Sound check. One, two, three. Good afternoon and welcome to the final LRT subcommittee meeting for this term of council held today on September 21st, 2026. We have quorum present for today's meeting and I'd like to call the meeting to order. A reminder that all electronic devices to be switched to a non-audible function during committee meetings. Um clerk, are there any changes to the agenda? No chair net. There are no changes. >> Wonderful. Then may I please get a mover and seconder to approve the agenda as it's presented. Thank you, councelor Wang. Seconded by a non- voting member. No. Can a non- voting member second? >> Why did I just blank on procedure right now? Yes, we can. Member Mayo, please. Uh all those in favor show hand vote. That carries. Thank you. On to declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of interest at this time, committee members? Seeing none, we'll move on to adoption of the minutes of our previous meeting which is held on July 13th, 2026. Mover and councelor Crutch, secondary and councelor Moren Wilson. Any discussion on our minutes? Seeing none, uh we'll continue with a show a hand vote for approval. All those in favor? Thank you. That carries. Uh before we move to delegation, I do want to acknowledge that we do have members in the room and those online. Online, we have non- voting member Emily Walsh from the downtown Hamilton BIA. We have uh Tom Cooper from Hamilton Round Table of Poverty Reduction. We have councilors Casar and Councelor Francis. And then in the room we have councelor Huang, uh non-member non- voting member Mayo, uh non- voting member Andress, and then councelor Crutch and councelor uh Maren Wilson. So, we are on delegations and before we begin, Carl, you're well aware of the five minute. If you need more time, just let us know. We can make that happen. Um, and a reminder to the rest of committee members, we're here for asking clarification questions only. It's okay. Take your time. We have We have some. >> Hello. Is that There we go. All right. Uh hello chair, LRT subcommittee, staff, press, and anyone else tuning in to watch at the dwindling days of summer during a municipal election. I am still Carl Andress, executive director of the Hamilton Community Benefits Network and non- voting member of this committee. I'm really proud to be here at our last LRT subcommittee meeting of this season. Now, that being said, I'd hope to bring forward a lengthy presentation to this term of the LRT subcommittee, a report HCBN has been working on with community partners and local artists for quite some time. a report that looks at the intersectionality of design choices and rapid transit around the world historically in Hamilton along with engagement data, lived experience research and best practices to provide a framing for this committee, Metroinks, city staff and council as a whole of what stop and station level design choices can have on the daily lives of Hamilton residents for generations to come and literal design considerations for possible mun municipal betterment considerations. Today is not the day for that presentation. It will not happen. And there are a great number of reasons, none of which is the fault of staff or this committee. One, there's a municipal election going on right now. And no one needs to be talking about the Hamilton LRT. It's coming. Construction's underway. The exact shape and form of the development of that system will be decided by Metroinks staff and the future work of the members of this committee. So instead, what I want to talk about is a process issue. I have noticed this committee has made great strides this year. Its vote uh and its voting members and council as a whole have recognized for great work that you have all undertaken to welcome more voices to this committee and to try and bring the lens to this project simply beyond one of transportation and infrastructure. And I want to thank every one of the committee members for doing that. You've done a lot of made a lot of changes to this committee, listened to a lot of presentations, and considered a lot of voices this term of council. My challenge for you today at this last term of the LRT subcommittee for this council has been the uneven way in which presentations from non- voting committee members are treated. Staff have been very helpful over the years, and I always thank them for their guidance in struggling with what I believe is a procedural hole. Sometimes presentations from members are treated as delegations and time require time extensions graciously provided but not always assumed. Sometimes they are general information, sometimes there are something in between, sometimes they are full-on agenda presentation items. My challenge for you today at this last term of the LRT subcommittee for this council has been the uneven way in which presentations from non- voting members of this committee are treated. Staff have been, as I said, uh very helpful. We have presented uh with educational and community partners a great deal of in-depth information we feel this committee needed for decisionmaking and good governance on the Hamilton LRT. We've partnered with city staff, local organizations, and educational institutions to bring forward a series of informed educational policy for your consideration of you and your council colleagues. believing with the best information, you all as counselors and our mayor can make the most informed, best decisions for all Hamilton residents. To that effect, HCBN and a few other organizations have found themselves uh found ourselves often using delegations and asking for extra time to bring forward items which might be better discussed on other areas of the agenda needing more than five minutes. Council has a history of having special information sessions inviting informed experts on critical subjects shaping the city like data centers or affordable housing. HCBN and myself have sometimes presented with city staff directly on major subject issues of note. Basically, I'm jumping all over the place trying to perhaps to staff's headache pro find procedurally which is the best place to bring forward critical information and policy. The just recovery coalition, we made many presentations delegations and we worked directly with staff on some of those recommendations that came forward to you as reports for deliberation. With the role of citizen advisory committees rapidly changing and evolving, the need for, especially with a project as large as the city shaping Hamilton LRT, a place for resident voices to engage and Metroink's long delayed process in providing a forum for community benefit conversations, this committee has become essential for resident voices. However, the procedural bylaw is antiquated in in terms of its its form, shape, and policies that it provides for the types of engagement that this committee demands from its non- voting members. To that end, I have three quick asks as my 20 seconds counts down. Could the Hamilton Community Benefits Network be afforded an agenda spot at a future post-election Hamilton LRT subcommittee meeting to make a formal presentation on the agenda? Could this committee motion to staff or forward a motion to AFNA for review of procedural bylaw with mind to updating it to council's new renewed interest in greater resident participation, a more inclusive governance models, and changes to the advisory committees? And could exact rules be created specifically for this hybrid committee consisting of voting and non- voting members to clarify rules for delegations, presentation, information, and time frames? Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Uh, we do have some inquiry and questions. Councelor Crutch, ahead of the last municipal election, I was standing where you were, Carl, talking to the governance review subcommittee about issues just like this. So, I appreciate you doing it and appreciate you making sure that we're aware of these things. I think the best thing to do, if it makes sense to you, is actually refer your delegation to the governance review subcommittee. The worst decision I think we could make would be to have a one-off set of rules for this committee when there are so many more that are like it and that are emerging that are like it. We need to find a way, I think, and I've I've raised this with the city clerk for your edification and knowledge and said that we need to have a more standard way of understanding our committees. We need to look at them and categorize them better. Uh there are too many weird one-off hybrid uh situations here and then people end up scrambling and to try and make their voice effective or figure things out. So what you say seems reasonable, but I think we should have governance looking at it the next term in terms of make, you know, cleaning it up so that things are clear for people and it's more predictable and there's easier way for everyone in the legislative office and and everyone trying to get through these things to have guidance. Does that make sense to you? >> I appreciate that. That it does make a lot of sense to me. I was kind of hoping where I was going except maybe for my first request which was I would like you guys to maybe put a motion forward to add us to a future agenda for a presentation. Well, the >> the FNA committee works on some of the deeper issues. >> Um, at the board of health today, there was a motion to defer an item on the agenda and I just said I'm deferring it >> uh till later in the agenda. I didn't ask for a motion. A special rule that no one seems to know about and I'm just going to say it out loud here is the chair can do whatever the chair wants to do full stop period at the end of the sentence unless the people in the committee say I object to that. And so I really don't think it's a big issue for us to deal with here from a governance perspective. Meaning like if someone comes forward and they want to bring forward a presentation and the chair's okay with that happening, then that's how that happens. But I think we do have stricter rules about that, right? Like I don't think we need to grant you permission as a committee, right? I think that that's not a big deal as far as I'm concerned. But I think in terms of procedurally how it works, right, we should have a better procedure for those kinds of things. If if individuals are appointed to a committee on behalf of an organization and that organization wants to make a presentation to the committee, there should be a process for that and there isn't one that exists right now. Mhm. >> So that's I think the more um irksome thing. Also, we don't know when the next LRT subcommittee is going to be yet. I don't think because we're still working on the calendar because as you may know, the strong mayor powers dictate that the mayor has some say over how committee organization works. So we have to wait for a mayor to be elected before we can do some of those things. >> Does that all make sense? Yeah. I just don't want to prejudice the process in the future um by not knowing what will happen and what the new mayor will decide. But I just want to say out loud chairs can make those decisions. Um I would leave it to the decision of the chair and this committee. Um at some point I would like you know 20 minutes to make a presentation and perhaps not have to come and and beg for an extension of a delegation time and to have a properly formatted agenda item to bring forward a presentation and a report and then have the other issues handled by FNA in future. >> Thank you. Uh seeing no other speakers on the item, I'll pass the chair to uh vice chair and say that um appreciate that in the delegation you referenced AFNA. Uh I think council crutch is correct in terms of having this go to the governance review subcommittee and then of course that one refuses to AFNA. Um and then um at the appropriate time. So councelor Crutch if you want to move that motion as it relates to this delegation that'd be great. And then in terms of the future agenda item including the betterments, I tried to clarify during the chair's procedures about what is correct, what is not correct. Uh and I was told about the procedural limitation here. Um and so the clerk has advised for everyone's uh public awareness that uh this will be addressed in the next procedural bylaw update as well. So having this motion helps support that work, but the work is also under review on the clerk's agenda. Um, so I'll take back the chair and uh at this point, Council Crutch. >> Yeah, I'd like to have this item referred to the governance review subcommittee, including all the recommendations that you have there because I think if I recall correctly, in this term of council, we changed the review periods for the procedural bylaw to be both the beginning and ends of term. So there's a chance where the procedural bylaw is being reviewed like nowish. So this is a good time to bring this up and get it addressed and likely your points will be addressed before the next LRT subcommittee happens so that it won't it'll be a moot point. But yeah, I'll move that if someone wants to second. Well, councelor Hang. Thank you. >> Thank you both. Okay, it's been moved and seconded before committee for electronic vote. >> Oh, hand vote for referral. We don't need to do an electric vote. Thank you. That electronic. Um, that carries. Thank you. Uh, thank you. And now a motion to and a seconder to receive the delegation. Councelor Hang, Councelor Crutch. Thank you both. All those in favor, show a hand. Thank you. And that carries. Before we move on to the next agenda item, which is items for information, I do want to address further procedural clarification, which was why I blanked. I was like non- voting member, therefore cannot second. Therefore, uh, non- voting member Mayo, you cannot second the agenda. It must be one of our voting members that the agenda. Therefore, may I have a seconder for our agenda. Thank you, Council Crutch. >> A riveting time for procedure, but uh in moment corrections are always welcome. Right on to items for information. First up is peed 26176, light rail transit agreement update. Uh, this item was referred from the general issues committee September 20 September 2nd meeting. Um, may I please get a mover and second to put the report on the floor. Moved by councelor Hang, seconded by councelor Kasar. Thank you both. Um, and I'll turn the floor over to Abdul Shaker, director of the LRT project office. >> Thank you. Good afternoon through you, Madam Chair. My name is Abdul Shikh, director LRT project office. Uh the LRD agreement of the report before you today was initially presented at council mansion to general issues committee on September 2nd. At that meeting council referred to this this report to the LRT subcommittee for information purposes. So following consideration by this subcommittee the report will return to general issues committee on September 28 for council's consideration and approval. I will provide a brief overview of the report. Then I will turn it over to staff to provide an overview of the two agreement protocol for which we are seeking council authorization to execute. As members are aware the city enter into a memorandum of understanding what we call with metro links and the ministry of transportation in 2021 for Hamilton project. The MOU identified 11 schedules and protocols to be negotiated and finalized following execution of the MOU. To date, the city has executed five of these schedules and protocols. The first one is a staffing agreement. The other one governance protocol, then real estate protocol and dispute resolution protocol and the communication protocol for the pre-procurement phase. They are all executed as of today. Through the report before you today, staff are seeking council authorization to execute two protocols. The first is the commissioning and acceptance protocol which establishes the framework for the commissioning, testing, acceptance and handover of cities infrastructure which are being constructed as part of the LT project. The second one is appendix B into this report is communication protocol which will apply throughout the design, construction, delivery and warranty period of the project. So this communication protocol will replace the previous communication protocol which was specific to a pre-procurement phase as the project has uh has advanced into the design and construction phases. staff have worked extensively with Metro Links over the past several years to negotiate the terms of these both protocols. The negotiations involve staff from a number of city divisions as well as the legal and uh project representatives. Staff have now reached agreement on the proposed terms and the necessary staff level approvals have been obtained from both city and metroing sites. The proposed protocol have also been reviewed and endorsed by the city's LRT steering committee which include senior representatives from various city divisions involved in the project. So staff are satisfied that the proposed protocols provide the necessary framework and clarity for the city as the projects move into the design and construction phases. With that, I will turn it over to solicitor Dave McKenna to provide an overview of the commission and acceptance protocol. And following today's presentation, Elanie will Elenie Jalput uh she will provide an overview on the communication protocol. Thank you, Madam Chair. Through the chair, David McKenna, solicitor legal services. Thank you Abdul and good afternoon everyone. As Abdul mentioned, I will provide a brief synopsis of the commissioning and acceptance protocol, including what it applies to and generally speaking, what cover what topics it covers. Beginning with its application, as part of the LRT project, Metroinks will be constructing certain infrastructure on behalf of the city that the city will subsequently own, operate, and maintain. This infrastructure is referred to in theou as new city infrastructure and additional city infrastructure. New city infrastructure is infrastructure that will be built for the city at Metroins's expense to replace infrastructure and assets that must be replaced or relocated to facilitate the LRT project. Additional city infrastructure is primarily infrastructure that the city requests Metroinks build on behalf of the city that is in addition to the base scope of the project. For ease, I'll refer to both categories simply as city infrastructure. City infrastructure includes items such as water manes, sewers, roads, sidewalks, and street furniture. It does not include trains, train tracks, and other light rail related infrastructure and infrastructure that will be owned by Metroinks. Moving on to the topics covered by the protocol. The protocol sets out the terms and conditions governing the four following categories. Number one, inspections. Pursuant to the protocol, the city shall employ inspection staff and is permitted to inspect city infrastructure both during and after construction. Number two, non-conformances. Defects and deficiencies are referred to as non-conformances in the protocol. The protocol specifies two different types of non-conformances. standard non-conformances and critical non-conformances which as the name implies have an additional component typically characterized by a serious threat to health, safety or security. If the city identifies a non-conformance during inspection then the suspected non-conformance will be jointly inspected by the city metroinks and the contractor. If all parties agree that a non-conformance exists, then the non-conformance will be classified in accordance with the protocol and formally registered on a non-conformance list for future rectification. In the event that the parties cannot agree on whether a non-conformance exists or how a non-conformance should be classified, then such dispute shall be settled in accordance with the dispute resolution protocol. Number three, acceptance and or commissioning and acceptance. The protocol sets out the various requirements and obligations that govern how city infrastructure shall be commissioned by Metroinks and subsequently accepted by the city. Only when Metroinks has fulfilled all of the requirements set out in the protocol will the city be deemed to have accepted city infrastructure. For example, city infrastructure must be inspected and fully and finally constructed built and comp built and commissioned in compliance with the required standards and requirements. All previously identified critical non-conformances must be rectified and all the required documentation, drawings and certificates as applicable must be provided to the city pursuant to the protocol. Number four, warranties. According to the protocol, Metroink shall warrant to the city that city infrastructure shall conform to the specifications set out in Metroink's contract with the contractor and shall be new of good quality material, of merchantable quality, and free of defects in materials, equipment, and worksmanship for a 2-year warranty period. If the city believes that a non-conformance exists, then it may request a warranty inspection at any time during the warranty period. Additionally, prior to the expiration of a warranty period, Metroinks will instigate a warranty inspection to be conducted in the presence of city staff. Following any warranty inspections, Metroinks shall prepare and submit to the city a report which summarizes the results, including a non-conformance list if required. So with that, I'll recruit I I will conclude my remarks and I'm happy now to address any questions you may have. Thank you very much. >> Thank you so much for the overview. First up on the speakers list, we have councelor crutch. >> Thank you. My questions are not about the communications protocol but the other one. Two questions. In my experience, when we enter into negotiations or agreements, the correlative impacts of those negotiations and agreements aren't always thought the full way through. In section 3.2, it references city inspection staff. It says that Metroinks acknowledges that the city will employ city inspection staff for the purposes of assessing, inspecting, and construction of city works with the basic standard of city standard where applicable. Okay. The word employ there doesn't mean employ, it means use. But my question for you is, will we actually be doing this? Because the city doesn't have the capacity at the moment with its current inspection staff to manage a project of this scope. So, will the city be hiring additional staff to manage this specifically? And when will the city be hiring that staff? >> Through you, Madam Chair? Yes. Uh uh uh as you remember councelor there is a staffing agreement already in place. The staffing agreement has identified future city staff required for LRT project and we have already identified three inspectors just on roadway side and there are also three uh other inspector for Hamilton water. Right. So they are already identified under the uh staffing agreement for future staff which uh the cost will be reimbured from metro links right and for your information through our annual work plan for 2027 we have already requested one inspector to be recruited in 2027 starting January which will be again fully funded by metro links so the first we are hoping that you know subject to metro disapproval we will have a full one full-time inspector working on this project starting next year and then following years when major construction start we will have probably two more inspectors uh on roadway side uh which will be fully funded by metro links as well. >> Thanks and that brings me to my second point then I have one more. One of the things we've tried to do in this term of council I understand that doesn't really work everywhere easily and seamlessly is and we've done a pretty good job of it. I really commend staff on this is when there's a motion from a counselor we attach that motion to things and put it in the agenda. If there's a reference to another document, we include that document in the agenda. There are a number of references in these agreements to other documents that exist that I don't know how to find. Like they're not it's not like a quick simple search to find the staffing agreement schedule E or the uh tree removals and compensation strategy 2026. So I'm asking that there be some way to to include those things before council so that they're on the public record. they're all itemized there as appendices um if they're referred to here because it's not it shouldn't be up to the public's job or anyone here's job to try and go back and forth and try and find these other documents to understand what they say especially as we get to my third point which is 3.5 requirements for streets trees and other softscape all it says is all requirements specified in section 1.1 of appendix 8 shall have been completed and the city of metro link shall adhere to the requirements outlining the tree removals and compensation strategy um I think we should have a copy of the tree removals and compensation strategy attached. That's my last question. My understanding, this is from memory because I don't have a copy with me of that compensation strategy is a little fuzzy from from my understanding and it's remains a really important point here because it seems that the way that we're approaching this is by removing trees and then and then providing some type of compensation or having a compensation strategy for those trees to be removed. But we haven't yet identified how we're going to deal with shade. So I think what I'm trying to say is that the language here doesn't reflect the outcome. It talks about what we're going to do in terms of removing trees, but it doesn't talk about shade infrastructure or talk about providing shade or providing cooling like that. That's missing from everything I can find about this. So how are we going to try to embed that language in these agreements? Embed that language in the documents we have because it's not just about trees. We want to have those oxygen-rich environments where trees help, birds live, trees help, people breathe, trees help with the air pollution downtown. That's an important part of why trees are there. But this but there's something else that they do, which is provide shade. And so when we take them all away, how are we going to continue to provide shade? Because there are 150 million ways to do it. Um the question is which one are we going to pick >> through you madam chair? Maybe I will uh try to respond to the tree information. For your information, counselor, there will be another protocol coming very soon about permit, license and approval. I think that will be an appropriate time where we can discuss about that and that protocol we will list all of the city requirements uh which will include the tree compensation uh which we met needs to address along with city approval process. So uh you know so metro links will have to submit all the design information for city review and approval. So that protocol will come to the l subcommittee for endorsement and that will have more information about how the permit are being undertaken by metro links and how the design information will be flowing to the city for approval and process. Right? So I would probably suggest that you know we should wait for that protocol. This this protocol what we have before you today is is about commissioning and acceptance you know once metronics complete city infrastructure how we going to take over those infrastructure and then what that are the warranty protocols and how we are inspecting per the design standard and all those kind of things right so that's really I would say that you know that you know what you were referring maybe we can wait for the PLA protocol and then we can mention about those one in terms of administrator ative uh we have tried to reference the key uh uh references in our append in our appendices right so they were linked to the report especially where the agreements were uh like was included in a I would say in our appendix and then the other agreement when we executed those were referenced and the link were provided yes I agree you know not all the details were included for example tree compensation strategy and those kind of things right so We will take that information and then we will improve upon in the next uh uh agreement reports going forward. >> Yeah, I'm most just mindful of the fact that you live and breathe this stuff. Uh I don't every day secondarily I do as the vice chair of this but everyone accessing these public materials wants to be able to see the whole context every time so that they can make sure that they have a question they can just click in the next file, the next file and it's there and they can find it. So I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Thank you, councelor. Next up, we have non- voting member Kalera Andress. >> Uh thank thank you very much. Um I have just a couple of of quick questions around um um city infrastructure uh replacement. Um I'm going to use the same term whether that be net new or replacement like for like uh infrastructure and how that relates to city's existing um perhaps procurement contracts and procurement policies specifically the fair wage policy which exists. Will Metroinks be bound to follow city's existing procurement fair wage policies when they are replacing city infrastructure based on agreements the city has already signed as well as any other agreements with regards to procurement for city infrastructure that may be in place while Metroinks takes over the pro that procurement >> through you madame chair member Andrews Metroinks will uh required to fulfill all the cities standard and requirements. When it comes to procurement, I would say probably they will use their provincial uh you know uh requirements in terms of procurement but but rest of the standards guidelines and all those metrones has committed to uh to use and uh fulfill those requirements. So in terms of procurement I think metronics will be using their provincial standard because they are uh you know upper government and uh but rest of the requirements agreement standards and bylaws they will fulfill all these requirements going forward >> and has there been um any report given to this committee or to the GIC on what the differences between those procurement standards are for the consideration of voting members on the implement uh on on the impacts on both city agreements on policy and their and their decision-m abilities >> through you madam chair like we haven't really provided uh those information to the LRT subcommittee uh but if you wish we can I think that's already an extensive exercise which uh metink has also provided some information about what they are going to include in their presentation for example community benefit uh plan they have and uh their requirement into the procurement And so they have already provided through their presentation uh but it's going to be a very extensive exercise to look into it what the differences are and those kind of but it is given that all the procurement procedures will be used through the metro link standard processes right but if you need more information we can bring more information on that part >> I I you know through the chair field that would of course be uh important information to have especially given the work that's gone into this term of council in the fair wage policy update. rates um for wage schedules and to see that Metroink's contractors and subcontractors will at least be paying the same rates that the city has agreed to for its own infrastructure on infrastructure that's being replaced on the city's behalf. And then I look forward to future presentations on community benefits and on city agreements around permitting for things like trees as councelor Cretch asked. Thank you. >> Thank you for that. Next up we have council moren Wilson. Thank you. Um my question actually is specific to communication but I will take this opportunity to just maybe ask a general high level question because of course from here it goes back to uh GIC and council. Um, so I I think I would love uh perhaps from solicitor McKenna a clear articulation of what public interest is being served by having uh these matters set out in in a protocol. Now um how are we protecting and advancing uh the interests of Hamiltonians through the chair >> through the chair to the counselor. So counselor the the protocols are critical components critical legal documents uh relative to the project. So as you're aware we have theou when theou was executed the intention was that there would be a number of additional schedules that would subsequently be negotiated and executed by the parties which would delve into further detail in relation to all of the major categories. So that is the primary purpose of these protocols is to provide the additional detail that was not covered in theou. So I think to answer your question I I would say that these protocols are critical components of moving forward with the project because they set out the roles and responsibilities obligations and whatnot of the parties and provide the relevant level of detail that we need in order to actually further the project. >> Thank you. So in non-legal language I could I might conclude um that it is actually good governance and the responsibility of the stewards around this table regardless of one's opinion about LRT to have a protocol like this in place so we have clear um and transparent lines about uh how we how we define and how we resolve uh issues that may be outstanding um and that there's no guesswork around that and there in embedded in that process is how we uphold um the public interest. Could that be a fair comment >> through the chair to the counselor? Yes, I think I'd agree with that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And next we have member Mayo. >> Hi. Um my first question I just to clarify there's no one from Metro Links here, right? It's just city staff, right? Um so I'm I very much uh like the communications protocol uh the the um section on the principles I think is very good and and um about the open and transparent uh communications and being proactive and maintaining positive relations and protecting the credibility of the parties and building trust. That's all very good and I hope that in the implementation of this protocol um section three that the communications and community engagement plan that that plan is brought to this committee um um so that the transparency of of that plan uh be uh implemented and then as well I'm I'm glad to see uh that there's going to be the communication the the construction liaison committees with um uh at the neighborhood level that will definitely be needed. And I wonder in that whole section six that Metroinks is in charge of stakeholder communications whether that means they will start coming to this committee because if they continue their practice of ignor mainly ignoring this committee I feel like they're not going to be implementing um their number six community outreach and stakeholder engagement if they if they don't take the time to to listen to stakeholders here at this committee and also that they could provide the feedback they're getting at the CLC's to this committee which would be very helpful for this committee >> through madam chair I would suggest that you know like elen once we are done with the committee commission and acceptance protocol then uh elen will provide an overview of the protocol and then we going to get into the question if it is okay member mayo if there are no question about communications commission and acceptance we can move to communication protocol >> councelor hang on that point is your question on the communications or the commission's communications. Perfect. Okay, so over to Ellie. >> Thank you through the chair. I'm Eleni Jalboot, senior communications advisor with the city's LRT project team. So this updated communications protocol is intended for the duration of design and construction of the Hamilton LRT. So today I'm speaking to the highlights of the communications protocol as outlined in report peed 26176. Some of these highlights I'm going to go through today include the communications group media announcements and events and the city's ability to respond to inquiries. I will highlight those and other communication items today found within the updated protocol. I do want us to be on the same page about a few things. So, I'm just going to go through a few items if you don't mind. I'd like to first emphasize a few important points before getting into the main crux of the comm's protocol. First, this communications protocol is based on an already existing protocol between the city of Hamilton and Metroinks that was actually brought before council twice. one time in March 2022 under the title peed 211776A. The report was entitled LRT agreements update. And the next was during the September 24th peed24150 report entitled the Hamilton LRT project communications and engagement update. Second, the communication protocol I'm going through today is one of the agreements in the memorandum of understanding. It is not simply a communication strategy. To explain further, the communications protocol is a legally binding document that lays out the roles and responsibilities of three parties. MTO being the funer, Metroinks being the deliverer, and the city being the partner. roles and responsibilities of MTO, Metroinks and the city on the communications and engagement. So these roles and responsibilities are laid out within this protocol. So an example if I can go into an example is something like media announcements for instance would be MTO's lead and then Metroinks and the city reshare. For example, the April 30th announcement of the contract award this year earlier this year for the first package of the work was released by MTO then shared by Metroinks and then the city shared that MTO announcement. Another example is the city can speak to city-led items and city initiatives Maine and Ottawa for instance, but everything else is under the lead of the province and Metroinks. The biggest change in the communications protocol is that the city will provide written notice to Metroinks when putting out communications or attending an engagement event on the project. Lastly, let's not lose sight of the fact that Metroinks is responsible for the project delivery, scope, budget, and schedule of the Hamilton LRT project. As part of that responsibility, Metroinks also takes the lead on communications and and engagement. That said, this updated communications protocol has taken several months of negotiation between the city, Metroinks, and the Ministry of Transportation. We have landed on a spot that the city of Hamilton LRT team and city leadership is satisfied with. So with that out of the way, I'm going to go into the highlights of the comm's protocol. This was also delivered uh to the September 2nd GIC. So the communications protocol 2026 version schedule I of theou highlight number one a refresher on the purpose of the communications protocol to outline the public communications and engagement processes that the city of Hamilton Metroinks and the Ministry of Transportation will follow respecting the delivery of the LRT. Number two, the responsibilities within that process include um time provide timely, effective, transparent and consistent proactive communications with the public and elected officials. B maintain positive and constructive relationships with communities, agencies, businesses, and other stakeholders who are impacted by the construction of LRT. C. protect the credibility and reputations of the city, Metroinks, and the province. D. Build trust and maximize public understanding and support for the LRT project. And these were um I believe what member Mayo was referring to, especially this point. Three, public messages, roles, and responsibilities. By providing written notice to Metroinks, the city can respond to media and resident inquiries and issue statements or presentations about these three items. A city initiatives that are part of the project such as any betterment item the city is funding. B matters that are solely the city's responsibility such as road closures or HSR related matters. and C project information that is already publicly available. I would like to note here as well this process has already been working well all along in a very collaborative way. We work closely with Metroinks and will continue continue to do so. The point about the written notice is to ensure the community in Hamilton is given the right information at the right time and that multiple parties aren't saying different things from one another like the province Metroinks and the city as well as the members of community the community. We want to remain well coordinated together to deliver this project. Number four, the highlight number four is the communications governance project communications group. Metroinks and the city will each appoint at minimum one representative to a joint project communications group, sometimes called the communications working group, with additional staff as needed and as agreed upon. The group will share updates and coordinate on the following. A community relations and elected official briefings. B. Project milestones and construction schedules. C. Emerging issues and local interests. D. Opportunities to collaborate on communication matters covered by this protocol. Going into highlight number five, construction liaison committees, CLC's, which we've already brought up once today. Metroinks will organize and manage a construction liaison committee CLC for each neighborhood or community along the LRT corridor. The CLC's will provide a forum for Metroinks to communicate with local stakeholders including neighborhood associations, BAS, and other community representatives about construction activities. The city will review and provide input on CLC membership when each committee is established and whenever changes are proposed. And the final highlight I wanted to go through from the comm's protocol are other comms and engagement items that Metroinks is responsible for with collaboration from the city. These include, and I'm just going to go through kind of a quick list instead of going into each one independently, communications and community engagement plans. So, this can include elected official briefings, media relations and events, community outreach, and stakeholder engagement, branding and signage, and finally, digital communications. So for example, Metroinks can share posts on their social media channels and we at the city of Hamilton, our social media team will accept um their post as a collaboration and a re-share. And this a good example of this is the Metroinks made and Ottawa construction videos that were recently posted that included our construction lead from our office Dennis speaking about what is happening in the construction zone at Maine and Ottawa. So, Metro Links have posted that and we simply accept to collab that post so that our city followers can see what's going on at Main and Ottawa. And I'll end it there. Thank you. >> Thank you for that overview. Um, speaker list includes Council Fang, then Council Me Wilson, and member Andress, but member Mayo, you had asked a question up front. So, uh, at this point, did you want to clarify any further? And then we'll go on to the speakers list as you're good to come at the end. Okay, great. Uh, over to you, Council M. Thank you. Um, I know that a lot of people have already looked at this, but is there any way to tighten up the language around the construction liaison committees to include businesses in the neighborhood because some areas of LRT corridor do not have a business improvement area. However, they were going to be highly impacted. So, um, can we include that language in here? >> Yeah, I can take that feedback back to Metroinks when we start forming those CLC's. >> Okay. Um second question then um is around tracking. So I did see that in item six it's the community outreach and other stakeholder engagement organizing tracking and reporting on all stakeholder engagement. And then down towards the bottom it says uh Metroink standard response time is to acknowledge the inquiry within a 24-hour and respond within 10 days. So I just wanted to get a sense from you as to what does that potentially look like because tracking there's going to be a lot. So, I think I would like to understand because everything from a 24-hour turnaround acknowledgement to a 10day response, a lot could get lost there. So, I wonder, can you just help me understand that part a little bit better, just the operations of this? Uh, because I worry that we're outsourcing all of our communications to Metro Links where we have very little line of sight into how that stakeholder engagement happens. So, this is this is of concern to me. Thank you >> through the chair. Thank you. I agree with you. It does get to be more of a concern, especially as major construction amps up. Right now, we work closely together. And please remember that the senior communications adviser, whether it's me or somebody else later, will is always in close contact with Metro Links. Work in the same office. We're constantly in touch um sharing information about the current issue, say Maine and Ottawa speed bumps. I I can't answer how that will look like for major construction. I think that's still to be decided. But the 24-hour acknowledgement at least it's there. We are constantly working together and I don't know if it will be 10 days or longer. Like city is different from Metroen in our processes. There's not like a standard set you must respond in 10 days kind of thing because it depends on the division and the department, right? Forestry could take a year for something to be resolved for instance. But for us, we're working well right now. And I think that shows a good track record going forward that we're we're supporting one another to answer efficiently, but also accurately. And sometimes that accuracy might take a little bit longer for a response or a resolution to an issue. Okay. So, I think what I'd like to just flag is that I get that what we've outlined as the bare um sort of minimum right now, right? I think what I've been hearing is it's about closing the loop. And so, if you've put an arbitrary sort of time frame on there and then we don't actually close the loop, I just worry about it from an operations standpoint. But ultimately, I just wanted to raise that as a flag to to show like if we're going through the main Ottawa stuff right now. I agree. It's been working really well. I think that that's where you're right, the major construction is of most concern. So, I think that again, I'd just like to flag this that there is a concern over these response times and also it is not very clear as to how how that will actually work. So, I'll just raise that as a flag. >> Okay. >> Through the chair. Thank you. >> Okay. Next up, councelor Wilson. >> Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Um just needing a little bit of assistance on a few items. Uh starting with the um construction liaison committees. Um just so I'm clear, we're not suggesting or we're not um precluding community groups, neighborhood groups from perhaps self-organizing. If I could just give an example, um there are particularly in the lower city, there are areas where people um are very fluid. They will they will live in in one neighborhood, but they will walk to school in another. Um uh they will have a they will live in one neighborhood, they will walk to a place of worship in another neighborhood. So it it could be that some of the neighborhood associations may get together to self-organize to appoint members to have a a collective so that they all get the same information and can advocate for that kind of fluidity that mobility. Um I'm trusting that that would be entertained uh in this protocol. >> I think that's a really good point. I hadn't thought of it before through the chair. Sorry, I'm still new at this. Um, thank you. I I can bring that back. I think the way that the CLC's will look in terms of who's included from which organization, how many reps from the city, for instance, that's still to be decided closer to major construction. So, I can bring that back as feedback to Metroinks for their consideration. >> Thank you. And um further to that, if I could just ask you to also consider um the history of land use in the lower city uh before we uh added major highways through the heart of neighborhoods was to um have places of worship, for example, and schools along those main arteries. Maybe not such a great idea now, but um if uh there are um not only a normal day of not normal, that's that's not a good word. Not only is there perhaps one day a week of uh going to to worship and some occasions there are multiple days and sometimes those days go over 24 hours um the event will go through 24 hours where the parishioner will be in the place of worship for 24 hours. So getting to and from could be um significantly important. So if I could just put that bug in your ear uh of of those sensitive land uses in and around there. Okay. Thank you. >> Um the other um um one I'd like to make sure I understand more clearly is uh community outreach. And if I could just perhaps um use ward one as an example so that I understand um in the west end of the city we have some sensitive uses um we have a fire hall for example on Main Street West we have a children's hospital we have Ronald McDonald's hospital so could you just help me understand in terms of the stakeholder uh engagement roles and responsibilities whose responsibility is it to provide that schedule of work per perhaps there might be a lane down who who does that outreach through the chair >> through the chair that's metro links's responsibility for the stakeholders especially around construction >> you know director shake wants to add to it >> through you madam chair council Wilson uh it's a combination of u as I previously mentioned that met has to uh fulfill all the city requirements right For especially for capital projects, we do have a requirement. For example, if the road is being closed, we have to inform the businesses 4 months or probably four to 6 months in advance if the road is being closed, right? If there's a lane impact, so minimum is 30 days, but if it is major lane closures, then it's more than 30 days, right? So, they will have to fulfill those as a minimum requirement. The good thing for this project is actually going above and beyond what the minimum requirements are, right? So, so they will fulfill all the city requirements. In addition, we will be working through those communication working group that we probably have to do more here and those kind of thing and then we will bring those whole communication strategy as someone mentioned that we will bring those strategy to the LRT subcommittee to provide those kind of information right but I can tell you that if the road is being closed it's about four to 6 months if the lane is being closed about 30 days you know we have to inform all the resident property or impacts right but in this one we probably be doing more and and those information will be included in the communication strategy which we will bring to the LRT subcommittee. >> Okay. So just so I think my time is near um just so I understand so engagement with uh per I'm thinking specifically of the hospital for example um engagement if we have a lane due to um some uh work that we're having to get done that engagement with the hospital is done uh by Metroinks the plan itself is reviewed internally in terms of for example fire service um to ensure that they have eyes on the plan and that they aware they they are aware that the work is coming up. What happens in the um what happens as a as an example if we found that um maybe things aren't going the way we thought they would? Maybe there's congestion and an intersection or or something happens that residents note and they're concerned that it may it may delay response times for that sensitive use in this in this case a children's hospital. how how would that work itself out and who would be responsible for making that pivot um and who would we contact if we observe that in our local neighborhood through the chair? Those are my questions through you madam chair. uh metro incident is overall in charge but I can tell you is highly collaborative contracting model right so they call alliance contracting where our staff is embedded in their uh working groups right for example if they are constructing and they are bringing some lane closure those lane closure actually now about two years advance we are discussing those construction strategies and all those kind of thing so city staff is highly engaged with the alliance team in a collaborative containing model to decide all of these factors and then at the same time while they are bringing these what they call TCPs traffic control plans when they are discussing these TCPs we are actually discussing the communication strategy as well that okay now you are this is a important lane closure we have to inform McMaster or the hospitals right so we discuss at these work setting uh all of these things our staff is involved but obviously Metronis is leading, taking the control, informing their stakeholder and all those but we city actually tell them what we need to do as a minimum and those kind of things right and continuous lessons learned if there are issues or something what I have seen that metings is actually highly collaborative right the alliance quantity model they are using they are continuously improving if there are uh if something is not uh performing at our expectations and all those kind of things right and and later we will however our own inspectors as well as I mentioned you know like we will have dedicated inspector three construction inspector they will monitor all of these things as well if something is not working we will try to rectify as soon as possible to improve upon >> and if I can add through the chair sorry just to add there's um a CRM system I don't I don't know if you're aware but metro links logs and actions all inquiries through the CRM the customer relationship management system and um as a bonus I Yes, I'm also being trained on the city CRM. I'm taking that upon myself so I can log all um previous, current, and future inquiries coming into our office. I think my time is, but if I could leave a question with you and if I could go back on perhaps um I I just need some um better understanding of um if if the plan looks like perhaps it's not working optimally, let's just say in and around uh a sensitive land use like a hospital, who is responsible for pivoting? Uh how are they informed that it's not working? Who makes that decision? and um what is the the role of the let's just say elected individual in feeding that information like quickly um so that uh we can course correct. Thank you. >> Thank you. And then next up we have member Andress >> um that thank you. I have a couple of points I want to address uh around communication. Um starting with the um the CLC's uh community or construction liaison committees having had the opportunity to serve on Metroink's community leaison committees um um when they were initially set up they included Hamilton in some of the early ones um along with Toronto Peele and other uh regions where there was giant projects and those though just just for this committee's information those tended to be quarterly one-sided information dumps where Metroink sat sat down with stakeholders and dumped a bunch of information on us and then left about 10 to 30 minutes at the end for questions. They were not what is being painted as the picture in this communication document um in any way. They did not provide that ability. They did not provide that service. and everyone around the table still in Toronto the people attending those are left with those feelings that they are very one-sided and they don't give an opportunity for birectional communication about construction concerns and ongoing community concerns. Um my other um uh point that I wanted to raise through through through the chair specifically about communication policies and concerns is when um the Chamber of Commerce and Metroinks worked so diligently on the LRT ready series in the previous iteration of the LRT project. One of the biggest points that was raised um from the Edgington cross town by BAS there and by businesses in that area was around subcontractor communication and the Metroinks's ability to pivot quickly around um issues regarding equipment placements. um that provided accessibility issues to businesses that it provided personal accessibility issues for residents and mobility challenges and how that they they found that there was this this kind of barrier with Metroinks where there was literally stuck in a circle with no one to go to. They couldn't go to their city counselor. Metroinks filed a ticket, but it had to go to the contractor, down to the subcontractor, down to another. And by the time the um you know the issue was finally resolved, it was because the piece of construction equipment had to be moved as construction moved and the business closed. We literally heard a story at one of these um um LRT ready chamber events about that occurring to a business in the Egllington cross town. So my question for you here is this communication plan sounds very very very interesting and and paints an interesting picture of communication but it seems very one-sided. Seems that this city is giving away a lot of the power of flexibility that future counselors are going to be dealt with and future city frontline workers are going to be dealing with bylaw complaints, parking complaints, all of these construction related issues with a reaction time that promises an email back in 24 hours and some kind of resolution within 10 days. But for a senior trapped at at home or for a whole community trying to use a major route to get to school uh which becomes an accessibility issue um which then becomes a human rights issue. But I where does the responsibility then follow with Metroinks and like how does the city end up bearing the brunt of the frustration? Well, Metroinks is the one the party responsible. So I just have a lot of concerns around the way that this I know this is the previously agreed upon this has been the communication policy. I just want to flag for the committee that concern. And time and time again during community engagement on the LRT, on other constructions of LRT, on Metro Links projects, construction, accessibility, accommodation, communication was always raised. And Toronto city councilors I talked to, and you could reach out to your peers, express similar frustrations around those communication policies that they get calls from residents and they can do nothing, that there is literally no one to go to. So, I just want to warn the committee while we're debating communication policies and city policies that these are some some of the challenges that can occur because you we won't know about them until serious construction gets underway, but the policy will already be signed um till we start hearing about the serious problems. So, that's just just my my my concern as a as a committee member and also you know my experience on a community leazison committee. Thank you. >> Can through you madam chair. I just would like to add councelor uh sorry uh member Andrews the example what you provided more about the P3 project where is which is a very fixed contracting model right so it's always a price is a controlling factor right I would like to just highlight here this is just alliance collaborative which makes a huge difference right contractor is not worried about costsaving and all those kind of things right because you know uh those has not been defined so it will be different uh you know compared to other P3 project where the cost is the primary control right here you know like it's highly collaborative which we already experienced you know whenever uh you know we identify requirement metro links and their content is open to look into those kind of things right so which we have a very positive experience so far and we continue to see that you know licensing contracting model is going to make a huge difference delivering this project going forward >> thank you very much to the chair I really appreciate that comment uh and I I I'm out of time. Um and I I am looking forward to and hoping that this project is different, but um this is a policy table, not a vibes table, and I just want to make sure that we've got enshrined the rights and responsibilities for the city that will protect residents during the next 5 years of construction. So, thank you. I'll leave it there. >> Thank you, member Andress. Next up, we have member Mayo. >> Uh thank you um through the chair. I I uh apologize for uh making my comments in the wrong section, but just to reiterate maybe just um if uh you know it could be shared with Metro Links that um now that they have committed that they are responsible for uh comm uh community stakeholder relations that they uh make a point of coming to all these meetings so that um they have that feedback from from these uh this committee which is one the stakeholders of many obviously and um as well um in terms of transparency implementing the transparency um principle that that I'm hoping that will that the communications protocol when you develop it with Metroinks will uh be shared with this committee as well. Thank you. Thank you, member Mayo. And um if I can just through the clerk and or maybe director, you might be able to help me recall that there is a motion that was passed by this subcommittee that was ratified by council requesting Metro Links to come to the subcommittee more often to establish and enable exactly what member Mayo had mentioned. Correct. >> Through you, madam chair. Yeah, we already have a motion and metro links actually came to the last LRT subcommittee and they committed to bring more information at the key milestone and then we can request uh we can uh request these special item like when the strategy is developed we can bring more information or member Andrew mentioned about procurement policies we can request those information to metalist to bring those information right >> thank you and then so for that point uh member mayo then moving forward the subcommittee could make special requests of Metro Links specifically to hear this kind of input. Uh appreciate that. Um final and second time. Oh, nope. We have two final second times. Um I will rec I will just mention as chair I do need to leave promptly. Um and at which point our vice chair can take over. Uh so second uh speakers list is councelor Wilson. >> Thank you. Uh so further to my scenario, if we had an incident that um all um adjoining land use uh users were apprised of 30 days in advance and let's just say it for whatever reason at site it wasn't performing optimally and the elected representative is maybe getting some calls or emails. Who who does what at that point? um in course correcting and and who uh how is that how is that engagement if if I could just use that as an example. Thank you >> through you madam chair. uh obviously city is issuing the permits right so we will be in terms of those kind of inquiries uh I think it will try to our office that we have issued the permits we need to make sure that what approvals we have given to Metro links if they are within those parameter working whatever approvals we have given then we city have to communicate metro no we're going to revoke the permit or something you know like those kind of things but obviously metro buildings is leading the project and those kind of things but I'm just trying to mention here that the city is also issuing the permit right so city is party to to the construction work right so if it is a permitting issue is like a lane closure and this and that probably we is going to come through our LRT project office and talking to metro links no this is not working we need to improve upon right so we do have a dedicated staff who are really uh responsible for safety modeling uh all those things right so they will be talking to metro install to tell them to improve upon in this area because of the concerns we have and all those kind of things right so it's again it's a collaborative content model but through permitting we probably have more rights to engage our discussion with metro links and contractor on that part >> so thank you um so let's just go back if I I'm sorry I'm just having a hard time with this on site if there is if maybe it's not working as optimally given some of the dimensions of the site or there's there's more traffic than normal. Um any any scenario, who makes the decision on site to course correct if if it's deemed to be a not working effectively or um optimally particularly for a sensitive land use nearby like a hospital >> through you madam chair. Obviously Metro links will have to physically correct anything if if there's a issue with the lane closure for example the the the the protection or barrier they are put in Metro links contractor will have to do it but we can direct them through the permitting process right but they will have to physically do and undertake all the unless there is a huge safety issue you know like which metron is not responding and this and that then city can go and do it right But uh we will be requesting to metings to write any physical measures they will have to do it right but city will have to request that part right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And finally member Andress. Um very quickly because of of time I um just wanted to reiterate what um uh non- voting member Mayo said about the importance of considering this table a community community liaison committee and having MetroLinks attend every single meeting not on an issue byisssue basis but being here to hear delegations to hear the the conversations of the members that have invited to this committee and that I think this is as important or even more important than a neighborhood level construction leazison is committee that meets quarterly and it would be you know my my hope as a non- voting member of this of committee uh that you impart that to metinks that they do need to be coming and I think that was the spirit of the motion that was also passed so that's all I have to say thank you >> through the chair thank you we'll bring that back >> appreciate that thank you all for the valuable discussion on both of these information reports that came back to this committee from GIC at this point um I do have a mover and Governor and Councelor Huang and Councelor Casar. It is a show a hand vote. All those in favor in receiving the reports. Thank you. And that carries. Um there are no further items on the agenda for us today. So our meeting is officially adjourned. Thank you all.