May 11, 2021, at 12:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Items 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, and 2.8, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.1   4th Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee

2021-04-27 TAC Report

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 27, 2021:

a)        the attached Autonomous and Electric Vehicles Sub-Committee Report, dated March 22, 2021, from M. Rice, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Works Committee and to the Connected and Automated Vehicle (CAV) Strategy Project Team for review; and,

b)        clauses 1.1, and 2.1 to 2.6, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   Sarnia Road/Phillip Aziz Avenue and Western Road Intersection Environmental Assessment

2021-05-11 SR - Sarnia - PhilipAziz - Western Rd EA - Full

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, related to the extension of a Consulting Engineering Assignment for the Western Road and Sarnia Road / Philip Aziz Avenue Environmental Assessment:

a)        AECOM Canada Ltd. BE APPOINTED Consulting Engineers to complete the Environmental Assessment Study for the Western Road and Sarnia Road / Philip Aziz Avenue area in the amount of $309,980, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)        the financing for this appointment BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this appointment;

d)        the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the Consultant for the work; and,

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, including rail agreements, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-E20)

Motion Passed

2.4   Appointment of Consulting Engineers for Construction Administration Services - 2021 Infrastructure Renewal Program Sackville Street and 2021 Infrastructure Renewal Program Watson Street

2021-05-11 SR - 2021 IRP Consulting Sackville and Watson - Full

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, related to the appointment of consulting services for the construction administration of the 2021 Infrastructure Renewal Program Sackville Street project and Watson Street project:

a)        IBI Group BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the Sackville Street project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $229,284.00, including 10% contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)        AECOM Canada Ltd. BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the Watson Street project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $262,661.30, including 10% contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

d)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with these projects;

e)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; and,

f)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-E01)

Motion Passed

2.5   RFP21-30 - Supply and Delivery of Hydraulic Drum Brush Chippers

2021-05-11 SR - Forestry Brush Chippers - Full

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, related to RFP 21-30, supply and delivery of hydraulic drum brush chippers:

a)        the submission from Vermeer Canada Inc., 10 Indell Lane, Brampton, Ontario L6T 3Y3, for the supply and delivery of one (1) 18” Hydraulic Brush Chipper and three (3) 15” Hydraulic Brush Chippers at a total purchase price of $382,045.80, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED in accordance with Section 12.2 (b) of the Procurement of Goods and Services;

b)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with these purchases;

c)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval in accordance with Section 12.2 (b) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; and,

d)        the funding for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2021-V03)

Motion Passed

2.7   Supply and Delivery of Intersection Detection Systems

2021-05-11SR - Supply and Delivery of Intersection Detection Systems - Full

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, related to the supply and delivery of intersection detection systems:

a)        Black & McDonald Limited BE AWARDED the contract to supply and deliver intersection detection systems in the amount of $573,896.20, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 12.2 (a) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED in accordance with the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

d)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the Contractor for the work; and,

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-T08)

Motion Passed

2.8   RFT21-07 - Innovation Park Assumption Works: Tender Award

2021-05-11 SR - Innovation Park Assumption Works - Full

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Development and Compliance Services and Chief Building Official, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, related to the award of contract for the Innovation Park Assumption Works project:

a)        the bid submitted by Cassidy Construction London Ltd., at its tendered price of $3,237,130.99, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Cassidy Construction London Ltd. was the lowest of seven (7) bids received;

b)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted report;

c)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

d)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (Tender No. RFT21-07); and,

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-D21)

Motion Passed

2.2   Contract Award - Dingman Creek Pumping Station Construction Tender T21-19 

2021-05-11 SR - Dingman Creek PS Construction Award - Full

Moved by J. Helmer

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, related to the award of contract for the construction of the Dingman Creek Pumping Station facility:

a)        the bid submitted by Hayman Construction Inc. at its tendered price of $21,632,010.00, excluding HST, for the Dingman Creek Pumping Station Construction project (RFT21-19), BE ACCEPTED, it being noted that the bid submitted by Hayman Construction Inc. was the lowest of four bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)        Stantec Consulting Ltd. BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the Dingman Creek Pumping Station Construction project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $749,029.38, including 10% contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report, noting the required wastewater capital budget transfers and adjustments;

d)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

e)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project; and,

f)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-E03)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.6   Supply and Install 2022 to 2028 Infill Tree - RFT20-80 - Irregular Result

2021-05-11 SR - RFT20-80 Supply and Install Trees

Moved by M. Cassidy

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, related to the supply and install of 2022 to 2028 infill trees:

a)        the irregular bid submitted by Kamarah Tree Farms at its tendered price of $3,233,920.00, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED in accordance with Section 8.10 (a) and (b), Section 13.2 (b), and Section 19.3 (b)(i) and (b)(ii) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation negotiating prices, terms and conditions with Kamarrah Tree Farms to the satisfaction of the Manager of Purchasing and Supply and the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure;

c)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this program (RFT20-80), and subject to future budget approval;

d)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this contract; and,

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, as required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-E04)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   3rd Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee

2021-04-21 CAC Report

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 21, 2021:

a)        the following actions be taken with respect to the Public Meeting Notice, dated March 10, 2021, from S. Wise, Senior Planner, related to an Official Plan Amendment for the Masonville Secondary Plan:

i)          a Sub-Committee BE ESTABLISHED to review the above-noted Masonville Draft Secondary Plan and report back at a future meeting of the Cycling Advisory Committee (CAC);

ii)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend the above-noted future CAC meeting to discuss the Sub-Committee Report to be brought forward; and,

iii)        the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to provide maps of the cycling routes in the area under the Masonville Draft Secondary Plan and how they connect with existing cycling infrastructure and integrates with the Cycling Master Plan;

b)        the following actions be taken with respect to a City of London PumpTrack:

i)         the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Cycling Advisory Committee (CAC) supports the creation of a pumptrack facility; and,

ii)        the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back on the process and fees associated with a feasibility study with respect to the establishment of a pumptrack facility in the City of London; it being noted that the communication, as appended to the agenda, from B. Cassell and the delegation from S. Nauman, with respect to this matter, was received; and,

c)        clauses 1.1, and 3.1 to 3.5, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

Voting Record:

Moved by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Turner

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 21, 2021:

a)        the following actions be taken with respect to the Public Meeting Notice, dated March 10, 2021, from S. Wise, Senior Planner, related to an Official Plan Amendment for the Masonville Secondary Plan:

i)          a Sub-Committee BE ESTABLISHED to review the above-noted Masonville Draft Secondary Plan and report back at a future meeting of the Cycling Advisory Committee (CAC);

ii)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend the above-noted future CAC meeting to discuss the Sub-Committee Report to be brought forward; and,

iii)        the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to provide maps of the cycling routes in the area under the Masonville Draft Secondary Plan and how they connect with existing cycling infrastructure and integrates with the Cycling Master Plan;

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Turner

b)        the following actions be taken with respect to a City of London PumpTrack:

i)         the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Cycling Advisory Committee (CAC) supports the creation of a pumptrack facility; and,

ii)        the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back on the process and fees associated with a feasibility study with respect to the establishment of a pumptrack facility in the City of London; it being noted that the communication, as appended to the agenda, from B. Cassell and the delegation from S. Nauman, with respect to this matter, was received;

Motion Passed (5 to 1)

Moved by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Turner

c)        clauses 1.1, and 3.1 to 3.5, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

CWC DEFERRED MATTERS as at May 3, 2021

Moved by M. Cassidy

Seconded by J. Helmer

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at May 3, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members only)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Civic Works Committee convene, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering the following:

6.1     Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation, and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation, with respect to litigation currently before the Superior Court of Justice, Court file No. 1181/20 affecting the municipality in relation to the Wilton Grove Road Sanitary Sewer Project.

6.2    Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation, and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation with respect to the Wilton Grove Road Sanitary Sewer Project.

6.3    Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Confidential Information Supplied to the Corporation in Confidence

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation; information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board by Canada, a province or territory or a Crown agency of any of them, and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation with respect to the City’s right-of-way abutting 840 Highbury Avenue.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

The Civic Works Committee convenes, in Closed Session, from 1:12 PM to 1:52 PM.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 1:56 PM.

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (1 hour, 16 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. We’re just gonna wait one more minute for a couple committee members to log in successfully and then we’ll begin. Good afternoon, committee members. Just for your reference, we do have quorum.

Just we’re having some issues getting the YouTube feed up and going. So it’ll be a couple of moments before we can begin. Good afternoon, Chair. Good afternoon, Mr.

Mayor. All right, so we do have all the committee we’re just waiting for the technical issues of YouTube to be resolved. Apologies to committee and staff who’s still with us. We are still working on getting the YouTube feed up before we can commence with the public meeting.

So, period. Good afternoon, committee members. We do have quorum and we will now begin. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for councils, standing and advisory committee meetings and information upon request.

To make request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca. We’re 519-661-2489, extension 2425. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact cwc@london.ca. Please know that during the stay at home orders, the city of London offices have limited access.

Also, we are currently trying to get our YouTube feed up, but our eScribe is currently streaming to the city’s website. So it is still a public meeting. I will now turn to the committee and look for disclosures of pecuniary interest. Okay, moving on to the consent items.

There are eight items on our consent list before us today, looking to committee to see if they would like any of those items pulled. Seeing none, all items will be before us. Looking to committee for questions for staff. We’ll begin with Councillor Turner and I’ll start a speaker’s list.

Councillor Turner. Councillor Turner, please proceed if you can hear me and you are muted. Okay, looking for a mover and a seconder. Okay, looking to committee, can you hear us now?

If someone could give a thumbs up, it would be appreciated. Perfect, I’m gonna assume that everyone’s heard nothing that’s been lovely and said so far. So I will begin again. We do have quorum in the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council, standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request.

To make requests for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. To make requests specific to this meeting, please contact CWC@london.ca. And for the public, please note that the city of London offices have limited capacity during the stay at home orders. E-Scribe is currently streaming to the city’s website and we are working out on getting the YouTube channel feed up and going still.

Looking to committee for disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, I will look on to the consent items. We do have eight items before us today and looking to committee to see if they were like anything pulled and called separately. Mr.

Mayor. Thank you, Chair, if I could have 2.2 pulled, please. Certainly, anything further from committee? Mr.

Van Merbergen, Councilor, you’re muted. Councilor, you’re still muted. Thank you, Chair. If we could pull 2.6, please.

Yep, certainly. So currently I have 2.2 and 2.6 pulled. Looking to committee to see if there’s anything further. Seeing nothing further, I would look for a mover and a seconder and then we have staff available for questions.

Moved by the Mayor, seconded by Councilor Cassidy. Opening up the floor for questions of item 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, or sorry, 2.7 and 2.8. I’ll begin with Councilor Cassidy and I will start a speaker’s list. Chair, please, sorry.

Sorry, I got a message on my Zoom, but so I have a question on 2.3, 2.5 and 2.7. So for 2.3, the Phillip Aziz and Sarnia Road and Western Road intersection environmental assessment. I know it’s an environmental assessment, but I’m looking ahead to the future works at that intersection and it talks about improvements and drainage and general overall improvements at that intersection. So I’m wondering if any of the work creeps on, right onto the Phillip Aziz Avenue, is that a city-owned road, a city-assumed road, or is that entirely on Western University property?

And if it is on Western property and we do end up doing some works on that particular stretch, would there be some cost sharing involved? Would it talks about having conversations with Western and with Russia? So I’m just looking ahead what would happen if we’re doing work right on Phillip Aziz. Perfect to think of that question and Mr.

McRide. Thank you through the chair. Yes, this is the environmental assessment that’ll scope out the improvements and the improvements in the city right of ways that will work with the surrounding land uses. Phillip Aziz is in fact a city-owned right of way down to the river and so both the road and the underground infrastructure.

So there’s not a lot of works currently anticipated onto private property at the current time. The EA will identify any of those and then if that is the case or even infrastructure blended into the city right away, that benefits a landowner cost sharing discussions would be initiated. Okay, Councillor, please proceed. Yeah, thank you for that.

Moving ahead to 2.5, the supply and delivery of hydraulic drum rush chippers. So I have a question on that report. There were a number of RFPs in this agenda and all of the other RFPs either say specifically that the winning bid was the lowest bid or they include dollar amounts and more detailed information on all the bids that were received. But this one doesn’t include any of that.

It just simply says that it went over budget. So that’s my first question on that one. Why were we not given more information on this RFP compared to the other ones? Thank you, Mr.

Stanford for your response. Thank you and through the chair, the current agenda actually has a mixture of tender awards and RFP awards. And there is a difference on how we handle RFPs versus tenders. Now for the chippers, it’s an RFP that is done based on evaluation criteria and staff list according to the procurement policy, the best value for the city based on the evaluation criteria.

So in this case, the firm that is listed for the chippers is the one that basically was the top ranking after the evaluation. On this agenda though, there are a couple tenders and tenders are handled differently. They’re based on terms, conditions, specifications and the bidders that submit on that, their names are listed with their submission price. And this is all done as per the requirements of the procurement policy and we stay as consistent as possible for that.

And just to repeat, just the difference between RFPs and tenders. Great, okay, thank you for that. I have a quick follow up. So in it, it talks about the value of the winning bid and it talks specifically about a couple of the added value measures, like added safety measures, things like that.

So I’m wondering if that was a really defining reason of why this one was chosen as best value and if other bidders were given the option to include those measures as well. Mr. Stanford? Through the chair, as part of the RFP process, all the requirements of what we were looking for were listed in the RFP.

So the bidders basically had the equal opportunity to put forward their information and that went forward then and the sixth criteria that were evaluated around page 40 and the winning bidder once again is the best value for the city. Excellent, thank you for that information. That’s really helpful. So I have a question on 2.7, just a quick one, talking about supply and delivery of intersection detection systems.

So just quickly, will these systems, I’m assuming it’s going to be better able to detect, detect other types of vehicles at intersections like cyclists so that the lights will respond accordingly. So without eliminating the need for say pedestrians to press a button to activate the crosswalk system. Mr. McCray.

Thank you through the chair. The evolution of the detection technology is something that we monitor closely. This technology that is going to improve today is radar, which is the best currently available. It is quite good at detecting cyclists and pedestrians still not quite perfect.

So we’re not not at the point yet that we could eliminate pedestrian correspondence, but we’re certainly monitoring the industry’s progress and looking towards the future when that is possible. So just a quick follow up on that Madam Chair through you, just to, I get questions about this all the time. So why do we have those buttons? Why wouldn’t they walk signal, be automatically activated when the light is green?

Why would we make a pedestrian who arrived late at the intersection? Why would we make them wait through a whole other cycle to cross the street when the light is green for cars? Mr. McCray.

The intersections across the city are that there’s a few different approaches on how they’re managed. For example, in the downtown and the high pedestrian areas, they are managed that way with an automatic pedestrian cycle. So it’s such balancing of needs. The pedestrian push buttons are a very specific requirement of the accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act in that they trigger the audible signal for the visually impaired pedestrians.

And so they have somewhat of a combined benefit and the AODA requires that different audible technologies to help guide those pedestrians through. And that’s part of the pedestrian push button function. Thank you. Perfect.

I’d like to continue to see if there’s any further questions on all items except 2.2 and 2.6. I did have one on regards to item 2.8, the Innovation Park Assumption Works Tender Awards. Looking to staff to see if the infrastructure with the pedestrian’s and vehicles, if there’s any cycling infrastructure that’s accommodated for within this plan. Good afternoon, Chair.

I can speak to that. At this point, there is not. It was when the assumption process started. It was prior to the London plan being finalized, but I’m more than happy to work with our colleagues in transportation to include cycling lanes in our cycling network in the industrial park.

Thank you for that. Sometimes we do hear from residents that if there’s no bus route, they’re really limited in how to get to some of these jobs as we expand. So thank you for those comments, Mr. McIntosh.

Looking for a last look at committee to see if there’s any questions or comments to staff. Okay, we already have a mover and a seconder and I’m calling the question and please vote in e-scribe. Madam Chair, I’ll vote yes. Well, too, this is the contract award for the Dingman Creek Pumping Station, Construction Tender and Questions.

Mr. Mathers is with us here to answer committee’s questions. Start with Mr. Mayor and then Councillor Cassidy.

Thanks very much, Chair. I was appreciating the significance of the contract award and the importance of this particular project. I’d just like to hear from staff a little bit more background as to its impacts. I think we recognize this is critically important for London, but I think it’d be useful for the public, but certainly I’d like to hear some additional background on this and its impact and the importance for the community with putting this in place, please.

Thank you for that and recognizing it. Hugely affects the south end. I was excited to see this project come forward before us today. Mr.

Mathers, could you please elaborate on the impacts for the south end and any operations in that area? Through the chair, absolutely. This is a major project for our group and it’s really essential infrastructure to be able to provide growth, servicing to both London’s industrial areas, but also residential growth in the southwest and the southeast actually. And the other really added benefit of this alternative that we came up with and kudos to the wastewater treatment operations folks for this is that it provides redundancy.

So now we have two pumping stations with two major force mains that service this area. So if there is an issue, for example, several years ago there was a force main break on one of the major force mains in the area. So this would allow redundancy in those instances to be able to ensure that we don’t have to overflow or bypass water into the natural waterways. So this is both a benefit from a growth perspective to be able to allow for that new infrastructure, but it also is going to help us in redundancy and ensure that we’re not having bypass in the future of this area.

Mr. Mayor. Yeah, thank you. The other question I’ve got if I might relates to the heritage preservation.

And I saw that there was an historical farm on this particular piece of property. And that looks like we are going to be building an in like type of structure to accommodate this award. And my question is, unless I’ve misread it, is there a plan use for that particular farmhouse? What’s the longer term plan piece?

Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, at this point, we’ve stabilized the building to be able to ensure that it be maintained appropriately. At this point, we don’t have an alternative use, but we are working with other city partners to be able to determine a way that we can be able to use the facility in the future.

But in the actual construction of the pumping station, we are trying to keep that same character and make it look like it’s its own agricultural style of building. And so they will actually complement that heritage house home as well. But in the long term, we are working with other groups in the city to be able to find a use where we haven’t at this point selected one. That’s helpful.

I appreciate it very much. Thank you, Mr. Mathers. Thank you.

Councilor Cassidy, please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. And through you to Mr. Mathers.

I wanna know about the peak shaving facility. So in the report, it says there had been a plan to develop or to build a completely separate shaving facility, but now it can be incorporated in this one. And even though this project is over budget because of the delays and everything, I’m wondering, it talks about the reduction overall to our global budget because we won’t need this separate facility. Wondering if we have an estimate on what that savings will be and how it relates to this budget.

Thank you, Mr. Mathers. Absolutely, sorry. Absolutely through the chair.

That was one of the great things that our staff had came up with is through the design process to be able to combine those two different functionalities within this one project. And on the overall, so both of this project includes both system improvement and growth related funding. So if we take a look at that and also consider a cancer and which what we’re doing in the future here is canceling that Digman Peak Shaving Facility that there will be a net surplus of $600,000. So it was even though that we’ve had these impacts and COVID as well that are noted in the report that there will be a net savings going with this option.

That’s excellent. Thank you very much. Thanks for that information. I have no other hands up for committee members or visiting counselors.

I will recognize counselor Helmer and then we will still need a mover and a seconder for this item when it’s time. I’m happy to move the item. I do have a question about it through the chair. How much room is there for this project to experience unforeseen delays without impacting the operation of the Maple Leaf Facility?

I know that they’re kind of tied together in terms of having the need for the capacity. Seems like it’s in an okay place right now, but sometimes there are delays and I wanna just get a sense of how we’re gonna manage that potential risk. Thank you, Mr. Mathers.

Through the chair, that was one of the primary reasons why we selected this time to go forward with the construction because we wanted to ensure that we’re out in front of that work. So we do have contingency plans if there are delays. We have approximately at least four months at a minimum that we can have this project delayed in order to still be able to provide that servicing to Maple Leaf, but we do have some contingency plans that we could roll out in the case that there are further delays beyond that four months. Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Mayor. Yes, thank you. I’m happy to second that motion.

Perfect, that’s been noted and looking to committee or visiting Councillors for any other further questions on item 2.2, seeing none as it’s been moved and seconded, I’ll call the question. Carole Vote, yes. I’ll link to both the motion carry, six to zero. Thank you.

Item for consent is 2.6 being the supply and install of install 2022 to 2028 infill tree, RFT, a regular results. Mr. McCray is with us to answer committee members’ questions and I will start a speaker’s list. Councillor Van Merbergen.

Okay, Chair, through you two staff. I’m just looking for some clarification here. Why do we only have one supplier on this rather significant contract? Thank you, Mr.

McCray. If you could speak to the Councillor’s question and what do you believe long-term supply and operating contracts could do to help with this? Yes, thank you through the chair. And I also have John Parsons here to contribute as necessary.

It was an open tender, so it was open to the entire industry. The urban forest strategy identified longer-term contracts to secure longer-term supply of trees for the forest city as being an important way to go forward. We do know that the industry is under pressure currently to supply caliber size trees. So those are 50 millimeter trees measured at five feet off the ground.

So they’re sizable trees. And due to a number of factors, including the emerald at dashboard and other tree pressures, that there’s not an abundance of supply. So we suspect that is a contributing factor, but it was openly tendered on the city’s procurement website and opened to the entire industry. Thank you, Councillor, is there a follow-up?

Okay, I do have another question. So it sounds to me like this was basically an ongoing supply issue. So that obviously makes some sense. So my other question is how many trees, okay, for the amount of money we’re talking about, I think it’s 3.2 million.

Let’s say, for example, 2022, which is just a year away, do we have an idea of what 3.2 million buys in terms of the number of trees, is there a range? Mr. McRae. Yeah, through the chair, our annual planting, it is somewhat variable.

And that’s this contract also supplies the self-funded development of new subdivision planting on behalf of developers that they reimburse the city for. It also varies somewhat year to year with the replacement plantings on capital contracts. But in rough terms, the annual tree planting that this contract would provide is in the order of four to 5,000 to 6,000 trees per year. Okay, that is helpful because I wasn’t able, I mean, I missed it, but I wasn’t able to actually see what we’re getting in terms of trees for that kind of money.

So it looks, it sounds like it’s between four and 6,000 in terms of a range, would that be correct? That’s been the historical range in the last few years. Yes. Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you, I’ll recognize Councillor Cassidy next. Thank you, Madam Chair and through you to Mr. McRae. I know that it’s quite a bit higher, the successful bid is quite a bit higher than what was actually budgeted.

But in the report, it talks about the improved parts of this, that the successful bid or camera will be using so that they improve techniques and inspections, soil augmentation, watering, et cetera, et cetera. And so we’re hoping that that will improve the survivability of the trees because they general, it is a high stress situation in many of the locations being in the boulevards and things like that, high traffic areas. So I’m wondering, A, what is the current survival rate of these infill trees and what would be the anticipated survival rate with the improved processes of the successful bidder here? Thank you, Mr.

McRae on tree mortality. Yes, we are very aware that the boulevards where the bulk of these trees are getting planted is a challenging environment for trees. We have tree mortality rates within a year, a year to two of between four and 8%. And so that is an important part of the aspect of this tender is better planting and better tree aftercare.

So the current process has soil augmentation which is essentially digging a bigger tree pit and providing better soil for the tree to get established. Now that’s done sort of as an exception basis, but what we’ve learned is that it really is necessary given the common conditions in the boulevards. So that the tender that’s up for approval today is provides that on a more cost-effective basis so it’s sort of an automatic. So it’s a more efficient cost-effective process that will bring those mortality rates down and provide for a better life cycle investment and longer, longer surviving trees.

So Madam Chair, do we have any kind of estimate on how that might improve? Would do we expect that mortality rate to come down to three to 6% instead of four to eight or we’re just at this point waiting and seeing? That’s something that we measure on an annual basis. So we’ll certainly have a key in eye to seeing how what the improvement are.

We’re very confident that it will improve the mortality rates, but it’ll need to be something that we measure in the coming years. Okay, thank you. Thank you and I’ll move to Councilor Turner next. Please proceed.

I think Madam Chair, more than just a comment. The questions are good. This seems to be quite consistent with a lot of the work that Trees and Forest Advisory Committee have been doing. It was identified a while back, as I remember, even prior to two terms ago, and when T-FAC was established, that tree survivability and the plantains was something that we really needed to work on.

So I’m really encouraged to see this as just becoming a part of the contract that it’s all in that our investment in the trees that doesn’t just end in the planting. It’s an all that aftercare and everything around that. So my thanks to staff for bringing this in. And it’s nice to see it laid out in a report to say how that looks in a contract itself.

Thank you for those comments, Councilor. And I have one question to Mr. McCray or Mr. Parsons.

How long does it take for that tree to grow to the caliper that the city is looking at purchasing? I will pass that question over to Mr. Parsons. He has an idea.

I’ll try to repeat the question, please. How long would it take for your estimate for a tree to grow to the caliper at which the city is looking at purchasing, recognizing it’s five feet, not five feet, it measures a certain size. Through the chair, Madam Chair, it’s that the trees are started as a small whip and it probably takes about five to six years to become a caliper tree. Perfect, thank you for that.

I just thought it was helpful for the public knowing that there’s a tree shortage out there due to Oak wilt, ash borer and other issues that these trees that we’re looking at purchasing and planting had to start five to six years ago to be the caliper of which we need. So I see no further questions from committee except for Councilor Halmer, please proceed. Thank you, through the chair, I just have two questions. One is for the trees that are paid for through the developments and they’re cost shared that way.

Will the per tree cost go up over time so that we’ve properly recouped those costs? I’m a bit concerned that the increase in cost per tree will fall on the property taxpayer and not necessarily be fully recovered. Perfect, Mr. McCray.

Yes, we’ve been in discussions with the development industry to transition smoothly into this contract and have identified the full value of the tree planting going forward as per this contract and gained an understanding of that and agreement with the industry. Thank you very much, glad to hear that. I wanted to ask too about the possibility. I think it’s closed right now, but the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund from the federal government, I know tree planting is actually eligible area of expenditure for that fund.

And I know the federal government’s aiming to have something like two billion trees planted throughout the country. Here we are with the aggressive program and we certainly could use some help. I wonder if there’s a possibility for seeking some funding between now and say 2028 from that fund when it opens up again for applications. Mr.

McCray. Yeah, thank you through the chair. It’s a good flag that the councilor provides. It’s tree planting is something that we’ve kept in mind for the various funding opportunities that arise and as the different programs rollout will continue to keep it in mind for city of London benefit.

Thank you. Perfect. Seeing no hands from committee or visiting councilors, this item does require a mover and a seconder. Moved by councilor Cassidy, seconded by the mayor.

Okay, I’ll call the question. Chair of the yes. Seeing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you, that concludes our consent items.

We have no scheduled items. And our item for direction, we do have one. Resulting from the third report of the cycling advisory committee, they have asked for several things. They’ve asked for staff in regards to the Masonville plan.

They’ve asked for staff to report back in regards to a pump track. And then we’ll also need to have that report received. So we do have draft wording ready from what the committee asked, but looking for committee of what you would like to do with the request from the cycling advisory committee and then a mover and a seconder for that. Mr, we do have staff here as well to speak to what the conversation was like at the cycling advisory committee.

And to note to this committee, we have received communication from cycling advisory committee in regards to a pump track, but there has been other communications over the last while in regards to what opportunities can invest within the city for BMX biking as well as mountain biking. And it’s the request of the cycling advisory committee of what potential funding is out there in regard, as well as where a facility could actually be located. And that’s on page 59 of your report. Councilor Cassidy.

Through you, Madam Chair, I have a question to staff about the pump track item. I wonder if we could get staff comments on what their thoughts are and also a brief explanation of what is a pump track. Perfect, thank you to that. And I will go to staff for those answers and then I’ll recognize Councilor Turner.

Jeff, are you with us, Jeff Broon? Yes, through the chair, a pump track is a series of, it’s a route, a track route that goes through the park with a series of humps and curves on the side of the pathway to allow a cyclist to use their momentum to other than pedaling to go up and down hills and up over curves on the pathway system. So it’s usually a looped pathway that encourages cyclists. Usually BMX can be a series of different types of cyclists to more use their momentum to go up and down over these humps and curves on the pathway system.

So it is a popular activity. It has been constructed in other cities across the province and across Canada and then it’s a growing sport. Is there a fault councilor Cassidy? Yes, I wonder if this has been on staff’s radar, if there were plans, would this be, I know that there are like skateboard parks, so it sounds kind of similar to that.

So had there been plans either with parks and recreation or other city divisions to investigate this kind of facility? To staff? Yes, through the chair. There are a number of different cycling sport activities within the industry and staff have assessed those in the past.

There have been requests in the past for a series of different types of bike activities from BMX parks to pump tracks. The recreational pathway system you see in London is obviously the most popular and that’s what’s been invested in the past. But it is a growing sport, series of sports and there is growing interest within the community to see more of those activities accommodated. We have looked at them in the past but they have not been a priority with respect to other activities identified in the parks and recreation master plan for funding.

And Madam Chair, one final question, is it becoming a priority? Is it, you know, it’s obviously been looked into in the past by staff. I know we get a number of requests for recreational facilities. I know the big one that I’ve been getting over the last couple of years have been pickle ball.

Cricket is extremely popular and growing and when we’re seeing some additional cricket facilities in London, it will, if staff were to invest any kind of significant time investigating this, would it take away from others? Are there other things that they’re looking into? I just want to get a gauge on whether, whether it’s a good use of staff time. Thank you to staff.

Yes, through the chair. I think it is a process that’s worth investigating further. Through the, the reason most recent parks and recreation master plan update, it wasn’t a high priority compared to other, other recreational amenities across the city but we staff are aware of growing need for that sport across the region and there is enough interest in that to for us to look at it comprehensively to determine what type of locations it could fit in, what type of public engagement would need to happen to make that proceed forward if it is in fact viable. And we can also take a look at what sort of timing windows and budget requirements would be needed.

As of right now, there is no budget in our cap, four-year capital budget forecast to accommodate this request, but we can look at that in a short and long term to see if we were to add that as a priority, what, if anything, that might displace within the production recreation master plan and what that funding envelope would need to be to make this a successful implementation. Thank you. Thanks, Madam Chair. Then I’m happy to move the cycling advisor report along with the action items, but I’ll let other people speak.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. Also for committee to note, some correspondence has been received. There is a working group within the pump track community who would like to see this done, who have offered to volunteer and help and provide public engagement, as well as interest in helping to fundraise should the city find an opportunity to move forward.

I have Councillor Turner next, and then I’d saw Councillor Helmer after Councillor Turner. Thanks, Madam Chair. And thanks, Mr. Bruin.

And the address is a bit of the questions because we have received a number of correspondence regarding this, and so it shows up in the cycling advisory committee report as well. I had, in some of the correspondence, they had reference to the recreation master plan, and so there’s a component in the master plan, parks and rec master plan, called to skate and bike parks and states. The city’s been receiving requests for bicycle-based infrastructure in parks, like EAG, dirt jump, pump tracks, technical bike parks, cross-country mountain biking facilities, dating back to the 2003 strategic master plan. So this has been going on for a little while.

Well, about 17, 18 years now. The city does not currently provide any dedicated BMX or mountain bike parks, although some non-municipal facilities permit these types of activities to promote responsible riding outside of the protected natural areas. It is recommended that the city support these activities through the development of an initial outdoor BMX bike park guided by a feasibility study. Longer term supplies should be formed by a strategy that identifies capital projects and practices that can support the sport as well as requirements for minimizing the risk.

So specifically in that, it references a feasibility study. So recognizing that right now in our four year capital plan, we don’t have any funds allocated specifically to develop this. It might be important to start the work on the feasibility study side of this, especially if it’s been talked about for 18 years. Any thoughts through you, Madam Chair, perhaps Mr.

Broun about what might be required to do a feasibility study in its own right and how that can help inform the work going forward, especially for a future budget, perhaps. Mr. Broun. Through the chair.

Yes, the Parks and Rec Master Plan did identify the recommendation for this feasibility study. It is something that staff could consider looking at more thoroughly for a feasibility study to occur. It’s probably a larger process than assessing the opportunities for a pump track in a location in the city, but it may be beneficial for a more comprehensive look at all bike-related sport amenities across the country right now, the needs of that community and how the city of London may or may not be able to accommodate all those uses and how those relate back to our current bylaws that govern under the Parks and Rec bylaw on where cycling and how cycling can occur in different types of parks in the city. So we could look at a Brimor-Barrater’s assessment of feasibility study to look at all of those options.

A consultant would be required to undertake that exercise and it would probably go through a small RFP process to ensure we have a comprehensive look at the whole system. Councillor Turner. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Madam Chair.

I appreciate that I have some worries that that scope becomes rather large. The difference between all cycling amenities within the city, so that could sound like multi-use pathways and that versus specific site-specific allocation of space and a facility in its own right. So I don’t think those are necessarily the same thing, I guess. The being able to make sure that we have pathways and facilities and a cycling-friendly environment, I think is very much part of the transportation master plan and should be.

And on the parks and recreation master plan side of things that’s taking a look at specific amenities that support the recreational side of things. Perhaps I’m interpreting that a little bit wrong. I do worry that if we were to look at the breadth, the entirety of it as you described, Mr. Brone, that that might be a lot to bite off.

I think it’s important work, but perhaps it goes a little bit further than what’s being asked here. I’d be interested in your thoughts. Mr. Brone.

Yes, through the chair, I do agree with you, Councillor Turner, the broader feasibility study to look at all forms of cycling sport and recreation is a much broader exercise. I think there is enough interest in recommendation and guidance in the current parks and recreation master plan to identify the need for certain types of cycling friendly activities within the city. And I think the current request could be handled more on a site specific assessment process where staff could look at where the current request could potentially be accommodated without displacing other forms of active recreation and the staff could look at how the specific request could be implemented within a timeframe and within existing budgets and/or future budget opportunities. So my recommendation tied to the current request is that we do keep the scope focused on the immediate request for a palm trap and then we can defer to the parks and recreation master plan for guidance on that.

That’s for you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Brone. I think that sounds quite appropriate.

And if the motion reflects that, or if the motion, as it’s a crafted Councilor Cassidy addressed, and it just makes sense that’s all part of it, then the grade, if it requires some amendment, I guess I would look to the clerk to see if that requires further clarification or if you’d like further direction, but it sounds like that’s incorporated in there. The clerk is just gonna send the current wording out to committee members for review. And then we can firm up any wording to allow staff to do what they need to do to get back with the answers as directed by CWC and the cycling advisory committee. In the interim councilor Turner, do you have any other further questions?

No, thank you. That was all helpful. I think if we can, perhaps the report back is just to be able to identify opportunities for a feasibility study to this regard, rather than necessarily answering all the questions of the location and all of that. I think that helps to guess a little bit further and help identify funding or what that scope of that funding might have to end up being for that point.

Perfect, just for committee’s information in the pre-meeting I had with staff, we’re looking at the ballpark around $400,000 for a pump track. Was a number that come out in our pre-meeting. Councilor Helmer, I’d saw you briefly on screen with your hand up, looking to your turn just asking questions if you still have any. Councilor Turner covered it.

Perfect. The wording has been emailed to committee members and it’s on eScribe as well. If you want to refresh your screens and have a look at it and then I do have a mover in Councilor Cassidy and we would be looking for a seconder. Okay, so the wording is up in eScribe to Councilor Vamberg and do you have a question or a seconder?

No, what I’d like to do, if we could call the a pump track portion of the motion separately. So we’re just separating that out. Councilor Turner, perhaps it might be, the wording is directly from the committee report rather than with any amendments. And so B clause to the civic administration be requested to investigate the placement of this type of facility in the city of London and report back at a future meeting with the findings including funding opportunities.

I think that’s a step a little early. And perhaps the recommendation that we make in this is that the civic administration be requested to report back on the process for a feasibility study for this cycling amenity or something to that effect. We had discussed feasibility, public engagement, timing and budget, we’re all mentioned throughout Mr. Bruin’s comments.

So looking to the mover, if you’re fine with a more general based staff report back on feasibility of cycling related facilities. Okay, that’s a thumbs up from Councilor Cassidy. The clerk is typing fiercely to get this updated for you, Councilor Turner. Not happy to second that Madam Chair.

I think that’s helpful because that’s the first step in this is to the feasibility study process. We’ll be able to identify the funds associated with the feasibility study and then be able to take a look at funding opportunities for the facility itself. Perfect, thank you. The wording has now been updated in eScribe.

I’ll let the mover and seconder have a look at it. And then if you’re happy with it, I would have the clerk read it out for those joining us virtually. Councilor Turner. Just not to be too nuanced on this.

That motion says that they come back with the feasibility study. I think we need to be able to approve the start of a feasibility study. We need to know what that cost is and what’s involved with that. So that staff report back on process for initiating a feasibility study.

So process and fees associated with the feasibility study. All of that funds. All of it, all that good stuff. Okay, that wording’s just being updated.

The wording has been updated. Looking to the mover and seconder, if you want to say the placement of pump track facility or just various cycling facilities. As I know, we’ve also discussed the BMX Park and mountain bikes as well through Mr. Bruin.

I just don’t want us to paint ourselves into specifically that we can’t. I assume a feasibility study would look at diverse aspects. Mr. Bruin, would the wording in this be adequate for your department to look at what you need to look at?

Through the chair, I don’t see the wording myself, but from the discussions I’ve heard and recommendations I’ve heard, it would give us enough direction to move forward. For staff, there’s a big difference between assessing the process to establish a pump track versus a process to establish and assess the need for a number of different types of cycling infrastructure. That would be a much larger process. So that would be a consideration is whether you want staff to assess all forms of bike sport activity versus the request at hand of just a pump track open to input on that.

Looking to Councillor Turner and Councillor Cassidy, if you want the wording for us that says the civic administration request to report back on the process and fees associated with the feasibility study with respect to the placement of pump track facility and then it being noted several communications were received. Councillor Cassidy? We’re responding to a request for action from the cycling advisory committee and they were quite specific with the pump track item, which is why the motion is the way it is. I’m hesitant to open it up and make it so broad.

So you’re good with the wording. Hey, Councillor Turner, are you fine with the wording that’s before us in E-Scribe? Yes. Okay, perfect.

But I recognize what Mr. Bruin is saying. If perhaps a three amount of Jack Nask to you, what would be the preference of staff? That we can provide the latitude necessary to affect this mandate.

Mr. Bruin? Through the chair, I think I believe staff preference could be to focus on a pump track initially. And what I would suggest is the process we come up with to assess the viability and how a pump track could be established.

That process could probably also be transferred and used in the future for other forms of spike sport activity. So this could be a starting point in a trial run for future discussions if those proved necessary. Perfect. That sums up from Councillor Turner.

The wording we seem happy with what’s before us. So we will be calling A and B separate. So I will just ask the clerk to read out A and then we’ll vote on it as it’s been moved and seconded and then we’ll move on to B, which contains the pump track information. The following actions be taken with respect to the third report of the Cycling Advisory Committee from its meeting held on April 21st, 2021.

A, the following actions be taken with respect to the public meeting known as stated March 10, 2021 from SY’s senior planner related to an official plan amendment for the Masonville secondary plan. Part one, a subcommittee be established to review the above noted Masonville draft secondary plan and report back at a future meeting of the Cycling Advisory Committee. Part two, the civic administration be requested to attend above noted future CAC meeting to discuss the subcommittee report to be brought forward. And part three, the civic administration be requested to provide maps of the cycling routes in the area under the Masonville draft secondary plan and how they connect with existing cycling infrastructure and integrates with the cycling master plan.

So our part B, the following actions be taken with respect to the city of London pump track. Okay, perfect. So that’s what’s on the floor and that vote on the Masonville information request is what’s between called and E-Scribe right now. So Chair, I’ll vote yes and then.

Closing. It’s all now as the clerk to read out pump track information. Part B reads, the following actions be taken with respect to the city of London pump track. Part one, the civic administration be advised that the Cycling Advisory Committee supports the creation of a pump track facility.

And part two, the civic administration be requested to report back on the process and fees associated with the feasibility studies with respect to the placement of a pump track facility. It be noted that the communication is funded to the agenda from B-Castle and the delegation from S-Nomen with respect to this matter was received. Perfect. This item’s been moved and seconded as well and the questions being called.

Chair, I will vote yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to one. Perfect. And part C is just a motion to receive everything within the Cycling Advisory Committee report and that’s been moved and seconded as well and that questions being called.

Oh yes, Chair. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. That concludes the items for direction. There’s a deferred matters list looking for a conversation on that or a mover and a seconder.

Mr. Mayor. Yes, Chair with apologies. I have to clear an interest in item 5.4 to 745, 747 Waterloo Street.

As my wife and daughter have a cupcake business at that location. Perfect. So I’ll be abstaining from the whole item. Perfect.

Thank you for that. And I was advised by staff that your conflict will hopefully be resolved mid-next month. So we could, I love cupcakes, but. Hey, so that’s a conflict for the mayor.

So looking for a mover and a seconder from committee. Moved by Councillor Cassidy. Seconded by Councillor Halmer. Calling the question.

Chair, I will abstain. Closing the vote, closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero with one abstain. Thank you for that. That concludes our public portion of the agenda.

We are going into camera for there’s three matters for litigation and client solicitor privilege. So looking for a mover and a seconder for a motion to go in camera. Councillor Turner. Seconded by Councillor Van Merbergen.

Calling the question. Oh, yes, Chair. Closing the vote, the motion. Public feed will stop while we go in camera.

And just for committee members will be a couple of moments while we get the correct people into the meeting that we need to proceed.