Sound check. 1 2 3. Sound check. 1 2 3. Good afternoon and welcome to the final public works committee meeting for this term of council on October 2 October 20th 2026. >> Yep, it's that time folks. It's a Friday afternoon. Uh we are here. Uh we do have quorum present for today's meeting. I'd like to call the meeting to order. A reminder for everybody in the room to turn your electronic devices to a non-audible function. Just helps make sure that the meetings aren't interrupted with the sound of your cool ringtones. Uh present with us today in chambers is Councelor Casar, Councelor Huang, Councelor A. Wilson, Councelor Crutch, Councelor McMe, and joining us virtually are councelor Moren Wilson, and councelor Tatison. And uh no ceremonial activity. Correct. Yes. And on to approval of the agenda. So changes to the agenda. >> Chair nan there has been a request for item 9.1 report PW26063 Benbrook Road Trinity Road Trinity Church Road White Church Road intersection improvements municipal class environmental assessment w 11 to be moved up on the agenda to be considered immediately prior to item seven. items for information and the reason being that councelor Tatison you have a >> wedding to go to >> my Okay in Niagara Falls. >> Fair enough. Um >> will we lose quorum if I leave? >> Okay, let's deal with one thing at a time. So the clerk has put forward uh the approval of the agenda with one change. May I please get a mover in seconder for the change. Thank you councelor Crutch. Seconded by councelor Casar. Uh discussion on the agenda. Seeing none, uh we will confirm that if once councelor Tison leaves in time to get to the wedding, we will still have quorum to proceed with the rest of our meeting. Thank you. Onwards. Uh show a hand to those all those in favor of the agenda. >> Come on in. It's just hand votes. >> Come on now. >> Hand votes. We got it. And that carries on to declarations of interest. Any at this point, committee members? Seeing none, we'll move on to adoption of the minutes for our previous meeting from October 31st, 2026. And then get a mover and councelor Casar and Councelor Hang. Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, then that is also a vote by show of hand. Show of hands. Come on, get them up. Thank you. Any opposed? Carried. On to items for consideration as just approved by uh committee for the agenda change. 9.1 PW26063 Benbrook Road, Trinity Church Road, White Church Road, Intersection Improvements, Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. First up, a mover and secondary. I'll take it. Councelor Tatison, you're moving. A seconder. Thank you, Councelor Huang. Um we do have acting director of engineering services available for any questions. Um did you want to provide an overview? >> That would be great. Yes. >> Thank you. Over to you. >> Um uh through the chair to the counselors. Uh this report is tied to the municipal class environmental assessment that was undertaken to look at improvement options for Pinbrook Road, Trinity Church Road, and White Church Road intersections. Concerns have been raised about the safety at the intersection for many years. their poor sight lines, harsh angles, and the traffic volumes at this intersections have been increasing as well. Over the course of the project, many options were developed and assessed leading to a final recommendation for the implementation of two roundabouts with a multi-use path on the north side. This is what is present in front of you. The design for this factors in the access needs of the residents turning radi for the trucks and agriculture vehicles. It also takes in account the future plans for the area. This design option was presented at the project's second public information center which uh was received very well. The total estimate cost is around 5.7 million following the formal completion of the environmental assessment. We are looking to move the project into detailed design as early as 2027 with construction tentative in 2030. This project is important as it provides significant safety and access improvements to this intersection which are both the top concerns we heard leading up to and during this project. We are now seeking the committee's approval to proceed with placing this project on public review and to start taking next steps with project implementation. Thank you. >> Thank you for that overview. We'll open the speakers list. Uh any questions or comments on the item? Seeing none, then it is before committee for approval. Electronic vote, please. Thumbs up from councelor McMe. Thumbs up from councelor Crutch as well. and that carries. Thank you. Off you go to that wedding. Councelor Tatison. Um, seven items for information. First up is 7.1 PW24073A, Kennallorth Drainage Channel Remediation in Ward 4. Um, I'll take councelor Huang as the mover and councelor Alex Wilson as the seconder. Um, we do have our director of w water quality and operational supports to answer any questions. So, the item is on the floor. Any discussion? Councelor Hang. >> Thank you. Uh, in terms of the work, I'm just trying to get to it. I'm sorry I'm a little late on this one, but direct um, director Winters just we're mostly done this work, aren't we? The drainage work. >> Uh, so through the chair uh, to the counselor, yes, this work is completed. >> Thank you. And then just a question around um, lessons learned around this um, because this is was such a perfect storm of all the things. It was kind of in our jurisdiction, kind of out of our jurisdiction, kind of they should have done some work, we should have done some work. So, what are the lessons learned here? And um are we do we have anything that um we might need to be considerate of for next time. >> So, through the chair, uh happy to answer that question, but I'll ask uh director Vanderp if she would like to take um first opportunity. Okay. Um so through the chair to the councelor as you um introduced a very complex situation. Um this is a scenario where the city was made responsible for maintaining an asset that prior to a court ruling we did not know was ours. >> Um and so I won't speak to the history of the court ruling or the back and forth uh and discovery process that led to that. Um but there are a lot of positives to be taken from the delivery of the project itself. Um to my uh knowledge this is the first time where the city has partnered uh with a industrial commercial institutional uh organization to complete joint work under one combined contract. Uh and that was a a complex part of this process. Um something new largely to our teams in procurement and legal as well about uh forming that collaborative um partnership to work together on a on a project um on the required uh heavy partnership um between the city and that external organization being our solar middleasco. Uh so there are a lot of positive lessons learned um from the project from that perspective. Uh there are uh some ongoing um non-construction related works from a future maintenance planning um perspective associated with this and and we are certainly learning lessons uh from the development of that maintenance plan for how do we address some of these uh discharge channels uh to the harbor um that don't require frequent maintenance but when they do it can be challenging uh from an access perspective um and a scope of work perspective to get into. So, we're certainly learning things there. Um, and uh, there was one more point. I apologize. It slipped my mind. Um, I'll just leave it there if that answers the question. >> It does. Thank you so much because this has been one of those um, files that I didn't know we had to deal with. Um, so perhaps as a also as a lesson learned though too, what are what's our path moving forward? do we have an opportunity to identify other assets like this? Um, and just to be a little proactive with it because just the sheer back and forth and the court ruling and that took like a year and a half for us to get to even that court ruling. Uh, it takes up a lot of time, resources, taxpayer dollars. So, what's our what's our path moving forward on to try and avoid something like this again? So through the chair, uh that's an excellent point. Um our resources have largely been um occupied with actually getting the work done and responding to the court order uh associated with this one, but that is a next step uh is looking for other areas of risk. Um there are a number of these situations along Hamilton Harbor where the waterfront used to look very differently 100 years ago. Uh and a lot of infilling has led to the establishment of channels that weren't there historically. Um so that is an analysis we'll undertake and if there are any risks associated with future situations uh then we will be identifying those. >> Thank you. Thank you for your hard work on this. It's uh it was a significant undertaking. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Next up we have Council Moren Wilson. >> Whoops. Council Marian Wilson, is she still in the meeting virtually? Nope. Oopsies. Okay. Uh hopefully she is able to get back into the meeting. Uh Councelor Tatterson, you're up next on this item. Not on this item. Okay. So, they're leftover speakers notes um indications. Okay. So, it's been moved and seconded. Um we'll do a show a hand vote to receive this information item. All those in favor, councelor Tatterson. Thank you. And that carries. Uh the remainder of the information items are citywide. Could I get one mover and seconder for all three items 7.2 through to 7.6? Moved by councelor Casar. Second by councelor Fuang. Um first up is 7.2. Any discussion on that item? Okay. Seeing none, then we'll move to 7.3, which is our automated traffic enforcement reserve update. We do have a speaker on that one. Councelor Hang. Chair, may I just ask for a public sort of um overview as to what this is because I feel like the automated speed enforcement is a very um topical thing. Just super >> a little bit >> like I want to get out of here, but I think super super small, >> super >> director It's like small >> over. >> I will endeavor um director of transportation Vince Frazza through the chair uh to the councelor. This report is actually in response to a March public works um direction or motion where we report back on essentially the reserve balances for the automated uh traffic enforcement uh programs. So that would include revenues from red light camera and the former automated speed enforcement program. So this report uh touches upon the existing balance but also forecasts what the revenues and what the reserve would essentially have in future years. Um, the report also asked us to uh review potential opportunities for targeted enforcement with the Hamilton Police Services uh if there was any allocated funds remaining in the reserve. And the report then talks about the provincial road safety initiative fund and that is the funding that the Ontario government uh provided after the automated speed enforcement program was cancelled in November of 2025. So the report talks about how the city of Hamilton has funding available to introduce counter measures uh targeted speed enforcement and other road safety initiatives in locations where automated speed enforcement cameras were deployed but also were planned to be reported. Can you through you share just a question around um what is an what is an ideal sort of mitigation because I will tell you that at in ward 4 almost 100% of the streets I knock on they all want a speed bump. >> Um but that's not norm that's not always the the best sort of mitigation strategy. But given that we're looking at this now fund um what is the what is the ideal sort of situation? And I I also understand and I get that every street is going to be different, but I don't I want us to get a sense as to what are the potential strategies that we might want to employ because otherwise residents will always want a speed bump. >> And councelor Hang, this is specifically in terms of the provincial reimbured funds for those roadways that did previously have, currently had, and would were on the docket for the speed enforcement. That's the one limitation for the provincial funding. Oh, I thought that it was for all vision zero test. >> Am I correct on that one? >> Uh, the chair is correct. The RSIF is funding for locations where there was an automated speed enforcement camera deployed or where it was planned to be deployed prior to the cancellation in November of 2025. So, there is eligibility criteria with respect to sites. uh the 89 locations that did have automated speed enforcement will be prioritized. Um and each one will be sight specific in terms of which counter measures will be applied but we will be uh including and considering our traffic common criteria in determining what appropriate counter measures would be applicable. >> I misunderstood. Thank you so much chair. >> Yeah. No, good. Good. The clarity. Thank you, councelor. Next is councelor Maren Wilson. Thank you. Um just on that last point if I could chair on the the criteria to be used locally. Um I'm assuming then that uh keeping in mind it was streets identified as uh qualifying candidates for a device before its cancellation. But if a street itself by its classification cannot um host a speed cushion uh then it would have to be something else if it's if it's deemed to be of a category that previously and could I just seek that uh clarification through the chair? >> Through the chair uh manager Mike Field will be able to answer that question >> through the chair. Mike Field, manager of transportation operations. Um, ASC was used on roadways that speed cushions could be used and other types of roadways that we wouldn't normally use speed cushions. I think that's the point of the question you're asking. So then what now with those streets where uh ASC was, but we wouldn't use speed cushions. There's other methods that we would consider. Um, however, there are some criteria within the use of that funding. for example, we are not permitted to take away vehicle lanes. So, traditionally, we would look at road diets, but we're not permitted to do a road diet if we're going to leverage that funding. So, there are some stipulations within that funding uh in terms of what we can use it for and what we can't use it for. So it does have some degree of limitations. Um uh but uh we would we would really look at what's you know any particular street and what is the issue and then what are the options in front of us that we could leverage to deal with whatever the issue is in this case speeding. Um and then consider what option would be a best fit for that street within the um framework of the uh funding if we choose to use the funding uh for that location. Of course, we can do things that are outside of the constraints of of that funding. We just wouldn't be able to apply the funding in those instances. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, we'll move on to the next item uh which is 7.4, the rapid remediation of illegal dumping on former encampment site debris. Any questions on this report? Okay, seeing none, we'll then move on to 7.5, communication update as it relates to the fall 2026 service level impacts for HSR 2602 citywide. Um, just checking if any of my other colleagues have questions on this one. Seeing Oh, yeah. Councelor Wilson, please go ahead. >> Thank you, Chair. Um if if I may um given the the date um of my apologies, I'm just trying to open it up because I I did read it. Um given the date that the disruption is deemed to be uh to be resolved, I'm wondering if there's any um update uh that staff would like to speak to. I think it says I wanted to make sure that this was on the agenda so that that question could be answered. So over to you director Perser just for sorry just for public consumption it says the issue could you kindly define uh give us the problem statement and the time stamp that it was to be resolved by September the 14th and then thirdly where where are we on that resolution? Thank you >> uh through the chair and AC perser director of transit. I'm going to hand it over to Jeff Puljansky who was here um with the initial one to give the update and then I'll add some other information after. Thanks >> through the chair Jeff Pjansky, manager of fleet maintenance. Um, I'd like to start off by saying thank you for the cooperation on this one. And as we monitored the situation through the week of September 14th, um, we had to monitor it for several days to make sure we had accuracy and consistency in our fleet um, being repaired and being provided for service. We officially declared it on the 24th of September that it is over. that there is no more significant impacts related to the parts shortage and parts acquis acquisition issue that hit us in about midsummer. Okay. Um I would like to point out that through this situation as we continue to evolve u we are continuing to repair vehicles and make more availability of the vehicle side for service. I'd also like to point out that through this whole entire situation each day we managed to maintain at least a level of 99% of our daily service. So, it was very minimal impacts um to everybody. And I'd like to point out that the frontline staff um both the operations and the maintenance staff uh tried extremely hard to navigate through this situation and produce vehicles and service reliability. Uh so oh sorry through through the chair I just like to also add um that you know we we have our records that indicate we did 99% or better um each weekday um in in delivering the service. Uh we are however going to look at some of our processes with our new system to determine what may be happening in our downstream GTFS for others in the public realm. um reading different information so that it will be a continuous improvement activity that we're looking at. >> Councelor Wilson. >> Yep. Thank you. Um I'm sorry to director Perser. I'm wondering if you you could expand or um provide that acronym. I'm not sure I understood uh what you were saying uh what what you're endeavoring to do. If 99% So is what you're endeavoring to do app is that applied to the system as a whole or the remaining one or could you just help me out on this your statement? >> Yeah, sorry. through through the chair. Um what I was referring to is um we our systems are indicating have indicated through this um as we've had to um manage uh our lack of vehicles that we continue to provide 99% of our service or better um during this time frame. Um we have seen posts that um that indicate we are providing less um and that's from information coming through our uh Google transit feed um or GTFS system um that is available to the public to build um transit planning trips. So we're looking to fix what information is getting sent out that way. >> Okay. So, so the I don't So, the error is on is on who's so are we confident in our accuracy and somehow there's a process issue or a technology issue with how the public are are reading it. Um, I I'm sorry. I just don't understand. through through the chair. We are accurate in the service that we are produc that we've put out on the street. We we know exactly what we put out. Um it's the information and how it's being um fed into our realtime data that it appears to be problematic that we're researching and trying to sort out and understand how to fix it. So um the the public are seeing the same information we are seeing. >> Okay. Thank you. That that's helpful. So when the public is they're trying to plan and time their day, we have a disconnect between the your what's available internally to you and then what the public is seeing. So in order for us to so we're we're going to be doing something to ensure the public has the accurate the most accurate information so that it works best for them. Um not just for us >> through through the chair. That's correct. >> Okay. And and what is the time stamp on that? May I ask? >> Through through the chair we're actively looking at it now. Um and we will continue to work on it until um it's corrected. We we're expecting it's going to take a couple of weeks to um research everything and um determine all of the different variables that could cause it to go wrong. So we're we're hoping two weeks should be sufficient. >> Okay. Thank you. So in in the interim if I'm a transit user is how do I ensure that is there anywhere any way I can um have this I think what I'm hearing you say there's there's not a way in which I can have a course correct right now. um will you be reporting back uh publicly or to the public on when that course when that information uh item will be corrected so there's confidence for all folks? That's my question. Thank you. >> Uh through through the chair, we will keep the public informed as to as we move through this um ensuring that they um we also get feedback from them to ensure that it is working um correctly for their benefit. Thank you, Councelor Wilson. Next up, we have Councelor Gretch. >> Thanks. I'm going to do my best to try and parse this a bit further. Percentages aren't very helpful. So, when we're talking about 99%, can you tell me the total number you're referring to that the 99% relates to of trips? Like, give me a big raw number. Thousand. How many thousands are we talking about of trips in that context? I presume 99% it's a percentage of something. >> Um well I don't have the exact figures off the top of my head but it's in the ballpark of 3500 service hours per day. Um and so we are providing 99% of that or cancelling on average 45 service hours. >> So I'm less interested in the service hours. I'm trying to understand trips or route like I'm trying to understand information that's relevant to the public. They don't care about service hours to be frank. They care about if this route was missing five different trips on this route or um buses passed them by or buses didn't show up. Like how are we able to provide that kind of information or detail? Do we have that information? So through through the chair it's um um comes out in real time data to our customers that um if a trip is available um for us if you just give me one second so I can look at the information and I'll see if I can get better details. 40 to 50 >> through through the chair. Um when we when we talk about a trip, we're we are um it's it's individual trips that might be 20 minutes of service in that trip. So, um, if we talk about pulling out a piece of a Barton route that has a six-minute headway, um, someone may need to wait a little bit longer to catch the next bus. Um, our goal was trying to, um, uh, not, um, impact those routes that have a long, um, headway, so 15 minutes or greater. So that um those more frequent um services that we offer on Beline and on Barton on Route 51 um aren't felt as much um if we have to pull a bus out of um one one trip. >> I appreciate you explaining the methodology. I think what you're suggesting here is there's a multiplier effect. when we look at the different route examples, what we can see is that a service hour might end up being multiple uh routes not happening within that service hour across a route and I understand what you're saying. I think what I'm hearing from residents is that those routes with the high volumes actually do have a greater impact on them especially roots where students are trying to get to and from McMaster whatever it might be those roots do have a have a higher impact for those and there's a reason why we have so much frequency there because they have such a high impact. I think my second question for you uh really is about trying to understand better the GTFS thing you talked about which is the Google transit feed. I do think from my perspective this is actually very serious because we are relying people are have been relying on for years and years and years on transit apps to help them bridge this gap. First we have transit numbers you can call then there's there's all kinds of different methodologies people can use to get the information about when their next bus is going to come. But we all do understand that most people are going to use a public system because a public system is integrated with their technology. It's on their phone. It's easy. It's comfortable. It's accessible for them. If we don't have synchronicity between what we're doing as a public institution and the most public way of getting access to the information, then we can't build confidence in that system because someone goes on, they say, "I want to find out this information." And then they go and the information is not accurate. And it will take us reputationally as a city a long time to rebuild that. So, I just think when we decide we're going to fix this, when it's actually fixed, I think our corporate communications team needs to take this as seriously as anything else they take. People depend on transit. And the most important thing for them is its reliability. When one bus doesn't come, when two buses don't come, when a third bus doesn't come, right, that makes people start to change life choices. It begins to make them, you know, question the services and lose faith in the city's ability to deliver them. So, I just think this has to be taken seriously and we have to communicate it about it at the level of seriousness and own our mistakes. If we haven't maintained that system between our system and the system that's public, that's no one's fault but our own. So, I just think it's important that we're always framing it that way. We're always saying that we made a mistake and it's okay. Everybody makes mistakes, myself included. But I think how we own those mistakes honestly to the public is really important. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other speakers on this item? Um so if I can through the vice chair um just wanted to follow up on the twoe time frame versus um councelor Wilson's question about when we can get that information reconciled publicly. So this is the last public works committee vice chair uh our last council meeting is next week. Um do staff need direction to ensure that that gets done within the two weeks? Are you saying the two weeks is an estimate? Um, and would the next term of council receive a report on these items that are being raised by public works committee? >> So, uh, through through the chair, this is a priority item that is on our plate. We recognize that there is an issue and we endeavor to fix it as soon as possible. Um, I'm not fully sure of the extent of the issue. I think we can fix it within two weeks. Um, happy to come back and report um, the status when council resumes. um after the election. >> Yeah, if I could through you, vice chair, then to move to have that report come back. Trusting that staff are prioritizing it. They're putting their due diligence in. They've heard the feedback from the public. They've heard the feedback from committee and council members. Uh I think for the next term of council, it would be important to get a rollup summary of what were we able to accomplish in terms of that real-time data that our public is relying on. So, um through you, I'd move that and look to councelor Crutch to be the seconder. Okay. Um, so we have a mover and secondary. Just want to be clear that the clerk has captured that and staff are aligned and able to deliver. >> I have that we have a report back in the new term of council about the fall 2026 service level impacts HSR2602. >> Yeah. And specifically there uh if I could vice chair it's um on the public feed correction. >> Okay. Just looking at staff and any feedback for clarity. Director Per. So through through the through the chair given the length of time to get a report um through onto an agenda um it may be coming back um not the first meeting um but I will endeavor to have it back by January of 2027. >> Okay, we'll put January 2027 as the updated timeline. Are there any speakers? Councelor Wilson, you have the floor. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. I My apologies. I I just want to make sure I'm fully understanding uh the expectation here. So, Councelor Nan uh is requesting that staff report back to the new council uh to provide an update similar to the one that was provided today. And we've heard from director Perser uh that that update would be offered most likely in January. Is that what I've heard? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. I I guess I want to make sure that I clearly understand the distinction between uh this direction which I support of course and uh kind of the capacity I think on an essential service like this that this will not preclude uh the corporation and staff from clearly communicating to transit users and residents in the intim of any course corrections or updates on um how the service is um moving along on that to f to fill that 1% and the communication piece. Just trying to make sure I understand. >> Yeah. So, director Per, would you like to comment? >> Yes. So, uh through the chair that this we will move forward, we'll make the corrections. They'll be put in place as soon as we know what they are. um and we will communicate it out to our customers. The the report time frame is just the amount of time it's going to take to actually get it on an agenda. That's why we're asking for January, but the corrections will ma made as we find the solutions. >> Thank you. If I may, would those corrections be reported to the users and the public via a communication update which does not require a standing committee to receive it or how how is that going to be done? uh through through the chair, we'll work with uh through commun uh corporate communications to determine the best way um to get it out into the public realm. >> Thanks very much. >> Okay, I don't see any further speakers, so we will go to the vote hand. It's just a hand vote. Clerk is Yeah. Okay. Just a hand vote. Show of hands. All those in favor? And that looks like everybody that carries and I'll give the chair back to you. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. Um, next up we have 7.6, which is the waste management subcommittee minutes. Any discussion on those? Seeing none, then uh the remaining items that were indicated from 7.2 through to 7.6 are before committee for receipt. And that's show a hand to receive the information reports. And that's a hand vote. Councelor Tatison or McMe also in favor. And that carries. All right. Uh on now to continue with our items for consideration. Next up is 9.2 PW26080 new signal installation agreement at Dundust Street and Karns Road in Ward 15. May I please have a mover and seconder. Thank you, Councelor McMe, seconded by Councelor Alex Wilson. Um, first up we have Councelor McMe. >> Yes. Thanks, Chair. And very briefly, I just want to say uh uh I'm really delighted to see this. This has been a a bone of contention for some time, well over a year. Um and uh several interim steps and studies have been done to see if it mandates and it clearly now does. It's a wonderful example of Hamilton and Burlington working together. Um it uh will tie in ultimately with some of the new development that we approved uh at the planning uh uh committee. There's not yet a the connector road is not yet going to Karns. It will eventually be another road and that light there will help that in advance of that development will help mitigate some of the uh anticipated chaos that could occur as a result. So I'm really pleased to see it necessary. There have been some fatalities there and uh this will hopefully uh go a long way to solving those problems. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor McMegan. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, then uh the item is before committee for electronic vote. And that carries. Thank you. on to 9.3 PW26087 which is our interimm master servicing strategy report for water wastewater storm water systems and I'd like to call on uh director Winters director of Hamilton water to provide an overview and introduction. Thank you. >> Thank you chair. So, the integrated master servicing strategy has been a multi-year study originally initiated in 2017 to update the city's water, wastewater, and storm water master plans and establish an integrated servicing strategy to support growth through to 201. The original intent was to complete this as a comprehensive master plan under the municipal class environmental assessment process. What made this study particularly challenging was the amount of uncertainty and around growth planning in Hamilton. Over the course of the study, there were changes in both provincial and municipal planning direction, including changes to the urban boundary planning scenario and updated growth forecasts. Because growth assumptions are the foundation for determining infrastructure requirements, the study had to evolve as those decisions changed. The study was then transition to an interm servicing strategy. The IMSS still provides the technical outcomes we would expect from a master plan, including preferred servicing strategies and a long-term capital program, but it was completed outside of the municipal class environmental assessment process. Any individual project that requires an environmental assessment will still go through the applicable project specific process as it advances. The inter master servicing strategy is based on the current no urban boundary expansion growth scenario and identifies the infrastructure required to support growth within the existing urban boundary through 2031, 2041 and 201. It's important to emphasize that this is a planning document. It's not a construction uh it's not construction or funding approval. It identifies infrastructure requirements at a master planning level, but individual projects will still require project specific assessment, environmental approvals where applicable, detailed design, and council approved funding before they proceed. The study identifies approximately 181 projects across water, wastewater, and storm water with combined master level costs of approximately 3.23 billion. That figure is a long-term planning estimate. It's not currently programmed in the capital budget. It's not a request for immediate funding. Project costs, timing, and funding will be refined as individual projects advanced. Finally, because growth planning will continue to evolve, the interim master servicing strategy should be viewed as a current technical roadmap and baseline for future infrastructure planning rather than a permanent servicing commitment for every future growth scenario. Areas affected by subsequent changes to the urban boundary or growth allocations will need to be reassessed through future master planning work. Ultimately, the interm servicing strategy provides Hamilton water with a framework to plans for the city plan for the city's future growth while also addressing the capacity, reliability, and resiliency of our existing water wastewater storm water systems. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, committee members. Any questions on the report recommendations? >> Okay, we are in uh abance because we lost quorum with councelor McMaken leaving. Uh so if anybody Yep. Councelor uh councelor Crutch. >> Yeah, I'll move that we have a fivem minute recess. All we can do >> Well, uh how about as the chair, I'll say we're taking a fivem minute recess to restore quorum. Thanks for that. Uh nudge nudge. There we We're in a fiveminute recess. >> Look at that. Okay. So, the report remains uh moved and seconded. Did I do that? Now I'm all Now I'm all discombobulated. All right. Thank you. I need a mover and seconder for this report. Councelor Crutch, Councelor Huang, thank you both. This is item 9.3. Councelor Spataphora. Uh so it's before you for electronic vote. And thank you again, Director Winters, for the overview. Appreciated that. That carries. All right. on to uh 9.3A which is the correspondence. We just need to move to receive it. So we'll keep the same mover and seconder. Show a hands. All those in favor of receiving the correspondence and with a little twinkle head that carries. On to 9.4 PW26093 primary clarifiers gallery 1 through8 and scum building upgrades in the Woodward wastewater treatment plant. May I please have a mover and secondary to put the report on the floor? Councelor Hang. Second by councelor Crutch. Um, and we do have director available to answer your questions. First up is councelor Hang. Thanks, councelor Crush. Director Winters, why the discrepancy in the original scope number versus the lowest bid number? So, how did we get to that point? Why? Because that's 4 million, just under five million plus a contingency difference. So why are we so off? >> So through the chair um I'll just mention briefly uh that this is a it's a complicated time for receiving uh bids or projecting budget estimates for capital infrastructure. Um given the um challenges economically, trade and tariffs uh by Canadian, we are absolutely seeing impacts uh of that economic uncertainty showing up in our bid processes. when anytime Hamilton Water uh issues a capital construction project uh similar to engineering services and I mentioned that because audit finance administration committee heard yesterday about the the the process for getting to uh budget estimates. We follow the same process and we do have a class A or certified construction cost estimate uh from our prime consultants prior to issuing um our construction tenders and and so that is as confident as we can get. Uh what we're seeing here is market influence um and and the reflection of that economic uncertainty. Uh with that said, um we did receive two bids on this project from two of the best contractors in the business. Um and as the report indicates, uh they were very close. Um which gives us a great degree of confidence that we are getting good value uh via the the award that we're recommending to proceed. Okay. In your opinion, we have we have lots of these ongoing sort of bids and tenders and that sort of thing. Are we going to see this come up again where we're going to have such a mismatch between what was scoped versus what was bid on? >> So, through the chair, uh the short answer is yes. Um and so just a point of clarification though, um and and maybe this was clear, the scope of the project hasn't changed. um it's it's our estimated cost for that scope versus the bids that came in. Um but yes, we do expect to see that continue. Um project cost estimating uh has always been uh we try to make it as much of a science as we can. Um but it is an art. Um and sometimes we see uh benefits where uh given availability of of um local contractor work and things like that, we see bids come in lower or or point in time material costs. Um but there is always a risk that we are going to see uh project bids coming in above and beyond our estimates. And we do we do expect to see across the public works infrastructure port portfolio. can tell you that more scenarios where estimates come in or excuse me bid amid amounts come in beyond our estimates uh in the coming years until we do see some of the economic uncertainty uh disappear. >> Okay. Um I guess the question is will our reserves be robust enough to handle these shifts and these uh sort of estimates >> through the chair. I don't know that I can answer that one. Um I can tell you that this is the reason one of the reasons why reserves do exist uh for scenarios where um you do have bids coming in. I mean there's other always other alternatives to uh not spend uh the money by reducing scope on projects and things like that. Uh this is a scenario where we would not recommend that. There may be scenarios in the future where we do recommend um as opposed to dipping into reserves to fully award a project that there be a scope adjustment uh instead. But ultimately the question about uh reserve values and and whether there's enough padding there um likely a corporate services uh question. Oh, I'm sorry. Acting uh general manager uh Graham's got her hand up >> through the chair uh Cynthia Graham today. Acting general manager of public works. I just want to preface that um Director Winters um is an expert in his field of water and wastewater treatment facilities and and that um scope of work. I just would caution that his prognostications be specific to his line of work and not necessarily impact to the city of the as a whole. And um if there's further questions with respect to trade and tariff impacts on citywide projects that that might be better answered by um our financial services staff members. Thanks. >> Thank you uh acting general manager and thank you director. I think that for me I just um I'm concerned because again we're we're receiving this and like the very last public works meeting. um feasibly we would start to see some of this also get reflected into the 2027 budget process. So it's just one of those things where um $6 million is a fair distance between what was originally estimated versus what we got. So I think that that's where I'm kind of curious about how we would match this into our um existing reserve strategies and all of that stuff. So okay, I just wanted to flag that. Thank you so much and thank you for the hard work. Thank you. >> Thank you. Seeing no further questions, it's been moved and seconded before committee for electronic vote. Councelor McMan's back in the room. Thumbs up by councelor A. Wilson. And that carries. Thank you. on to 9.5 which is amendments to our OBL mover and seconder for these amendments. Not everybody at once. Uh thank you councelor Alex Wilson councelor Spaphora. Um any discussion on the outstanding business list items? Seeing none then it's before committee for electronic vote. That carries. Thank you. Uh, next up we have motions. First up is 10.1 major infrastructure project delivery team. Council Bradaphora, if you could please introduce your motion and your seconder, please. >> Thank you. Uh, Chair Nan, I have to apologize. I I was a little uh little late to this one. I I it's moved by myself. I I forgot to find a seconder. I see Moren Wilson. I don't know if she's given the peace sign like I should peace out or if she's willing to second the motion, but >> concurrences both. >> All right. Peace out. Um thank you for that. And I'm not going to go through um everywhere as um you know I first off before I read the motion I want to thank staff uh GM uh Hollingsworth, GM Kennedy uh I think Jim Zarrick and whatever other directors and staff that that helped with this motion and and the crux of it is uh with the program coming out of the federal and provincial government development charge reductions program and the 572 million that the um the city is going to receive. Um this is basically a motion um instructing GM Kennedy working in collaboration with the GM of playing and actev and the general manager of finance corporate services to establish and lead a major projects delivery team dedicated to advancing the infrastructure projects associated with the infrastructure projects that are included in the DC reduction program application. The major projects delivery team be comprised of three FTEs for engineering services design recommended as part of FCS260 as well as dedicated staff for procurement legal services, real estate, financial planning and corporate communications with the staffing complement associated operating costs to be referred to the 2027 tax operating budget process for consideration. that staff be direct to develop a detailed staffing plan for the major projects delivery team, including opportunities utilize existing staffing resources and report back to PW on its proposed composition in Q4 2026 in advance of the 2027 tax operating budget process and that the GM of public works be authorized to retain any external major project procurement and delivery advisor where the required expertise is not available internally through a competitive process conducted in accordance with the city's procurement policy and funded from within the approved capital budgets of the associated projects. That the major projects team deliver be directed to identify opportunities to accelerate design, engineering approvals, procurement, tendering, and construction. And to that end to evaluate on a project by project basis, the procurement and project delivery model best suited to each of the approved works including the conventional design bid build approach as well as the alternative models such as design build and progressive design build approaches. that the infrastructure projects associated with the four approved DCRP applications be treated as priority corporate projects with the major projects delivery team serving as a central point of coordination across city departments and that the major project delivery team be directed to establish an expedited procurement and project delivery schedule for each approved infrastructure project including clearly defined target dates for completion of design, engineering approvals, preparation and issuance of procurement documents, evaluation of submissions, contract award and commencement of construction and that any delay of more than 90 days from an established target be reported to the PW committee through the existing capital project reporting cycle together with the reason for the delay and the actions being taken to mitigate it and that the general manager of public works be direct to report back to public works committee no later than Q1 2027 with a project management plan for each approved DCP project that includes how the project will be executed, procurement and delivery model, a detailed Implementation plan identifying clearly defined target dates for completion of design and engineering construction start completion dates required approvals project financing plans and project controls resourcing and I I don't have anything to add. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh we do have a speaker list. First up we have councelor Alex Wilson. >> Um thank you chair. Apologies. I do have quite a few questions on this motion and just trying to understand the outcome. But I first just want to flag I think there's an air in sub clause B. Um it's not a big one but it does matter. Um the report should just have an A at it. So it's FCS 26063A. Their report referenced is from a couple months prior and makes no mention of staffing. And so that was just a bit of a confusion for me was going where are these staff resources? Um so thanks to staff who were able to connect me with the right report. It's very similarly named. That helped a lot on some of the clarification. Um, but I'm just a little confused here because and it just comes down to where the commas go. But there is no major projects delivery office or team that's been a previously approved. And I think depending on where you put the pause in that B, it makes it seem like the office has been previously approved and now this is going forward. But it's just the staff positions that have been previously approved. So I'm just trying to get an understanding. Previously when we've done a restructuring for the organization, we've asked what's the best how should we do this work? We've asked the question, there's been a recommendation and then we adopt that recommendation for how to change the work plan or staff asked in supporting with this motion to say, "Hey, I want to make this go faster." Or were staff asked to come up with a major project's delivery team because I'm just trying to understand where that idea of a major project's delivery team came from. I could see merit in it, but I just don't know how that idea has been evaluated and this report doesn't necessarily clarify that for me. So, I understand the three staffing resources are previously approved, but this seems to be almost a different deployment of them or a somewhat different deployment. Um, can you can staff maybe comment who's supported with the motion? Um, I'm just trying to understand basically where where is maybe the mover's direction coming from versus where is a staff direction coming from. >> U through the chair to the c uh counselor. Thank you for your question. as a major project's delivery team has always been a topic of discussion within engineering services. Um the report tell uh is instructing engineering services to plan that major projects team out for only the rightway projects and that's the intent of the report. The report uh sorry intent of the motion and the motion also look is asking engineering services to propose a project management plan on how these projects are getting delivered through that team. Uh you also mentioned there was a previous report that was done. Uh that report authorized engineering services to hire a senior project manager which u is which can be done as effective as of uh in 2026 and two additional FTEES through uh to go through the budget of 2027. >> Thank you. So through the chair, when we originally approved these recommendations, staff had a plan to achieve the work. Staff were not saying, "We think we're going to be late with the work. We think we're going to be slow with it. We think we need to do the work in a different way to meet the timelines associated with this major project." So that's just where I'm trying to get the understand. I'm not opposed to a major project's delivery team whatsoever. But this is a motion to say, "Hey, we had a plan to achieve those work." And I didn't hear staff say, "We are concerned that the plan we've proposed isn't going to get the job done in time, and now we're recommending staff come back with additional resources to get the job done. And I'm just trying to clarify what the problem statement we're trying to solve is." Like, did was there a concern with getting these projects done based on the original um proposal and that's why we need additional resources or additional structuring? Is this just a sympathetic evolution? This is kind of the direction we're already heading and this just is kind of harmonious. I'm just trying to get some of that flavor if that makes sense of where we're going with this. >> Okay, so the bench is pointing to the screen. On the screen I see councelor Spaphora. Um but I also recognize that um acting general manager of planning and economic development is on the screen. So I'm going to go to you first, Brian. >> Yeah through through the chair. Um thanks for the question councelor Wilson. Um I think I understand the essence of your question is how how did we arrive at this motion and I would say that it it has been in development for for a while. Um even even perhaps prior to the um the announcement for the development charges reduction uh program. uh that that program as as is now widely public um has the city delivering over a half a billion dollars worth of infrastructure in the next 10 years. And yes, yes, those projects are all in their capital plan and all in our capital plan. And yes, they've all been been programmed by years, but I I don't know that the city's ever um tackled such a large suite of infrastructure projects. Um so I think uh safe to say I in in my previous role as director of engineering services and now acting general manager it it was uh fortuitous that the the counselor and staff kind of came to the same realization uh about the idea of a major project team so that we're not spreading resources amongst many projects and and this will allow us to really really focus on these projects. Thanks >> through the chair if I can. I just want to pause because I know that I have other questions, but I don't know if anyone else is on the list. >> Um, yep. So, I'll I'll honor your pause there and recognize councelor Spapora. >> Thanks, Shar. Just I I didn't know if Councelor Wilson wanted me to give sort of where I I was coming from. the motion when I brought the motion forward uh to staff to talk to them about their thoughts on the motion. Um like the G acting GM said there were there was already some conversations happening. For me uh the reason I brought the motion for it is uh $600 million in uh infrastructure that needs to be built um in a certain period of time. Um, you know, no one take this personally, but our completion rate in the city of Hamilton is not something that we can sit here and put our stake in the ground to say we got this. Here's the here's our, you know, here's the the data that shows we can do this. Um, you know, we've we've done some good projects. We've we've, you know, had some bumps in the road on others. um this $600 million infrastructure program that we need to deliver needs dedicated attention in order to us we can't miss the completion dates we can't find bumps in the road we need to deliver and I think for me the reason for the motion was to ensure that I think this does that it allows us to have eyes on it and proper I think um resources and sort of scope of work on how we're going to communicate also with council and the public um if we're delayed, missing targets, all those sorts of things. So, that was my reasoning for for preparing the motion. Hope that helps. Councelor, >> thank you. Councelor Spaphora. Back to speakers the second time. Councelor Alex Wilson. >> Thank you. Just a couple other just again like housekeeping questions. I really appreciate that again why this is coming forward and that answers I think the biggest part of my question which is like where's like the how piece and did we review this is this kind of coming from staff as a result of continuous improvement or is this you know more externalized and there can be value in both but just trying to understand the decision-m was helpful u my other questions are really just housekeeping related making sure we're I understand what's happening next so in BNC it talks about the budget process uh these three FTEEs have already been previously approved and referred to the 2027 budget process but my understanding of reading B and C together just seeking confirmation is that staff are going to propose additional staff resources. And then C says, but please try and keep those internal if possible. And so, uh, B and C read together means there's a potential to have, um, an increased staffing recommendation request come forward in the budget process as a result of this motion. Where possible, staff will look at internal resources as part of making that request. But we're setting up a major projects delivery team, and you're going to make recommendations in the budget process about how to staff that >> uh, through the chair to the council. That is correct. Uh so three FTEES were approved through the FCS26063A mot uh report and the intent here is for staff to take back and come back with a plan if we do require more FTEES and come through be referred to the 2027 tax operating budget for any FTE considerations. >> Thank you. Um, and then that gets into I think what is maybe my last question, which is um I'm looking at the original approval in that and it says that they're approved but referred to the 2027 budget process. And then this motion is saying referred to the 2027 budget process. And so the very last piece of this is around timing. And so I'm seeing here that staff are being directed to report back in no later than Q1 of 2027. So, the end of March 2027, but there's a chance that our budget and therefore all of those referred staff won't be actually approved until about six weeks prior. Um, is 6 weeks enough to hire on board and then evaluate and report back on all of these pieces? I'm just trying to understand how these things will be staggered given final budget approval won't likely happen till midFebruary. Um, does that impact some of the timelines later on? >> Uh, through the chair to the counselor. Thank you for your question. Uh the intent is to first create the project management plan and uh figure out the resource constraints that we will be facing through this. We already have uh done a lot of pre-work on the positions that we want to get to. So those positions are framed uh job descriptions are ready. So once we get the main person which is the senior project manager hired the intent is to quickly start moving on uh these hirings and getting these projects rolled in. >> Hope that answers. >> Thank you. What does prioritizing a project mean in terms of outcome? Is it just that we all understand it's like a bigger priority? Does it mean that there's more staff time associated like operationally? What is the impact? One of the clauses says that these projects be seen as municipal priorities. I'm just trying to understand what is the outcome of passing that legisl passing that sub clause. >> Perfect. Uh through the chair to the counselor. Uh when we talk about prioritizing projects uh especially DCP uh the intent is for all divisions to look at these projects as a priority project. If there uh to be very rudimentary, if there's an email that comes to your inbox that says uh for one of the projects, for example, Rhymeal Road, please pay attention to that. So that is uh making it a priority for engineering services and a priority for public works. >> Thank you. I this is actually my last question, I promise. Um and this is the one about uh authorization to retain an external um consultant if deemed required. Um my understanding I'm just it's a question about the delegated authority. Is approval required? Um do staff already have that authority to uh seek a consultant if they need to? Because it says up to the procurement policy already. So I'm wondering just how does that impact existing delegated authority um that that staff member may already have to hire a consultant if deemed necessary? I think uh the uh the motion directs staff to um move ahead and hire and start having that conversation within the requirement policies of policy 11 uh through procurement. So, um I can I can look back and get back to you counselor on this question, but I uh to answer your question, uh the motion itself directs staff that they can reach out to consultants and get feedback on what would be the best way to deliver these projects. >> Thank you. I think I'm just trying to understand, isn't that discretion that you have already on any project? Like if you said, "Hey, we don't have the internal advice needed up to a specific sum. We have the delegated authority to reach out to a consultant. If it's more than that, we have to go through the internal process. Maybe it comes to council. I'm just Are we changing approval limits or is this just kind of giving you approval to do something you're already approved to do, but we're naming it as it might happen so it's more visible? Maybe. That's all I'm just trying to understand >> through the chair to the counselor. That is correct. We do have authority to reach out uh till uh through our roster process to consultants up to 150. So, this is just directing us to do that. >> Thank you. Um those were all my questions about the motion. Thank you, Councelor Alex Wilson. That um I I'll pass the chair to Vice Chair Casar. >> Go ahead. >> On item G in the motion, um there's reference to uh reporting back through the public works committee through an existing capital project reporting cycle if one of those projects is anticipated to be delayed by more than 90 days. Could I just get through you clarity from staff? So currently uh if there is a 90day delay or plus there's no requirement to report to public works committee. Correct. >> Through the chair that is correct. >> Yeah. And so when there's a reference here through you about an existing capital project's reporting cycle, I'm just trying to understand that because if there's no current existing reporting cycle, if you could just shed some clarity around the process of this, I'm just want to really clearly understand it. Thank you. >> So through the chair, this makes staff more accountable. uh if there is a delay on the project for 90 days, the staff will be reporting back to council and providing explanation why the projects are being delayed. >> Okay, great. Uh really happy to see that clause. Uh G is really important. Uh I know that many of the counselor's offices are often in communication back and forth with our capital works um coordinating staff. uh that information isn't always made public and that's where we can kind of get into the rub sometimes uh vice chair because we do our best and staff do their best to answer those questions but it would really help eliminate that back and forth uh if this if this is approved um by way of a public report through public works committee that we can then reference with our public but also give our residents a chance to come down and delegate to inquire further about those those major projects. Uh, so appreciating item G in the motion. No further questions and I'll take back the chair. Uh, seeing nobody else on the speakers list, the motion is before committee for approval. Electronic vote, please. Councelor McMon, the computer's up. Excellent. Thank you. That carries. On to 10.2, which is a request to appoint a facilitator to improve the discussion with the nations for the East West Road Corridor and Water Down bypass. Um, Councelor McMan, if you could introduce your motion and your seconder. >> Yes. Thanks, Chair. Moved by myself, seconded by Councelor Casar. uh and I've been requested by a couple members not to read the whole thing. So I I'll respect that. But uh it's a request to appoint a facilitator to improve the discussions with the nations related to the east west road corridor affectionately and lovingly referred to as the watered down bypass. And uh if I can just speak to it, maybe that'll it essentially acknowledges that there have been difficulties moving forward with the project that was deemed to be essential to the health and welfare of the community and would have been very helpful had when the bridge, Parkside Drive, and Waterdown Road and number six and five were all being dug up at the same time. Um anyhow in 2030 people will come together and the kids will be riding their bikes across the highway to the new rec center and everything will be wonderful. But in the meantime um I hear a lot as the counselor about the frustration and the chaos which is uh rapidly sorting itself out. A big part of that is the uh is the major project. I think it in the capital budget it continually appears. I think it's a $59 million project. It's a major project. Um it was uh launched in 2012. Um properties have been acquired. Uh about uh two about a third of the road has been paved with developer funds. Um, and then suddenly it just came to a stop. And uh, I don't think there's been two weeks go by in the last three years where the I haven't had conversations with public works about where we're at. U, one week it's very encouraging, two weeks later it's very discouraging, a month later it's very encouraging. Uh the reality is we need to move this forward and um and so the uh suggestion by the way public works and our indigenous office work together to write this motion. I did not write it um is to u appoint a facilitator and uh to try to get this sorted out. I would just flag that when I had the privilege in what now appears to be a previous lifetime as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, on two occasions, there were significant and important um uh issues that needed to be sorted out between our indigenous friends and a municipality. In both instances, we appointed a facilitator and both instances a solution was found and embraced and um not wanting necessarily to tie the province up in this, it just made more sense to our public works staff to do this locally. So that's the motion. Hope everybody supports it because we need to move forward with it. >> Thank you, Councelor McMaken. Uh no further speakers on the motion. So it's before committee for electronic vote please >> that carries. Thank you. Uh I got distracted there. Thank you, councelor. Uh any notices of motion on this very last public works committee meeting? No. Okay, good. Uh so with no further agenda items, we are officially uh journed. Thank you to the entire public works division to the public works committee and to the clerk's team. Uh it's been a privilege being your chair over this little period of time. Uh bye.