Sound check. One, two, three. Sound check. One, two, three. Hello. Indeed. Hello and welcome to the downtown subcommittee for Tuesday, October 6th. I'm chair of the subcommittee or two city councelor Cameron Crutch. joined today in council chambers by members of the committee Karen Row, Elizabeth Wakeford, Vice Chair Susie Braithweight, Megan Edmonds, and joined by non- voting members in the room, Antto and Reno Mazik representing the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce and Annas representing the Beasley Neighborhood Association online, councelor Morin Wilson, member Ryan Moran, and joining us from the Duran Neighborhood Association, Christine Sandor. Thanks for being here, everybody. We'll get started right now by saying there's no ceremonial activities, but I need a mover and second to approve the agenda for today's meeting. Moved by member Wakeford, seconded by Vice Chair Braithweight. Any discussion about today's agenda? I'm not seeing any. So, all those who are voting members, raise your hand in support of the agenda. That's everyone. Thank you. Now, we're on to the adoption. Oh, sorry. Declarations of conflicts of interest. Does anybody have one to declare? I'm not seeing anything. So, we'll get on to the adoption of the minutes our previous meeting August the 13, 2026. Can I have a mover and second to adopt the minutes from our previous meeting? Moved by member Edmonds, second by member Wakeford. Any call-ins about the minutes? Not seeing any. So, by show of hands, all those who are voting members in favor. That's everyone. Thank you so much. That carries. There are no delegations for today's meeting, but so I'll move right into items for information. First one is peed 26183. It's an update on the 10-year downtown Hamilton revitalization strategy. And I'm just going to turn my head to the side here wondering if there's going to be anyone who's giving a presentation or an overview. I don't see one in the notes, so I don't think so. But the word update implies there's a written a written information here, but I'm just wondering if anyone's going to be doing anything else besides that. Not seeing that. So, I think it's open for the floor to ask questions of the information that's been provided on the 10-year downtown Hamilton revitalization strategy. So, I'm looking around everyone. Anyone have any questions about it? Okay. Well, I'll ask one. So, I'll pass the chair to vice chair Braithweight about it. So, I understand the financial commitment that's here, specifically the $1 million that's committed annually, that's not going to be enough to do the 10 years worth of planning. And right now, the costed plan, as far as I know, has approximate costs attached to it, but we don't have costs for each one of the things. So, I presume what's going to happen based on my conversations with everyone is as we approach each budget year, we'll have more clear costing for those items. Those items will be presented as part of the budget year every year and will be incorporated into the budget and then of course it's for council to deliberate on in terms of approving it. Is that what we're doing? And what are we doing this year in the budget process? >> You have to get the Yep. through the chair Jennifer Ross, senior business development consultant. Um I'm the author of this report and you are correct that that is the plan of attack for this. The 1 million is allocated from economic developments, commercial districts, and small business uh base budget funding that we get every year. So $1 million is used to spur um to support pilot projects. Once we test projects or understand that they need to be scaled based on that 1 million, then that'll return to the budget through business cases to support um the direction on implementing the actions in more fully. >> Okay. Just a couple comments for me. I think that that sounds like a reasonably decent plan, but I do think there needs to be a brand associated with this or a way this is approached because if it's approached as one-off business cases that are all submitted to the budget without there being this kind of consolidated approach to it, I think it's easy to be like no yes, no, yes, no, yes, no. But the problem is that it's a strategy. So, I think like a comprehensive one line should be sub submitted with sublines showing what the things are, but I think it's important for council to say, "Yep, this is part of the revitalization strategy without them having to figure that out at every time at every item cuz other counselors will be bringing forward items related to the downtown that aren't part of the strategy." So, then these things get kind of uh intermixed >> through the chair. That's um a really important way to frame it. Um I think that can be accommodated easily. And I I also just want to take a step back and say that through the one of the main actions that we have underway and it's just been launched um we've identified the governance review. So through that we'll be identifying um a strategy of how governance will be happening, how budgeting will be occurring, um how decisions are being made about downtown. And through that review, I think some recommendations around budgeting will be coming forward as well. So, I think at this point, the the one-off business case, but tied to a tied to the strategy so that it's clear for council makes sense and then we'll have future recommendations associated with that governance review. >> Thanks. My last two questions are about the downtown office itself. This idea of a downtown office, I understand, is part of this governance review. My biggest concern is the uh reviews tying up at the timeline. So what I what I'm really hearing from every single person who's looked at this report, everyone who supported the report without exception is everyone wants to see coordination. We don't currently have enough capacity to coordinate this entire strategy in terms of who we have hired on right now at the city. We do have to hire more people to actually execute the strategy. That's my biggest concern about how quickly we're going to get to that point because if we spend time doing a governance review for half a year next year, it looks like we'll probably end up starting having coordination happening like 2 years after the plan was approved. That's going to seem to everyone from the outside like we're not doing anything. So, how do we bridge that gap? >> So, through the chair, thanks for that question. Um when the strategy was approved back in April, CDSB commercial districts and small business team in economic development was identified as the interim lead. We've been relying on our internal partnerships. So that's me. Um I've been leading with Phil um working very closely with internal stakeholder partners. Um, so we have been able to move forward. And I just want to say that it a lot of the initiatives that have been started. It's a lot of behind-the-scenes work. So it's difficult to see things physically changing downtown until we've been building on those existing relationships. So work has been underway. I see Phil indicating as well that he'd like to add. >> Good afternoon. Phil Caldwell, manager of commercial district small business uh economic development office. Um so councelor through the chair uh your point's taken. It it is a concern for us. Um as far as the governance review is concerned a brief update is that we we did receive direction from senior leadership um in August that uh we will be the one taking this on this review and we have now uh engaged a consultant to support that work. So uh we're officially launching basically in early October. Actually this is early October next week we are starting that work with the consultant flying in and we uh we don't think the Q1 delivery in next year is going to be doable frankly. So we are looking to deliver in late Q2 early Q3 on that governance review. So it will miss this budget cycle. >> That's my concern. So I think that we have to be prepared for an interim step is my point. So, everyone's kind of committed to wanting to see this happen as quickly as possible. So, great. Um, if we're not going to be able to get a consult consultant on board in time and and do these kinds of things, we have to have an interim plan. So, what are we doing? Are we just hiring an extra person? Because if that's what we need to do is hire one other person to support all of this, then that's the thing we have to put in the budget for this year. Like, we have to have a plan for the budget this year. We just have to. Um, I understand that it's difficult um for people to get their heads around that for a budget year and people don't want to be asking for extra staffing during a budget year, but that's the job. And if you need my support to do that then just ask because we have to commit the resources to doing this otherwise all the momentum that we have going is going to get get squashed if we suddenly start missing things by one two three quarters. Um my last point is about communication. The report is not communication friendly in any way. The strategy uh no one I know has read it really like gone through and read the whole thing. So, what are we doing to make it easy and understandable for people to know exactly what we're doing behind the scenes? Because I don't think it's acceptable for us to say there are things happening behind the scenes the public don't know about. I don't think we can say that. I think we have to say this is what we're doing behind the scenes and this is the impact that it's having internally just so people are aware, right? Um here are the first 19 things in the strategy. We're doing number one, two, three here, like just as we go, right? We're checking them off. If you've already accomplished some things, people should know about that. My concern is we don't have staff attached to this to do the work for communications. Um it's being done off the side of people's desks currently. This is always my warning about this in in in the front. So how are we solving this problem through the chair? Um so I don't think the report before you today is a good standard of what we're intending with the reporting on this. This was an interim measure where we wanted to ensure that we were communicating what has been happening in the uh 5 months or so since council approved the report. We wanted to make sure that it was known that we were progressing on things um that we were advancing small wins but we are not well situated right now to be delivering an infographic heavy um report nor do we have the stats to back one up. So, frankly, the type of report that I think you're looking for is what we're intending to bring as part of the annual state of the downtown reporting, which will be through GIC um in the first quarter of 2027. We've already uh put some thoughts to what that will look like and is intended to be a much more heavily uh public friendly communication. This was really specifically directed to downtown subcommittee for your um awareness of what we're advancing. We didn't want to go too long without this group being aware of what was happening. So, it was not intended to be a glossy final product that was meant for the full public consumption. It was really to keep this group aware of what's happening. And we will be producing a much more uh public friendly version of what we're producing here today um in the first quarter of next year. And we have engaged with other municipalities who have similar reporting and have been quite inspired by what they've been putting out to their their public. and we look to emulate them. >> Yeah, I wasn't criticizing this report to be clear. I didn't say that. What I was definitely doing was just saying we have to have a plan for communicating effectively with the public and we need to have something in the budget this year that makes that happen starting next year because I think the public is understanding that we've approved this this year. We are taking some interm actions to get everything established, but we have to start communicating publicly about what we're doing and we have to start onboarding staff immediately to support this because again if we don't and we're relying on external consultants, there's no nimleness there. We ask a consultant to do the work, they get back to us, they have a delay, suddenly the city has a delay. Like we have to be able to take control of this issue downtown by leading really boldly on it. So again, like I said, um we can talk about this later offline, I suppose, but I'm just flagging that we have to do we have to deliver on this in the early stages of the plan for the later stages to be successful. I'll take the chair back. Does anybody else have any questions about this report? I'm not seeing any questions. So at this point, it's an information report. We had need a mover and second to receive it. Moved by Vice Chair Braithweight. I'll second that. And all those in favor of receiving the information. That is everyone. Thank you. We're now on to P6PW26035A, the follow work plan for improving infrastructure along King Street, which is an OPL item. And I'll get a mover and seconder now to receive the report, and then we'll have questions. Moved by Vice Chair Bryce, seconded by Thank you, Member Edmonds. And I'll take questions on this report now. And this is again the follow-up work plan for improving infrastructure along King Street that we asked for this information to be costed for us in terms of rotor surfacing, sidewalker surfing, existing flower beds. It's all right. It's all there right now. So just going to pause. I don't see people with questions. So I have a couple. So I'll pass it here chair again to vice chair braithweight just to say that if I understand the purpose of this report essentially what it's doing is providing costing so that we can figure out where funding is going to come from but this is not suggesting a funding source or making any kind of recommendations it's here for information. What in your mind uh do you think will happen next with this or could happen next with this like what was what's the plan? So through the chair. Yes. So you're correct. This report is to provide costing information as per the request at the uh downtown subcommittee in June with respect to the previous report. Um at this point uh we will continue to monitor the the conditions of the sidewalks and of the roads accordingly. And in the event that if the conditions should in fact change where they don't meet the MMS or become a safety hazard, then we would look at prioritizing or scheduling work. But none of the work that is identified in terms of costing is currently in our 2027 capital program. >> Yeah, that's my only concern or flag here is that, you know, I understand that Ontario regulation 23902 about minimum maintenance standards exists. Um, but it's a depressing a depressing read because if you look at James Street as an example, James Street met the minimum maintenance standards, but it was a nightmare. Now that we've done the sidewalks on James Street, I just hear constantly from people about how much easier it is to walk on the street, how much easier it is for people with mobility devices to get up and down the street. Like, that should be the minimum standard, right? And the city doesn't have to adhere to the minimum maintenance standards. We can exceed those minimum maintenance standards and we can do more. And so when you look at specifically, I will say that portion of the international village from Wellington all the way westward. There are some truly tantalizing moments there for people where they're having to navigate sloped sidewalks that are going into a tree. like so how do we understand accessibility when it comes to minimum maintenance standards because it doesn't seem like there's a lot of consideration about that. I'm not saying that that's entirely our responsibility to to do something but like are we going to review these standards because like this is just not adequate again if you walk down the street as we did actually we saw many many many situations where it was dangerous for pedestrians. So danger minimum maintenance standards help me out here. >> Yeah. again through the chair. So we do conduct a sidewalk inspection every year. So every kilometer of sidewalk within the city is inspected and we inspect it based on that is correct. We do inspected based on min maintenance tenants. However, we do also ask uh the staff that are conducting the inspection to identify any other issues that uh would be of concern. So for instance, perhaps a sloping sidewalk into a tree pit would be an example that we would ask the inspector to record. So uh we do this every year and in the event that we find that a certain location while it may be meeting the minimum maintenance standards but may have other safety issues or concerns then we would record that and uh also apply that against the city's uh scheduling program for all sidewalk maintenance. So we do prioritize sidewalks across the entire city in terms of the issues around safety and risk. But again during the safety inspection program, we would certainly ask our staff to identify any other extinguating circumstances or concerns uh across the downtown in this specific area. I can say to you theoretically that's true through the chair, but in practice it's not true actually at all for King Street because King Street and I have this in writing from staff was not on the list of inspectable streets because we had not decided to do anything there because of LRT. So what we have now is a massive gap when it comes to King Street. So every other street downtown I can point to emails from staff being like, "Yep, here are all the issues counselor." And every year they come to me and say, "You have a few hundred,000 you can spend on sidewalks downtown." and we've spent two point almost$2.5 million dollars on sidewalks. No one has ever come to me and said this spot on King Street should be prioritized. So what I'm saying is now that we're at the end of the summer season when some of our summer students are gone and those are the students who often go out and do that MMS work and look at those sidewalks, the problem we're faced with for me right now is we don't have an evaluation that I'm aware of that's ever been shared with me of King Street. So there's no way when it comes to p February that I can say let's prioritize these these bits bits on King Street. So is there just something that exists that I've never seen? Um is it can it be sent? How does that work? Because I can invest as a war I counselor in this and provide money or I can put a motion through the budget process but I'm not aware that the the work has been done. So can you maybe say say yeah maybe it has been done and I I just haven't seen it. So could you speak to that? >> Sure. So I can certainly take that away and uh as part of our annual inspection program, we can certainly ensure that this area uh that's identified in the report be part of the program. You do mention the LRT uh uh work that's happening and thank you for bringing that up because any work that we wish to undertake in the LRT corridor will now require a permit approval from the LRT office. So, while we would certainly inspect and possibly record that there's a need for some maintenance work, we would still require LRT approval and permission to do the work, which I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm just saying there's an additional process that we would have to follow. >> Yeah, thanks for that. I appreciate that note. Um, I've spoken to the LRT office and they said that they're not planning to make that a difficult thing. If the city wants to do work, they're going to make it happen quickly. Anyways, that's it for me. I think what this leaves me with though is just that there's either asks through the budget process or asks in next year. I just want to make sure we're prepared to action them so that we're not waiting for an entirely new construction season to come upon us that we can actually do them in 2027 successfully. On that note, I'll turn to Ryan. You're up next. Go ahead. You just have to unmute yourself, Ryan, whenever you're ready, but you might not be able to hear because you're walking. Do you want to go on the speakers? No, I'm I'm back sir to the connection transition. No, and and you uh I mean already kind of addressed my my point really. Um but it's just about the MMS and just kind of coming back to the motion from uh last meeting of just elevated standards of care and meetings maybe new and established standards that we set ourselves uh rather than the main rather than MMS and just what standards we want to work towards and identify sort of best practices work with in creating a a public realm plan for for King Streets in the city. So I know um related to that motion last week or last month that there is a plan for Q1 to report back some of that research but yeah I mean you already kind of really went much deeper into it but just trying to keep that top of mind that we would like to move beyond the minimum. >> Sorry I didn't get that as a question. Could you form phrase that in the form of a question so staff could answer or just were you just making a comment? Sorry to comment, but yeah, I guess the question would just be is there is there any initial research or thoughts to that point um regarding elevated standards beyond the MMS? >> So your question is is there any initial research or thoughts about how the city could improve beyond the MMS to some other level of standards because I know we have service level standards as well. So maybe you could speak to that. So certainly um at the moment the MMS standard is the approach that we use. Having said that we also take into consideration service requests uh we take into consideration as I mentioned before other items that we follow as part of our inspection program. Um if there's a desire for uh the city to consider a different level of sended then councelor you referenced going through the budget process to uh put that motion forward. So that could be an opportunity. >> Thanks. And next on our list is Vice Chair Braithweight then Councelor Wilson. Go ahead Vice Chair Braithweight. Go ahead. >> Okay. Thanks. Mine's more of a a comment more than anything else. So, I guess I'm looking at this from the perspective of my businesses and the customers that visit my stores and things like that. They don't care about MMS. They care when they come to my BIA in the winter and they fall and hurt themselves, which happens a lot to seniors, especially in our area. And I understand LRT is holding us up on that as well. But I think from a practical standpoint, when we see things like this, it's a little bit deflating because we know where the problem areas are. So I would also like to say when you are doing those audits of the areas each year, please include the BIAS in that because we know specifically the problematic areas that our areas are facing more than than other areas. Um for instance, I can think of a spot right near Jarvis right now that's a constant issue that to me is not up to MMS. Like it's just ridiculous how that looks. So again, if we can be involved somehow in that and in looking at an audit for the sidewalks, I think that would be good. Um, I understand the position of everyone here. I'm not saying that because I see, but I'm trying to look at it from a citizen's point of view, from a business owner's point of view. They they don't care about this wording. They care that someone comes to my BIA and is tripping on the sidewalks out in front of their business. And that happens a lot. So, I think we do need to to look at other ways of dealing with this outside of maybe what we've done historically because right now we are in this weird purgatory between LRT and what reality is. And I'm here to say I can't afford to have people falling in my BIA like I have just because of LRT. So that's all I wanted to say for that. >> Thanks Susie. And you're up now, Councelor Wilson. Go ahead when you're ready. >> Thank you. Um the points have been well made about um how the applicability of MMS to what is arguably why we're here which is to uh is recognition of a of a place in a geography that is unlike any other place and serves a purpose that is unlike any other place and whose underlying characteristic is uh pedestrian and pedestrian mobility and the more the to uphold um the vibrancy of our commercial sector. So I understand uh what staff is saying. I certainly though am very sympathetic uh to the sense of deflation um on part of some of our private sector representatives. Um and it is kind of for me reminiscent of um some of the other things that go into informing our outcomes. Uh so uh gender equity, mobility, um you know, there's a reason Las Vegas has more lights because it has an intended purpose. It doesn't have the same number of lights as another commercial area. So poor example, but um I think the continued use of uh MMS uh as a state of measure uh will will certainly need some um review. Thank you. >> Thanks very much. I don't see any further comments or questions on this report. So all those in favor by show of hands. Thank you. That's everyone. We're now on to PW26088 which is the downtown washing for John Rebecca Park. He'll need a mover in second or to receive the information in this report before we put it on the table for a conversation. Moved by member Moran, seconded by Vice Chair Braithweight. Are there questions about this report for staff as is a theme today? I'll pass the chair to vice chair bra to discuss this briefly. I want to thank staff for putting this together because I think it's important. We have a sense and Emily's not here who asked for this report unfortunately today. She wasn't able to make it because I know she had some questions about it specifically and we met to talk about it. I wondered if I could ask specifically about how you envision the funding model for this with respect to staffing. That's I think the the primary thing I'm hearing about. And when we looked at City Lab did a report about six or seven years ago now, I think, for the Beasley Neighborhood Association where they did a scan of I sent it on to staff. They did a scan of all of the washrooms in North America that were of this type and then reported back and said, "Here's the kind of things that you need to have there." They talked about some of the brave lighting that some of the washrooms had. They talked about accessibility and cleaning models and they talked about staffing. So, I'm wondering specifically though about staffing. I think we can figure out what model of washroom there's many to get out there. That's a procurement activity, but I'm mostly concerned about the security element, the staffing element, and if you could just break that down a bit because I don't think everyone's aware of sort of what that looks like or how it functions or how important it is. >> Through the chair, Daniel, director, corporate facilities and energy management. Uh you are correct. This um um downtown washroom is not like a common building and requires multiple uh considerations. um in regards with staffing. So we did u forecast an operation budget there. However, this budget will be refined after few months of operation one year, right? We are going to consider this as a pilot to adjust you know uh our budget and our requirements for staff. So right now we consider uh this work as part of uh the service level we provide right now. However we are going to um we are going to make adjustment to that after we you know less learn some lessons. >> Yeah thanks for that. I appreciate it. And I would just draw everyone's attention to pages six and seven of the report out of nine which gives a bit of a breakdown of the funding that's required for this washroom. As we of course learn how this works and scaled up a little bit. We can find some cost savings when there's more than one washroom there. So the unit cost for washrooms will go down a little bit because obviously if we have them in approximate areas to one another, a person who's maybe helping can be going around between a couple of them. At some point, if we buy them at a scale that's reasonable, we can get cost savings at that scale. And I want to just say that I think this is going to be an extremely important thing for the downtown in terms of seeing how this goes and making sure it works and making sure it's effective because if we don't get this first one right, it's going to be difficult to replicate that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 times over because ultimately that's what we need to have downtown is a mass of washrooms, which all the evidence tells us. Is there anything else anyone from staff wanted to flag with the committee about this? There's a lot of information here. The feasibility study is rather dense, right? Some of the information that I talked to you folks about was a was in a sort of a presentable fashion. What do you Is there anything else you wanted to flag about this for people who are here and maybe haven't had a chance to read every one of the micro details in the feasibility study? >> Um not u any specifics. We have a good idea about how we have to build this downtown washroom. And above on everything is that the study recommends active management rather than only passive uh surveillance for this site. And um we have uh a plan in place uh to set up good uh response protocols, monitoring, regular inspections, cleaning um and a clear assignment of responsibilities. So I think that preparation is is very important for this project and uh I think that we we have a good understanding of what needs to be done. >> Thanks. Thanks. Last thing I'll say is I really appreciate the analysis you've done by looking at what other cities have done. So some other cities have done similar things, but they haven't really worked out. So we've considered all those things before doing this. We had a choice between picking a brickandmortar type building like you would see over at Woodlands Park with that kind of a larger structure or doing something pre-fabricated and so staff are moving in the forward with the pre-fabricated version. It still requires to be connected to utilities obviously, right? So you're going to have a two washroom setup and there's a room there for the utilities and water shenanigans. I don't know what goes on in that room, but it's just there to help the building uh work properly. And this one specifically will be set up right facing the fire hall. So, that's also a model other cities have used where they've put it next to emergency services like fire, police or paramedics. Has been very successful in that model. What we learned from St. Catherine's model though is that they had theirs also right across from the fire station. But when they sourced theirs, they sourced it from someone who had very difficult time getting parts and things like that. So when anything went wrong with the washroom, they weren't able to replace the parts quickly. So it sat out of service for I think at one time six months um because the the parts couldn't be procured. So we're ahead of all this stuff. We've learned best practices from others. There's been a chance to study these things. I think staff have done a really great job and it's going to be something new for us and something important for us because many other cities already have this in place. Um, but we have a chance to learn from their mistakes and do a best practice and get a pilot going so that we can again see enough downtown where parents, seniors, everybody who's used a washroom can just do it uh and easily which is uh frankly been a problem for us since they got rid of the washrooms in Gore Park which was not yesterday. Anyways, thanks. I'll take the chair back. I don't see questions from others. All those in favor of receiving this information report. Wonderful. Thank you so much. That carries. Now we're on to PW26094, the removal of large planters at the memorial clock tower. I need a mover and seconder to put this on the floor. Moved by Vice Chair Braithweight and seconded by member Edmonds. And I see Vice Chair Braithweight has a question. Go ahead. >> So thank you for this report. I guess again this sort of seems like taking it from outside. Look, we had these beautiful planters, now they're gone. And the reason is internal city stuff. So now parking is supposed to be taken care of it, but there's no budget allotted to that. And my whole point is where did the planters go? Like I think we have to start to communicate a little bit better as to like why these services are being taken away for us because I get members coming to me saying where did the planters go and then I have to go well you know parking now owns like it doesn't make a lot of sense. So, I think if there's a way we can look at keeping these assets in downtown and not leaving them to the last minute before it comes like an internal management issue, I think that's frustrating to us on on the ground level because we don't understand why they're gone. Now, I understand through this what happened, but to the average person, it just doesn't make a lot of sense. So, just to note that I'm a little disappointed that they were taken away and there was no consideration for keeping them there. Um, and I'm sure no one maybe did anyone speak to the counselor's office about this. Like I don't think it's a lot of money to probably come up with some planters or even for the BIA or something. So I think we do have to look outside of the box a little bit on these things instead of just saying well we have to take them away and then now they're gone. That's my frustration. >> Thank you, Vice Chair Bryce. Um, member Moran, you're next. Yeah, just agreeing with um member that um it seemed like I mean it on the surface it makes sense from just a city process perspective but when you kind of zoom out as the kind of the macro it doesn't make sense of um you know the beautifification of downtown and and is there I I understand that with the downtown revitalization strategy there'd ideally be broader coordination down the road but yeah is there any sort of interim even communication that can happen to maintain ain these sorts of things downtown without losing the broader vision of what's trying to be established. >> You cut out a little bit there, but I think your question was is there any kind of interim plan to ensure that there's communication about these things generally speaking? Is that your question? Like how do we communicate >> essentially? Yeah. Yeah. essentially like I I get the internal processes but between the you know the future plan that we would like to see and just interim beauty standards is is there method communication that we can ensure that things don't get lost in the in between any any sort of proced >> yeah that's that's a good question I think if you don't mind I'll just throw in two or three more words so I can say maybe adding myself to the list yeah I think the question here is really simply the thing I think that is a hard thing to read here is while parking operations supported retaining the planters, no funding source was identified to support their ongoing maintenance. That sentence is one of the most impersonal sentences that you could write. No funding source was identified. It's passive and it implies that people aren't involved in that conversation. Right? I don't think anyone reached out to the BIA to say, "Do you have a funding source?" Nobody asked me if there was a funding source that I recall. So, how does that conversation happen? Because if it's only happening internally, right, before a decision is being made, well, of course, like you look in the bank for the city's block funding in that area, there is no money in that. And so then you say, "We don't have a funding source." But maybe there's a way to have a stop gap measure because for instance, the BIA has a bunch of money that's um some allocated to them through my office that's waiting to be used to a certain extent. So, you know, that could have been utilized to create a gap year. then we could have introduced it as part of the budget process to have the ongoing maintenance done. And I realized that we don't have a downtown office to coordinate all this and it's kind of happening between staff and frankly myself and the BIA but that's the missing piece. So can someone talk to that like how do we how do we fix that because that seems to be a a problem through the chair Cynthia Graham director environmental services. So, I'll take a first crack, but do recognize that as part of work downtown, there's many, many different work groups with different management and different processes. So, I can speak to my pieces. Um in this case uh in order to be responsible with budgets and reconcile actually what our service levels are approved to be versus what was out in the world. There was over the last many years not recent history but further back history scope creep with some of our sections. And when um staff actually went down and looked at what do we have funding actually to do um that's when things like this happened and I I totally appreciate that the frustration is about the communication and um the opportunity then to correct um what then would be a removal. Um, so for that piece, what I can commit to is for my teams, um, as we're doing those reconciliations, um, making sure that we're we're having the conversations. We did have a conversation internally. Um, but, uh, in a more forward- facing way that could then possibly look at other opportunities. So, I will take that back. That is something that I can commit to, um, for my pieces at least. >> Thanks. So, what I'll say more broadly, and I don't think the people associated with this are in the room, so they're not going to hear it, but perhaps I can be passed along. Maybe I'll think to do it in an email. One of the startling problems here um in terms of coordination, and this is for everybody who's going to be thinking about coordination going forward, is the same paragraph, but except it's the second sentence this time. As a result, and in keeping with the objectives of the review, the planters were removed to align asset ownership. Yeah, this is a huge preoccupation people at the city have is asset ownership. Well, that's not owned by my division. It's owned by somebody else's division. But the weird thing in this situation is so then why did the asset owner write the report? Cuz you're not the asset owner. So why' you write it? Like this is the thing that I think keeps breaking us is we say here, well parking operations is the person who owns the asset. Why didn't they say in here? Why did they contribute to the report and have a section here where parking operations actually writes in and says, "Hey, we're the asset owner. we didn't identify a funding source. We didn't reach out. Right? That's I think the missing piece here is because now we're coming to you, but you're not actually the asset owner. It turns out there's nothing you could have done actually to solve that problem because by the time you went to the asset owner, it was their decision to make. So now you're here answering questions for for them. So, I think that's something that is important because um while internally I can see why we care about that a lot, BAS um business owners and the public aren't concerned which who who owns the asset. They just know that the city does and so broadly as a city family like how are we responding to these things? So, I'm just leaving that as a comment out there. expect an answer, but I think that's something that we have to think through, especially when we're writing these reports that um you know, and again, reach out to the chairs of the committee and just say, "Hey, we're not the acid owner. We shouldn't write this report." And I can always work with the legislative coordinator and say, "You know what? Actually, can someone in parking operations dip in and write on something?" I'm happy and chairs are happy, I think, and legislative coordinators, I think, are happy to participate in that work of redirecting things to make sure that we actually get the answers because now we're kind of all like, hm, what do we do next? And there's no one from parking operations here to ask that question too. So thank you. I'll take the chair back and on this final of section of information reports. Can I have everyone by show of hands to receive the report? That's everyone. Thank you so much. Now we're on to items for consideration which is just the Obl before we get to our one motion and two general information or other business items. And this is about taking these items off the agenda because they've been reported on already and need a mover and second to do that. Moved by Vice Chair Braithweight and seconded by member Edmonds. Any discussion on the outstanding business list? I'm not seeing anything there for discussion. Uh all those in favor? Great. That carries. Thank you. One thing I'll say as we leave the outstanding business list and for the next meeting which will be in the next term. There's exciting things happening with outstanding business lists. Uh maybe you're not excited by that, but I am. And so we're now seeing a new format. So if you look at the planning committee and you look at council's agenda, you'll see we have different formats for them now. They're coming out with little descriptions underneath them. And I'm hoping this becomes universalized so that every outstanding business list on every agenda has a section you can click on and you can just clearly see it all itemized in a PDF and know exactly what all the outstanding business is. This is helpful as we remove things, but it doesn't give us a wholesome sense of like what is on the outstanding business list, which we should always have in front of us. So I'm looking forward to that being rolled out more broadly. onto motions. Amplified sound in the downtown core. And this is a motion moved by member Wakeford and seconded by me. And I'll let Elizabeth introduce it. Go ahead whenever you're ready. Thank you. Uh through the chair to begin, I would like to thank the following committee member and staff. Thank you to councelor Crutch for his leadership and support recognizing the impact of amplified sound on folks who live and work in the downtown core. Thank you for requesting a meeting with key staff members and providing input into the motion you see before us today. As well, thank you to council uh directors Smith and Abbott, acting manager Mi, and at the time of our meeting on July 16th, acting managers Steven Taylor, all of whom provided insight and input on the motion. The downtown subcommittee has been working to resolve the persistent and ongoing use of amplified sound in the downtown core since n since 2024. However, this is a problem that has existed for decades. The committee has tried to explore a number of ways to gain a better understanding of the issue through data reports provided by staff identifying frequency, type, and location of noise complaints in the downtown. Even with that information, as well as expanded reporting and enforcement hours um for noise complaints, there is still gaps in the ability of municipal law enforcement to provide a consistent response to the ongoing noise complaints that impact the downtown, particularly our residential community. It is important to understand that this issue of amplified sound is not limited to musicians, a segment who would be included as part of a scope of street performers, but it also includes street preachers and individual groups who use portable amplified sound systems on an ad hoc basis. Recognizing the needs of the residential community in the downtown is clearly outlined in the 10-year downtown revitalization strategy. supporting that direction is foundational to the work the subcommittee is doing and motions like this are just an example. Counselor, do you have anything you'd like to add? >> Sure. Um just want Sure, I will. Why not? Um since you're asking u I just want to say thanks to Elizabeth for this. This has been a really persistent issue that's happening to affect certain geographical spots downtown where because of the way that development has happened, there's just this bouncing of sound off of a whole bunch of buildings and it ends up haunting people floors up. And I think it's something the city actually hasn't really grappled with in terms of how we manage downtown. Another example of this is over at Magnolia Hall where we designed Magnolia Hall to be this open kind of wonderful space. There's a skylight, there's some glass there, but the glass allows actually the sound to be amplified up toward the apartment building that's there. So, when someone has a banger of a wedding in the venue, um the people in the ninth floor, the apartment building feel like they're in the wedding, but the people at the ground level outside the place don't necessarily know that a wedding is happening. So, we haven't thought about how that residence works. And when we build buildings downtown, how it's going to have an impact. So, as a result, now we have to follow up with things like this to try and create areas where we say, "Nope, can't do this here because it's going to have an impact. Nope, have to think about this." So, this is the first step in us taking this on in any kind of serious way. So, I'm really appreciative of Elizabeth being like diligently tracking this and making sure it came here today. So, thank you for that and thanks to staff for working on this because sound and noise in a in a neighborhood that has traditionally not experienced this level of density and growth management is a problem. It's happening all over too. No matter where you are, people the density is increasing, people are appearing, more festivals and things are happening. All good news, but then there are impacts that we're not necessarily pre-programmed in to deal with like extra garbage, extra uh issues with sound and noise. So, this is a good first step in trying to address it. So, thank you. Does anybody else have anything they wanted to offer on this before we vote on the motion? I'm not seeing anyone. So, all those in favor by show of hands. Thank you. That carries. We're now on to general information or other business. And the vice chair has added two items here. I think she's wanted to ask questions about or make statements about so take away take it away with item 11.1 whenever you're ready, which is proposed contract enforcement pilot. >> Thank you, Chair Crutch. Um, yeah, I just wanted to bring this up because reading this, I understand it's a pilot for McNab, which I understand needs the help that they need on the sidewalks there. I think when I look at what's been put out in the community though, like the chamber put something out. Um, we've seen some other things and some other I think Urbanity put something and it was like 24/7 security and then it says Jackson Street West, McNab Street South, York Boulevard and a section of James Street North. So when I see that, I understand that the motion was specifically for McNab for what was happening in front of the Y, which I 100% support that. But what happens when those people get relocated to my BIA? What happens when security's there and then they get pushed down to Ferguson station is there the uh opportunity and Dan and I have talked about this a little bit to have maybe an more of a mobile security situation that it goes where it's needed in downtown. So if there's certain areas where the sidewalks are being blocked, for instance, I had an encampment right at the downtown arches for two weeks, would have been nice to have some backup on that if we could that I could call in and say, "Hey, we're having a problem area here. Can can we also get the help uh that McNab is getting." So that's what I wanted to bring forward to see if there's the possibility before this goes, I believe, to council and gets approved um that there's an amendment somewhere that says it can also be on like a rotating mobile basis. Uh Dan Smith, director of licensing and violence services and through the chair. Uh yep, supportive of that for sure. Um I think uh just to speak to the report and the locations in the report is we obviously wanted to highlight the Jackson and McNab because that's where the motion stemmed from. We also wanted to point out that if we were um if the if the pilot was approved to be put in place that we had some flexibility there to go to some other areas that had seen some um uh other areas of concern in the downtown area. Uh that wasn't necessarily purpose purposely to limit it to those areas. We do want to have the discretion within the contract that uh we negotiate with the with the vendor to have the discretion to move um those contracted staff around to areas that may see displacement or have new um concerns arise that we weren't anticipating. >> Okay, great. Thank you for that. Yeah, I think it's just frustrating for my members when we have so many issues happening and then they see something like this. It's like, well, what about us, right? And what happens if this gets pushed down to our area? So, just just to bring this to the forefront, that's why I wanted to have this conversation today. I know that downtown's a big area. It's a lot of investment to to secure it through security, but just of those one-off issues that we could reach out and have some support. That would be awesome. >> Yeah, I'll throw out there that this whole thing was meant to be dynamic. We were responding to this based on the fact that those were the the areas we identified when the report came forward. But as those areas change, like for instance, I'm sure we all know this by now, the Cathedral Cafe locations no longer operating. So some of the issues that were happening around the Cathedral Cafe are of course no longer happening anymore. Despite the fact that it's been mentioned here, it's not as if we're just going to sit in their hands and be like, "Okay, um we're not going to do anything then because there's nothing happening in that area." We can of course of course deploy those resources other places because as we all know, people aren't just vanishing, they're just showing up somewhere else. And so the question becomes how do we continue to manage that? And the purpose of this whole thing is how do we actually manage that and respond to things as they change and grow and and become different. So and this is primarily about sidewalk management too I want to say. So this is about trying to figure out how we balance between the need for pedestrians to use sidewalks and the places where no one has anyone to go. How do you manage that so that people can still use the sidewalk even when there's people who are congregating because they don't have anywhere else to go. So I think it's a good point that you flag that this has to be somewhat flexible. We'll go on to the next item and I think that's also from you. So take it away whenever you're ready. >> Yeah. I just wanted to know if there was an update on the Wednesday night food service at Ferguson Station. Last I checked they were still operating there last week. So wondering if there's been any movement on that. Um hi Grace Mater General Manager Healthy and Safe Communities. Um through the chair to u to the member. Um, so I'm gonna start and then I'll turn it over to uh to Dan for followup. So, as everyone knows that we've been working very long and hard with the group um to provide an an alternative location that would better meet their needs um both for the distribution and for the individuals that are um receiving the service. Um we had hoped and offered um the uh location along with the appropriate supports very similar to the supports that we've offered to the group that had previously been in Gore Park that are now operating um at the rear of city hall. Um we had indicated that the um I'm going to get my dates probably wrong. So last Wednesday was the first Wednesday that they began with passive um education to the group as a reminder that uh that they cannot be operating there. It is against our bylaw and uh that if they continue to do that there would be enforcement of that bylaw. Um so tomorrow will be the first of that enforcement. We have reminded the indivi the group as well about the repercussion and um the the team from um municipal licensing and bylaw have uh been active um with providing that information to them both last week and are prepared for the followup um this week. We've also um met with uh Hamilton Police Services as also to make them aware um that this that we're proceeding with the enforcement of our bylaw. We're hoping that the group will see the um the merits of the new location and at least be willing to um to take the opportunity to try it, give it a give it an attempt. Um and then if there are issues and we can, you know, course correct along the way. Um and um that that's the update from my end. So I'll turn it over to Dan if he's got anything to add. >> Uh thank you Grayson through the chair. So yeah, just to uh speak to some of the things that Grace just mentioned there, we did visit the location last week. We had officers and supervisor on location, had conversations with the organizers um confirmed for them that they were in violation of the parks bylaw uh and that we expect uh that they cease the violation of of the use of that space. We did provide them information as to what our next steps will look like. They understood it. We'll say that the conversations were professional at the time. Um uh and the information was well understood by the organizers. We are planning and have an operations plan to attend tomorrow. Um as uh Grace had mentioned, we have spoken with Hamilton police should we need any support there. Um and they are aware. Uh but we will be moving forward with enforcement uh starting tomorrow evening. >> Great. >> Sorry, thank you for both those updates. It's a very um difficult thing for the BI to navigate this because we understand it's a needed service in the community and we've never said that that's not the case. It's just not the right location for the businesses necessarily. So, thank you to Grace and Dan and your team for all your work on this and let's hope everybody can come to senses and make it work for everyone involved. >> Thanks very much. And I'll add a couple of comments as well and hand the chair to you while I do that. just to say that I think one of the frustrating things here has been that there's this expectation from groups that the city of Hamilton knows how their operation works perfectly. We can provide everything they need in advance. Everything will be guaranteed as beautiful, lovely, and easy. That's just not the case. When we helped folks move from Gore Park, one of the major complaints they had, they had two major complaints. One was the space was not big enough for them and it was difficult for them to do the operation there. They were getting lots of people coming and it was hard especially in the wintertime when they were trying to do snow maintenance. Suddenly a snow dump would happen overnight between a Friday and a Saturday. They were trying to manage all that snow and they couldn't do it in that space. Secondly, there was no public washrooms there. So they had no access to washrooms and that made really difficult for them because of the massive scale. And thirdly, the massive scale. They kept saying that they had started out as a smaller operation but as time had worn on they were seeing more than a thousand people showing up sometimes on a Saturday. So what do we do with that? And the answer was, well, they asked if they could come here. They said we need a space nearby. And we said, well, this is the only space nearby that we have any control or access of. And they were apprehensive at first, lots of apprehension. Took us a long time to negotiate all that. But, and there are still wrinkles with the program, of course, like they've got a massive food program to deliver to a thousand, more than a thousand people. That's not easy to do. But we provided them with a storage unit. We provided them with the materials and tents and tarps and things they needed. We provided them with facilities at city hall. We provided them with security here. We've done everything to accommodate them and to make sure that they can continue to do this good work, which is really important. And the point of doing it is to help them continue to do this good work. And we offered city hall as a location for these folks as well. Now, understandably, if you're at Ferguson Station, City Hall is kind of far. If you're at Gore Park, it's kind of close. So, it makes sense that it's easy to transition. And we did an environmental scan and looked around and offered other options, but nothing seemed to work. And the only place we have access to that we either lease or own is that space about a block and a half away. What I've said repeatedly is meet us meet us halfway. Come out, try it. Let's try it during the warmer months because that means we can deal with some of the easy things before it gets to be winter and other things come into bear. And uh there's been a real unwillingness to move. And frankly, I think it's from a sense of uh we're entitled to this space. We feel like we've been here for a long time now. This is our space. and this stubbornness around uh this idea that I mean there's no impact and no harm has been coming despite the fact that I've spoken to dozens of business owners and dozens and dozens of residents in the area who say the opposite. There's been a business in Ferguson Station literally in this piece of property for 70 plus years who have routinely considered leaving this space because of the amount of disruption. So I know the narrative out there is we're doing amazing work. Nothing's going on here. Everything's lovely, but that's not what anybody who lives in the area says. And to be fair, the primary folks running this don't live downtown. They don't live in this area. They don't see the impacts. Sure, they drive through later on and they come through and have a gander, but the impacts are sometimes felt days later, weeks later, depending on the kind of situation. Sometimes there's graffiti impacts. Sometimes there's impacts with uh things that occur when they leave. Someone just does something they don't expect. And when you ask a group of people to come somewhere and then leave shortly thereafter, you know, you don't necessarily have control over what happens next. So, I think it's reasonable when it's got to this level in this capacity. Again, it was a small event, now it's outgrown the space that asking people to to move uh it doesn't appear they're going to do so willingly. And we have to have a fair and consistent approach to across the city about food programs. We can't just say to the Gorpar folks, you have to leave. This isn't working here. It's too big. And then say to someone else, oh, it's okay. you were here for a couple years longer so you can just hang out here. It's fine. Nope. Uh it's not the way it should be going and now that CO is over, we have to get back to enforcing a standard that makes sense. Anyways, I see that the general manager wanted to say something, so I'll turn back to her. >> Thanks very much through the chair. Um just to acknowledge too that we realize too that as it moves to a different location, there will be potential repercussions too and that with the staff are prepared to look at how we mitigate those as best we can. One of the options of it being at a a location that we city leased location is that we have our we have um on-site uh security already there. We have garbage pickup already there. There's a lot of built-in infrastructure at the location that we can make sure that we're there to address those concerns. So, we want to we want to ensure that we're not moving the problem from one location to another. So, I just want to make sure that everyone realizes that too, that we want to address it to make it work for everyone involved and the neighbors as well. >> Yeah. And also to say, which we didn't say, the parking lot that we're moving things to is much much bigger than Ferguson Station. And like Grace says, has other supports that are already built in because we lease the property as a city. So, it's easier for us to be able to help with that. Of course, to be honest, we also own Ferguson Station, so let's not overlook that. It's a cityowned asset, but it's just too small. It's not set up anymore for these activities. The activities are clearly much larger than the area can handle. And I'll lastly say it's also quite dangerous in terms of where that location is. You have it's sandwiched between Maine and King. I don't think anyone thinks about this, but you're asking pedestrians and everybody else to kind of converge in an area where you're crossing two major arteries. It's not great. At the other location, there's far less traffic there. Um there's not necessarily a crosswalk right there. But the point is people could come from the other direction. They could come down Spring Street, whatever it might be. And those different there's different ways to get there. There's no other way to get to Ferguson station except for crossing May or King, right? So I think that's important to think about that and think about pedestrian safety as well. We don't want to see something happen to folks. There's been quite a number of strange collisions on Main Street at that area and so we know that it's prone to dangerous road traffic. On that note, I don't see anybody else clamoring to speak to this item. So on that note, um we will go to the last item which is receiving these two things. So these are two other business items. So I'll need a move and second to receive them. Moved by member Edmonds, seconded by member Wakeford. Any further discussion? Not seeing any. All those in favor by show of hands of just receiving those items. Thank you. With that, there's no further business of the downtown subcommittee. Before we adjourn, I just want to say thank you for this. It's been a journey. We started out here, many of us, with a task force that wasn't really tasking anything and certainly not enforcing it at all. And so the last yearish, we've had the chance to reboot this entire process, get some motions on the table, and we're starting now to finally make some progress. Want to thank everyone who's participated in getting the downtown revitalization strategy going and all the other things that BAS have brought to the table and neighborhood associations have contributed to the conversation, especially around pilots for garbage and waste downtown. So, we're getting there, folks. It's our first year, successful year. Looking forward to making sure this committee is robust, continues to advance things, and make our downtown better. On that note, this committee's adjourned. Have a good day, folks.