Okay, I think we're going to get started here. Welcome back everyone to the 3:30 p.m. portion of our meeting of uh May 11th, 2026. Um the first thing I'd like to do is um make a territorial a territorial acknowledgement and just do a little bit differently today um to think about both a land and water acknowledgement. Um over the last two weeks I've been um conferencing as is what happens in in May and June every year. Uh all the conferences seem to happen at that time. And so uh the week before last I was in Ottawa for an oceans north um workshop where we talked about uh source water to sea and then last week was at the Great Lakes St. Lawrence cities initiative which is an economic development conference uh focused on the Great Lakes and how to um do both uh sustainable economic development and guarantee the the future of generations to come. And so in as part of that it had me reflecting a lot about the decisions that we make about land and water and really central to um the Haldderman treaty which is the land promised in perpetuity to the u six nations of the Grand River is uh OC Ganyan Haraji in Hodnosoni. It's it's um that's the name that they use for the the Grand River in Anesnab. it would be um a wash zippy and it's 10 kilometers on each side of the river and I think the thing that is truly remarkable about this river is that it is really part of the heartland of southwestern Ontario land that has been settled for thousands of years u by different groups of of indigenous peoples. the the traditional territory of the Chonatan peoples originally honosonyi peoples and um it's to this day supporting 50 communities in terms of drinking water u 10% of the farmland in Ontario uh runs off into the grand river and the quality of the grand river is so important because it supports uh where we live the enjoyability you know if If you go over to the Great Silos Golf Course and walk along the river, you're seeing lots of wildlife. Um, it brings peace to people. Um, they make their livelihoods by the river. They depend on the river for economic activity. And the Grand River flows directly into Lake Erie. Lake Erie is part of the uh Great Lakes watershed uh which supports 40 million people in terms of drinking water. It's uh the world's third largest economy. It's a $9 trillion economy and um so you can see how there's a a really massive feedback loop between the land, the water, and the decisions that we make living here. And so as we enter into this conversation um today, this council meeting that involves a lot of decisions about land use, how we build um how we support economic development in our community. I just uh wish us all to be mindful of the relationship that we have to to nature and the dependence that we have to our watershed. And I also want to um move on to a moment of reflection. Um at the beginning of this council meeting, we paused to think about the needs of our community and may we show wisdom and compassion in all our decisions. Uh the next item on our agenda is the disclosure of pecuniary interest and the general nature of council. Is there anyone that uh has anything that they want to share? No. Okay. Thank you. We will move on to the approval of minutes. Um these are the minutes from March 30th, 2026 and April 13, 2026. Do we have a mover for that? That's councelor Hammer. A seconder, councelor Bodley. All in favor? That is unanimous. Thank you very much. Uh item seven on our agenda is the consent motion. So we have a couple of items AB and C. Is there anyone that would like to remove an item from the consent agenda for discussion? Seeing none, I will just look for a mover for the consent agenda. That's councelor Vasic, seconded by councelor Row. All in favor? That is unanimous. Thank you very much. And we are on to our staff reports. So we have item nine, uh, allocation of 2025 surplus. And, uh, there's no presentation, but Paul Hedena is here to answer any of our questions. Council, do you have questions for Paul? And Brad is joining him there at the table. Just wondering if we have any any questions. No one. Okay. I think we are going straight to the motion here. We have four recommend. Oh, no. We have six recommendations here. Um, does anybody want to pull a particular recommendation for further discussion? No. Okay, we can move them as a whole. Uh, do we have a mover? Councelor Bodley is moving. Seconded by councelor Roach. And all in favor? We are unanimous. Thank you very much, council. We are moving fast today. Okay, we're on to automated speed enforcement update and trafficcoming plan. And that's uh we have Bob Henderson and Ansley Rigo and our Justin Armstrong at the table. Okay. Uh and I don't believe there's a presentation for this one as well. We're just answering questions. Council, do you have Okay. Go ahead, Council Broadley. Uh thank you through your chair right. Um I appreciate that the um the report that's coming forward with uh proposed recommendations for traffic calming in some of our neighborhoods is being driven by uh legislative changes from the province related to uh automated speed enforcement. And I don't want to adjudicate provincial decisions, but um I am curious because at least in my ward, one of the proposals is to put uh speed bumps on Laurwood Drive and from St. Nicholas School, which is where uh camera was previously. Um, I want to highlight that that area of the city was the most uh complained about area of my ward uh in my first term in a bit on council until we put in the speed camera there and then virtually all of my complaints around how fast cars were driving on that street disappeared. Um and so now the province is asking us to consider vertical deflection or speed bumps um as part of trafficcoming plans in some of these areas. But historically putting speed bumps or vertical deflection on roads like that like Laurawood which are major collector road which are bus route um has uh been uh not looked upon as a strong uh decision point for the city to consider. Um, and so it is my understanding that staff are not really considering vertical deflection on major collector roads outside of school zones. And I'm wondering if you can highlight for us why staff don't consider it on other major collection roads, collector roads, so that we can maybe review or talk about some of the potential concerns that might emerge from uh the uh implementation of vertical deflection on this street. >> Thank you. uh through you uh councelor Bodley to the chair. Um we're we're considering considering um vertical deflection in school zones for a number of reasons. One because of ASA being removed. Two because uh through the speed management program that council approved uh a number of years ago. We've also reduced the the speed limit in school zones to 30 kilometers an hour. So in light of the loss of ASSE and the fact that we've reduced speeds down to 30 kilometers an hour, we feel that vertical deflection as being funded by the the province of Ontario is is the right way to go. Um as you mentioned, it's been a source of complaints in your area and we expect that the complaints will be driven accordingly if we don't take any measures in school zones. So um school zones are the focus of this this program. Outside of school zone, speeds remain on major collectors uh 50 kilometers an hour and we don't feel that vertical deflection is appropriate in those zones. >> Thank you. Uh just as a followup to you, Chair Wright. So, um, historically, some of the concerns around putting speed bumps on those roads are not just about where the speed limits are, or correct me if I'm what the speed limits are. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some of the impact that it could have, uh, in terms of, uh, driver flow, in terms of, um, uh, snow clearing, uh, equipment, in terms of buses, um, etc. And I'm wondering if maybe you could speak to that for me. >> Thank you. through through you again to to the chair. The the design that we're considering for major and minor collectors is a design that's conducive to larger vehicles, snow plowing. Um we have two separate designs uh for major collector roads versus local local roads and they're two different designs that are conducive to each environment. We feel that um with working with our our partners in fire and GRT as well as our engineering folks that our design is appropriate for this this situation. >> Thank you counselor. Are there other questions? Okay, I do have one question or two questions really. Um, so I know when we have uh pursued the pedestrian crossovers, uh, I think last year we were um, found that they were more expensive than we had initially anticipated and budgeted for. And so I'm just curious how the raised crosswalks and um, and the speed bumps planned in this mitigation effort might be affected by similar financial conditions. >> Thank you. through through you uh uh chair right um we are uh we've we've taken the the information that we had last year through our our traffic comment program and looked at costs of our traffic caling program and feel that the the the costs are in line with this year as well. In fact um over the last couple years capital construction works have we we've been receiving uh tenders lower than than staff estimates. So we feel that this program will see that benefit to this year as well with respect to level two pedestrian crossovers. Uh specifically this program is is not necessarily looking at those measures as as funded through the province. However, um the the noted uh increases that you saw and experienced with uh level two pedesturing crossovers was associated with electronics equipment and solar panels and things like that, not necessarily concrete. >> Thank you for that. And then um just wanted to also ask about the regional council uh meeting of May 5th that's referenced in the council package uh where part of the funding is dependent on uh region's decisions and so I just wondered if you might comment on that as well. >> Yes, thank you uh for the question. uh regional uh the sustainable committee uh of infrastructure and development recently approved that report that went to council about the distributions of funds not only associated with the automated speed enforcement net revenues that they collected but also uh the RIFF funding through phase one and two that the the province is managing and and dispersing has all been approved by the the sustainability committee. And so we anticipate that the round one A R A R A R A R A R A R A R A R A R A RF funding that's going to uh fund this program the the four locations in these school zones this year um will be available to the city hopefully by the end of the month or early June. Um as for ASSE uh net revenues, we're not quite sure when that money will be dispersed. It's my understanding that the region is still collecting unpaid fines, so the final totals aren't quite known yet. Um, and with respect to uh the ARIFF funding round two allocation, uh that is an application process that we're going to work with the region together on and apply for this year and in hopes of receiving the available funding for 2027. uh the timelines that the ministry has put on us to to um construct these measures uh is aggressive uh is quite aggressive. We need to get the the projects done and completed by March 31st, 2028. So, we're going to figure out what our program next year looks like and how aggressive we can get with that program, but we're hoping to cover off uh several school zones. It would be great to cover off all of them if that's possible by 2028. Um, and it's our vision that uh the plans for the remaining school zones are similar to to what we're proposing this year. Um, that could change based on the aggressiveness of the schedule. But >> thank you for that. And then I just have one last question about um McGregor Senior Public Schools. So, I know in the past there have been conversations about should uh Central Street ever be rebuilt that a um a bus bay or something similar uh could be considered uh in the design process. And obviously, these two things don't line up. And so I'm just wondering um where where we're in a situation where we're um looking at prioritizing mitigation, near-term mitigation, because these are the incentives that are now available to us through the province. Um what could the knock-on impacts be for say actually achieving some of these really safe initiatives like getting the bus off the street where there's a ton of parked cars? >> Thank you for the question. So obviously very two separate programs. Uh we would have to work with our partners in engineering to to figure out the coordination between the two. Um with bus laybys um that's a reconstruction project. So my understanding is Central Street is up for resurfacing and uh we would have to talk to our engineering partners uh to figure out if a layby is possible. Um, layby are interesting because they're they're they're a situation that is being requested typically by the school. Um, we can take that information and take it back and and work with our partners to see if that makes sense. >> Okay. Thanks for that. I'd be happy to um talk more about that with the school principal as well in the in the broader neighborhood. They they've been really advocating for that for quite a long time. Um, okay. So, we have three recommendations here. Um, and I'm just looking to council. Um, okay. So, we have a mover. Councelor Row, seconded by councelor Bassik. All in favor? That is unanimous. Thank you very much. Okay, we are on to item C, award of tender for Laurel Creek Sanitary Pumping Station. And uh, are there questions for staff here? No. Are we ready to move this one? Okay, we have moved by councelor Bodley. Do we have a second? And councelor Row is seconding it. All in favor? That is unanimous. Thank you very much. And we are on to item D, development charge section 27 agreement for 85 Bridgeport Road East. Uh are there any questions for staff on this one? No. Do we have a mover for the council row? And do we have a second? Councelor Bodley. All in favor? That is unanimous. All right. We are through this portion of the meeting. So, we are going to recess until 6:30 p.m. Thank you everybody. This was efficient business.