Good afternoon everyone. Uh call the 13th meeting of the infrastructure and corporate services committee to order. Uh please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anesnabek, the Honi, Lenoak and Adawandin. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Matei, and Inuit. Today, as representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. Uh we currently have uh as committee members myself, councelor Ver Mirburgen, uh councelor uh Stevenson is online and visiting counselors we have councelor PBLO and councelor Ramen and councelor Tros has also joined us. City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact iclondon.ca CA or 519-661-2489 extension 2425 and on first items closures of pecuniary interests looking for any. Okay, I'm not seeing any. We're on to consent items. Uh I have not had any poll requests to date. Oh, thank you for joining us, Councelor Posa. Um so we will look for a motion to approve all of these. Councelor Vir Morgan. I'll second that. Okay. So, um, looking for discussion on these items. I will say with 2.1, I do just want to give staff an opportunity to provide the update on the school crossing guard program review. Uh, this is, uh, part one of a two-part report. So, I'll look to Mr. McCrae to give us an update where we're at on that. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a report is responding to council direction to review the crossing guard program uh from 2025 and this report is the first of two reports uh so an interimm status it provides the results of literature review consultation done and uh and a summary of best practices. London's current school crossing guard program uh provides 106 crossing guards uh and the uh cost of it is 1.6 million per year. Uh the the program was assumed from the London Police Service in 2013 and uh you know the size of it has remained fairly consistent since that time. As far as uh managing these programs, the Ontario Traffic Council created a guide in 2023 that appears to be the industry standard for Ontario municipalities. Uh the gist of it is that crossing guards are discretionary. So municipalities are not obliged to provide them. Uh so the justification criteria provided in the guide uh recommends that municipalities develop their own warrant criteria and it's essentially based on uh establishing consistency with existing programs. So evaluating uh crossing guard locations that are already in place and then using that uh that database to uh approve uh additional locations. Our criteria that we've been using here in London dates back to 2013. So it's it's been uh it's been in place since we assumed the program. To be honest, we're not 100% sure where that criteria came from. Obviously, it predates the the guide and it may have been uh assumed from uh the London Police Service and it it it appears to be quite stringent. So, not a lot of new uh locations are approved. So, the recommendation in the report is that our criteria be updated. This is, you know, fairly involved process. A lot have lots uh lots of data processing associated with that. Um but it's recommended that uh that work be done. And uh and we also review some of the recently requested locations to see how they would uh how they would you know be responded to use using the new criteria. We will then uh use that information to create a second report back to committee next year uh providing that information and we'd have recommendations at that time and and those recommendations uh would provide an indication of whether the guide criteria would result in uh a program that is changed in size. Like for example, if uh using this new criteria would expand the program that would be uh identified to council and council would be able to make a decision on that. It's obviously a budgetary uh uh impact and would need to flow into the multi-year uh next multi-year budget for a business case. But so it would enable council to make decisions on, you know, if they wish the the program to expand or uh or remain consistent. And that would be informed by this new warrant criteria. And there's also nuances that we'll communicate. For example, do we reallocate re resources within the existing program? And that could be uh potentially removing guards from locations and reallocating them to higher need locations and or also adjusting the hours of service at each location. So with that, I'll uh pass it back. Thank you. >> Uh thank you for the update, Mr. McCrae. Um I'll get the ball rolling just because I um as a member of committee and chair, I just take this opportunity to ask a few of my own questions before we get into a larger debate. Uh I am just wondering in terms of uh maybe the next report will talk about this but in terms of the cost benefit that's being um done to look at um the effectiveness of crossing guards. It does mentioned a little bit in the report uh and I know the school board obviously was very supportive in terms of the crossing guard program. Um but we've had a lot of discussions at council over the years in terms of um you know safety around schools. Um what's the best use of our resources for that? you know, we're looking at crosswalks, um, you know, better traffic enforcement. We've recently talked about that with special constables. So, I'm just wondering from, um, the staff perspective if they can speak to, um, the crossing guard program itself, maybe the feedback and the discussions that happen at the schoolboard level in terms of where we see the value in allocating resources um, that could best be used for u, um, these areas. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. the the consultation with the school boards uh received a lot of positivity about the program and a lot of support and in fact you know flagged uh a desire for more particularly with uh uh the development of new schools within the city. Then there's also the literature review that we did uh that's broader way obviously way beyond London sort of North Americanbased and um what that review essentially essentially identified to us is that uh crossing guards uh can encourage and result in additional students walking to school and they can also influence the route choice for those individual students. students and and parents. Uh so there's a positive benefit there with respect to you know active modes and healthy lifestyles. Uh on the on the other side though there's no quantitative evidence that crossing guards reduce collisions between motor vehicles and pedestrians. So that's uh a synopsis. >> Uh thank you. And yeah, I noticed that in the report in terms of we just mentioned that uh yeah, the quantitative data um but recognizing obviously it encourages the the behavior we're looking for. I was also wondering uh in terms of with the speed cameras being removed from school zones because right now the crossing guard program is entirely uh pulled from the property tax whether this is something that we could reallocate some funds for from um the provincial money that they said will become available um to direct towards a crossing guard program. Yeah, the the road safety initiative fund which uh resulted from the cancellation of automated speed enforcement identifies uh school crossing guards as an eligible expense. uh London is uh currently working on uh preparing our application and uh so there's no decisions made yet but uh uh the initial thought is to allocate uh a portion of the RIFF funds towards the crossing guard program. It's noteworthy though that the RIFF funds uh only there's an a due date on the spend of the funds of March 2028. So uh practically speaking by the time uh applications are submitted and uh approvals are provided there's really only approximately a year of expenditure there. So it's not a it's not a uh a sustainable funding mechanism for this program. >> Okay. Thank you. And uh just my last question in terms of um coordination for um new crosswalks and crossing guards. Um, I know I get a number of requests uh from parents in particular in terms of areas where they see a need for um a crosswalk, but then also recognizing that that area might need a crossing guard. Uh, is there any um coordination in terms of those requests um say for a new crossing uh new crosswalk at a school and looking at um having a crossing guard at that location? >> Uh the answer is yes. the the requests for pedestrian crossings like the infrastructure piece and the school crossing guards uh are managed by the same team. So if a request is received through service London or other means uh all those different aspects are are considered. >> Okay. Thank you. And those are just my questions. Um I'll look to committee members first. I know we got a number of counselors who probably have questions on this. I'm looking for committee members. Go ahead, councelor Vber. Thank you, chair, and uh thank you, Mr. McCrae. Um obviously the uh the safety of of students and young people, young children is uh is paramount. Um and and I'm wondering from your perspective, are you receiving uh complaints that somehow we need to have more crossing guards at this stage or are you are you receiving any kind of push uh from your department your your own observation? >> Go ahead, Mr. McCrae. Uh we uh receive requests for crossing guards and uh since 2023 we've received requests at approximately uh 30 different locations across the city. So and that's in the past 3 years. >> Followup councelor. >> So that would be uh part of the review these uh additional requests. Go ahead. >> Yes, that's correct. We would uh look back at some of those recent requests, evaluate uh them based on our updated criteria, get a sense of, you know, is the is the implementation of the new criteria uh going to result in uh a required dramatic growth of the program or a modic growth. you know, we'll try to quantify that uh for council and and that also we'll also recognize that again it's discretionary for uh council. So council has the you know the um authority to adjust sort of adjust the criteria and the magnitude of the program as uh as they wish. >> Followup councelor. >> Yes, thank you chair. Um certainly from my perspective in my area um I've received complaints from a few different u crossing guards. Uh so my question then is during this review will we look at um optimizing crossing guard safety, the actual crossing guards themselves with maybe some ideas to look at such as flashing red lights on the actual stop signs uh that they use. um other improvements that may make them more visible because some of the complaints I receive are um things like uh cars speeding through uh the crosswalk that this the crossing guard is trying to uh mitigate and they blow through even with the cross crossing guard in the middle of the road. So uh is this an opportune time to look at that type of thing um as part of the report back? Go ahead, Mr. Ora. >> Yes, we certainly have those discussions with the service provider on an ongoing basis and this is prompted some more consideration of that. Some aspects like the configuration of the stop sign are are proincially regulated, but there's certainly uh things associated with uh you know the management and the training of the guards that uh we're always looking for continuous improvement on. >> Followup. >> Thank you, Chair. It's great. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, councelor Posa, any questions? No, you all good. Okay. Uh, C, I have councelor Trosa, then councelor Rom. >> Yes. Uh, thank you very much uh for for people who are listening. I'm not a member of this um committee. I'm here as a guest and uh thank you very much for um acknowledging me. Um, I wanted to um make a comment before you asked if anybody wanted to pull items from the consent agenda because I would have requested that this item be um pulled. Uh, I do have an amendment that I would like to offer which um I would like to suggest to the committee is something they could do. If that if that can't be done here, I will do it at at council. Although I would like to try to do as much of the committee work at committee as possible and not take the time up at council to bring this up first. So um what I'd like to say first of all about the report is um thank thank you very much for including the literature review. I think the lit the literature review was very helpful and as one starts to read through the entries on that literature review um you get the idea that many different uh many different jurisdictions are taking um different types of of approaches including looking at qualitative factors as well as quantitative factors in in in assessing the need for additional um additional crossing guards. But you can't look at the question of additional crossing guards in isolation from the from the bigger question really and the principles in their uh survey responses talked about this um the bigger question of the uh overall safety of that of that intersection and I think while this report is commendable in that it does a literature review I think it uh fails to adequately address the broader traffic safety concerns that were identified uh particularly ly by not only the survey respondents, the principles, but also very uh many members of the public over the last um years. And accordingly, I believe that amendments are needed to broaden the scope of the criteria to inform uh the new revised uh exposure warrant criteria to include things beyond uh a quantitative warrant numerical uh uh analysis to include things like the local traffic conditions. Um the associated calming and mitigation measures that are in place or are anticipated. the um accidents uh near nearby uh accidents uh also near accidents to the extent they're they're they're reported and perhaps most significantly from my point of view is the feedback and observation from adjoining neighbors uh the crossing guards themselves the principles the teachers the parents and the students um I would I would like to um I would like to urge this committee to consider a um an expanding amendment to part B, which basically uh if if I may just read what I have in mind so people know where I'm going with this. Um and would you would you please pass that down to the clerk and the and and and the chair. I'd like part B. Sir, I I just don't want you to go too far down this, but um if you did have something, you could have sent it to committee earlier. Uh we didn't have it and as not being a member of committee, this wasn't pulled. We can't do amendments at this time. you would have to do an amendment at council. So, >> okay. Well, >> you can speak to it if you don't. >> How much time do I have left? >> Okay, you have about two minutes. >> Okay. So, I I I'm sorry to hear that because I will raise this as an amendment at council. I prefer to do committee work in in committee. I'm not a member of this uh committee, but I do think that uh part B needs would need an amendment which I will submit to council. Um and it includes though what's in in B already that the um collection analysis of traffic data I would say both quantitative and qualitative at existing crossing guard locations be completed. Um however um this should include um not just the development of an updated exposure index warrant criteria but also a consideration of local traffic conditions associated calming mitigation measures in place of planned accident data uh I'm sorry associated calming mitigation measures that are currently in place or planned uh as well as accident data and feedback and observation from adjoining residents across housing guards, school officials, students, and parents. So, I don't I don't think expanding the motion that the council ultimately um uh files to include this is contrary. I think it just enhances it a little bit and in fact is consistent with I think some of the answers to the questions that have come out. The public wants to see >> You have 30 seconds. >> Pardon me. >> 30 seconds. >> Okay. The public wants to see that we're paying more attention to safety around schools and we are doing that in some regards. However, we are falling short in other regards. And I keep coming back to my uh I keep coming back to uh the corner of Colbourne and St. James where crossing guard was actually hit and that was over a year ago and we still do not have a four-way stop sign there. So, I I think that we need to uh integrate broader traffic safety issues with crossing guards. I'm sorry this can't be dealt with at the committee for procedural reasons. >> That's your time, Council, >> but I will be raising this at council. Thank you. Okay, thank you. And just as a friendly reminder to everyone, if you do have amendments, um feel free to reach out to the chair or provide them in advance uh on a letter that we can add to the item on the agenda so committee members are aware. Looking for other speakers. Go ahead, councelor Ramen and then councelor Purple. Uh thank you and through you and I also am a guest of this committee but I wanted to first thank uh staff for the preliminary information that's in front of us today. Um I wanted to dive into it a little bit more. Uh the first is around the feedback from principles with about 50% of principles reporting that they didn't have a crossing guard. I'm wondering how many were responding to the survey in a way to actually flag that their school needs a crossing guard. What I hear repeatedly from school principles is that this process is very difficult to navigate and figure out how to uh find what are the right um traffic related measures that can be done for a school and particularly challenging for newer schools and new subdivisions. Um so within this motion we've got a part C and it says that civic administration be directed to report back on the findings. I'm wondering what the timeline is for that report back. >> Go ahead, Mr. McCrae. >> Uh we anticipate the uh second report to be spring of uh 2027 followup. Councelor, >> thank you. And uh my next question would be um how many schools have recently applied we said since 2023 that have actually out of the 30 that have received new crossing guards. >> Go ahead Mr. McCree. >> So as I mentioned we've received 30 requests since 2023. I don't know how many of those came from schools versus residents. Generally we see receive more requests from residents. Um but for uh no no additional uh locations have been added because we've essentially been communicating that the budget is maxed out and um and and so there's no there's no room the program is fully subscribed and that's really what is what has prompted this review and will enable us to uh uh make more informed decisions going forward. >> Follow council. >> Thank you. And I think that's a key component missing from this report and conversation. So we've had requests since 2023 for 30 additional crossing guards based on observed needs from schools and from the community. And our response has been that there hasn't been budget. But yet we're not having the discussion about how to increase the budget to be able to meet these needs. I want us to think back to how many new schools have been built in our community since that time. those new schools are ineligible for a service that they direly need. I know representing multiple new schools in my ward, the needs are there and the services are not. We have dire traffic needs in these subdivisions where we've put new schools and we do not have traffic calming mitigations, nor do we have the ability to fulfill requests for for school crossing guards. When I look at part five of this report, we've got some information about school wayfinding signs and other things that we can support schools with to ensure safe crossings. I didn't know until recently that the school wayinding signs, those are something a school has to fundra for in order for those to go up in a neighborhood. Um, we're putting these costs back on schools that are already strapped for cash. We're putting them back on home in schools to fund raise, but these are genuine safety concerns. So, why are we not footing the bill? So, those are some of the questions that I have. I would have brought more information and a motion as well, but uh I'm not a member of the committee, so I will look to do that at council. Thank you. >> Uh thank you. Um just wondering, Mr. McCra, do you want to comment in terms of maybe perhaps uh the wayfinding signs? Uh if you have any comments, go ahead. Uh yeah, the wayfinding uh program is run through the active uh and safe routes to school program which is a uh a partnership amongst uh the city, the health unit, uh the student transportation service and um so yeah any it's run through that program and any uh changes uh to that would be coordinated uh through through that partnership. And um sorry just as a follow-up to that then would um any of this be able to be incorporated into an expansion of a crossing guard program um or is that going to remain as a separate thing uh that would be funded through a separate separate um as councelor Ramen said >> yeah we're at the whim of council when it comes to uh it's another budgetary item and if uh there was a desire to incorporate that yeah it's it's run separately But if uh there was a desire to incorporate that into the city budget, um yeah, by all means, that's that's possible, ask for an business case. >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And I just wanted to do that just clarification for the councelor. So if you're bringing for an amendment of where that would best be um suited for. Okay. Um I believe councelor Ple Oh, councelor Pelosi, you wanted to go. Go ahead. >> I'm happy to yield to uh councelor Ple if he wants, but um a couple things for staff. uh as a parent of a school who's been part of the active and safe routes to school uh program, I appreciate the conversations in those spaces that people from different schools come together and you discuss um what your needs are. Um where some opportunities for improvement are if it's kiss and rides, drop offs, laybys, uh parking lots, schools, routes, uh park maintenance going through the trails in the winter to make sure the kids can keep walking. Um, in section 4, the principal feedback, uh, I appreciate the getting the partnerships to the table. One of the feedbacks was, um, difficult to navigate intersections. I'm not sure through you, Mr. Chair of Staff, if we know what that actually means or if it's been fleshed out when they say difficult to navigate intersections. >> Go ahead, Mr. McCrae, when you're ready. uh her sense of what that comment primarily relates to is just uh atypical uh intersection geometries. So things like offset intersections where the side streets are offset. >> Followup counselor. >> Thank you. Um, as with uh councelor Vimemer's comments, have also had comments from schools uh crossing guards themselves and and a lot of times it's parents. And this is one of those odd things, at least in my opinion, that we're talking about school crossing guards and it's not a provincial uh funding pocket that it's coming out of the city pocket and it's for schools. Same with the safe routes to school when they want to do the walking stuff that the province isn't providing funding for that. that the parents are in home and schools are raising it themselves to pay for things for education which is provincial uh jurisdiction. Um my main concerns as we read this report is um aggressive driving in these school zones and I I want to thank staff and Mr. McCrae has come out uh to to a school that had an issue uh last last term and we worked on some solutions together. Sometimes it is looking at the operation of the school, how it operates, timing of buses. Sometimes it's parents in the parking lot. Sometimes it's neighboring streets needing some enforcement as they roll up into an intersection. Just pile up an intersection park and decide to go three, four lanes wide, and it's not available for that while school crossing guards still on site trying to mitigate the kids who did walk to school, get them across the road safely. Um realizing we spend $1.6 6 millions on this program. Um, and as the as the report notes that uh there is no demonstration that crossing guards can contribute to a reduction in pedestrian motor vehicle collisions. Part of my information I'm looking forward to staff is if some of that money could actually be available to mitigate some of the issues that parents in the schools um are having that it could allow for more speed cushions uh a lit up pedestrian crossover and a marked crossover um and if the school needs help with a different lay that would include a city boulevard to help with some of the buses and traffic. Uh that's where my considerations are coming from. So I'll just leave that with staff. they're welcome to comment or not of just like sometimes schools needs help some of that infrastructure around their school to help and could maybe have a higher impact uh a crossing guard is an ongoing operation cost where some of this infrastructure could serve the could serve the school and the community longer term. Thank you. >> Uh thank you. Yeah, I don't know if Steph want to comment on the you know a raised crosswalk versus a crossing guard u if you have any comments on that. Yeah, I would say we uh the the comments are acknowledged. Uh there's certainly yeah, one is an infrastructure uh solution. The other is sort of an operational item. We do have you know ongoing efforts and budget commitments for uh improvements to school zones and uh you know for you know through the traffic caling program we've established that we just streamline those and uh get them done uh immediately. So, uh, yeah, thank you for the comments. >> Okay, thank you. Uh, councelor Pribble, you're next. Go ahead. >> Thank you, sir. Chair to the staff or Mr. McCrae. Uh, we have approved additional funding for traffic coming measures department and, uh, from this fund, will the school zones be considered as well? >> Go ahead, Mr. McCrae. >> Yes. >> Quick answer. >> Okay. Thank you for that answer. When you come back then back to the council in 2027, will this will this proposal include the whole picture including the trafficcoming measures introduced to potentially some schools that you will come back with? >> Go ahead, Mr. McCrae. the uh so the direction if you're referring to the second report uh associated with school crossing guards this this uh process is responding specifically to uh the direction from council to review the school crossing guard program. So it's very focused on that. Uh we certainly uh continue our efforts to trafficcom uh uh school zones. Um but but this this report and this focus that there's a lot to process and think about just with the school crossing guard program. So our intent was to keep the focus on the council directive mandate. >> Yeah, it won't be a comparative analysis. Uh so yeah, >> so I do have I do have a follow-up and I do understand your answer. Having said that, if there is a school, I assume that their budget is not going to be big enough to address schools or potentially that will be the case. And my case is or my question is if you're going to come back with a initiative for a school to come with trafficcoming measures and in addition to school guard a crossing guard and then you have a school that there is no neither one of the initiatives then that's why I'm saying that would be beneficial to the committee when you come back and have this clear kind of if there's a school that's potentially getting both and there's a school that's not getting any and then the committee council has an opportunity to they make that decision. Okay, the funding is not the budget is not big enough and then they make that decision. We'll rather have one and one instead of two and zero initiatives to and that's that was my kind of question if this is going to be considered and if this is going to come back to the committee so they can make that decision. >> Yeah, I think there's some crossover if you want to comment on that Mr. McCrae. Go ahead. >> Thank you through the chair. Yeah, my comment would be we are uh trafficcoming every school zone across the city. So there's decision making and criteria decisions to be make made for the crossing guards, but as far as trafficcoming, our intent is to do every school zone in the city, and it's just a matter of uh the resources to get that done. uh it were just a number of years, five, six, seven years out uh to to getting all of those done. So there's not I don't I'm not concerned about uh uh school zones not receiving any of that that traffic common uh focus >> followup counselor. >> Okay. Okay, if the timeline would be that long then yes that that would be as beneficial but if the timeline could be decreased for trafficcoming measures that certainly would be beneficial. Uh additionally at the Ontario traffic council the 2023 updated it states there that the final decision is based on the municipality in consultation with the school boards. Uh is that the approach we are going to uh we are going to take to come up with the criteria? >> Go ahead Mr. McCrae. Yes, the process uh as directed by council included the consultation with the school boards. Um but at the end of the day it is uh currently a funded program through uh like in the city's budget. So I think the the final uh decision uh lies with council and uh and we're providing the uh the consultation input from the school boards uh to inform that. >> Followup councelor. >> Thank you and last question. uh it seems as it's directed mainly to JK to grade five. Is that the approach we are going to be taking as well? >> Go ahead. >> Our recommendation is to follow the uh Ontario Traffic Council guide. It was developed quite recently 2023 and it was based on a review of best practices across North America. So we feel it's it's as uh a good a source of best practices as uh as we need and yes it it does recommend a focus on uh children between the ages of junior kindergarten and grade five. So that that would be the recommended approach unless council directs otherwise. >> Followup counselor. >> Thank you. No more questions. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. And yeah, just a general theme. I think we can all agree we all get a lot of traffic coming requests, but uh with a new multi-year budget coming up, I think Mr. McCrae has said uh you know, we use the resources we have, but if there's a desire for more traffic coming, I think that would be an appropriate place for that discussion. I'm looking for any other speakers. I think councelor Stevenson, you're the only one who hasn't spoken. Just looking to see if you wanted to speak on this item. >> I'm good for now. Thanks. >> Okay, councelor Romeo, second round. Go ahead. >> Uh thank you. Just one final question. Um, do we have any reserve dollars that can be used for uh, traffic calming or for school crossing guard programs um, immediately? And I know that reserve dollars are onetime dollars, but with 30 requests um, sitting out. I'm just wondering, have we prioritized those lists and would we be able to consider that as an option? >> Um, Miss Barbone, not sure if you get that one or go ahead. Uh thank you through the chair. So um certainly it's up to the direction of council if the council wishes to utilize reserve funds. There isn't anything specific um set aside for this. Currently the property tax dollars pay for ongoing costs. So um it's not something that the staff would recommend to use onetime dollars to fund an ongoing expenditure. So um certainly that's up to council's direction, but that's not something that we would uh suggest is a good practice. follow-up counselor. >> Thank you. >> Okay, looking around for any other speakers and this was on all items, by the way. So, we have 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 that we're voting on. Okay, councelor Privile, you want to speak on the other ones? Go ahead. >> Yes, I do. I sue the chair, to the staff on 2.2. Uh, great to see this agreement coming forward. I know we had the discussions before when it comes to the sidewalks that currently the blade is as wide or almost as wide as the sidewalk. We were proposing potential shortening the blade so the damage to the grass is not as significant. And I just want to say that previous winter I did see the during the night the people operating and clearing the snow and honestly I cannot blame them. I couldn't do it any better unless they really go so slow because the width is ex exactly the same. When it's dark, even though they have the light, they go to the left, they go to the right. Guess what? They damage the grass. But uh my question is, are we considering or have we considered are there going to be blades that will be more narrower uh at least wide enough for the minimum and wheelchairs, but uh the damages are not as significant as they have been? Uh >> go ahead, Mr. McCrae. uh through the chair. Yes, we we've certain we acknowledge uh the counselor's uh noted concerns in the past and uh and we're we're very aware of the issue as well. I mean, we we do saw repairs and uh so we're keenly aware of uh saw damage from sidewalk snow plowing. Uh establishing the right uh plow width is a balance between the minimum maintenance standards requirement to have a meter wide clear path uh and then uh that balanced with the typical sidewalk width which is 1.5 m. So uh often times particularly vblades are a meter and a half wide. Uh but what uh is getting done is the the wear blade at the bottom of the plow which is the you know the bottom few inches that are in contact with the ground surface with the sidewalk and potentially the sod that gets cut narrower to approximately 1.3 slightly over 1.3 m. Um so that once yeah we have to account for some snow sloughing back in behind the plow so that we're achieving that uh provincial requirement for one meter cleared pathway uh but helping to minimize the saw damage. Hope that helps. >> Followup counselor. >> Thank you for for that. Really happy to hear that. So that's going to be 10 cm potentially on each side which is great. But uh what was the decision that we went from 1.5 to 1.3 if the minimum if the minimum is 1 m 100 cm? >> Go ahead Mr. Okay. U snow plowing particularly when the snow is deep uh you know that there will be snow falling back in behind the plow. If I understand your correction your question we we need to account for uh some of the snow falling back in so we don't achie achieve the clear width exactly uh to the full width of the snow plow. Uh so that blade needs to be wider than uh than the one meter specified in the minimum maintenance standards and it's just based on practice. >> Hello. >> Thank you. And that makes complete sense. Thank you very much for your answer and for this initiative. >> Okay. And not seeing any more. So we will open these items for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries four to zero. Okay. Thank you. Uh don't have any scheduled items. Items for directions. Deferred matters. We're on to confidential. Looking for a U motion to go in camera. Councelor Vir. Councelor Pelosa. Thank you. We'll open that for voting. closing the vote. Motion carries four to zero. Okay, we're back in public session uh with the council van mirgan to report out. >> Very pleased to report that progress was made on the item for which we went into camera. >> Great. Thank you. Uh we are last item adjournment. Looking for a motion to adjurnn. Council closer. Councelor Van Miran. All those in favor. Any opposed? >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Thank you everyone. Have a good day.