in even email. I can I can send it probably faster or easier sort of thing. It's up to everyone's preference. Yeah, we're pretty militant here about tracking everything. So, it might be if it's okay to you to bring it back maybe uh if it's either April 9th or June 11th, whichever is you could do it for, um bring maybe we can refer the report back to you with instructions to come back about split phase timing. And I just ask you when when you think it's most reasonable, April 9th or June 11th uh through the chair. I would say June would be the best. I I I'll make an attempt to do it for April. Um but let's put it on June for the record. Okay. Anybody want to refer that back for some commentary back on split phase tetiming? Has to be okay. Member Walsh, seconded by member Braithweight. So we're going to refer that back to staff to come back with specifically anything we can do not just split facetiming, but timing related to that um that intersection. All those in favor of doing that. By show of hands, that carries. Thank you very much. Now, we need someone to to receive a motion to receive the report now. So, all those in favor of receiving the report, thank you for information. Now, we're on to the third item for information, PED26018, ensuring pedestrian access at Jackson Street West and McNab Street South. And what I'll say before we get into this is just that this is a kind of two-phase activity. Phase one is bringing information here. we don't have the kind of authority we need to exercise some things here. So, we're going to have a discussion about it here. We're going to receive the information. If we have things we want to say and add or or add on to this, we can do that by motion so that when it goes to GIC and eventually to council, those things will also be considered or talked about. So, this body can make a recommendation of some kind to send it on somewhere else with some thoughts or notes. So, I'm missing that to you here and now. But our conversation today will be about receiving this. But like any questions you have are fine. Before we get into it, I have a mover and seconder to put the report on the floor. Movement member Walsh, seconded by member Wakeford. And we have Dan Smith. No, we don't. Um Dan's not here right now. We have Kelly Beaton who's acting in place of Dan from Licensing and bylaw services is available to answer any questions. And if you have questions, please indicate and I'll add you to the list. Starting with member Walsh. Go ahead. I'm good. Yep. There we go. Uh thanks very much for uh staff bringing this forward. I think it's proactive. I think it's going to be really helpful in that area, especially. Um I'll just note that my only concern is more so about the long-term principle here. We can't realistically patrol every single difficult location with um dedicated security on an ongoing basis. It's not necessarily scalable or sustainable. And so I would just ask that as we consider this pilot, I think it's also really important that we um take the time to also think about a broader strategy for the high frequency encampment encampment locations and obstruction sites. Um just otherwise like the report says it's just shifting things around, right? So yeah, thanks very much. And I'll pass the chair over to Vice Chair Braithweight. Just a couple comments for me and where I'll be going with this when it gets to GIC and council. For me, and I've spoken to folks in housing services about this and I'll talk to them about it again offline before the we come to March 25th GIC. But for me, without there being a defined place for people to go, what we're going to end up doing is really just pushing the situation around the city. So, that's really been the experience I've heard from residents, from everybody downtown, is simply this. When an issue is in front of someone right in front of their eyes, it's happening in front of them, they consider that issue to be live at that moment. When it moves a half a kilometer or 200 meters away or around the corner away, and they don't see it anymore, they suddenly don't believe that's happening. We've had an ongoing homelessness and housing crisis in the city for a long time. The largest encampment in the city's history happened in 2020, right? So that's I think maybe not news for people, but it's a symptom of the fact that when you're living in neighborhoods in dense areas, right, if you're not seeing it right in front of you, you don't think the problem exists. When it comes to be in front of you, it it suddenly is a new crisis that's emerging, but that's not what's actually happening. So, how do we deal with the issue of okay, uh, we do recognize that people need to be able to walk down the sidewalk. That's a thing people need to be able to do. If they can't walk down the sidewalk, then they're putting themselves in the roadway and that's creating dangers for them. So, we have to have a policy at the city that says sidewalks have to be reasonably available for use. Okay? So, we have to ask people to say you can't be on the sidewalk. When we do that, we have to say to them when they ask the logical question, where do I go? If there's not an answer for them because we don't have shelter space, because there's not other supports available for them, which is what I'm really asking about, right? Not in a situation where we say to them, hey, we do have this available place for you to go. Um, or for reasons why they may not be able to go to shelters or use shelters. There's many reasons why people can't use them. What do we do in situations where someone has no one to know nowhere to go? So, I'm just going to ask that question. You may not have an answer today, but I'm just letting you know that's where I want to try to have a question or answer for for council or for GIC. So, I'll turn it over to the folks in housing services if I could. Uh through the chair. Thank you for that question, counselor. So, the issues around Jackson McNab are are fairly diverse. You and I have spoke about this. Um, part of the issue in that area is that we've been doing some work there as housing focused street outreach over the past couple of weeks. Approximately 50% of the people there are actually housed. So, they're not there seeking housing and so they're not seeking outreach support, but rather they're in that area. uh there are individuals both male and female in that area because I think there's some understanding that it's just one and in fact there are both males and females and they're there in many cases loitering in the area. However, for the individuals that are there um you are correct for the unhoused people there are uh challenges for some of them with respect to what their other options are. There are some shelter spaces available, but there are barriers for some individuals in in going to shelter when outreach engages with those folks. That is the option that they're provided with. Thanks for that. So if I think I understand what you're saying correctly, you're saying that in one case there's a group of individuals who are there who are just congregating in that space and we're not asking them to not congregate there, not to not stand on the sidewalk, who may not have issues with respect to housing, may have a place to go and choose not to go there for that time and spend their time there. And we know, and I'll say this again on the record, as I've said many times, we know that there's sex trafficking going on in this location because it's a place where vulnerable women are. So we know some of this is exploitative. We know some of this is about um drug use. It's about all kinds of different things, but there's also a group of people who frankly don't have anywhere else to go for whatever reason. And so I guess what I'm saying is where where is a positive opportunity for positive guidance in that way? Because that's one thing I think we're missing. I'm looking at other cities and seeing things that they're doing around positive guidance. And I'm not suggesting that we open up the debate about having an encampment protocol. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that in situations where literally there's nowhere for people to go and we have nowhere for them to go, we're we're creating tension by just having those folks go somewhere else. And then this committee, because it'll happen downtown, we'll be back here again to say at the intersection of X and Y, right, we're having this issue again. So like what's the systemic solution to that problem? Uh through the chair's story, I did not identify myself the first time. Michelle Bear, director of housing services, City of Hamilton. So, um, with respect to what you're saying, counselor, yes, you're correct. With respect to where people can go, we have dropin, uh, facilities available both through the day and into the evening and overnight at this point. And so, there are options for people if they choose to go there. Um, those aren't permanent solutions for individuals, of course, but it is an option for people. There is some drop in space at the YW.CA. um itself for women. Outside of that, uh people are making choices with respect to where they go based on what they need individually or their perception of of what's happening within shelters or past experience, what have you. So, there are people that are choosing to be there for for certain reasons. within drop in spaces, within shelters, there um are barriers, rules that exist that are precluding people from being in those spaces. So, there is choice to be there. With respect to what options we have, I think though um allowing people to continue to be in that area on the sidewalk is um not necessarily helpful for the folks that are there either. Okay. Uh I think I've asked a couple of times and I get where you're where you're coming from here. We'll talk about it offline before we get to GIC. I'm just wanting to flag that this is the issue for me is about there will always be a persistent group of individuals for whatever reason are difficult to house impossible to house, can't find housing, can't find shelter, there will always be a group. There's never not going to be a group of individuals that that that sort of meets those criteria. And if they have no place to go, then this is going to continue to be a situation where it just replicates itself across the downtown over and over and over again. And um from my from my perspective, there's got to be some positive guidance given to people about where they can be. On that note, I'll take the chair back. I don't see other folks on this one. Again, this is a motion to receive this information report. And like I said, it'll come to GIC. If anyone here wants to come to delegate at GIC, you have to have your delegation request and I think I don't remember exactly when it is, but I think it's the day before by noon. Um so, as long as you have it in the day before by noon, if you want to come and offer your feedback about this, please do. Otherwise, we'll have a motion to receive the information. All in favor? That is everyone. Thank you. We're on to items for consideration. And the first one is to amend amendments to the outstanding business list. I guess what I would say is that there are one, two, three, four items, five items that can come off because they've been items we've already had reports back on. So I have a mover and seconder on those. I'm removing them. Moved by Vice Chair Braithweight. seconded by member Moran. Any discussion on the outstanding business list? I did want to make one small point. I'll pass the chair to say that the waste receptacles in the downtown corbit there is a report coming back on that. So it's that that report is going away and a new report is coming forward. Yes, everyone's shaking their head. Just making sure because I don't want anyone to think that we that issue has gone away somewhere and there was some information coming back on some other the issues in DNA, but again those are coming back in reports that are that are going to be named something different I presume just not the same report through the chair. The instructions that I received was to use the same number with a letter attachment so that the issues could be connected but still separate. Perfect. So all we're doing is just removing the original one but knowing the other ones are coming forward. Great. All those in favor of amending the outstanding business list. Great. That carries. Thank you very much. Now we're on to noise control bylaw and street performance 8.2. Can I first have a mover and seconder to put this on the floor. Moved by member Wakeford, seconded by member Walsh. And again, we have, like I said before, um, folks here from bylaw services to speak to any of these issues if those should come up. Anyone have questions on this report? Okay, member Wakeford, go ahead. Uh, yes, I have a number of uh questions. Thank you for the report um through the chair. I'm wondering about the established categories and whether or not we can get some further clarification. Um, I'll just provide an example. So, uh, musician or singer, uh, it seems to me that they might be able to be tracked under multiple different categories based on the framework contained in the report. So, amplified, non-amplified, or street performer. And based on some of the data that I've collected myself from calls that I've made, I see um from a personal count, I made seven complaints um between the period of April to August, but the city count is four. And I think that may be reflected in the categories that perhaps they're being counted under uh amplified sound instead of street performers. Um, and just to say that I probably wasn't the only one in W 2 who made a complaint between April and August. Good morning to Mayor Reed, supervisor of operations and enforcement for Miss Ba. In answer to your question uh through the chair, the street performers were identified as such by the officers in attendance or based on the incoming complaint based on the definition on how the complaint came in. Um in that respect um officers will take into account uh as well as the bylaw clerks and maybe it's better suited under a different category. So where amplified noise was identified as a street performer but was more so on private property, we would consider that to be amplified noise instead of on the public right away for a street performer. Um, I'm wondering then if location can be included in the category criteria just so it's clear so that we're tracking there's a general understanding about what we're tracking under each category. We can certainly look at that. There are some examples of war noise complaints in the appendixes that identify both private property and um, you know, city property. right away. There was also an opportunity to educate our officers further. Thank you. Um I I'm just going to continue on about um because of what you just said about location. So typically when call calls are made to by law and after hours they're asking for a street address and um so I'm wondering how public rightways are tracked when the address is so for example I'm calling about to King Street West which is Jackson Square however the activity is taking place on on the public right away in front of the address. So, I'm just wondering about tracking address versus um shared public space also like a park. Parks have addresses so that is a little bit clearer but um I'm just wondering if you can clarify that for me please through the chair. So clarifying that question. Thank you for that. Um so when the call comes in for um an instant let's say for Jackson Square and the staff identified to be on the public rightway it is uh updated in the system to be on the public rightway at King Street and not on the private property address. Same thing with the city park. The city parks have city addresses attached to them. It would still be identified as a city park on a city property. So that would count if a street performer was um inside a park. that would be identified as a street performer because of the location because of the location of being in a city park. So a street performer on private city property it a street performer would have to be on city property to be categorized as a street performer is that so yes because um that's how we would identify in licensing and bylaw services. Okay. There are occasions where private property owners provide permission for a street performer to perform on their property and that is identified in the appendixes. I understand. Thank you. That is very helpful. Um may I continue? Comfortable with that. Okay. Um I'm wondering what data is available for noise complaints that are received when there are no officers available to respond. So um I my experience is a disconnect between making a complaint and actually having a complaint reach the enforcement stage. So between April and uh December there are at least six times when I've been told that there are no noise officers are available for enforcement. and it's many hours later when there are noise officers available and of course by that time the person's left. So I'm just wondering um I see in I think it's appendex C diagram three there's some tracking around no noise violations but I'm wondering if you can clarify that please. So are sorry just through the chair can you clarify if you're asking for between the hours of 3:30 and 7:30 is that what you're referring to like the after hours when staff have gone home or are you referring to when the staff arrive on shift and by the time they get to the noise complaint that's registered whether that is now a nonviolation because we didn't get there in time. Well, I'm I'm wondering how the calls that occur when there's no noise officer available may be tracked in the data. So that's the often times after 3:00 before the officer is leaving for the day um they're not able to be sent out on another on another um call or sometimes um before the noise officers come in for the evening at 8:00 there's no enforcement. So it's that sort of as you said 3 to 7:30 time period. So, um, through the chair, just to clarify, I was speaking with 3:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. Um, my understanding, 3:00 p.m. So, we do have, um, officers that work from noise coverages from, um, the 400 p.m. to the 4:00 a.m. on most days, Monday through Friday. the um the noise complaints that would come in at 3 pm are certainly assigned to the next officer on shift which is usually at 4 pm. I think maybe if it's okay to interrupt it might be more useful instead of talking about the different time periods here because we're getting into a PMA conversation just that there are times when noise officers are not available right period. Um I've heard it when I've called in member Wakeford saying that she's heard it when she's called in. That's the time period we're talking about. Who cares what the exact time is? But when people are calling in and we're hearing that that someone say to us, "No, there's no noise officer available now." How is that being tracked? So when there are violations, right, versus when there are calls that can't be completed for that reason, are we tracking those? I think is your question. Yes. The the the noise through the chair, the noise calls are still tracked um when they come in as a service request. The opportunity for an officer to attend varies. So it all depends on what time that that call is received into our office. Whether staff is available at that exact time in order to for them to attend. The noise calls that are received are dispatched to the officers as soon as that officer is available. If that doesn't happen to occur during that daytime, the following day, the call is still entered in. If no officer has been in attendance, then what staff do, the bi clerks will create an arm and um a noise courtesy letter is sent to that property if it's a private property uh advising them of all the different ways that they can um control the noise on their property and identifies to them that there was um a noise complaint made for that property. But unfortunately in some circumstances there will be no officer in attendance and that will be deemed no violation as the um as the officer when they can attend will not be able to notice the noise violation. If it's a repetitive noise violation that staff have not gotten to the complainant is afforded an opportunity to receive a noise evidence package where they can record the ongoing noise and that will be reviewed by an officer. Okay. And just before we go on to your next question, I just want to follow up to make sure that the question got completely answered because I think part of it is is the problem this following problem. Let's say that there's a gap in when we can have noise officers go out. Who cares why there's a gap and that gap is happens to persistently be let's say on a weekend at a certain time when certainly something is going on at let's just say Jackson Square and when that's happening um the persons aren't on shift yet, right? Is there a way to track that information to say, okay, noise violations are coming in here, right? We don't have someone available at this time. So, we see there are 19 that came in here when someone wasn't available. There were six that came in people were available. We're just trying to get a sense if that data is available. Maybe it can be reported back. So, we can get a better sense of is there a need for council, right, to say, okay, we have to change the policies that we have with respect to noise violations because it turns out there are quite a number happening in these off hours that aren't getting addressed. That I think is the root of what's going on here in terms of the question. So I think we want to know if that data is available if we can maybe get it in a future report back see that data and then take that data to council and say okay you know here's some information to show that we might need to further augment our noise violation officer program. So through the chair those notes would be captured in the uh service request. So they would say no violation unable to attend. It's also captured in the noise um tracking log that the officers keep. So if they were dispatched um to a call and they're not able to attend, that is part of the note of the file. So yes, it would have to be pulled manually because we don't have um measures to pull that, but it can be pulled. Okay. And at the end of this, do you want to get that information? We can have a motion for it to come back and get it. It's up to you. I'll leave that with you. Why don't you go on to your next question? You don't mind? Um so I'm wondering about tracking repeat locations. So based on my experience in the downtown, there are repeat locations, times and um issues with particular repeat um groups or individuals and whether um there's some way we can do proactive um enforce enforcement. Um so that's it. Sure. Through the chair. Um just tying into some my responses from my last uh your last question. So yes, we can track the repeat um types of complaints and the times. So as part of an officer's investigation into a noise complaint, the database history is checked prior to a tenants which lists the date, times, and types of complaints. If the property has a previous complaint for noise is causing disturbance, it uh may warrant more than a verbal warning. Staff would take a progressive enforcement approach to that. So, warning, administrative penalty notices, provincial offense notices, progressing on to summones. Um, it can also be placed on the noise monitoring list, which is for proactive attendance, and then further discussions can occur between management and frontline staff. We may seek out, like I said to you before, the noise evidence log with the witnesses, gather statements from complainants, um, noise evidence logs, and courtesy letters to the offending property. So proactively, the officers would know that this is a location that has seen some activity on it and and several requests for service and they would filter that into their regular patrols in the area for when time allows. If they are busy back and forth um one call after the next call, they may not have time to monitor that location on that evening or daytime. Um but it might be referred uh to the next shift that's coming on. Okay. Um so there is an ability um with a noise monitoring list to identify locations where there's a repeat pattern. I'm wondering um about two King Street West Jackson Square, which historically has always been an issue with noise and amplified sound, whether there's any strategy in place to work with Jackson Square. as the property owner, typically the activity is taking place on the public right away, but whether there's anything in place to perhaps deal with this a little bit more proactively through the chair. There is through that noise monitoring list. We can certainly have a look at that to see if that location is on that list. Uh we can certainly have discussions with staff as well to make sure that they are aware of that location. in uh previous accounts of active monitoring at that location. We have um taken a progressive enforcement approach and have um certainly addressed some issues there. If they have been repeated recently, we're certainly open to investigating that again. I'll just throw it in there if it helps to know. Um I've sent an email off over the weekend about this specific location and asking this very question. So I think one avenue too is where there are issues that are persistent like this is getting in touch with award counselor's office and see if they can help coordinate some of this because I know it's a lot it's taxing for residents to try and coordinate all this. So that's kind of our job and just let you know it's it's on the list and I'll say that yes certainly it's uh a persistent location. Okay, where there are pretty egregious noise violations. Yeah. Um I'm wondering if there's any Sorry, I have a lot of questions. Um I'm wondering if there's any uh data on p on typical noise response times for um a report versus enforcement through the chair. Um so the noise response time is dependent on location of the current call and the time it takes to get to the next call. Um okay. So, it's dependent of the situation as well. So, if you have a noise call for a loud party, per se, then you would probably have more time spent at that location to try and mitigate that noise. You may also have a need to contact um additional resources. More than likely, it's going to be Hamilton Police Services. It um further depends on access availability. Sometimes when we get a noise complaint in apartments, sometimes the officers struggle with just entering into that apartment uh complex just because of the security system at the um lobby. They require someone to let them in. Usually they try and get in touch with the superintendent. Um again on average when I when I had a look at the Missfella after hours tracking log which is um a fluid live document that the officers keep the time frames were from anywhere from 10 minutes from receiving um the call or dispatch for a call to about an hour and a half um depending on how again they're dealing with the call before. There's a few exceptions where it took a little bit longer than that, but I would say consistently in war two there's about um from the time the call is dispatched to a time a call has been um open to be uh responded to is about 15 minutes. Okay, thank you. That is helpful. Um so in the report it indicates that a noise violation would be unreasonable noise or noise that is likely to disturb the community uh considered at the point of reception and an example provided is about music heard on a sidewalk. I'm just wondering what would is there any more information on the measure um and how it might be measured. So so through the chair that's a very difficult question and depends on context. So in one respect uh officers will sometimes carry um a piece of equipment known as a noise monitoring device and those are made uh to measure larger events and festivals where you have bands and and um performances on stage and those are measured at 10 meters from the speaker and the threshold for that would be 90 dB. So when you apply that in an urban area in a community, you have to take into account the ambient noise, you take into account the surroundings. So um traffic and anything else would obviously influence the the decibel reading in that respect. What I can kind of compare it to um the point of reception of reception, usually an officer will slowly pull up to a location. So, let's say the location is is King Street West at Jackson Square prior to getting to Jackson Square, maybe a block ahead of that. The officers will slowly um ek up to that location to see if they can hear that noise. When they arrive, they have more of a visual interpretation of that and then for um enforcement to occur, the thresholds are um you know, likely to disturb or make unreasonable noise. In that context, if you can hear it off of that private property at a point of reception, so anywhere off that that property is considered a point of reception, if it's determined by the officers who do receive training on the noise meters and other training on the bylaw, if they deem that to be um a violation, they will certainly take action towards that. when, if I can put it a little bit more into context, when there is an occasion, let's say um event on a private property, there is a noise exemption permit that the private property owners have to complete and there are decibel thresholds listed on there. So, just for further context on this noise exemption permit, um you can say um let's say a vacuum cleaner at 3 m from its source is about 70 dB. Right? You can say normal speech at a meter, a little bit further than than how we're talking right now. Um, but that is about 60 dB. Um, a food blender at 1 meter is 90, right? So there's there's no real um decibel measurement that you want to have out in in an urban context. That's why the bylaw is written to state make unreasonable noise or likely to disturb. Right? it's left to the officer to put that into context if the noise that is being heard is unreasonable or likely to disturb the the individuals in that community nearby. I hope that answers your question. Yeah, I think you would look for your final question. There's another the member who wanted to to ask some questions. So, I'll I have the answer to your last question, I think, which is about um when this is going to be reviewed by tour by staff, right? Uh the street performance policy and guidelines. So those are coming forward in the last part of this year. So in Q4 2026, obviously that's right when the municipal election is happening. So timing around that might change, but Q4 2026 and tourism is the one doing it. And there'll be public engagement online and in person about that. So that'll that'll that's when it's going to be changed monitored. And thanks very much for sending your questions in advance. That's really helpful. Member Walsh. Thank you. uh through the chair, I just had some uh wanted some clarification around uh the enforcement categories specifically in uh appendix C diagram 3 where you used the example of W 2 amplified calls. Um we start out with 178 amplified noise calls and then I just wanted some more clarification on how those enforcement categories work. So, like for example, um is something only recorded as a violation if compliance isn't obtained? And if so, why are there six violations but only one administrative penalty issued? And also, what category do the leftover around 90ish calls in that example fall into? Okay. Um I'll try and address them one at a time and you may need to help repeat me uh repeat the questions to help me out here. Um so all noise requests for service are recorded in our database system whether they are violations or not violations. When we look at appendex C um which was done particular to war I see that we needed to classify all the noise complaints. So we found patterns um and we identified that the majority would fit into this category. There's a few that would not fit into this category, which are very um um oneoff complaints, I guess you could say, or ones that don't quite fit into those other categories. Um including I think at one point I I mentioned um in the report animal noise. So where we have something like a rooster. Can I just clarify? Sorry, my question isn't about the distinction between the amplified noise and animal noise or anything like that. I'm wondering with that specific line of amplified noise, you got 178 or so calls, 63 of those were violations, what the difference between having a violation and not a violation. Is it that the compliance is reached there? Like how does it filter through? So if there's a there is through the chair if there is a violation it will be categorized as a violation which could be um something simply that the officer has noted that there's a violation on the property and that there is um a verbal warning given or an administrative penalty that was given. no violation could include um the fact that they went there and the noise was not unreasonable or likely to disturb or that when they got there there was no one there or no music was heard? That would be a no violation. So then with those 94 that aren't captured in those numbers there as a violation or not a violation, uh what would those fall under? Are you speaking about the uh appendix C diagram three? Correct. So uh there's 75 sorry 178 calls for amplified noise. 63 of those are violations and then I think it was like sorry so I have amplified noise 178 I have no violation 63 63 yeah exactly so then 63 of them weren't a violation only 15 of them had compliance obtained and only six of them were a violation within those numbers we're missing about 94 calls right so that that data was not available at the time of the writing of the report so like I said there's um I think a total of 2247 noise calls that were reviewed and because of certain data keeping um responses that we had to do to events that occurred in 2024 we were um trying to pull as much data as we could manually from some of the systems. If you notice in that last column, the total of 192 where it says NA, that was the data that may have contributed to that 94 um difference and that would have to be pulled manually. Okay. I think the crux of uh my question was basically just that there seems to be a disconnect with the number of calls we're getting and the number of violations we're seeing. So I'm wondering if it's they're calling about the wrong sort of things. it doesn't meet the um requirements to be a noise call or what have you. It just seems to be a pretty large difference between six violations and 178 calls of violations. I would agree with that through the chair. Okay. Thank you. So, now that we're at the end of our speakers list, I'm going to do the thing I usually do with these downtown subcommittee meetings. I'm going to summarize what I heard and if somebody wants to move a motion to ask for some more data, they have a report back so we can make a decision or recommendation, we can do that. We could also make a decision recommendation now, but I think we're missing some information. So, here's what I heard. We wanted more information about and I'll also look to staff to make sure that you understand what this is all being said as data related to complaints called in when an officer is not available. So, having that information would give us a clearer sense of are there a lot of calls coming in when officers are not available or not? Data related to the typical response times for noise complaints downtown. So, this is all related to downtown. Obviously, it's a downtown subcommittee, so I don't need to say that, I guess. But data related to typical response times for noise complaints. I think in the report you said that there was it was around 15 minutes. Is that specific to noise complaints downtown or is that just is that a different metric? And I want to ask that question before we consider adding it to the list or not through the chair. That was for um war two. Okay. So, that's fine. Then I guess we can take that one off. We have that information already. It's around 15 minutes on average. So the second one then would be data related to the threshold of of something being likely to disturb. And so I know you said it's kind of a difficult question to answer. I think it'd be benefit us to have that in writing though. Um that information in writing coming back saying this is how we do it. This is how we assess it. These are our standards for that. You talked about for instance a block being used perhaps as a measure. But I think having some of those measures in place so we understand them would be helpful. And then data relates specifically to Jackson Square is what I'm hearing I think as a persistent issue. Is there anything else people wanted to add? So, three things are data related to complaints called in when an officer is not available, data related to the threshold of something being likely to disturb, and data related specifically to Jackson Square. Okay, speak now. Yes, please go ahead. Um, so not to limit it to Jackson Square, but the whether there it's possible through the current um tracking methods to identify other spot hotspots in the downtown core as well, please. Okay, just writing this down so I can send this to the legislative coordinator so she's not trying to to scroll it down hurriedly. Okay, so data related specifically to or data related to Jackson Square and other hotspots. So just getting a sense of what that looks like if we can identify those locations because there are of course a few and probably Gore Park isn't considered Jackson Square and of course we've had number of issues. Before we proceed to refer this back and get that data. Could I ask a quick question from you just to make sure I understand what you said earlier is that you were pulling 2024 bylaw data. I heard you say that. Is it possible to pull 2025 bylaw data? Is can you use that as part of this or is it just 2024 you were using through the chair? This is 2025 data from April to March December. I misheard. I apologize. So um need a mover or someone hasn't spoken on this issue to refer this to staff with those instructions with respect to those three items. So moved by um councelor Wilson. Anyone can second by member Wakeford. And we'll have a show of hands on that. Great. That's everyone in favor on that. And so it'll come back. I guess June 11th is probably an appropriate time. I will send that off to the legislative coordinator now so she has it. Thank you very much. We're now on to the motion section, but before we get there, we actually had a delegate has appeared online now who'd come to speak before. And so I want to give that delegate there five minutes to speak. And Allison, I see her there. Delegate Hansen, if you could turn your camera on, that'd be great. Start video. Hi there. Can you see me? Yes, we can see you now. And just so you know, u because you weren't maybe in attendance at the meeting previously just to have this information, we moved a motion to refer the report back to staff so that they were able to look into the redenticides issue and come back with some more information about about how to phase out of using redenticides. Just wanted you know that discussion had taken place in your absence. Otherwise, you you've got five minutes. Go ahead when you're ready. That's wonderful. Thank you so much. And good morning, chair and members of the subcommittee. Um as you now know, my name is Allison Hansen. I'm here to speak to the staff report in favor of prevention first pest management strategies on behalf of rodenticidefree Ontario and in support of Hamiltonbased advocates including bird friendly cities Hamilton Burlington and others calling for an end to the use of rodenticides in Gore Park. We appreciate staff's recognition that sustained preventative measures are the most effective approach to managing pests and agree with a majority of the staff report, particularly acknowledgement that accessible food sources, including wildlife feeding, are a major contributing factor to rodent activity in Gore Park. We urge and encourage the city to step up enforcement of its relevant bylaws and to prioritize educating the community about the direct connection between feeding wildlife unsecured waste and increased rodent activity in the park. Clear communication, visible enforcement and improved waste infrastructure are essential if prevention for strategies are to succeed. poisons including rodeticides and lethal fumigation message such methods such as carbon dioxide burrow gasing are unnecessary, indiscriminate and ultimately ineffective as they do not address the root causes of rodent conflict. Killing a co colony without eliminating the conditions that allow rodents to thrive simply creates a vacancy for new groups to move in and gives rise to continued business for companies that offer subscriptions to these services. According to the staff report, the current pest management contract does not include non-rodenticide alternatives. If the current contractor is unable or unwilling to address the city's pest management challenges by eliminating the conditions that facilitate rodent populations, it may be necessary to work with a provider whose model centers on prevention rather than ongoing poison use. That said, uh we would encourage staff to consult with service providers who specialize in exclusionbased structural and chemical free rodent management. And of course, we would be uh more than pleased to provide contacts if helpful. Uh please note that while the report anticipate anticipates approximately $10,000 in additional funding to explore enhanced measures, prevention focused approaches reduce recurring service costs over time. So investing in exclusion, infrastructure improvements, and public education reduces reliance on ongoing poison applications and reactive treatments, making these strategies more cost-effective in the long run. Um, in respect to legal implications of the current medic current mitigation measures, all levels of government have an obligation to treat the well-being and protection of the environment as a primary consideration. It follows that rodenticides should not pose any unacceptable risks if their use is to be permitted. Despite acknowledging that rodenticides are highly and acutely toxic compounds that pose serious threats to the health and safety of children and non-target species, the federal government continues to register these projects and Ontario continues to allow their use. As a level of government closest to community health, land use, and biodiversity, municipalities have both the authority and a responsibility to act where higher levels of government have fallen short. Local leadership is essential to protect wildlife, ecosystem, integrity, and future generations from preventable harm caused by archaic, reactive, and poison based practices. We respectfully urge the subcommittee to immediately cease the use of rodenticides in Gore Park. uh which sounds you're going to look into this and commit to humane prevention-based measures that address root causes and protect wildlife, pets, and ecosystem health. Uh thank you once again and my apologies for uh being late, but thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important conversation. As someone who has lost a beloved dog to rodenticide poisoning myself, I ask you to act now to prevent further avoidable harm. Of course, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thanks very much, Delegate Hansen. And I don't see questions, but I will let you know just to have more information what happened in your absence. The motion that referred back to staff was asking for a report back on phasing out and reducing the use of redicides. And so we can't do it immediately because we have a contract. So we have to look at procuring other services. So that's a bit of a process and that's going to come back on June 11th with two more things. increasing signage including signage that's specific to feeding wildlife and an education campaign paired with initial bylaw enforcement. So that's what the three recommendations were out to staff to ask for a report back and we'll get that on June 11th of the subcommittee. You're welcome to attend. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Thank you for being here today. Bye. On that note, I need a mover and second to receive the delegation. Moved by member Walsh, seconded by member Wakeford. All those in favor receiving the delegation by show hands. That is everyone. Thank you. We're on now to motion. I'll pass the chair over to Vice Chair Braithweight. And I'll introduce my motion on the Jarvis Memorial clock tower. It's relatively straightforward. What we're trying to do here, and it's seconded by the vice chair, is get a report back on the costs to do this. Right now, if you do or don't know, there is a clock that has been non-functional for some time in the International Village PIA area and we want to see it put back into operation. Don't want to wait for LRT. We recognize, of course, that during LRT it will have to be moved and stored, but we could have potentially 5 years of enjoyment from the clock and I think people want to see it back in operation. That's the whole motion and it's going to get a report back at our June 11th meeting. I'll turn it over to the vice chair to administer any speakers or the vote or Yeah. Yeah. I'll hand the chair back to you. Um yeah, so just just to make it clear, so uh we're celebrating our 50th anniversary this year. So we've been going back into our archives quite a lot to find historical data on the area and we found this really interesting article that speaks to the clock. So, um, it's all listed in the motion, but it does look like it is a city-owned asset that was purchased in 1989 for $150,000. And I think that's always been a question as to who actually owns the clock. There was discussion of it being donated. That's not the case. So, I would also like to see um the city take responsibility for that again and fix the clock because I do not want to lose it for LRT either. I think there's a way we could push it back into Ferguson or into Jarvis Square. Um, but yeah, just speaking to that, I think uh it's really hard trying to find data on these things, but it is a city asset. Just want to make that clear. I'll take the chair back. Okay. So, may I have uh is there any discussion at all? Okay. Saying none, may I is anyone opposed? And carried. Thanks very much. That's motion number one of four. And we're going to get on to the second one now, which is moved by member Braithweight, Vice Chair Braithweight, and second by myself. 9.2 International Village Pride Performances. Would you introduce your motion, Susie? Yeah. So, we just want to see the uh gardens in the rear of Ferguson Station uh ratified so that we can do our Pride performances in the back there. So, I know there's been some uh negative things happening in that space, I guess, over the last 5 years. Um, and it's left some smells and unpleasant things. So, we just want to see that space cleaned up so that we can actually activate it again is basically what the motion is. Thank you. And you've got some events that are happening there. So, that's what this imp impetus is for doing this. Any further discussion on this matter? I'm not seeing any. So all those in favor by raise of hands. That's everyone that carries. We're on to 9.3. Same mover and seconder. Vice chair breath weight and myself on Main Street two-way conversion. Could you introduce your motion? Vice Chair Braithweight. Yeah, we just want information there. There's nothing for us to go by. We have no timeline. We don't know what the actual plan is at this point in time. We heard some plans released a couple years ago um and it sort of has disappeared. So with LRT and to a main conversion coming up, it's extremely stressful for my businesses right now to make future plans. So I'd just like a report back on anything that's uh new and what the actual year would be or timeline would be that we could start planning for for that. Yeah, it's really great timing because the budget just got approved and of course part of the funding for this came through the budget. Um, just so you know, have a sense, today, construction starting this year. So, um, told otherwise. Yeah, we've been told otherwise. So, I understand. I'm just letting you know. So, we'll have a report back in June 11th from folks and they'll be able to give you a more detailed and granular timeline. Uh, understandably, waiting for budget approval is part of that process. So, if uh if it hasn't been the information has been provided earlier, that's part of the reason why is because it had to get fully approved through the budget process first. So, on that note, I'm not seeing further discussion on the subject. All those in favor. Great. And want to the last of our motions for today, which is a motion moved by Vice Chair Braithweight and seconded by myself. We're having a theme going here, which is the fountain at Wellington Park. Can you please introduce your motion, Susie? We just need the fountain fixed at Wellington Park. It seems to one year work and then the next year not work and then one year work and the next year not work. And I know the encampment that we had there a couple years ago, they turned it off, but I've not seen it turned on since. and I think it's an important landmark for our area. So, I'd like to see that working again. Thanks. And just as an update from staff, I can just confirm that we've talked about it and they already have plans to do this. What this is is just formalizing that process. So, June 11th, they'll get a report back saying what has already been done, what's outstanding, that kind of thing. But the work is underway and they recognize that it's an important asset has to be turned back on. On that note, I don't see people lining up for discussion about the found at Wellington Park. So, all those in favor of a show of hands, thank you. That motion carries. On that note, we don't have any further business today. Are there any other notices of motion that people want to to speak to coming forward at our April 9th meeting? Again, you can send those in between now and then. We do have a busy agenda on April 9th and June 11th. Just for everyone who's watching, hope to see you again at the next downtown subcommittee. The meeting is adjourned at 10:23. Enjoy your day.

Full Transcript