Good morning everyone. Sorry about that. Okay, it's it's not ready yet. Right. Okay. Okay. Good morning everyone. It's 9:31 on May 20th. This is W 6 council Michael Shield and I'm the chair of the committee of the whole meeting today. Now I'm calling the meeting to order and we have corum. So, uh, to start the meeting, any of my colleagues have council announcement. Uh, Deputy Mayor Chen. >> Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. Chair, good morning. Um, some of us have been early, uh, morning breakfast. Um, I'd like to uh uh remind everyone who is interested in coming uh particular for thousands who have already pre-register, rain or shine, um the spring fair will take place this Saturday at Witchwin Green Park from noon to 3. Come one, come all. And the second um things I want to share is that although is for next month but it's the first day of month June June 1st I'll be hosting a senior health and um safety fair uh and more to come. Uh it will be panel discussion from York region senior and paramedic team uh York Regional Police uh senior care team also our Richmond fire and emergency services uh officers who have been serving seniors. So again um forthcoming uh I will have more to say next Wednesday June 1st mark the date from 2 to 4 p.m. Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Chie Mayor Chan. And we have the next speaker, Councelor Thompson. >> Thank you very much. Uh just want to let everybody know that on May the 30th, uh Saturday between noon and 5, we'll be hosting my uh annual Eco Family Fest, which will be over at Elgen Barrow Arena and Town Park. It's an indooroutdoor event. It's a full family event and it's something where we can all uh get to uh get a better understanding of the things that we can do in our everyday lives that make a difference. Uh there is a free barbecue. There's all kinds of things for families. Uh we have a lot of passive recreation such as rock climbing and uh disc golf. Uh so bring the whole family, enjoy a free plant-based protein burger. Uh but make sure you register in advance uh and go to my uh my website for more details in that regard. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor Thompson. Sounds exciting. Any announcement? Councelor Tree. >> Yeah, thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Uh so May 24th, this Sunday, there will be a Hill House walk for charity fund reasons. So if you have time, please join us 10:00 a.m. you can register online or go there pay right away. So thank you so much. See you this Sunday. >> Thank you councel tree. Any other council announcement? Seeing none. So moving forward introduction of emergency time sensitive matters. Seeing none. Okay. So moving on adoption of agenda. So today we have 14 items. Uh we have no public hearing but we have one presentation, one delegation, five staff reports, one correspondence and one member motion. So I need a mover to adopt this agenda. Councelor. Okay. Councelor syllabus. So uh all those in favor oppose carry unanimously. Okay. Okay. So moving forward disclosure of the precurren interest and general nature thereof. Seeing none. So we go to identification of items requiring separate discussion. Uh actually we have a presentation for item 11.3 and one deleation for item 11.4. So we'll pull those items out. Any items want to pull out? Uh councelor Thompson. >> Uh thank you through the chair. I'd like to pull 11.2 two, the traffic regulations changes, please. >> Okay. Any other items want to pull out? Okay. Uh before going to the consent agenda, just a quick note. Uh there's an amended recommendation for item 11.1 uh 2026 final levy bylaw and tax rates. And the uh amendment is for recommendation cost B amended to reflect five installments on August 4th, September 1st, October 1st, November 2nd, and December 1st, 2026 for residential property owners under the pre-authorized debit program for taxes. >> Oh, uh, Mayor West, you're just looking for a mover to move the new recommendation of the revised recommendation. >> Yep. I'm >> through the chair. Uh yeah, we can put that on consent actually just >> okay that leave it on consent >> there's no motion need >> correct and also just to add the mayor west member motion will also be automatically okay. >> Okay if no member of council has question on this I will just uh put this item to the consent agenda. >> Yeah I'll I'll move the rest. >> Okay thank you. So uh just double check with uh Mr. Clark. So the consent agenda is 11.1 11.5.6 Six. Is that correct? Okay. So, I need a mover to adopt the remainder of the agenda items. Councelor Leo. All those in favor? Oppose? Carry unanimously. Thank you. So, moving forward, uh we have no public hearings, but we have one presentation by uh Bob Lev and David Badasara from the city for the corporate asset management. Uh yeah, Mr. Lakos. >> Morning uh members of council. I'm very pleased to be here today. You may recall in 2025 about this time uh we presented our 2025 asset management plan update. That was a full update. This year we're bringing forward um a progress report. So we will be doing that annually moving forward until the next major update on our asset management plan. And I'm very proud to uh introduce to you David Baldesera. He's our manager of corporate asset management and he will be doing the presentation today and we'll be available for questions. >> Thank you very much and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about our asset management progress. We prepared a short presentation that highlights a few key areas of our report. Let me see. Oh, okay. So, in the presentation, we're going to provide updates on three items that you see on the agenda here. Uh the first is our infrastructure summary. So, we'll give you an update on how our assets have been doing since last year's 2025 asset management plan. Um the city's assets are changing constantly. So, updating this information every year gives council and the public an understanding of those changes. So this report not only serves as an update to council, it's also a great tool for us and the asset management team to record how the assets are changing over time. We can use the information to calibrate our forecast models to identify any trends and to prepare any responses if needed. Second, we'll give you an update on the first actions the city has taken to implement the recommendations of our 2025 asset management plan. And third, we'll conclude with a brief update on our asset management program and our plans for the future. We'll begin with a brief overview of our asset management journey looking forward. So this progress report that is part of the staff report you have is required by Ontario regulation 58817 and that regulation requires us to produce an asset management plan as director mentioned every five years. We did that last year to meet those requirements and the next one will be due again in 2030. Um the regulation also requires us to update council on our asset management progress in the years in between. So this is our first progress report since the most recent plan which happened last year and moving forward you can expect to hear from us uh each year on our progress. So, we'll begin with an infrastructure summary and an update on our asset replacement value. So, the slide is a little bit busy, but it's just here for your reference. Uh, we don't expect you to read it all now, but it's here for any thing you need to see or in the report. Um, this slide shows the replacement value of our assets in total and across the 11 service areas that we report on. Um, the replacement value represents the cost that we would have to pay to replace all of our infrastructure assets or reconstruct them like for like at current market pricing. So, we expect this value to grow every year and we monitor that growth every year. We monitor it because as this value increases, it also means our cost to keep the assets in a state of good repair will increase as well. Our total replacement value has grown by $1 billion since last year's 2025 asset management plan. So last year it was 12.8 billion. This year is now 13.8 billion. Uh that's an 8% increase. 80% of that growth comes from inflation and also improved valuation methodologies. 20% comes from new assets that we have assumed or acquired. Um so the details of that donut chart that I'm showing here uh also break down the growth for each of those 11 service areas. It's varies across them. Um and if you're reading the the slide or the report, there's three values shown. The first is the value of each slice. The second is the percentage of the total and the third is how that change that percentage has changed since last year. So another important metric that we monitor is the condition of our assets. So for 2026 this year around 85% of our assets are in good and very good condition. That's about the same as last year. So we assess our assets into one of five condition categories. Very good, good, fair, poor, or very poor. To break that down further, the assets that are very poor, it's the red small red slice on the pie there, um, they require replacement or major rehabilitation. Right now, the assets that are in poor condition may or may not require replacement depending on the assets. Some we do in poor condition and some we allow to to go further. Uh, assets in fair, good, and very good. So, the green and yellow, those are considered fit for service. However, some of them may require some rehabilitation in the middle of their life to extend their lives further, which maximizes the value we get out of them. Uh in the update from this year to last year, there are very small changes uh in each of those slices of the pie um which you can see there, we consider them to be negligible. So the the findings for this year is things are about the same condition-wise as they were last year. We have a detailed state of infrastructure summary in our progress report which is attachment one to the staff report. Um and you can find find that in the form of asset report cards which are in the appendix. Uh so the summary breaks down these numbers for each of the slices even further if you want to get into more detail about each of the service areas. And it's a very similar format that we're using year-over-year. It allows us to easily look at how things have changed since uh each year and we'll be continuing to do that moving forward. Another item that we want to update you on is our annual average funding shortfall. So this is something we also reported in last year's uh asset management plan and for 2026 we've updated the analysis. The first thing I want to note is what we're showing on the slide is for what we call only non rateup supported assets which is the group of assets that's primarily funded through tax revenues. The reason I didn't show the other groups is because there was no shortfall identified for those groups. So those groups would be our water, wastewater, and storm water, which are the rate supported groups of assets. I'd like to take a moment to just explain how we calculate this number, the shortfall. Each year, we take uh we complete a long-term forecast of our asset needs. This is done using our EM software, which completes a life cyclebased forecasting analysis. This forecast tells us how much money we're going to need to achieve our proposed service level targets into the future. And then we present the first 10 years of that forecast and we compare it to the revenues that we are projected to receive over that period which we received from finance by working closely with finance. In last year's asset management plan, we did the same analysis. We identified a funding shortfall of $24 million per year. uh and this year or so what that means is we'd need an additional 24 million each year to achieve the first 10 years of that long-term forecast. The slide you're seeing now is the same analysis. We repeated it and we got 25 this year. So it's a $1 million increase since last year per year. So a few uh notes about that. First, most major municipalities have a shortfall. We are not unique in this regard. Second, if you look at other municipalities, you might notice different shortfalls. These numbers are calculated differently from municipality to municipality based on what their service level targets are. The value itself is one thing, but what we're really looking at as an update is the change in that value year-toear to see if anything has emerged as a trend. As I mentioned, it's it's a $1 million change. That's a 4% growth in that value since last year. If you recall a couple slides ago, our asset value grew by 8%. So the shortfall grew less by percentage than the asset value. So another note, an interesting note there. Um we do expect that this number is going to fluctuate each year. Um and I think that's the point of monitoring and recording and reporting to council every year is to see if there are any trends emerging. Given that it's only been really one year since the 2025 asset management plan, our opinion is that it's too early to identify a trend. We'll keep watching the number though over the next several years and to see if anything emerges. So, we know we have a shortfall um which is not uncommon. We've also had some strategies that we've recommended to deal with it. So, the 2025 asset management plan discussed a few of these. The first and most obvious strategy is to increase funding. If we secure more funding, then we can dress address more of our needs. That's simple. And earlier this year, council approved the 2026 financial master plan, which is a positive step forward towards this recommendation. The second, which is really two recommendations rolled into one, is to look for ways to reduce our financial pressures. There are two things that the asset management plan recommended for this. The first is to identify efficiencies in the way we manage our assets. This will reduce our overall total life cycle costs. So a good example of this would be for certain assets we can look to do more rehabilitations earlier in their life. This will extend their life and defer costly replacements. The second way to reduce pressures is to adjust our performance expectations. And what this means is to accept a lower level of service. This means more assets in fair condition instead of good or very good. So still perfectly fine just not as new. Um at this time uh we would like to do some more analysis to have the data to support this discussion. Make sure we can do this in a way or we can discuss it in a way that ensures the community's expectations are continued to be met. Nevertheless, exploring options to adjust our performance expectations is a good idea so the city can be prepared for any possible future outcomes. Important to note the asset management plan didn't recommend any one of these strategies but thought that a balance of all three would likely be the way forward. So the first how are we going to implement these strategies? And as I mentioned, the financial master plan was approved by council in March of this year was a positive step forward in addressing the funding shortfall. That plan is very closely linked to our asset management work, including this report and last year's asset management plan. It directly validates the findings of our plan, which was that there is a shortfall and more funding is needed. The financial master plan also operationalizes our asset management plan. It takes the next step forward and provides mechanisms to increase funding. The three bullets on the screen here show three of the featured mechanisms that came from the financial master plan. Next, we also have a strategy to reduce our financial pressures. The first step forward was taken late last year by updating our asset management strategy. So about seven years ago, the city created a strategic document which set the foundation for our asset management program. He gave us the plan to build out a program that could regularly and consistently meet our regulatory obligations and produce asset management plans consistently, repeatably, and every year if needed. So, now that we've met all those primary regulatory obligations, we've updated that strategy and give us a new it will give us a new five-year road map to lead us into the future. And the philosophy behind that strategy update is to improve information to support better decision- making. This is how we plan to identify those efficiencies and begin to have the discussion of adjusting performance expectations which are the ways to reduce our financial pressures. The strategy has mapped out 30 initiatives over five years. They've been developed to directly support that recommendation and we've already gotten started. We're making this a core part of our program and we'll be reviewing and updating that strategy each year to make sure that it stays current to meet new and emerging challenges. I also wanted to take a brief moment to mention our capital budget process. It's the main way that all this asset management work becomes real and the data and analysis that we use that we're reporting to you today also gets used by our capital planning teams every year to help them build the capital budget and forecast. Using that data, they take into account our service level objectives, risk models, and they select projects and bring them forward for the budget. The 2026 capital budget identified $121 million in spending. 66 million of that was to address state of good repair needs. So each year we work closely with finance and our other um subject matter experts to make sure that we're operating together on these kinds of initiatives in line with the city's objectives and strategies like the budget strategy. I also want to briefly touch upon another part of our requirements for the regulation. We've been asked by the regulation to report on any factors that might impede our progress to implement this plan and to discuss strategies to respond to those. I'm not going to go into detail in the presentation, but I've just briefly listed three of those here, um, which are economic uncertainty, data confidence, climate change. We discuss these in more details in the report and the improvement plan we've developed also takes them into account. I did mention earlier that improvement plan, that work is central to our asset management program moving forward. And this is the final update we're going to give you is on the program itself. So, as part of our continual improvement, we'll be using these annual updates to council, not just to let you know how the assets are doing, but also how our program is doing. And as I mentioned, we have this updated asset management strategy, which is at the center of our program improvement, and we've identified 30 improvement initiatives that we want to implement over five years. We've organized them into four major categories or themes. So improving our data and our analysis tools, establishing formalized practices and reporting, maturing our asset management strategies and capabilities, and integrating asset management planning with other city processes. So we believe that the way forward is bright. We have a lot of great strategies to help the city do everything it can to manage our assets the most efficiently that we can in a way that's driven by data. In order to implement these initiatives, we've built the work into the program itself and um we've formalized some of our processes around the way we do work in the corporate asset management team. The city's asset management program is moving from a program that was driven by regulation to a program that will be driven by our needs as a city. We've come a long way over the last seven years and we're now at a point where we can complete our asset management analysis and plans regularly part of business as usual. Given that we've achieved these milestones, we decided we need to formalize the program and we've defined these three formal processes that you see. Um the first is our five-year improvement plan which I had mentioned earlier. Those are the one-off activities to make our work better and to improve our ability to do analysis. And as we do those, they become part of our business as usual, which is our annual business cycle. That's the work we do each year, including this report. and then our five-year reporting cycle which is built around asset management plans every five years. We're going to update our strategies each cycle to line them up with the latest plan and emerging trends to make sure we stay current in our assessments and recommendations. So, thank you again for the opportunity to give you the presentation and I'd like to conclude with a few key takeaways. So, first, our assets have increased in value. That was expected. Second, the assets remain generally in good condition. That was also anticipated. Third, the funding shortfall has increased modestly and we're monitoring this every year. Fourth, the financial master plan is a positive step towards addressing that funding shortfall. And fifth, we've identified a series of asset management initiatives that aim to help us reduce our financial pressures. So, thank you again. I'll pause for any questions. Thank you for the presentation and now open the floor for the members of council. So any comments, questions? Councelor Davidson. >> Thank you um through Mr. Chair. Thank you for the report. Can you tell me the the storm water uh wastewater chart that shows after this year we're going to be uh short money. That's a bar graph. Can you just explain in in a simple way if we're investing in these things, storm water management, why does it get so much more expensive? Isn't this sort of an infrastructure that is good for more than 10 years? So if we're every year we invest, the cost at least levels off if not starts to go down over the years. Like I don't understand why this continues to be more expensive if we're investing in it. >> Yep. Um through the chair. Um, first if you don't mind that the chart you're referring to, is it one of the ones that we >> Yeah, it was the bar graph about shortfalls 25 million. You can put it up there again if you want, but >> thank you. Sorry. >> So, why doesn't the cost level off or start to even decrease? >> That's a great question. Thank you so much. Um, so first just to clarify, this is not storm water because storm water doesn't have the gap. It's tax supported or we call it non- rate supported. So from the tax mostly funded from the tax base. >> So what kinds of things are we talking? Um, so everything but storm water, waste water. >> I guess I heard but and I thought you said storm water. Okay. >> So, >> um, >> yeah. So why again is this just based on projections that inflation and cost of living is going to be that much more or I guess I don't understand why big things infrastructure things are going to be so out of control expensive when we we don't let them run down and unless there's an emergency we you know like the East Beaver Creek thing um we don't neglect. So why isn't it a more level >> um through the chair? One of the big things in Ontario that's happening is um there was big booms in construction in say the 1980s and 90s and so large volumes and dollar amounts of assets being constructed and as those continue to age they're going to start come becoming due for replacement and so we've kind of been able to to get live in a in a system where those things were really new and quite expensive and so we didn't have to worry about them and the longer we get through um and the more forward we look the those are going start popping up more. And so that's what the life cycle based analysis we we do projects. It tries to anticipate when we think we'll need to invest in those things. And so there is a very large dollar amount of assets that are quite expensive. Underground assets are some of the most expensive and they're they've been quite young by their in terms of their service life. They can last a hundred years or more. as we start to as those assets start to age, they're going to start popping up and and that's kind of where a lot of the pressure comes from. >> So, it's sort of a natural progression of an aging city. >> Yes. Okay. >> And one that I would consider to be quite a young city. If you look maybe southwest of Toronto, it's it's older and and other areas in Ontario are also older. So, >> clay pipes and all that, we don't have that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor Dixon. the next speaker, councelor Sus. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for the uh the report and all the work done to you and and and all staff involved. I just have a couple of questions to you, Mr. Chair. Um when referring to slide five, um I'm just curious, what is a very poor grade F? Like could you give me an example through you, Mr. Chair? Yeah. Through the chair. Um are you looking for example of a specific asset or just generally what it need? >> A specific asset that you would say this is this is really this is F. >> Okay. So um there would be certain roads that have degraded to the point where they need uh replacement value. There's a little bit of all kinds of assets in that slice. And so it's it's primarily things that have aged beyond the life that we um we call it the useful life or the expected life. Sometimes it could be um a playground. Sometimes it could be and we do have the details on each specific asset which I could pull with a lot of data behind it but this is a summary of all of them. So the it does spread across the different assets and in the appendix we do have the same pigraph for each of our 11 service areas. So you can see how much very poor is in each of them. >> Thank you. And and just related to that my my my second question is um how through you Mr. How does that funding shortfall that is predicted which we know is coming um how does that affect say the rehabilitation of a park that's old and that needs its rehabilitation? I think the the life the life uh of a of a park is about 12 years if I remember correctly. So we all we have everything in in order. How is this shortfall going to affect that? and and also roads that are up for in the in the tenure capital plan, they're up for repair. Does this indicate um that there will be any any uh problems in bringing those matters forward? >> Thank you. Through you, Mr. Chair. >> Through you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, it does affect um everything because the shortfall simply means that we anticipate we need more money than we have. So that means we won't be able to do everything that is on the list. Now, some of the work we do through the asset management team is to identify where risks are. So, we're focusing that work on the risky things and not the ones that are not risky. Um, and so that's a part of the decision-m process. So, the the goal is always to be mitigating risk because we know we just can't do it all. And I often say as a joke, if we had all the money in the world, I wouldn't have a job because there would be no need. We would just do everything. But we and and that's how it affects it is that we just won't be able to get to everything. We we should be focusing. we have to get to focusing on prioritizing and which things are um you know are are posing a risk. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. My my last question is um do we anticipate through you Mr. chair, do we anticipate any any problems with servicing? Like for instance, you you you've mentioned service servicing services. How does that compare between a capital service and and and another service that we provide all day every day? Um our operating costs to uh to our residents. Is there a is there a comparison there or are you talking about two completely separate things through you, Mr. here >> three Mr. Sure. Um there is they are related but in a sense also separate. So um the service we're talking about is is focused a lot on the capital and the condition of the assets and their ability to provide service by being in service by the water main existing can provide water. The other services we provide such as plowing the roads that's an operational service that we provide. There is a link in in terms of the in certain cases if we invest more in the capital side we can reduce our operating pressures. Some things however though like say cutting the grass in a park that's not going to that's going to have to happen no matter what. Um there is levels of service on the operational side as well. We're focusing more on the assets themselves in this report. So for example, on the operational side, we can cut the grass less often, right? And and that would be something, but that's not we're talking about the health of the assets and the services they provide here. So we're talking about if we have to take an asset out of commission now, we can't the road may be closed or the park may be shut down. So that's what we mean by service. Okay? >> Although there is a relationship and and that's one of the things we want to explore further is how can we reduce our total cost by being the most efficient. So perhaps investing more capital to save operating. >> Thank you. I I appreciate that. We can tell the grass not to grow. >> Thank you very much. Deeply appreciate it. >> Question. >> Thank you councelor. So the first next speaker councelor tree. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Uh thank you so much for give us those detailed report here. I do have a few question regarding the slide a slide seven. M collect if you can help. That's the chart. So for 2026 and the uh see the um available annual funding is almost similar as what we could consume our spending from 2027 I see a little bit big gap here it because every year we charge 1.5 levy for for for the the project or capitals in here why there is a gap from 2027 >> thank you for the through Mr. chair. Um the gap begins to grow um because it's a future-looking forecast that was um initially designed to show how much increase we would need to to meet those needs. So the the gap begins to grow in year one and then again in year two and so on because it's it's um investigating how much more money we'll need to get to a target which is to eliminate our backlog and improve our service or maintain our service levels. So, it's designed to to show how much more money we'll need each year. The fact exists that we just we do need the money now and we will need it more into the future. And so, this analysis kind of articulates that by looking forward if um I hope I was that was able to answer the question. Yeah, I'm just wondering because for me for for from from uh my perspective understanding because of 11 1.5 it should be a stable cross 10 years but I see the divisions for our every year's income is different maybe I'm not sure it's because not only we have a levy there but meantime we have some invest investment and we have more this year than last year. >> I understand um through you Mr. Chair. the so the orange bar is changing each year. That's the projection of revenues that comes from finance. I um we could get I would have to go into finance in more detail to find out why it fluctuates but I think it's normally that anticipated that we have fluctuating a it's all revenue and not just the levy. So it's it's not just the levy but also the tax base and the other sources. >> Okay. U maybe my next question is not only for city but it's more for our mayors. So in case of um we are just increasing the levy is there any funding outside the city that whenever is federal government or Ontario government can can provide such fundings for city for municipality to build up their infrastructure. I know we discussed many many times. So it looks like there's no hope but I want maybe give us some better understanding of this short st shortful. >> Okay. recently. >> Um, so yeah, I'm not usually the bearer of good news on things like that, but the the reality is that most like infrastructure that is being maintained uh in cities is primarily the responsibility of the city. I mean, I it's you know, I complain a lot about we're being underfunded in other levels of government and I'll continue to do that. But in this particular case, I mean, the infrastructure that we have in our possession, we need to take care of it. It's kind of like, you know, somebody buys you a car and then the maintenance on the car is something that's ongoing after that and that's your responsibility. But but I think in in this particular case um you know I think cities like Richmond Hill could handle this type of stuff easier if the the rest of the equation was being properly funded by other levels of government. We would have more resources to put into this without putting extra pressure on the tax base. So it's all related. I mean none of we're looking at this in isolation from a holistic perspective from a city's point of view but it's not and that's fine but but at the end of the day you know it's it's all one uh source of revenue that we have which is primarily taxes and to put the least pressure on those taxes as we possibly can. There are things that I believe that the that cities are not being funded adequately for. Um but honestly this is probably not the the maintenance of assets is not really that's our responsibility. So but it you know again it's it's all related. >> Okay. >> Thank you so much. I don't have further questions. >> Thank you councelor Chi. Uh just a quick note this round is for the presentation only and we'll get back to this item for the staff report later on after delegation. Uh so the next speaker is councelor Leo. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh thank you for the presentation and uh the very comprehensive report. Um I think we all agree here that I think you know the the message is is the is the funding shortfall. Uh we got to find money for that. Um out of all the um infrastructures um I can see we have quite a pretty report card. So we have three A's, seven Bs and one C. What is the bare minimal that we have to meet a C or a B or even a D is acceptable? I just curious >> through you Mr. Chair. Um that's a great question. It varies from asset to asset and part of the work we do is we consult with all the uh subject matter experts to identify where that is. And so, um, it's it's the report card is a very nice summary that rolls it up, but there's a lot of detailed, uh, and if you look on the same page as the report cards, you'll see some tables that have some metrics that we monitor and it would depend on the asset. So, certain assets that are higher risk, we want to keep that that level a little higher. Some assets, let's say the receptacles in a, you know, as an example, in a park, you know, if those fail, it's not going to be a risk to us. And so, it does vary. Um and that's part of the work as well, the risk modeling that we do underneath it to identify which ones have to be held to a higher level than others. >> I see. Thank you. Um you know, one that caught my attention is is the one C is the libraries. >> So what happened to the libraries? >> Uh you Mr. Chair, good great question. Um the libraries were hovering on the edge of a C and a B. What happens is the way the library uh numbers are calculated for the buildings, it's a fiveyear, we call it a five-year facility uh index. And so in year five, some more needs popped into that number, which kind of pushed it slightly over the edge into C territory. Um and so it's it's um it's an indication of the libraries are starting to get older in certain instances and and have more needs associated with them. But I will say it's it's right on the edge. And I think last year it was right on the edge just on the B side. this year a little bit dipped into the C side. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So I interpret that as a C+. >> Yeah. Yeah. Plus plus. >> All right. Sounds good. Thank you very much. Yeah. >> Thank you councelor Leo. Next speaker may Chen. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. And uh given you just explained um only for these um presentation I'm going to withhold my questions until the item 11.3 because I'm more interest is not being shown on this presentation slides. Thank you. >> Okay. So is any comment or question on this presentation? Seeing none. So I need a mover to move this forward. Uh councelor Davidson. Okay. So uh all those in favor oppose car unamously. Thank you. So moving forward we have a delegations and we have one delegates today. Thank you for the presentation. Okay. So moving forward we have a delegations we have one delegates today is uh Cheyenne Zella from Share Tower in for item 11.4. >> Yes the floor yours. >> Good morning members of council. Thank you very much for having me this morning. My name is Cheyenne Zerler. I'm the senior planning manager with Shared Tower and I'm here to speak with you today about the proposed telecommunication tower at 1124 Elgen Mills Road East. So just briefly about Shared Tower. Essentially we build infrastructure that is colllocatable by multiple service providers. We work with all of the national providers and smaller providers across the country and we've developed over 1500 sites across the country. Now, when we think of the wireless network, we might think of the typical uses, calling, texting, and streaming. But it's also important to recognize that there are multitude of devices that rely on the wireless network, such as GPS, emergency services, and different medical devices as well. When we look at the network, this is what you might want to see as an ideal network where towers are placed appropriately from each other so that everyone is allotted the same level of service no matter their geographical location or the type of device they're using. Now, when we see expansion or growth in the network or in certain areas that are experiencing development, here's where we come across coverage gaps or capacity gaps like you can see in this image here. So here's where we take the opportunity to place infrastructure that can be colloccable by multiple providers and service those communities. When it comes to the network impact of the proposed tower, the mid-band coverage is expected to increase by 71% for this area and that's for the faster uses such as LTE 2100 as well as the uh higher frequencies that all of our devices rely upon today. Now in terms of the subject site, we are proposing a 35 meter monopole style tower. This style tower has been chosen for dense urban and residential areas and it is able to service the area as well as provide collocation for multiple providers. First, we look at existing infrastructure in an area. And as you can see, without the proposed tower, there is a significant gap for the area that is experiencing a lot of development. Typically, in urban or residential areas where we have dense network uh impact, we want to see towers that are approximately 1 to one and a half kilometers away. And as you can see after the proposed tower, those are some of the distances that would be experienced in the area. Now, we had a few renderings done just to show the minimal visual impact it would have on the area. So, I'm going to go through those briefly here. So, first we have a view looking southeast from the Tom Graham Arena from the front steps. I do have the arrow pointing to where the tower would be. As you can see, that monopole design is in line with some of the street lights in the area to provide a minimal visual impact. Here we have a fronting facing view looking north on Elgen Mills Road East. And as you can see the tower standing there. It does blend in with some of those hydro lines and street furniture. Next we have a view looking from the newer development on Steely House Lane. And this was prior to some of those houses going up uh which would be in front of the tower in this view. Next, we have a view from the pickle ball court parking lot from Richmond Green. And as you can see, that slim monopole design really helps to minimize the visual impact um for the area while still being able to provide that coverage. Two more slides here in terms of the renderings. So, this is just another view looking northwest from Elgen Mills Road East. And we had another rendering done heading south on John McCrae Street just to demonstrate the visual impact uh and also include the new development in the area. When it comes to health and safety for telecommunication infrastructure, it is regulated by ISED through uh safety code 6. And in our analysis, the power density from this site would uh would not exceed 6.2% of the allowable limit. And safety code 6 is what all of our devices have to abide by, including Wi-Fi, cell phones, anything relying on the wireless network and using radio frequency. Just briefly, uh this proposal has gone through the city of Richmond Hills telecommunication protocol which has included public information packages mailed out to uh property owners within 140 meters of the tower, signage posted on site, and a public information session which was held on March 10th. We did receive two comments. We received one letter in support because uh coverage is needed in the area and we did have one resident reach out with some comments and concerns regarding health and safety, the proposed location and the need for the area. So all of these comments were addressed uh through those correspondents which were provided to the city as well as at the information session. So this morning we are concluding consultation and requesting a letter of concurrence from the city for the proposal. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have on the proposal. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you Miss uh Miss Ziala. Okay. And we'll talk about this item later. Okay. >> Okay. >> So uh thank you so much. So now getting into business. The first item we'll talk about is 11.3 2026 as management progress report. Uh who want to move it? Uh Deputy Mayor Chen, you want to move it and speak on this item, right? >> Sure. Uh those are recommendation after a lot of thoughts and uh certainly as a plan always uh good to have a plan to move forward. Um thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm happy to move um the motion uh that as recommended for next council's uh next Wednesday's final adoption. Uh but I do have a question. I I have um indicated uh it's not so much about the slides that has been presented. Of course, it's good when the overall average growth in or asset condition is a like just like going to school. Very good. Excellent. Even better a press. So great job. Thank you for all staff. And 85% of city assets are good in very good condition. That's great. And uh in terms of the asset um the shortfall is I believe is roughly about the same as last year 4% which is keeping pace. So it backs a question um only maybe myself Richmond Hill is not alone in terms of you know have to deal with the asset management in terms of the whether the factors may be climate changes or ever uh lead to some of the deterioration asset or depreciation and so on. Is it customary to do any benchmark um with other municipalities to the extent there are factors that could be controlled? Um so through you Mr. Chair maybe it's not feasible I don't know but I'd like to know yeah or nay uh through Mr. Chair I hope the c question is clear through you Mr. Chair, thank you for the question. Um, benchmarking is something that is done informally in our industry. So, we haven't produced a report. We do check around. Um, my former life before joining here was a consultant and got opportunity to work with several municipalities. And so, a quick comment, it is um what what we realize is everybody has a slightly different way that they do these things. So, although it's valuable, there is some nuance. Um but uh a quick um benchmark is that we are relatively low in our in our needs at the moment relative to some of our peers. So there was a 2021 report done by the um financial accountability office of Ontario saying that the backlog so the amount of work that needs to be done is around 10% of the total value of all the assets in the province. So that means everybody together 10% we're hovering around 3%. So we're much lower than that. Um and and so there's a a little bit of a benchmark that I have off the top of my head. Uh and we could absolutely do a formal one. Um but it is something we do. The asset management industry is pretty uh close and we definitely talk to each other quite a bit. >> Thank you uh through Mr. Chair for the answer. Um if I interpret correctly, that means even better news. um like other municipalities or the like they're comparable maybe 10%. Uh now we only have 3%. So this is actually even better news. Am I interpreting correctly for Mr. Chair? >> Y three Mr. Chair. Yes, we are I think in a better position than a lot of um municipalities who are have a lot older infrastructure that are driving that number up. >> Um and so some of it is because we're young. But I do want to also mention most municipalities and I would assume nearly all have a backlog and so ours is is decently low um and it's not uncommon to have one and to operate with one. So >> thank you. Um now I gather my interpretation or surmising is not included in the report not resending it sounds so good is because I think you use the term informal or maybe antidotal kind of thing. Um so but I do understand each municipality has to submit annual asset management plan. Um is it not uh help me understand through Mr. chair there will be some standard NI or stat whatever the right term is uh PKI meaning that you know key or KDI key performance indicators if there are I don't know whether there are or not but my part question are they uh secondly if there are um kind of standardized uh KDI won't that be some solid comparable measurable results and comparisons we be so Mr. Chair so it's two parts of your question >> through you Mr. Chair um the just to clarify the informal benchmarking was just the informal process of looking to other municipalities. You are correct that there are KPIs we call them levels of service that are actually mandated as part of our regulation. Um those come in the 2025 plan. So we the plan is required every 5 years and so last year was when we did that it was in that report in in a lot of detail. this year's update, you can find the key indicators that are in the appendix in each of those report cards to show how they've been progressing and not much change. So, um the one thing I will say is the prescribed uh KPIs that we have to report on, there's only a handful of them. >> The rest by regulation, we allowed to define the ones that are meaningful to us and everyone else um does the same. So, they're not quite the same, but there are a handful that are. Yes. >> Thank you. Um I have no more question. Uh thank you for the answers. Thank you Mr. Chair. Um but the answers I guess I for one feel better because it's not only what we have said and presented in the report but is something is just being shared here. Thank you. >> Thank you deputy chor and next speaker is uh regional and local council depal. >> Thank you very much Mr. Chair. Thank you. Uh I I just wanted to say that I support the report and I just want to remind members of council the the process that we've gone through to get to get here. Um in the last term of council, we we put off a lot of our repair and replacement uh until we had a very good uh careful announcement uh till we got a a state of good repair report till we did a strategic asset management plan and Richmond was really a leader in this field. We we went out there first and um said, you know, we're not we're going to we're going to stop and and not not spend any money that we don't have to until we really have a a clear picture and and developed a clear plan of how how we're going to maintain and and repair our assets. Uh I think because of I I think the province noticed the um our our our leadership role and then required those asset management plans to be done by other municipalities. But I it's important to note that there's there's a lot of other municipalities in Ontario that are in real crisis situation on something a crisis that that we we forecasted 5 years ago and saw coming and and took steps and and we are we are in a really good position. You have to look at things relative to um to the status in in other municipalities. And for a younger municipality with with uh you know a lot of our infrastructure approaching that age you know the the 50y year mark from when it was built in the in the 80s. Um we we are going to have that challenge but we do have a good plan and we also have ample repair and replacement reserves. uh those those are in place for for a reason and and um we are we also took the hard decision of of adding the capital asset um uh levy on on our on our tax fee and we we uh took took the difficult decision of raising that by half a point each year and and we're in a in a really good state and I'm not not diminishing what's what's in front of us and what we're being told and we have to continue to be um diligent going forward But um Richmond Hill by comparison uh to other municipalities is is in great shape. We we owe that uh to the to the team that's done some great work in in in assessing what our needs are and developing a plan to address them. Thanks. >> Thanks so much. And the next speaker, Mayor West. >> Thank you. I I I just I just want to say thank you for the work that you've done on this and and I you know, it's interesting that councelor Depalo was saying, you know, when he was on council quite a long time ago, you know, we were still thinking and talking about this. I it was only recently that that cities were uh legislated to have asset management plans if I'm not mistaken. Um but it seems to me and all the time that I've been on council, we've been talking about asset management right from the very beginning. And and I will say there's no question about it, this is not the most exciting thing for the public to be considering all the time. Um, however, it's really really important and and I know when I think about this, I I this is very complex and very complicated because we have so much assets and some of the assets that we have are quite um unusual from a everyday life point of view like underground pipes and and so on. But this is very comparable to what we all have in our everyday lives. I mean we own assets, we own a car, we own a house, we own other things that last for quite some time. And you know, the choice when you buy something new is either do nothing and wait for it to fail and then spend a pile of money and be very inconvenienced at, you know, that time when your car breaks down because you've done haven't done any oil changes or anything like that and you're on your way to an important event and now your car is out of service. Whereas what we've done is we've taken the approach that we're going to monitor and and do the little things, you know, ahead of the big problem happening so that we avoid the big problem. And uh, you know, I've I've had many many many conversations with staff over the years and I I I personally find this kind of interesting, but you know, looking into a pipe to, you know, make sure that it's it's, you know, performing properly, it's not leaking. If it is leaking, then we take less expensive remedial action to make sure that the pipe is able then to last longer. And I I think this is important and it's, you know, as was said, we put away money every year in in reserve funds and those reserve funds aren't like sitting there doing nothing. They're waiting to be used to stop the peaks and valleys in our spending so that we avoid the giant catastrophes whenever we possibly can that are very expensive and we just do the daily or weekly or monthly or yearly depending on the asset um maintenance to stop it from failing and from extending the life of the asset a long time. And this is what this is really all about. It's good sound fiscal management. And you know, we've been doing this in Richmond Hill for a very long time. And we are very lucky that we don't have assets the age of like say Toronto where they have pipes and so on that were put in place in that city long long long long before Richmond Hill started to become a more uh populated place. And those pipes now are just older. They're they're failing and and so you know we're trying to avoid any sort of a crisis down the road. So um I appreciate this. I I mean again I know it's not the most sexy thing that we talk about but at the end of the day it's really foundationally important on how we manage our our resources and and try to keep the tax rate as low as we can um by spending some money as we go as opposed to spending a whole bunch of money when the asset fails. So, I think that needs to be recognized and I and I'm very happy to support this and all of the other work that happened before this and will happen subsequent to this. Even before the asset management plan uh thing was dictated that all cities across Ontario had to have it, we were still already doing it. So, anyway, thanks to staff for all the work that you're doing on this and uh keep it up. >> Thank you, Mayor West. Uh any other comment questions for this study report as amen? Seeing none. So let's vote. Uh all those in favor oppose caramos. So thank you so much. So moving on we have the next item 11.4 regarding the radio communications and broadcasting antenna system application and at 11:24 Elgen Mills row east which is in W3. So, Council Leo, the floor is yours. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Um um talking about sexy mayor, this is uh the South Tower is no sexy thing at all, I have to say. Um thank you very much, Cheyenne, for coming in and your colleague and uh and also our staff, Matthew and and Darren. and uh and uh I think we've been working uh collaboratively since uh February when since this application came in and um you know this is uh the cell tower is always always controversial always tricky um especially not for you and our staff is you know it's it's it's challenging for for for council as a whole um you know once this application came in um you know We have we have a lots of conversation and thank you very much our staff and also the applicant um answering lots of questions from our residents um trying to explain um you know the need of this tower. Um, but I one thing I have to agree is uh I think all council members receive an an email from Pacted Richmond Hill. Um, and I have to say I agree with them um that um there is a new subdivision just across just next to uh the cell tower and um it's still a construction site. It's been sold out and um and new residents are going to move in and and they got to find out, oh my god, why is there a cell tower um next to my bedroom? Um I I don't know how this works to be honest with you. Um but since the application came in, you know, we had the uh public um meeting um I sent out letters, you know, you know, by by law is 140 mters. I sent out to a radius of 400 meters, close to 500 letters. Um a few responses. Um, and I also reach out to the developer, um, you know, which I mentioned, uh, the new subdivision, and they expressed no issues, but I don't know how much they can represent, um, the new buyers. Um, so that's why, um, I would like to make a deferral motion to uh, defer it to next week. Um I would like to once again reach out to the developer and hopefully um make them you know to contact the new buyers um make them aware of this uh tower. I understand this is all formality for for council a letter of concurrence. Um we're not the approval author approving a authority. uh but still you know by providing this letter um we in directly and indirectly approving the south tower which um I'm I'm quite hesitate at this moment. So um Mr. Chair, a deferral motion to Nick's council and uh give me one weekend to reach out to the developers again. Thank you. >> Okay, good. So now we have a motion to defer referral. Just want to clarify because I've heard is defer to next week. >> Thank you uh to the chair. It is technically a referral motion because we're referring to a different committee if you were referring directly to council instead of to a committee of the whole. So it is a referral. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Are you okay for the language? >> Absolutely. Refer to next council. >> So now we have a motion to referral on the floor. So any discussion for this motion? Uh councel tree. >> So um I'm just uh I received that email as well and also have a chance talk with that committee too. So I have no chance talk with uh our counselor local counelor yet but uh my concerns here is because lot of newcomers here when they purchasing the new land they did not realize there is a new tower so for the March so that's meeting hosting in March and I see a lot of building still ongoing and my idea is because this one will impact a lot of newcomers here even they are starting the purchasing they don't have enough information to know there is a new tower there. So instead referring to next week maybe I'll talk with our counselors will maybe defer to later half a year later because when this community more mature maybe bad time to discuss in this approach also I was wondering nearby there is a high building tall building I've got 10 or 12 is there any way can build up towers on top of the short this way you know the radiation may be grass more areas more than 30 mters uh tall towers stand alone there. So they're all different approaches to be considered instead of single one and from my um my own word we have a similar situation here as well I would maybe suggest before not only from last week maybe defer you longer until we have a better understanding from feedback from community too. Thank you. >> So uh councelor tree do you want to make an amendment to defer a longer time? So I'll leave this one I'll leave this one to our counselor local counselor next week you still have time either before half a year or refer to some other locations that's my uh two cents. Thank you. >> So councel do you have say something? >> Uh I have no Oh yeah. Mayor West first. >> Okay. Thank you. Um yeah I mean when it comes to uh referring deferring uh this I mean we can still decide to do that at council. So, I mean, you know, it's up to council. We'll have this discussion, and that's why we have committee the whole to have these types of discussions, you know, in advance of uh of it coming to council for whatever we ultimately decide to do with it. Um, so I understand the concerns and, you know, we we run into this all the time when when there's new cell towers and I I suspect that, you know, if you're in the business of of u advocating for cell towers or or working with cell tower companies, you're going to get a lot of that. I get I get the concerns and I get the health concerns. There's there seems to be some um question about the the safety of these devices, but I guess the problem is that you know so many of us own a cell phone and and it's it was interesting actually to see the other things that cell towers do like GPS and and so on which is is interesting. Um my understanding of this generally speaking is always that you know the city uh does not really regulate the placement of cell towers. I mean we kind of do but really at the end of the day this is the federal government and what the city does is we look into the planning aspects of the cell tower and including design and you know what shrubs you you plant at the bottom of the cell tower. I mean um act well uh director Janetta can I can I just make sure that I'm on the the I'm accurate in in that or is do you have anything to add >> to the chair to uh Mayor West we'll make a plan review yet and you're correct. >> Okay. So I mean I'm happy to have the discussion and and frankly I appreciate what uh councelor Leu is doing because I I think it is an interesting point. Usually a cell tower comes into an area that's already established. We don't usually have uh well, at least in my experience, we don't usually have cell towers come into an area that hasn't yet been built out. Um but you know, I I get it. So, I'm happy to to have the discussion again next week. Can I just ask a question? It's not related to the deferral, but um this is actually kind of an important area in Richmond Hill because it's right beside our op center and it's right beside Richmond Green. I've seen those monopoles in other places that have flags on them. How feasible is that? And in a situation like that, do who does that? Is it the is it the cell phone or the cell company or is it somebody else? Can I through you, Mr. Chair? Could I ask the applicant? >> Yes, sure. >> That >> Thank you. through the chair. Uh when it comes to the flag pole or shrouded design, that's typically what those monopoles with the flag are. They just have shrouding on the outside. Uh sometimes what happens with the flags is they deteriorate very quickly. Sometimes it puts a strain on the engineering for the base of the tower. And often times it becomes uh a bit of a hectic situation in in situations where technicians need to go up and service the equipment um in cases of emergencies. And when you shroud a cell phone tower as well, it limits lo collocation. So there would be less um providers that would be able to go on the tower. >> Okay. Is there other like this is not a a terrible design. I mean I I've seen the big honken towers that look like hydro towers and so so on. I appreciate that. But is there alternatives to the design of this tower? Anything from the color of it all the way down to, you know, cladding it in a different way. through the chair. Thank you for the question. In terms of uh the color of the tower, typically we like to see neutral designs. It helps blend in with the human eye a little bit more rather than a a darker structure, especially if the uh street furniture already is a silver um or those neutral colors. Uh we can definitely paint it a different color. There's also things we can do with the antennas in terms of uh making them a little bit more flush to the tower to help it blend in a little bit more. Um but we have done these types of installations in areas where there is new developments. Just to touch on that point as well. Um oftent times telecommunication infrastructure is looked at after areas are developed and unfortunately it leaves us with um less than ideal locations for the infrastructure. Uh we do have a project going on right now within the municipality of Clarington as well as we had a project in uh Eastwillberry where there were these areas being developed. Um and we were able to place a cell phone tower nearby and also a lot space on the tower for emergency equipment in those areas because it would be affected as well. Um but back to your question directly, we can paint it a different color and play with design a bit. I'm not suggesting I'm not prepared to make any sort of I just want it was a question because we are deferring it till next week. So, let me think about it and maybe we'll be in touch. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mayor West. Uh any other comments for the round one? Uh councelor Davidson. >> Thank you. Sorry, I'm confused. Are we allowed to ask questions about this or are we talking only about the >> defer? Yeah, actually we're talking about this uh motion. >> Okay. Um through you, Mr. Chair. I don't know if this is for staff, but would it ever be feasible that staff or that Richmond Hill rents a piece of property further back in the operations center somewhere that's not so prominent on that corner? And so it's I don't know I don't know the technology of it, but very similar service, but not right in the face of people looking out their window because that's sort of a a busy not not with all due respect not the most beautiful part of the city. So, putting it back further behind where the firefighters do their thing or whatever. Is that even an option? I don't know. I'm asking staff if the city would ever rent the space or allow a tower to be on city property. I don't know the answer to >> uh through you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure I can answer that. Um, but we are currently working on uh renov uh plan for renovations to the whole operation center property. uh is really all I can say. Uh we are short of space. I can also say that for sure. Um >> yeah, >> can I just ask you? So how does this work? >> Are you an independent company and then you make this tower available to all providers of telecommunication? >> Sorry, thank you through the chair. Yes. So we built the cell phone tower. It's a turnkey solution where we're leasing the property, we build the tower, and then it would we would be leasing space on the tower to the providers, >> right? So depending on what your who your provider is, you may or may not have improved service by this tower. It would be up to the provider to decide. If I have a Rogers phone and they don't buy piece of that tower, it's not going to help me any. >> So it does depend, of course, on who you're with in terms of the wireless network. We work with all of the providers and when we look for locations, we choose locations where it would address those issues for all of the providers. So in the newer development, you might have people with different providers. So by choosing locations that are too far from existing infrastructure to service that area, it would then allow for those collocation opportunities for the other providers. And uh sorry, just if I may, in order to build a tower or have these proposals, we do need to have at least one carrier who's confirmed on the tower and then we're continuing those uh conversations with the others. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so just to be clear on I know we don't have authority to say yes or no. Really, you're we're just saying okay. Uh but it's a federal I believe it's a federal issue, right? So, does a company like you have the ability to put a tower anywhere you want as long as you can get a piece of property that will allow it or are there any guidelines as to where you should put these towers with reference to residential or any other area? >> Thank you. Uh through the chair, there aren't any required setbacks for residential areas under federal regulation. They understand that this is infrastructure and the technology requires it to be placed closer and closer to the users as our devices get faster. Um but there is the consultation process with the land use authority and the public which uh we're required to go through. Uh now I said which is previously is industry Canada does request that the process is done within 120 days. That's when they expect it to be complete so that there aren't barriers coming up when it comes to the infrastructure being placed but there aren't specific requirements in terms of where we can and cannot place towers. >> So thank you. So basically the wherever you want to put it if you can find a piece of property the federal government will support that >> as long as the consultation has been completed and any relevant or reasonable questions have been addressed. >> Thank you. My last question through Mr. Chair. So, if there's a consultation, is there anything that could stop a tower? Cuz it's really kind of going through the motions, right? You guys can put them where you want, and the consultation is just to let everyone tell you what they think. But the bottom line is that the federal government overrides anything a municipality can do. And if you can put your tower where you want through the impass process, they do have the ability to review the tower, look at the need for the area, the design of the tower, and we're able to go through that process. But when it comes to consultation, they do want applicants to be consulting with the land use authority and if there are design preferences, that kind of thing, that we work with the municipality to resolve those before going through that impass process. >> Sorry. So, in a sense, there's no way for a municipality to stop a tower if you have the land because it's pretty much considered essential infrastructure. Is that about right? Whatever the design is. So when it comes to providing non-concurrence, if the applicant decides to go through that impass process, then they would be able to surpass that non-concurrence by going through the federal government. >> I'm so sorry. I didn't understand a word you just said. So >> I'm sorry, >> in layman terms, >> yes, >> there's nothing a municipality can do to stop it because there's mechanisms for to address whatever the issues might be. But the point is the priority is to have the tower. Is >> that right? If if applicants decide to go through that process. Yes. >> And are you the applicant? >> We are. Yes. >> Thank you. I think thanks. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Davidson. The next speaker, Councelor Thompson. >> Um, thank you very much. Actually, I wasn't originally going to speak. I thought I would be asking this question offline to to staff, but I guess now it seems appropriate. So under the public consultation process, um I think most staff know that I anything that we have to go to public consultation with, I always would prefer that we strive to do better than the minimum require requirements. But in this case, it sounds like uh the requirements are set by somebody else and we cannot say increase that requirement. And and what I'm getting at, and I'll give you an example, is that when I looked up the address and I put in, you know, are there any residential properties within 140 mters of the thing? Google said zero. So I thought, okay, are there provisions when something like that happens that are does legislation or whatever say that do we have to expand that search when you come up with something like that? So I'm I'm trying to understand this whole public consultation process. I mean, I appreciate what what councelor Leu did. He took it on himself to actually make sure that people outside of that uh parameter were notified. So my question is do we have any ability to change that public consultation process uh that that we're following >> is uh is planning >> uh through the chair to councelor Thompson um we can do it uh so the minimum requirements are set out uh by the federal government and and the protocol that we've adopted was not line was aligned with the federal government protocol call the city could expand that um notification requirement. I don't know how that would be uh viewed upon with respect to when we provide a concurrence or a non-concurrence letter to the uh federal government if it would be like oh great that municipality has done better and beyond and therefore there was a non concurrence on that basis. Um but right now our protocol is on the basis of uh the federal government regulations and as uh councelor Leo did he's expanded his consultation uh on his own. >> Okay. Um thank you through the chair. So it sounds like we could enhance the requirements that we've received in this regard from the fed feds in this particular case. Um but how enforceable would that be in the end? I guess that that would have to also be my question here >> through the chair councelor Thompson. That's correct. It's I don't know that it would be enforceable. Okay. Um, so even after this uh broadened search that that was done, it seems that there was only two people that actually uh had uh responded and I'm not sure is that just through letters or was that actually at this public consultation meeting that occurred in March? I mean, were there people that actually attended that >> through the chair to councelor Thompson? Yes, I believe uh five >> through the chair to uh councelor Thompson. About five people attended the virtual uh consultation meeting. We received some uh correspondence from one resident afterwards. Um but the the discuss the correspondence after was fairly limited to and isolated that one person who had a significant number of questions for us. >> Okay. Through the through the chair um of those five were they residents because I'm sure we would have people on behalf of the applicant there and and so forth. So I'm I'm just trying to >> Yeah. through the chair. Yes. There were members of the public there. about five members of the public attended virtually plus the applicant plus uh planning staff. >> I see. Okay. Um those are all my questions. Uh obviously I have similar concerns about this whole public consultation process. Um and also our ability to actually do something about it. That's uh concerning as well. Those are my comments. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor Thompson. Any comments, question for the first round? Seeing none, but I have a questions actually. Um I echo with my uh some of my colleagues about the timing of the public consultation the the the PIC uh held on March 10th. Actually, there's nobody and no residents living nearby at that time. So I I I don't think this public consultation is comprehensive enough to reflect the the the voices for the nearby residents. So um my question is is it feasible to host another public consultation when and um just just after the the residents moving in is it is is it possible to host another public consultation >> and just put this project hold on hold this project on and yeah >> through the chair and to uh councelor Shu. So, uh, technically you could have a public information center, but that would be outside of the mandated process that the federal government has put in place. >> So, it it it doesn't reflect the voices for uh from the nearby residents for an other public consultation. So the the the public information center that you could in theory host, you could collect feedback. The applicant could attend if they if they wanted to, if they were inclined to and could and could consider that feedback, but they are not obligated to because it would be outside of the federally mandated process. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I think it's nonsense if there's a public consultation, but don't take that feedback into consideration. That's that's useless. So uh my last question is is there any timeline for building this tower? Is there any timeline? We have is there anything we have to rush to do that >> through you Mr. Chair? So the federal government expects this process to be completed within 120 days so there aren't barriers in place. So um in terms of following the process, we're we're kind of keeping in line with that timeline that they expect it to be completed. So there isn't further prevention of the project. Um so I guess where we are in the process, we need to have a decision made either way through through the chair depending on the upcoming meeting. Um and then we would see where we are with next steps after that decision is made. >> Thank you so much. So that's all my comments. Oh, so for the second round, uh councelor Leo, second round. >> Thank you again. Um and thank you all my colleagues comments and and questions. Um you know it shows you how frustrating this process is to the applicant to staff and to council. And you know in fact you know my referral motion stands but if I don't know if I am allowed to I I think this should be referred back to the federal government not referred to next week but I don't think that's possible. But um I I I I do have uh a few questions. Um, so what if council do not make a decision within the 120 days through you, Mr. Chair to staff? Well, let's say if we refer it to like six months later, how is that going to affect the whole process? >> Uh through the chair to councelor Leo. Um the applicant would then proceed to uh approach uh the federal government um that has jurisdiction over this advising that the municipality has not uh issued a letter of concurrence or nonconcurrence. And I assume that they would be able to go through a process there determining whether or not they were going to permit the cell tower to uh proceed uh without the municipalities concurrence. >> Okay. >> Thank you. So I I'm still um >> yesing my motion to rein next weekend. Uh so I have one week to to to communicate with staff and the applicant and the residents. But usually Okay. Sorry, one more question. So usually so we have a subdivision coming up and those residents that we're not able to communicate with. So this is not an actual consultation as councelor Shu said. So what what happened is it's not okay. Yeah. So that's my question. So you know we have future residents coming in which are not being consult what's going to happen. >> So through the chair to councelor Leu it's like any other consultation that happens uh where there may be vacant land surrounding it for a new subdivision for example the the requirement is 120 mters for public notification irrespective of whether or not it's developed. So the same principle applies here that the public public consultation happens notwithstanding uh that there may not be homes there or not. Now you know philosophically that's a whole other conversation but the regulations are premised on uh the notification requirements vacant not vacant uh developed or not developed. >> Thank you. Um so one last note is uh um the reason that I sent out to the 400 meters 500 letters is because there are residents on the south side of Elen Mills. So maybe when you look at the north side there's nobody but on the south side there's also residents too. So thank you. >> Thank you councelor Leo. Anybody uh deputy mayor chain for second round. >> Well uh actually first round for me but it's second round for that's fine. I wasn't thinking about speaking but it seems to some of my cause discussion was actually more than the the referral motion itself. So um I will raise that and if it's uh not appropriate for that let uh Mr. Kirk or Mr. Chair let me know. Um I'm reacting to and hopefully they might be helpful. Uh the local council mentioned can we refer it to the federal government. Uh I guess we can add anything next week to refer to whoever. Uh having said that uh maybe that's a piece of information I want to share and and and I think we all may know that already if I recall correctly that um that the the John protocol at this point in time between the municipality and any app coming in was based on very much um the uh the template that was actually uh formed probably 10 years ago between the federation of Canadian Municipality is representing 92% of men or for Canada and the Canadian wireless association. So this doesn't happen just like that in terms of p code recover. I saw that the acting commissioner nodding so my memory is correct. Um so I believe that's an opportunity may not change the immediate changes perhaps either uh referral thinking that next week a council if my ciso decided can also request or request federation of the can parties in which city of Richmond is a member of to take a look reviewing or update the uh the the the template that Johnny developed between the industry Canadian virus association and whether in fact it needs to be modified because I hear frustration uh I have been frustrated I was frustrated before but I do uh share that maybe offline but I do have an incident that um the the tower never really application never get built but that's something else I don't want to discuss here um so just something for to consideration the opportunity to refer or seek um federation of communist parties to in their role nationally uh because it's kind of affecting all municipalities across Canada and it's frustrating uh as what my courts are saying. So that is that opportunity. Thank you. >> Thank you Deputy Mayor Chen. So any other one uh for the second round? Uh councelor Thompson. >> Uh thank you very much. And I want to thank councelor Leu for just putting a thought in our head about referring this back to >> the federal government. >> Sorry. Go ahead. >> Thank you to to the chair. So we are actually a motion to refer. There is no second round. >> Uh the mover is allowed to wrap up. Okay. Which is which is permitted. There's there's no second round on a on a motion. >> Okay. Sorry, councelor Thompson. There's nobody just uh deputy mayor ch has a second round. Do you want to use the second round? Okay, that's good. >> It you was my first one. >> Okay, no problem. So, uh any other comments? Seeing none. So, and let's let's vote let's vote on this motion to referral. Uh all those in favor oppose carry unanimously. Thank you. >> So, uh moving on moving on to the next item is uh u 11.2 regarding traffic regulation changes is pulled by councelor Thompson. Uh thank you very much through the chair. Um I noticed in the uh in the traffic report uh and you know I was advised about the the changes that were coming at least on the parking side and I'm specifically looking at Shelly Road. Um and I'm I want to understand exactly how uh this particular road uh ended up on on our radar. Uh I recognize that it's a nonconforming road in terms of width. So if we're trying to stay to uh our normal standards, then no, we would not have parking on either side of the road here. So, I'm just trying to sort out were there complaints that uh brought this to the attention of staff or was it just a a matter of uh this being a non-conforming road through the chair to councelor Thompson? So, we did receive some calls from the neighboring um uh commercial properties that larger vehicles in in in essence tractor trailers were having difficulties maneuvering to make the turns to come out when there was parking up permitted on the one um on the street. We are only um trying to regulate the north side. We feel that allowing it on the south side and and saying no parking should be allowed on the north side will still allow for those trucks to get out. that was the main reason for bringing forward that traffic regulation change. >> Okay. Given given that it's uh based on complaints in that regard, then uh I'm I'm I'm fine with moving the motion and and proceeding. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Thompson. The next speaker, Deputy Mayor Chen. >> Thank you, um Mr. Chair, and thank you staff for the report. It's quite a comprehensive list. I'm I'm following the apple uh sorry tables I mean maybe I'm hungry thinking apple but the tables are very helpful in terms of restricted parking reducing park uh speed limit and uh based on the uh last answer from our director to my colleague it's based the identification districts are based on presumably the volume of the complaint from the citizens correct okay I got all that um now I I I I'm I'm just curious as to um in couple of places um on table one through Mr. Chair Hillsville I got it speed limit um in fact I believe Hillsville now uh perhaps through you Mr. Chair to the director do we not already we have traffic coming um on Hillsville already >> uh through Mr. chair >> through you, Mr. Chair, the deputy mayor. I believe we do. >> Okay. So, so that pops my question if we introduce already there or what not introduced is already there with the um traffic calming. So, I'm just curious because uh just I I believe most of the streets on table one do not currently have the traffic calming. So um and reduce the speed. One of the uh one of the uh reason is to slow down the traffic. Um so I I just try to understand you know like is that in considering whether to reduce the speed limit uh whether in fact the street identify already has traffic calming may or may not be a consideration. I just want to clarify through Mr. Mr. chair >> to stop >> through through the chair to the deputy mayor. So when we do look at these uh concerns or complaints that do come in from the public, we do try to acknowledge the fact that the street may or may not have traffic calming measures already uh built into the cross-section of the road and that does play a role into where particular signage is placed, where parking restrictions are permitted or not permitted. Um they are two separate entities that we do work with separately. uh but they do come together when we're looking at the new regulations being brought forward. >> Thank you. So yeah uh because when I first look at it I'm just if the objective of for reducing the speed is to lower the speed of the traveling vehicles I honestly thought the traffic calming already done their job but apparently inde even double dosage for that particular short strip of uh street. I I think that's the idea I'm getting. Uh that's okay. No need the answer. I saw the uh the nodding uh from the director. So this is a certain street that is uh has to been taken care of. Um in terms of table two um sorry Mr. Mr. Chair my uh indulgence I'm moving from table to table. Um so on the top Blackmore Avenue have two notable mention. Um the first part is I got between uh Bay View and uh Reuben and Highbridge whereby on the south side as I understand it area is a very busy commercial plaza quite often running out parking space. Um so again um for you Mr. Chair is that is that also the parking restriction here is based on the volume of complaints from citizens through Mr. chair >> through the chair, the deputy mayor. Yes, it is. >> Yeah. Okay. So, maybe it's something to monitor because quite often uh I understand the commercial passing is usually full and and honestly motorists have nowhere to park and there's no uh restriction on parking there. So, we'll see what happens. and and in so far the second part of Brackmore I do understand is all surrounding Donest Public School and and and and and and we'll see how it works because also table three also would not allow stopping. So it'll be interesting to see how it's going to play out uh in the Don Crest school area. I'm quite familiar with that area. So we'll see what happens because we we're not allowing parking. We're not allowing stopping. Where would those parents go in terms of pickup and drop off? It'll be interesting to see. Um and I and and Christian Street which is very close to Hillsville. So I understand why. Um other than that uh as I'm saying we probably have to wait and see. Um so on that note through Mr. Chair is that particular time period that staff maybe come back in six months or a year to see okay this is what we propose and uh we're monitoring maybe a merit changes. Yeah. Would that be such a time? So Mr. chair >> uh through the chair >> is that changes >> through the chair to the deputy mayor if I understand your question correctly. So if we implement the changes uh following council's approval next week uh sites can continue to be monitored and of course if we continue to receive complaints of um hey the measures we've employed are not working. We could readress these areas again but right now we are employing a best management practice or toolbox list of items that can be thrown at the particular street to see what works. uh if something doesn't we can always come back and monitor and uh make some changes. >> Okay. Thank you. So if I understand correctly, thank you for answer. It will be staff will actively monitoring. I think the word active is correct. Um and so it's not permanent in the sense of forever never change. Um that's the sense I got. Thank you Mr. Mr. Chair and thank you for the answers and uh based on the batter I guess uh that would be something that uh we would try and see what happens. Thank you. >> Thank you, uh, Deputy Mayor Chen. The next speaker is Councelor Leu. >> Thank you, chair. Um, thank you, staff, for the report. Um, just one quick question. Um, they always stop at Libra and Forestwood. Um, my first impression is is is pretty close to Major Mac. Um, is there a reason? Uh that's the the entrance of the plaza. Um is is it based on complaints or studies that we need to put uh stop sign on Forestwood >> through the charity to counselor you? Yes. So it it would stem from a complaint driven process. Then staff would do a review, a study to check warrants for there and it it goes through volume, pedestrian traffic, number of accidents. Uh and if the criteria are met, then the intersection would qualify for an all-way stop. Those are the those are the criterias that are looked at by staff. >> Thank you. I'm I'm just uh let let's see how how it goes. Uh cuz I I just afraid that there will be backup um during rush hour. um you know all the way up to up to Major Mac because there's a stop sign there. Um but I respected the staff decision. So what we we we'll take a look. Have the residents been informed about this or through the chair to council. Yes. All residents should be informed of any traffic relation uh regulated changes within about two weeks >> of them taking place before council. So there is some time for them to approach us if they have any issues. >> I see. Thank you very much. And uh yeah, and lastly, I would like to just uh the big thank you to to to you and your team uh for you know, helping us with with all the traffic safety and stuff and especially the Silver Stream. You know, I I can see that the no stopping restrictions um on Farmstead. You know, that's Silver Stream public school. We the whole team went there and we we we take a look at the whole whole area and we have a plan um to implement some um safety uh um restrictions for for for the students and also um Bey Elementary. Thank you very much staff and your team. I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor Leo. Uh any other comments question for this item? Seeing none. So let's vote on this item 11.2. Uh all those in favor oppose carry unanimously. Thank you so much. So now moving on we're getting to the other business. Uh item 12 for the motion. We have a motion proposed by Mayor West regarding the urging parliament to enact the Canadian Chinese heritage month. May West. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, so, uh, this is pretty self-explanatory, but, um, I think when I think about Richmond Hill, I think about a very, um, multicultural and diverse, uh, community that we are, and and you know, we have many benefits from that. And, uh, and I think that's good. Um, and I think that this motion really is just about celebrating a group of our friends and neighbors, which is the Chinese community. Um, I think you know what they they are numerically very significant to our community, but they're also very important to our community uh as well with all of the different uh gifts that they've brought uh and it's enriched all of our lives. This motion is really just about uh asking the federal government to uh recognize and celebrate that across the country and and um produce a a Chinese heritage month uh that we would proclaim in February. And uh this is an initiative that a number of municipalities in the greater Toronto area and across the country have now signed on to just urging it to be a federal a federally federally proclaimed month. And I think uh this is very important in our community and uh you know and again uh having and we have a number of of different um months where we celebrate different heritages. And I think what that does is it it allows us to kind of stop and pay attention to a a particular group of people with, you know, some interesting and unique customs that may or may not be different from our own. And for the people that are a part of that group, uh it's a time that they can take pride in in their culture and the and the way they see the world. And I think, you know, we're all stronger by doing that together. And I think this is the kind of motion that would um reinforce a lot of the the things that we do well in Richmond Hill. that um I think the uh the contributions that the Chinese community has made in the past going back a long time in in Canada and also the the contributions that they're making today and will make in the future are something to be celebrated. So um that's my motion. Um I would hope that we could uh pass that unanimously and send this off and we will be joining uh as I said a number of different municipalities now that have have done this and and I'm expecting and understanding that there will be a number more uh that will happen in the near future. So uh thank you very much Mr. Chair. Thank you Mayor West. Any other comment on for this motion? So actually um thank you Mayor West for uh proposing this motion and I'm pleased to support this initiative. Um I would say Chinese Canadians have made profound contributions to our country and to our local community here in Richmond Hill. So by supporting this uh motion and urging the parliament to take action we are sending a strong message that this contribution matter and should be recognized at the national level. And also I'm happy to see that uh proclaiming a Chinese heritage month. This is really good move and this is not only about recognition but also about education about understanding and and fostering a more inclusive society. So as as we all know that Richmond Hill is one of the most diverse communities in Canada. So this motion reflects the value we strive to uphold. So I'm proud to support this motion. Thank you Mayor West. And that's all my comments. So now let's vote on this. Uh all those in favor oppose carry unanimously. Thank you so much. So uh we have no emergency time sensitive matters. So now we have time to adjourn. I need a mover. Councelor the syllabus. All those in favor.