It was back to the Allan and Macdonell bridge structure at this month’s regular meeting of city council, but did anyone give a damn about getting rid of the dam? That was going to be the question at this meeting as numerous delegates tried to convince council that the dam’s time was over, and in the interest of flood control and re-naturalization it should be removed. But as you might already know there’s an issue with unknown amount of money needed to make it happen. Let’s recap…
Regular Meeting of City Council – October 28, 2025
Council started a bit late and then had a few community moments with University of Guelph student Githmi Illamperuma singing “O Canada” and the members of the U18 T1 Guelph Royals being honoured as the 2025 18U AA Ontario Baseball Association Champions!
As for council business, the consent agenda was approved swiftly, but one item was pulled for a minor adjustment. One night after the Guelph Public Library Board formally endorsed a motion to seek a 40-year lease with a potential 10-year renewal for the new main library, council agreed to adopt that on their end too. There was a lot of back and forth at Committee of the Whole about how long the lease should be and whether or not the original staff recommendation of a 30-year lease with two five-year renewals was adequate.
There was one more consent item, the report on the Centralization of Back-Office Support Functions. Council approved the report, but Mayor Cam Guthrie took a moment to note that despite occasional public criticism that council and staff don’t do the nitty gritty search for cost efficiencies this was an example of them taking on that work. Though the review didn’t end up yielding substantial savings, they are watching the nickels and dimes and should be recognized for that.
And that brings us to the Macdonell and Allan’s Structures Environmental Assessment – Notice of Completion. There was no new information from staff, at least none that warranted a new presentation, but there were five delegates, most of whom asked council to reconsider letting the Allan Dam remain as what was recommended in the EA. Their argument was that the dam was an outdated artifact that was no longer needed for flood control and that it might even contribute to the future risk of floods immediately upriver. They also argued that the river should be re-naturalized, and that the City needed new, up-to-date information about the river area that could only come from a new hydraulic study.
Council and staff got bogged down again in a debate about how much detail is too much when it comes to the completed EA, a near copycat of the one they had at Committee of the Whole on this same subject. Once everyone was on the same page that any dam discussion was inline with the recommendations on the floor, Councillor Rodrigo Goller offered an amendment to direct staff to do technical studies to examine the removal of the dam, funded through the 2026 budget, and bring a report back to council about next steps.
Why? Goller said he was answering concerns raised by delegates and constituents who want to see the area remediated and the dam removed. City engineer Terry Gayman said that it wasn’t that easy; the EA can’t end with two possible directions and the pursuit of removing the dam not only comes with higher costs beyond the $2 million just to tear it down, but it might also have other unintended consequences that they don’t know about yet. Also, job number one is replacing the Macdonell Bridge, which is dangerously beyond its useful lifespan.
Gayman offered repeated assurances that if there’s reason in the detailed design process to take another look at the plan to rehabilitate the spillway and sluiceway of the dam, it will come back to council for a thorough vetting.
Mostly it’s about the costs; the costs of the extra studies, and the cost of the work to take apart the dam if it’s not necessary to do so, which might also expand the timeline of the project and require further collaboration with the Grand River Conservation Authority and Metrolinx (who owns the train bridge over the river). The detailed design process will also have a public component so the ones wanting the removal of the dam elements will be able to continue to make their case. Ultimately the Goller amendments were defeated 2-11.
Councillor Ken Yee Chew tried to find a middle ground to have staff bring an information report to council during the detailed design phase to affirm or not if remediation is still the right call. While many appreciated Chew’s efforts, any council motion to come from this hypothetical report would count as a motion to reconsider, which requires two-thirds of council just to take on the possibility. Chew’s amendment was also defeated.
Ultimately, council voted in favour of the original recommendations with at least a couple of dissenting votes. CAO Tara Baker noted that much of this work is regulatory by nature and the intention of elevating it to council business was because of the public interest in this project. She affirmed that staff are looking at this through a risk management lens, and if there’s proof that there’s more risk in the chosen direction then they will come back to council for further guidance.
There was one last item, the Elect Respect pledge. Councillor Carly Klassen wanted city council to support the pledge, which includes treating everyone in the public space with respect, rejecting harassment and personal attacks, building a supportive culture for everyone, and holding themselves and colleagues to the highest standards of conduct. There was considerable praise for the move to adopt this pledge, and council sealed it with a unanimous vote to endorse and a selfie ready for social media.
Click here to see the complete recap of the meeting.
Guelph Politico 