RECAP: City Council Meeting for December 16, 2025

Let us wrap up a very busy, and a very difficult 2025 in the council chambers. You can click here for the amended agenda from City Hall, and you can click here for the Politico preview. For the complete blow-by-blow of today’s council meeting, you can follow along with the thread below, or you can watch the whole meeting for yourself by watching it on the City’s website here.

BEGINNING OF THREAD:

Mayor Guthrie has called the meeting to order.

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest or General Nature Thereof? Nope.

From the closed meeting…
Chief Administrative Officer 2025 Year-End Performance Review -> Council gave direction
Expression of Interest: 170 Stephanie Drive -> Gave direction there too.
Affordable Housing Property Acquisition -> Also gave direction.
And, finally a motion on Closed December 2025 Public Appointments to Advisory Committees of Council…

Appointments approved.

Minutes for the open Council Meetings held November 12, 18, and 26, 2025, and the open minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting held November 4, 2025 are confirmed!

Consent agenda. One item: Approval of 2025 External Audit Plan, and it’s approved.

First item up for discussion: St. George’s Square – Final Design. Presenting are Kyle Gibson, Acting General Manager, Engineering and Transportation Services; and Stacey Laughlin, Downtown Revitalization Advisor.

Gibson says the approval of the final plan is another milestone for downtown renewal has been reached. Surface work on the Square will begin in late 2027 and it will be finalized in 2028.

Looking back to the July 2025 plan, Gibson says it provided a flexible layout and designed to be an active hub for people of all ages. Council wanted more flexibility though, and wanted the final design to be more reflective of heritage with more natural materials and design elements. The DGBA also had their own motions to ensure the design reflects the character of the city, supporting a vibrant downtown, incorporating a tribute to Robert Munsch, and finding a more “discreet” place for public washrooms.

Laughlin takes over to talk about what they heard in the most recent round of feedback.

So this is going to be the final look of the plan now… Laughlin says it balances the needs and wants of business, residents and visitors to downtown. There will be a stage area in the southwest corner that can be used for other purposes, the Family Fountain has been moved closer to Old Quebec Street and will be a smaller octagon, and more trees and modified materials have been added to create a more natural feeling.

Play structure? It got mixed reviews, and then the idea for a Paper Bag Princess statue came forward. The new plan calls for space to be saved in the northwest corner of the Square where one or both can be accommodated. The statue is now going through the typical public art process.

Additional lighting has been added, and the lights themselves will have a more traditional appearance. Area lights will be all around the Square on taller polls to ensure appropriate lighting and will be the same ones that will be used on Baker.

Other changes: No self-cleaning washroom, there are too many challenges at the moment according to other municipalities. It’s been removed “at this time” and the underground infrastructure will still be installed, but they’re looking at other options too. Gateway features were removed too. All this comes from “extensive” internal and external consultations.

No “substantial” changes are predicted from these changes that will impact the budget. If there are changes though, those will come back to council for re-evaluation.

Guthrie says he gets so upset sometimes we hear people say that staff never listens. This is exhibit ‘A’ that staff do indeed take direction from council.

There are three delegates starting with Sya VanGeest. She wants to address the plan for the Paper Bag Princess statue noting that there are 87 million copies of Robert Munsch books all over the world. Notes the value of using art to reinforce the connection, and the fact that the new library will be home to Munsch’s archive. She also says that the City could save money by crowd-funding, it would be easy to raise money for this project.

Cllr Caron asks about the design of the square, is this an area the Guild of Storytellers can use for their events? VanGeest says there could be a designated space for storytellers, and they could even make it a feature.

Next is Alec Purves. He says they could do more for Robert Munsch like naming a school after him. As for the square, we should look at why people would want to come downtown? They’re drawings show 40 tables when there are three in the square right now and they’re always empty. We says they should stop with the temporary stages too, make something permanent and get some corporate sponsors to pay for it.

Lastly, Morgan Dandie. She notes some things in the drawings that need to be changed, like the Bank of Montreal, which is closing in the spring, and the placement of the stairs outside the CIBC. Also, she’s confused about having more events downtown without the installation of a visible 24/7 bathroom in the core. Guelph Labs noted the necessity of this feature and the washrooms in the new library will not be open 24/7.

Back to council. Klassen/Goller move the recommendation: That the Final Design for St. George’s Square, as outlined in report 2025-548, dated December 16, 2025, be approved.

Cllr Allt asks about Munsch tribute, isn’t the library a more appropriate place for that, and on top of that there are numerous artists, and Nobel laureates who can be honoured too, and what about John Sleeman or George Drew, how do we choose which one to address? DCAO Clack-Bush reminds that there’s a public art policy approved by council, and those proposals will be considered through that process. The City does not presently have money earmarked for the commission of new public art.

Cllr Klassen asks there not being a stage. Lauchlin says there was one in the July plan in the northwest corner, the slop there facilitated it. They heard a lot about flexibility and not doing something permanent because the stag will not be used everyday. There also a natural stage area on the other side of the street in front of the CIBC.

Klassen asks if there will be future opportunities for the arts community to contribute this space. Lachlin says its a blank canvas that can be enhanced over time.

Klassen: Will you be continuing to source public washroom spaces downtown?
Lachlin: Yes.

Cllr Busuttil asks about the art process, is this an open process or is it for people with money in hand? Clack-Bush says that’s in the terms of reference, some installations have through City funding (like the art in front of the Farmers’ Market), or when a group comes forward and fund-raises for it (like the McCrae statue in from of the Civic Museum).

Busuttil asks about the stairs in front of the CIBC. Lachlin says there’s a grade change there that can’t be ignored, but they’ve tried to work around that as best they can by removing the retaining wall and having wider stairs.

Busuttil asks if the infrastructure location for the future washroom been decided? Lachlin says it will be in the general area in front of Old Quebec Street, it will depend on the final placement of the Family Fountain.

Cllr Downer says that there were thousands of people downtown for Spirit of the Season, and a great platform to show off the city. Is there a reason why the heart has to be moved? It conflicts with the proposed location of the Fountain. Could keep it in the same area, but the intent was to highlight the view down Douglas Street with the new location.

Caron thinks the wow factor has been secured.

Cllr Caton says they liked the other design more, but appreciates that’s not representative. When will council hear about washroom options? Lachlin says she can’t provide those details, but it’s part of the 2026 work plan.

Recommendation approved unanimously.

Next, 2025 Third Quarter Budget Monitoring Report. No new information, just a delegation from Kristopher Plummer.

Plummer credits staff for the $11 million secured through a grant for local sports and recreation facilities. Still, he expresses his concern about how this will be served for the community as a whole, how will it be used to help people in need access these facilities? He’s not so subtly talking about winter maintenance of bike lanes, fyi.

Busuttil/Richardson move recommendation: That the capital project budget adjustments in Attachment 2, Funding Adjustments (Table 4) be approved.

Guthrie asks staff to confirm that this is a difference between capital and operating, so there’s no trade off here. Clack-Bush confirms. The recommendation is approved.

Guthrie calls a lunch break. Cllr Billings asks if Grand River Conservation Authority CAO Samantha Lawson is in the gallery. It seems unfair to make her wait. Talking to councillors off screen Guthrie says that he’s not going to look for her because there’s a delegate for this topic that is not in the chambers and that seems unfair. Guthrie decides to do a shorter break.

And we’re back!

Next: Grand River Conservation Authority, Bill 68, Plan to Protect Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2025. Billings, who is one of the Guelph reps on the GRCA Board, asked to bring this motion forward…

Whereas the Government of Ontario recently approved Bill 68, which establishes the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency;

And whereas the Government of Ontario is proposing the consolidation of the province’s 36 conservation authorities into seven regional conservation authorities, including the Grand River Conservation Authority, which will be amalgamated amongst eight current authorities to become part of the Lake Erie Regional Conservation Authority;

And whereas the 38 municipalities within the Grand River Conservation Authority watershed boundaries today and the 81 municipalities that are proposed to make up the Lake Erie Regional Conservation Authority in 2027 will be levied to fund both the regional conservation authority as well as the provincial conservation agency;

And whereas the new organizations will result in the degradation of local governance, local fiscal accountability, local service delivery, local environmental focus and unprecedented funding by local municipalities of both a large regional authority and a provincial agency;

And whereas the Grand River Conservation Authority Board of Directors has responded to Bill 68 and the proposal for Conservation Authorities consolidation with a constructive and thoughtful alternative that retains local governance, local service delivery, local environmental focus and local fiscal accountability while responding constructively to the Government of Ontario’s concerns about accountability, planning and responsiveness;

Now therefore be it resolved:

1. That Guelph City Council respectfully requests that the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks and the Chief Conservation Executive meet Grand River Conservation Authority representatives to review the Grand River Conservation Authority alternative proposal to Conservation Authorities consolidation.
2. That Guelph City Council respectfully requests that the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks and the Chief Conservation Executive seriously consider the Grand River Conservation Authority proposal for conservation authorities as it enunciates a path forward that will address the Government’s concerns most democratically and productively.
3. That Guelph City Council expresses continued concern that municipalities are negatively impacted by legislative changes that result in the downloading of services to municipalities without the provision of additional funding and calls on the Province of Ontario to fund the proposed Provincial Conservation Agency without the use of municipal revenue sources.
4. That this resolution be circulated to the Premier of Ontario, Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks, Chief Conservation Executive and MPP Mike Schreiner.

Billings notes that this bill is meant to create a new agency and boil down 32 conservation authorities into seven. Several municipalities have passed motions rejecting this, and the GRCA has offered an alternative with a right-sized regional model instead of what the ONgov wants and recognizing the source protection boundaries instead of the ones they proposed. Guthrie concurs that there are a lot of municipalities doing these motions.

There are two delegates, starting with Susan Watson. She says that she supports the resolutions and that Bill 68 has serious implications for GRCA assets, including land, infrastructure and financial reserves. The benefits incurred by once authority can now be collected by another who have not made such wise investments. She says that council needs to act to protect the old Niska Waterfowl Park.

Second and last, Dr. Hugh Whiteley. He says Bill 68 is an exceptionally damaging act by the ONgov and Guelph was instrumental in the creation of the original Conservation Authorities Act.

Billings moves her motion, and Chew seconds (he’s also on the GRCA board). Billings adds that the GRCA can modernize the way that the ONgov wants to while still maintaining local control. She calls the ONgov plan “nonsensical” because municipalities pay but have no say, it’s another form of downloading.

Lawson adds that the ONgov proposal essentially consolidates 81 municipalities, and that covers all the land from Guelph to Windsor. She says conservation authorities are successful because of local control and local input, and the GRCA says there are some benefits to consolidation, but on a small scale. This idea would combine four into one, and doesn’t dilute local authority.

Allt asks how many of the 81 are expressing similar concerns. Lawson says all of them.

Allt asks about downloading. Lawson says the bill is passed, and the one part not enacted was the ability of the agency to levy the conservation authorities for costs, which is still under review. The first term of the new agency, or three years, will be covered by the ONgov. Lawson notes that’s what they said. There will also be new regulations coming the spring because oversight between the agency and the CAs is not yet clear.

Busuttil asks if these resolutions have been shared with other agencies like public health to help raise their concerns. Lawson says they’ve shared it, just not with other area agencies.

Caron asks about the risk to land assets, is that something the GRCA is concerned about? Lawson says that’s a significant concern and they’re seeking legal advice. The authority’s been around for 80 years and has a very sophisticated program, particularly around water protection, and there’s concern that the other CAs haven’t done the same high level work.

Guthrie wishes Lawson the best given the trying times.

Downer asks Guelph staff about providing input through the ERO. Acting DCAO Gayman says council will see that in the information report this Friday, but there are aligned with what’s being presented here.

Downer proposes to amend recommendation #4 to add AMO, Billings seconds. Caron asks if she can add the other GRCA member municipalities, and Chew seconds that but wonders if its redundant. Guthrie says it can’t hurt. Amendment to the amendment is approved, the amended amendment is approved.

Gibson says aligning with source water protection is compromise. Sometimes working with the ONgov you have to offer them alternatives, and notes that the premier is open to “putting water in the wine” if he gets “a little ahead of his skis”.

Motion is approved unanimously as amended.

Guthrie says we are at the most exciting bylaws we’ve ever had because of what’s in the them and asks for a moment from council.

I said he found a way to figure it out. It’s a compromise: Using Strong Mayor Powers to provide the $650k for winter maintenance in bike lanes; $349k will come from tax levy in 2026, and $301k will come from the Environment and Utility Reserve. Also, the decision to fund two new bylaw positions and the $250,000 to the 100RE reserve will be reversed. He signed the mayoral order, co-signed by the clerk so it’s a done deal. Winter maintenance is back starting today, Guthrie says.

Guthrie goes on: This has been extremely difficult to figure out, he says. It’s been hard to talk to everyone, and all of his time has been spent trying to come up with answers. He blames Strong Mayor Powers, they do not let the colleagues do a Notice of Reconsideration on the budget. It’s all on him, and it shouldn’t be a shock that he doesn’t like raising taxes. Wanted to get this done, and have no impact on property taxes.

Does he ignore the concerns of the community and councillors? Does that make him a good leader? He didn’t want to use Strong Mayor Powers, and some on council have criticized him for using them the way that he has, and he believes that he found the way forward here. Now council has 21 days from right now to challenge the mayor’s order. If they do that though, they’re raising taxes and he doesn’t like that.

He hopes the public understands his position adding that some comments were valid, but others might have gone “overboard”. Guthrie says that this has been a really tough budget, and we have to make our city affordable and everything has to be on the table sometimes. “This shouldn’t have been one of them, and I want to acknowledge that. I’m sorry, and I mean that.”

Allt thanks Guthrie for making this change. Busuttil notes that there’s been a lot of emails about affordability, and council and the mayor is trying to find the balance with more downloading coming. Cllr Hauser says maybe in the future, council shouldn’t wave the amendment period. Chew says that there are a lot of roads outside downtown that never get plowed and hopes that they can share those stories in future advocacy.

Motion to approved the bylaws of the week except for 9.11 approved unanimously.

After conferring with the clerk, Guthrie proposes to move a motion to stop the 21 day review period. Klassen asks if it will delay implementation if they don’t pass this. Clack-Bush says they have already restored winter maintenance.

Busutill/Hauser move the motion, and its approved with Goller voting against.