Open Council

7th Meeting of the Civic Works Committee

Open Council

7th Meeting of the Civic Works Committee

April 30, 2024, at 9:30 AM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Items 2.1 to 2.8 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   5th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

2024-04-17 ITCAC Report

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee (ITCAC), from the meeting held on April 17, 2024:

a)    request for delegation status for the Chair of the ITCAC, at an upcoming Governance Working Group meeting, with respect to the recommendations contained within the ITCAC Last Term (2022-2023) Report, BE FORWARDED to the GWG for consideration; it being noted that the Municipal Council resolution, from the meeting held on April 2, 2024, with respect to the 3rd Report of the ITCAC, was received; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 and 3.3 to 3.5 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   5th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

2024-04-03 ESACAC Report 5

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC), from the meeting held on April 3, 2024:

a)    N. Musicco, Manager, Policy and Special Operations, BE INVITED to a future ESACAC meeting with respect to the Business Licensing By-law; it being noted that the EACAC held a general discussion with respect to invasive species and the Business Licensing By-law; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 5.1 and 5.2 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   Contract Award: Tender RFT-2024-039 - Colonel Talbot Road Two Lane Upgrade

2024-04-30 - Staff Report (2.3) - CWC - Full - RPT Colonel Talbot 2 Lane Full

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 30, 2024, related to Contract Award: Tender RFT-2024-039 for the Colonel Talbot Road Two Lane Upgrade:

a)    the bid submitted by J-AAR Civil Infrastructures Limited, at its tendered price of $17,643,353.17 (excluding HST), BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by J-AAR Civil Infrastructures Limited was the lowest of seven bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements, in accordance with Section 13.2 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    AECOM Canada Ltd., BE AUTHORIZED to complete the contract administration and construction inspection for this project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $1,546,230.00 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve Memorandums of Understanding between The Corporation of the City of London and private property owners and public utilities in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing works contained within the Colonel Talbot Road Two Lane Upgrade project;

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

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

f)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the work;

g)    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 project (RFT-2024-039); and,

h)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-T04)

Motion Passed

2.4   Approval of Roster of Vendors for Wastewater Solids Disposal Services

2024-04-30 - Staff Report (2

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 30, 2024, related to Approval of a Roster of Ventdors for Wastewater Solids Disposal Services:

a)    the roster for various solids disposal services BE APPROVED as submitted in accordance with Article 12.2.b of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project. (2024-E07)

Motion Passed

2.5   Contract Award: Tender No. RFT-2024-094 - Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 4 - Harlech Gate to Wellington Commons Entrance

2024-04-30 - Staff Report (2.5) Revised - CWC - Full - RT Wellington Phase 4

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 30, 2024, related to a Contract Award: Tender No. RFT-2024-094 for Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 4 from Harlech Gate to Wellington Commons Entrance:

a)    the bid submitted by CH Excavating (2013) at its tendered price of $30,814,695.92 (excluding HST) for the Rapid Transit Implementation – Wellington Road from Harlech Gate to Wellington Commons Entrance project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by CH Excavating (2013) was the lowest of three (3) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)    AECOM Canada Ltd. BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $2,482,675 (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 administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

e)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve Memorandums of Understanding between the Corporation of the City of London and public utilities and private service owners in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing works contained within the Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 4 – Harlech Gate to Wellington Commons Entrance contract;

f)    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 RFT-2024-094); and,

g)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-T04)

Motion Passed

2.6   Contract Award: Tender No. RFT-2024-091 - Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3 - Wilkins Street to Harlech Gate

2024-04-30 - Staff Report (2.6) - CWC - Full - RT Wellington Phase 3

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 30, 2024, related to a Contract Award: Tender No. RFT-2024-091 for Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3 from Wilkins Street to Harlech Gate:

a)    the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Construction Inc. at its tendered price of $25,583,908.64 (excluding HST) for the Rapid Transit Implementation – Wellington Road from Wilkins Street to Harlech Gate project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Construction Inc. was the lowest of five (5) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)    Archibald, Gray and McKay Engineering Ltd. BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $2,583,851 (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 administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

e)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve Memorandums of Understanding between the Corporation of the City of London and public utilities and private service owners in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing works contained within the Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3 – Wilkins Street to Harlech Gate contract;

f)    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 RFT-2024-091); and,

g)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-T04)

Motion Passed

2.7   Rapid Transit Implementation – Consultant Design Contract Increase RFP20-29 and RFP20-28

2024-04-30 - Staff Report (2.7) - CWC - Full - RT Detailed Design Contract Increase

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 30, 2024, related to the Rapid Transit Implementation Consultant Design Contract Increase for RFP20-29 and RFP20-28:

a)    the AECOM Canada Ltd. detailed design contract for RFP20-29 - Consulting Services for Rapid Transit and Infrastructure Improvements - Wellington Gateway Project BE INCREASED by $672,000 (excluding HST) to $7,451,736 in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the Dillon Consulting Ltd. detailed design contract for RFP20-28 - Consulting Services for Rapid Transit and Infrastructure Improvements - East London Link Project BE INCREASED by $623,000 (excluding HST) to $7,004,734 in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the 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; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project. (2024-T04)

Motion Passed

2.8   SS-2024-106 - Supply and Delivery of Traffic Paint

2024-04-30 - Staff Report (2.8) - CWC RPT - Single Source - Traffic Paint

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 30, 2024, related to SS-2024-106 for the Supply and Delivery of Traffic Paint:

a)    approval hereby BE GIVEN to enter a three (3) year contract for the supply and delivery of traffic paint to Sherwin Williams, at the quoted price of $147,040 per year; it being noted that the pricing was provided through participation in the Elgin/Middlesex/Oxford Purchasing Co-Operative (EMOP) and is therefore a single source purchase as per section 14.4 g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy which states “it is advantageous to the City to acquire the goods or services from a supplier pursuant to the procurement process conducted by another public body”;

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

c)    approval, hereby given, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation negotiating satisfactory prices, terms, and conditions with Sherwin Williams to the satisfaction of the Manager of Purchasing and Supply and the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure; and,

d)    approval, hereby given, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval. (2024-T06)

Motion Passed

2.9   SS-2024-098 - Single Source Purchase of Energreen Tractor Mower

2024-04-30 - Staff Report (2.9) CWC - Full - Single Source Evergreen Tractor Mower

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 30, 2024, related to SS-2024-098 for the Single Source Purchase of an Energreen Tractor Mower:

a)    approval BE GIVEN to execute a Single Source purchase in accordance with Section 14.4 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the single source negotiated price BE ACCEPTED to purchase one (1) Energreen ILF Alpha F11 Tractor Mower for a total estimated price of $518,699.82 (excluding HST) from Colvoy Equipment;

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

d)    the approval, hereby given, 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 Sections 14.4(e) and 14.5(a)(ii) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; and,

e)    the funding for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2024-V08)

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Tree Planting Plan for Harris Park

2024-04-30 - Submission (4.1) - CWC - Delegation Tree Planting Harris Park

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, as appended to the Agenda, from A.M. Valastro, with respect to a Tree Planting Plan for Harris Park:

a)    the above-noted communication and the verbal delegation from A.M. Valastro, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the above-noted communication BE REFERRED to the future work of the Tree Planting Strategy for consideration as part of that process. (2024-E04)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

Motion to approve the delegation request from A.M. Valastro, to be heard at this meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 10:40 AM.

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, 25 minutes)

[15:28] Good morning everyone, it looks like we are all here. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. I’d like all just to have a moment of reflection here. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabeck, the Haudenosaunee, the La Penite Walk, and the Adwondron. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

[16:04] The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. I would like to now go forward and just for the public, the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact cwc@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425.

[16:46] So moving on, any disclosures of pure interest? We see none. Consent items, we have a number of consent items, 2.1, to 2.9, I have been asked to pull 2.9. And with that, I’d like to go to committee members looking for a motion for the number of consent items, comments, we’ll get it started.

[17:19] Councillor Frank. Sorry, I was just gonna move to put them all on the floor. Thank you, and now I’m looking for a seconder, Councillor Pribble, and any comments from committee members? Councillor Pribble. Thank you, sir, the chair to the staff. Just 2.7, we have a, which is the rapid transit implementation. We have different faces on this one.

[17:54] And if I look at it, it’s going over three years, 4, 5, 6. And when we do these faces, are we planning to put the buses, either LTC and potentially the RT buses in these lanes even before? Or are we gonna wait till everything is completely done? So I just wanna more on the implementation plan and having the buses in these areas, thank you. The implementation plan, Ms. Dan. Yes, and through the chair, as we construct the rapid transit dedicated lanes in the downtown loop, existing local bus routes are benefiting from those lanes immediately.

[18:35] So that’s something that’s already in use. And then also for the East London Link project, any of our curbside lanes, as we move forward with those, we’re looking to actually bring some existing service over to start using King Street later this fall, so that there will be bus service in those lanes. There won’t actually be rapid transit service until the full quarter is complete, so that they can make the full loop. But we are gonna be looking at opportunities to use the existing lanes as we build them. Councillor? Thank you. I was more specific to the one on Wellington, to the three faces on Wellington, thank you. Yes, and through the chair, with the Wellington, the existing lanes are curbside, and the existing local service will need to be picking people, or sorry, they’re center running, and the existing service is running on curbside.

[19:18] So you won’t be seeing local buses moving into those center running lanes, ‘cause they won’t be ready to pick up passengers from there. Those center running lanes will have to wait for the full RT implementation to see RT buses running. Councillor? Thank you, and therefore, in Wellington, we’ll have to wait until all the faces are completed, and for the, to get the buses on, correct? Through the chair, with the exception of potentially considering some express routes, to be able to use those dedicated lanes, the local buses will still have to people up at the curbside.

[19:52] Thank you, no more questions? Any other comments from committee members? Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, chair. I was just actually looking over this, and I see that there’s over $80 million worth of money going out on this agenda, so it doesn’t, you know, that always never goes over lightly, and I was just saying that to the budget chair. But I want to talk about 2.4, I’ll just go back to Greenway, ‘cause I thought I would ask some questions here. I just wanted to know, I do see in the report, and I have seen this, I’ve been told this before, with the way solids and the treatment for it.

[20:31] It’s only able to be treated at the Greenway plan, so everything gets shipped there. So I just wanted to know, have we ever done this before? Have we ever actually replaced the incinerator, or repaired the incinerator before, with respect to the roster list that we’re looking for? Madam chair, I’d ask Mr. Otto Kirken to that question, please. - All right, yes, and through the chair, we have rebuilt the incinerator before, it was about 10 years ago, and at that time we had different options available to us for the disposal of the solids.

[21:10] This time around, we decided to pursue some beneficial reuse and other things. Understanding that weather and other impact can change how we’re able to dispose of those solids. We decided that the development of a roster of multiple vendors was the best way to mitigate our risk during this period, because for that period of six months, once we start rebuilding it, we have no other alternatives, but to get rid of the solids somewhere else, so. So yes, we have done it before, this is the first time that we’ve really developed this roster as a strategy to handle it. Thank you, thank you for that.

[21:42] The roster list itself, I was looking at that. I see that there’s four companies here with a few of them have several proposals. I just, and I do see that the RFP is gonna be open for the duration of this work, so I just wanted to kind of go back and just see what your thoughts are on, to see if this is adequate for any kind of issues that might come up. You go to staff. And through the chair, yes, we feel that it is gonna be adequate by selecting multiple vendors with multiple strategies.

[22:17] So all of those different proposals for each vendor were for the different means of disposing of the solids, whether that’s the beneficial reuse, so land application of a fertilizer, all the way through to landfilling of waste solids. So we decided to set that up with multiple vendors so that we could handle availability through them, and also for the different strategies, because as we go through the rebuild, we’ll actually enter the winter season. So land application isn’t a direct strategy. We need storage or something else. So by creating multiple options for us, we feel we’re gonna be able to cover the entire rebuild.

[22:52] Council. Thank you, that’s the last one for that one. Going back, I guess looking at all of the rapid transit work that we see here, I really appreciate the level of detail, just kind of the history and then kind of leading us to where we’re at on all the reports. So I just wanted to say that I did appreciate that, and I might even be using that as content for my newsletter, just FYI, thank you. Thank you for those remarks, Councillor. I would like to go to Councillor Palosa. Thank you for joining us.

[23:25] Thank you for recognizing me, Madam Chair, as Board Councilor Ballon’s bordering one of the sides of the Wellington Gateway, here to raise a few questions in regards to item 2.5. As I see that we’re extending out to the extra-to-road area for the contract, looking to see if we’ve identified a spot for the park and ride. I know other partners had shown great interest, and we were looking for other locations to see if one has been identified. Yes, Ms. Dan.

[23:58] Yes, through the chair, we have been redoing some reviews of alternate sites from the site that was originally identified through the environmental assessment, further review of floodplain and restrictions with Hydro One setbacks meant that it really wasn’t going to function well for us. So we are looking at other sites in the area of Wellington and Exeter Road. We do have a few that were moving forward, and we’re also coordinating with the MTO because anything that we build in that area needs to work with their traffic modeling for the interchange. Thank you, so not quite yet, but still working on it.

[24:30] So great to hear from that. The report mentions that there’s going to be a dedicated business relations coordinator, just looking to see if that person hasn’t been identified as an individual yet, or I would know who directly to reach out to. Absolutely, and through the chair, we actually have two construction business relation coordinators now. We have James Scott and John Paul Sousa are both working. I believe one of them is on Wellington Gateway 3, and one of them is on Wellington Gateway 4, but we have that support throughout. As we move down to this more of a big box style format commercial, we’re still going to be offering business supports, but just in a different way, trying to make sure we’re reaching both property owners as well as tenants.

[25:09] Councillor? Thank you, and I think I did preface with I have a few questions, so I will continue. I realize that we have a Wellington corridor secondary plan, but that the plan doesn’t reach all the way down to the mall site, looking to see if there’s some concerns with that, realizing White Oaks Mall. I know it goes to planning department, has several applications that’s going to be coming forward in the near future for development on the site of apartments in that whole area. So just looking to see if we’re looking at expanding the scope for the Wellington corridor secondary plan in distance, or where we’re at with that.

[25:47] I wonder, Ms. Stan, thank you. Yes, and through the chair, with respect to the secondary plan, I would refer that back to the folks in planning and economic development, but I can speak to the fact that the Wellington Gateway project has been anticipating growth along the corridor, and coordinating with any of the development applications. That includes conversations with the folks from White Oaks Mall. We know they have quite a large plan for redevelopment on that site, making sure that our servicing will be ready and able to serve those properties. Councillor. So just for clarification to that, I know we have the conversation back, as this is a conversation that’s spanned, multiple terms of council, that as we do the road and sewers operation, realizing as the report lays out, it goes across, I guess, every sector in the city as parks is in here too, that our sewer capacity and everything is being completely upgraded with everything coming on.

[26:42] Yes, thank you, through the chair. Yes, I can confirm that as we go through the design process for the rapid transit projects, we are upgrading the underground servicing to accommodate anticipated growth based on the densities and so on in the London plan. Thank you, Councillor, for those questions. Very much appreciate you being here at committee and asking them. Any other comments, questions? Councillor Ferrer. Thanks, Chair. One last question, just kind of, I guess, coming off of the budget chair here. For the infrastructure work going under there, I feel like I know this answer, but I would just like to ask it, that’s public transit infrastructure stream funding, that’s gonna be paying for that work on the infrastructure underground, is that correct?

[27:30] Mr. Stan? Yes, through the chair, all of our projects are coming from a variety of funding sources. The ICIP funding is contributing to all the road related and transit related elements. So the RT works on the surface, the shelters, all of those components. We are also doing coordinated funding from any of the other groups that are doing underground servicing and coordination. So there’s the efficiencies of while we have the road opening, making sure we have everything fixed. So anything that’s coming from the sewer, the water group, the actual infrastructure itself, and those upgrades would be funded from those areas. Likewise, any private utilities that do any coordinated work with us, they contribute to the share for their underground work, but ICIP is covering everything on the ground and all the restoration.

[28:12] Okay, thank you for that clarification, I appreciate it. Thank you. Any other questions, comments from committee? I see none. I wonder if the committee will allow me just to make a few comments from the chair here, and just following up on the two items, 2.5 and 2.6 with the Wellington Gateway. I see this is really transforming the entrance to our city. It is really going to make a huge difference how we’re going to look as a city. Coming in, lots of work going on. I was pleased to know that the budget came under estimate as well, which is really good to see.

[28:52] I just would like to also make a comment regarding 2.3, which is the contract award for Colonel Talbot Road. It’s a two lane upgrade. This has been a big conversation in ward 9, which is the ward that I represent. As we develop in this ward, the infrastructure and the supports that are needed to support all this housing is really important. So really glad to see this coming. It’s going to be a long project, a couple years, but I do have a question to staff because it is a very busy road as well, how we’re going to deal with the construction, the detours, I know the lane will be closed for a certain amount of time.

[29:44] But if you can just sort of speak to how we’re going to move around in this area as it’s already challenging to move. Yes, and through the chair, I don’t have the staging plans right on the top of my head, but what we do with these projects like this is we typically release a pre-construction webinar in advance. As this is awarding the contract to the contractor, once they’re on hand, we’ll sit down, work with them, confirm our staging strategy, and then we’ll release that information to the public. So we should have that information to share very soon. It’s important that we wait till our contractor’s on board, so we’re not telling people one thing and then it changes.

[30:22] Thank you for that, ‘cause I know we’re going to get a lot of requests and probably construction always seems to sort of delay people a little bit too and the more we can share the information. Thank you for that. And I’ll go to our Councillor for those, Councillor. Sorry, thank you, Madam Chair. One quick question as it is contained within the report for 2.6 on page 38, traffic engineering, maintaining new industrial pedestrian signal near tourism, London, residents have been asking and excited, is this going to be a pedestrian crossover connecting across Wellington gateway from the neighboring community into Westminster ponds as well?

[31:06] Through the chair, I’m going to pass that question back to audience by who is our design engineer for the transportation side of the project. Thank you. So during the detailed design, we did identify an IPS of pedestrian crossing through Wellington Road that crosses from the ponds to the neighboring neighborhood on just the west side there. So the answer to that is yes. Just one follow up through the chair, if I may. Is this going to be just the overhead flashing lights or stoplight, it is a busy road and, but residents are really excited to be able to cross at that spot.

[31:48] Yep, it is a pedestrian signal. So it’s a push button pedestrian signal, given the order of magnitude for a Wellington Road, traffic volumes, it is IS standard from an IPS perspective. So it will be a signal. Thank you, Councillor. For that question and with that, we can proceed to vote. We have a mover and a seconder. Posing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[32:37] We have no scheduled items going, moving on to items for direction. We do have a pulled item, 2.9, which is the single source purchase on an agreeing attractor mower. And I would like to go to Councillor Trussell. Thank you very much. And after studying this item in the packet, I was curious what this thing looked like.

[33:12] So I looked at a couple of YouTube videos and I would urge other people to do the same thing. This is a, this is a rather complicated, this is, I don’t know how to put it, but it’s very large. It just seems like it’s quite an extensive piece of equipment and it costs half a million dollars. And that just seems to me like given what we just went through with the budget situation. And to just have a half a million dollar expenditure for attractor show up, just sort of piqued my curiosity.

[33:53] So first of all, I really do want to acknowledge that road safety in the rural area within the city of London is very important. So I guess my first question is, what are we using now? How do we deal with the growth and the vegetation along the road sides now? Let’s share. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this is a service we previously provided and have actually divested of as the old piece of equipment came to end of life.

[34:27] And we’d had a number of safety concerns related to alternative equipment and rollovers because of the slopes of those rural ditches. So we would very much like to get back into this business from a rural road safety perspective. Right now we do the best we can with our standard equipment but that only allows us to trim immediately adjacent to the shoulder. It doesn’t allow us to get down the ditch slope safely and to be able to provide this level of service at intersections and driveways in the many rural areas that are part of the city of London. Okay, what would the expected life of this piece of equipment be?

[35:09] Yes, I’d like to go, Seth. Thank you through the chair. Typically, I mean, we’ll wait to get about a year’s worth of use out of the truck just to get an idea of reliability and functionality but we typically target an eight to 10 year life cycle. But again, that’ll depend on condition assessments as well. So if let’s say depending on use and condition, we can extend the life, we’ll typically do that. Thank you. This takes us well into the 2030s. And I guess my next question is how does this fit with some of the goals that we’ve discussed in the climate emergency action plan, especially with respect to phasing out gas powered vehicles?

[35:56] Mr. Yeoman, welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair and through you, an excellent question Councilor and something we’re very mindful of, of course. We’re looking, of course, through our entire fleet and trying to electrify as much as we can with a lot of our small equipment. In the landscaping sector, though, the larger equipment is lagging behind and it’s going to be more years before we actually do catch up with that. One of the benefits though of this piece of equipment is it will allow us to really tackle a lot of our invasive species issues that we have with Fred mighties and other areas that we’re currently spraying right now.

[36:31] So it allows us to really knock things back and really actually provide a much more environmentally conscious rule area for the city. Thank you. My next question goes to the fact that this is not available. Well, this is from South Carolina. It’s a very unique piece of equipment. All of the attachments are going to be proprietary. If something goes wrong with one of the attachments, it’s not, you’re not going to have any choice but to deal with. We have an agent in Ontario who’s helping us with the purchase in South Carolina.

[37:07] How concerned should we be about procurement if we need to start dealing with parts? Because the report does get into parts and it says that part of the service that the Ontario person vendor is going to provide is service and replacement parts. But how much of a danger is there to not be able to use all of these features? Through you, Madam Chair, I can speak a little bit about that from the service delivery perspective but then fleets probably better to speak about the actual parts situation.

[37:44] We do have a number of equipment that we have in the parks area that is fairly specialized that does actually have specific needs like you’ve mentioned as well. So it’s not specifically unusual there. If we did have a bit of lag time, then we would just shift work and we’d reschedule that work to be done at a later date. Hopefully the vendor would be able to turn around fairly quickly. Normally in a situation like this, you would look at actually having additional machines so you could sort of switch things in but given the cost, obviously, that’s not something that we’re recommending at this time. Is this piece of equipment something that would be able to be used in other parts of the city where we have similar issues?

[38:26] There are parts of, I know, certainly a road, cheap side have situations where you have to get, I’m not being terribly articulate but you’re shaking your head, you know what I mean? Mr. Newman, I think you understand. Yes, I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, we definitely want to have this rolling all the time. So we will be using it throughout the city and taking a lot of advantage of the new equipment throughout the entire season as much as we can and hopefully even into the winter should conditions be appropriate both on the parks and forestry side of things with roads.

[38:58] Given that the operator of this unit will be able to turn around. One of the features is that you don’t have to just, you don’t have to kink your head, it’ll turn around. Is this something that can be used on a city street without shutting down the street? It looks like it would be very large for a street like cheap side. Mr. Newman, I’ll go to step. Thank you through the chair. No, there’s no issues driving on the street. I think it has a max speed of 40 kilometers an hour. It’ll have the appropriate signage and lights.

[39:33] If it is, let’s say along a street, we’ll definitely have a follow-on truck and some lighting to ensure that passenger vehicles can pass. So it shouldn’t be a problem to answer your question. Thank you. My final question is if we don’t go with this unit, what would the alternative be? Are there smaller, perhaps slightly less functional units, maybe not, you know, no air conditioning in the cabin? It doesn’t turn around as quickly.

[40:06] Are there other units that we could substitute that would be able to do some of this work? Through you, Madam Chair. Since we have divested ourselves of doing this work several years ago, we have not been able to find a safe replacement that would allow us to do this, particularly on our rural cross-section roads for both safety and invasive species management. Okay, so those are my questions. Do I have 30 seconds left? Yes, you do. Okay, so I’m having a difficult time wanting to approve this given the cost.

[40:44] I would feel more comfortable approving this if I had more information about what are our overall plans in terms of renewing our fleet, especially with regard to larger specialty items. So this doesn’t come up as a one-off all the time. I do want to try to stay within scope of the climate emergency action plan. Part seven of which does address this. It does give a longer period for large vehicles, but this going into the mid 30s really goes beyond that, even for large vehicles.

[41:23] How are we going to address this ongoing? Madam Chair, I can start. Mr. Freeman, we wish to add some more information about the fleet strategies with respect to electrification. We’re not aware that there is a pending electric replacement anytime in the coming years for this particular piece of equipment. We are seeing certain pieces of equipment, either available in the market now or we know that they’re in development and production in the coming years. In this particular case, we’re not aware that there is going to be an alternative in the near-term timeframe, or we would have considered putting this off again and potentially waiting for that technology to be available.

[41:58] I know our colleagues in Fleetford working very hard on electrification through their existing budgets, as well as through the fleet replacement plans, and perhaps Mr. Freeman could provide a little bit more insight on the general strategy with respect to equipment electrification. Thank you, through the chair. So typically we let the market options sort of decide where we can venture. So right now they’re definitely focused on passenger vehicles, scooters, things that can touch the masses.

[42:33] Fit-for-purpose equipment is definitely a lager than that area. So as we get into our medium and heavier equipment, there aren’t as many economically viable options. You certainly need the charging infrastructure there to be able to support that. So wherever it ends up housing, which yard, how is it gonna get charged? Is it gonna be run on multiple shifts? Do you need quick charging or it can charge overnight? So right now, what we were looking at was definitely on the light vehicle class.

[43:07] So that’s where the market definitely is. The fit-for-purpose is slow outside of our venture with our waste collections and sanitation where we’ve gone to natural gas, and obviously we’d like to get to renewable natural gas at some point. So the heavier side of the equipment market is very much slower compared to the light vehicle market. So we’re just kind of letting the industry guide us and give us those opportunities and we’ll capture on them. Definitely as this comes up for renewal, if it is approved, we’ll definitely be, hopefully the market will have us, we’ll have some decent options for us at that time.

[43:47] And I don’t think we’ll be looking for an internal combustion engine when it’s time for life cycle renewal. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I do appreciate the questions that you’ve asked staff. I’d like to go to Councillor Frank Bell. Thank you, yes. I actually didn’t have any questions, but Councillor Trosso inspired some. I was curious as to, in a similar vein, the naturalization of Boulevard. I understand like some of these locations is probably not ideal for sight lines, but I am wondering how that’s being incorporated.

[44:25] Like, are there sections of these areas that we’re deciding that they would be a good fit for a naturalization project if the plants were short? Mr. yeoman. Thank you, through you Madam Chair. So we are pursuing the strategy behind the locations for that and we will be bringing some information to council on that. Hopefully probably early next year at this point unfortunately. But one thing I will say that our priorities will be actually in the urban part of the city where we are doing an extensive amount of mowing, where we do have a lot of time that’s spent with that and where we do think we can get the most bang for the buck.

[45:02] So that’s, that’ll be part of that. And then hopefully we’ll look at rural areas in the future. Councillor, thank you. And if the committee will allow me, I too have been inspired by a few questions that Councillor Trosso has had and just as a follow up on our climate emergency plan. And the industry, there’s a big difference. And are there opportunities that we can do as a municipality as we buy the equipment that may not meet our targets?

[45:37] Can we put more pressure on the industry or how does that work? Is there opportunities there to say, can you kind of know what our climate emergency plan and can you help us with it? Through you Madam Chair, I can speak to more of the industry perspective and then the specific equipment and perspective, Mr. Freeman’s probably better to speak to. In the horticulture and agriculture sector, as I mentioned, there has been a bit of lag and as Mr. Freeman mentioned too, in terms of electrification and other alternative fuel cell issues, a lot of that is because this equipment is regularly used day after day professionally, really hard equipment that’s that’s availed of.

[46:19] And so I think that we have to get more confidence in the markets and confidence with businesses before you’re going to see the more robust change that we’ve seen in sort of more of the residential and commercial side of things. And hopefully that’s coming in the not too distant future. Thank you for that. And another follow up, if this recommendation does go through, when will we get the tractor? Or I don’t want to call it a tractor, but go ahead. Thank you through the chair.

[46:52] You’re targeting late fall this year. Thank you. Thank you for that. And just a comment from the chair, representing a rural and an urban ward. There are many challenges as we develop the infrastructure that road infrastructure sometimes is not there. And the challenges of keeping those roads safe as we add cars to our roads. I do see this as an opportunity to improve road safety, especially through urban roads.

[47:35] There’s a lot of ditches down there and they have a lot of invasive species as well. And I really see this as an opportunity to challenge what to do something about the height of the grass is that to create a problem with the sight line. So again, I’ll have a motion looking for a motion to put this item on the floor. Councillor Ferreira, seconded by Councillor Pribble. And I don’t see any further comments.

[48:18] We can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to one. Moving on to 4.1, which is a tree planting plan for Harris Park. There is a request for delegation status from Ms. Velastro, like to go to the committee. If we are going to accept the delegation, Councillor Tristle.

[48:55] I will so move that we accept the delegation. I have a seconder in Councillor Ferreira. We do vote on this. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Ms. Velastro, welcome to Civic Works Committee. If you could, we know state your name and you do have up to five minutes, welcome.

[49:36] Thank you. I don’t know if anyone on the committee viewed the city’s landscaping plan. It’s on the city’s website. It was put on there after the public open houses were closed. The trees are partially planted along the Thames Valley Parkway and the rest along the new pass. They form a spaghetti string along the pass. This isn’t keeping with the idea of a promenade. The widest part of the shoreline between the river and the Thames Valley Parkway is 36 meters.

[50:11] 12 meters of the shoreline is being shaved off and sloped and replaced by river stone. Half of the river stone will be exposed at the lower end and the upper slope will be seeded. And then farther up, they’re going to plant what’s called plugs. They’re just young plants. From the top of the slope to the Thames Valley Parkway is 24 meters and that’s for the pass and for the trees. This is the widest section of the park and it narrows as you go north and south and it’s 24 meters is not a big area.

[50:51] And there’s also a concrete lookout that’s as large as the stage that is down at Harris Park right now. People at Harris Park search for turtles. They bird watch and wildlife photography is popular. Wildlife viewing is a quiet, passive and very popular and fast growing outdoor activity. It is as important to people that go to Harris Park as a rock concert. I don’t really see a conflict here. The request is to diversify the choice of trees to benefit pollinators, wildlife habitat and recognize that Harris Park is not just used one way.

[51:37] I feel like this is a disservice to residents to ignore how they engage with the park and the river. The people who design the landscaping plan are consultants from Waterloo. They have no idea how important the park is to residents. How many of which do not engage in the park only for concerts? The problem is that staff pay consultants to make these decisions on our behalf and they are locked into contracts with suppliers that do not offer these tree species.

[52:16] But there is nothing preventing their suppliers from sourcing more diverse tree species from other local nurseries as there are good nurseries locally to source from. The four dominant tree species the city proposes to plant our native species. The problem is that they are being planted without broader consideration for wildlife habitat including pollinators as they emerge from hibernation, berries for birds and deep shade for residents and recognize that people relate to the river differently than they are suggesting.

[52:55] They are imposing their vision for Harris Park rather than respecting the many other more diverse ways people engage with the river. And I searched the EA and I did an access to freedom of information and I did not get a lot of materials back regarding public comments. As the landscaping plant plan did not go through a public process, nor did the plant list, staff cannot say they have public representation. The Harris Park master plan expected in five years will not undo the shoreline restoration project that is being planned through the landscaping and will also not undo any further planting for shade areas.

[53:38] Five years is a long time to wait to mitigate the impacts of climate change and heat waves which are happening right now. And I just want to quickly say that a lot of the plantings that are done on city streets, the flowering trees, those are not native. And a lot of the plants that are being done on the boulevards, they’re not native. And a lot of the plants that do grow in those ditches because they divested are native. So there’s an opportunity here to just get it right, to get a move on this whole idea that we’re a bee city, that we want to naturalize the areas, that’s just not happening.

[54:17] That’s 30 seconds left. And so the request is to just do a bit of job at Harris Park. I understand that they want to have a promenade effect, but that doesn’t mean you can’t diverse the tree species. And it doesn’t mean you can’t do cluster plantings so that there’s a sense of shade for people that actually visit the park on a regular basis. And that’s the people that live there. So the people that live there are not chopped liver. Okay. - Thank you. Thank you. I look to the committee.

[54:56] Is there, can we receive the information? Committee comments? Oh, sorry. Are you recognizing me? I am. Thank you, Chair. I guess I’ll start this one. So I do hear what was said in the delegation. And I, you know, I guess I have to start with the work that staff is doing. I know staff has done a great job. You’ve been working with me in particular and with the comments that we’ve been getting back. So I, sorry, I’ll get closer for ya. So yeah, I just wanted to say thanks to the staff and to the delegate.

[55:34] She has, you know, she does, I feel with the diversity aspect that, you know, is being brought to us and trying to bring in a greater diversity of trees to the area. I do appreciate that as well. I would say that, you know, Harris Park is, does have many uses from a lot of the different residents around there. But it’s not just for the residents at Harris Park. It’s also for the city. A lot of people from the city in general come and check out Harris Park and enjoy that and appreciate that. I would like to see if there is a possibility to maybe further diversify the tree species that are there.

[56:12] Like obviously, we do have some limitations. We do have some restrictions. But I just wanted to see if this is a possibility that we could look into. I would think this is a question to Mr. Yeoman. And maybe the question is, what are we doing about diversity with our plants? Thank you and through you Madam Chair. So we obviously do take all sorts of public feedback through the entire process with all of our projects related to landscape and tree matters.

[56:44] We welcome that at any time to provide some clarification as well related to that. At the open house, we actually did show the landscape plan that was made available to the public. So we did get some good feedback on that. From some of the feedback including what was received from Ms. Velastra, we have mixed up the number of trees. We haven’t changed the actual species. We do think that that is appropriate for the park, for the locations that we’ve identified, recognizing this isn’t all of Harris Park, this is just for a section. There are locations within the park that we hope to actually plant some species that are a bit more diverse that are appropriate for those locations in the future.

[57:21] Councillor. Thank you for that. So like I was saying, I know you guys are taking in the feedback from the community. I have that direct experience right on this project as well. I do like hearing that. Just kind of looking into seeing how we could bring a more diversity set of species there. So I guess I’ll look to the committee and see what the committee is thinking. Councillor, could you ask a question again? Well, I’d like to hear what the committee’s perspective is on this, ‘cause like I said, I see all sides of the conversation.

[58:00] I would like to find a middle ground that especially works for the future of Harris Park. Like I said, it does have many uses from the residents around there. Lots of uses, I use it in many different ways myself. And also it is a park for the city. The city does appreciate this park. I know that a lot of people visit the park as well. And I would just like to knock this one out of the park. No pun intended when it comes to what we plant there. So that’s why I’m looking to the committee to see what the opinion is of the members of the committee.

[58:36] I do want to make sure that everything works with staff and just kind of how we redevelop, or not redevelop it, just how we plant in the area. So I’m just trying to find that middle ground that works. And especially when that will work for everybody today and tomorrow. I’d like to go to the committee. Any comments from the committee, Councillor Truso? Thank you very much. I really appreciate this submission.

[59:09] It was well researched. And there’s a lot of information here that sort of goes beyond what I technically can understand. I should probably learn more about the area. Maybe by the end of my term, I can be sort of a more of an arborist. But for now I have to rely on staff and what members of the public are telling us. And I’m just wondering before I say what I want to do, is there any room here for discussion between Ms. Velastro and staff to try to work through some of these issues and maybe have a little bit more diversity in terms of the planting?

[59:56] Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. We have a lot of interest in this project and we have a lot of folks who would like to have the opportunity to decide what species we plant and where through this. And fortunately, because this is a city-wide park and that level of interest, we’re really not in a position to have individual design meetings about our work. That said, there’s some excellently recommendations in here. Many of them are not suitable along the pathway or in the heavily used part of the park that we’re discussing or we’re unable to source them reliably. We will be holding onto this information. We have made some changes already and would be in a position to consider this for future plantings in this park and in other woodlands and environmentally sensitive areas.

[1:00:35] At this time, staff would recommend receipt of this information. Thank you. And I understand that about the individual meetings. Is there any room for another meeting that would not be with just an individual but would give members of the public the chance to once again come out and comment on this? Madam Chair, we’re at a point in this project where we have gone through the consultation and engagement process.

[1:01:08] It has been in front of this committee and council a number of times with delegations. We’ve received a number of inquiries. The project’s well underway at this time. This is not a project that included a community planting plan. Some projects do, certainly there’s lots of opportunities on future projects to get involved. But at this point, we really do need to continue with the approved design and with the project as it’s been discussed. Councillor? Yeah, could I understand better why there’s not a community planting plan and what the community planting plan would entail in terms of additional consultation and delay?

[1:01:47] Three, Madam Chair, our community planting plans are very rarely done. And generally they’re for a very localized matters or woodland features and things like that. Community planting plans can be challenging because it’s a lot of reconciliation that you’re doing associated with your plant choice. Things like site grading, soil types, species and locations, et cetera, et cetera. So that’s why this to a large degree, and I know it’s not quite analogous, but it’s very similar to when you’re designing a road and you’re looking at what granular mix to use for your road base.

[1:02:23] It’s a very similar thing to that from a technical perspective. Councillor? Councillor Ferrer? Thank you. I did hear Ms. Shear say you would be taking this information or just kind of knowing our interests for a little more diversity of the sets of plantings in there if we were to take this as receipt. So from my past experience, you guys have been working very well with taking just feedback and everything.

[1:03:00] So I would appreciate maybe we should move this for receipt and then see what the team can bring back. Through you Madam Chair, I think there are a number of opportunities where we can actually formalize the introduction of increased species throughout the city. We have the urban tree planting strategy coming up. We have the urban forestry review coming up. There’s a number of opportunities where we can do some engagement about the mix of trees that we’re able to access and then use the discretion of our experts internally as well as our advisors and consultants externally to ensure putting the right tree in the right place so that it has its best chance of meeting community needs but also surviving and thriving in that location.

[1:03:44] Thank you for that information. Councillor satisfied and is there a motion? I am satisfied and you know, like the same comments I guess that we’ve been bringing up is, you know, this is a special park for the city. It’s one of the top three, I would say, of the city. And also the history of it with the Harris family and, you know, a very prominent family, very rooted in the history of the city. So this is why it’s very special to me and very special to other Londoners as well. So I would move for the receipt and I’m hoping that we get something back for this park, just, you know, just considering how special it is.

[1:04:30] Do I have a seconder? Councillor Pribble. So we have a motion. Any other comments? Councillor Trissell? Yes, I’d like to shift the wording around that a little bit. I’d rather not put it in prechatory language. I’d rather not say, I hope we get something back. I’d like to request that we get something further back that can be incorporated, not into projects down the road when we do these other studies, but for this particular project.

[1:05:06] And I’m wondering, could you slightly rephrase your motion? You’re willing to? Ms. Shearer. Perhaps I could offer some language, Madam Chair, that’s appropriate to the Councillor. Perhaps we could refer this material to the tree planting strategy for consideration and public engagement as part of that process. Would that, thank you, thank you for that. Would that assist us with respect to this project in terms of what we put in at this time? Ms. Shearer. Madam Chair, this project is at a point where the decisions are largely speaking made.

[1:05:43] And we’ve spent a significant amount of staff time reviewing those decisions with members of the community. We will continue to review Harris Park for appropriate planting for life cycle renewal, for annual loss and damages. So there’s always the opportunity to add trees to parks, but this project is in a position where we do have a final landscape plan at this time. The finalized plan, I’m sorry. So I just wanna make sure we understand what the motion is and what we’re speaking to. And I’d like to go to the mover.

[1:06:18] Councillor Ferrer, your motion was to receive. The delegation, there was a suggestion and a request to refer to the tree planting. Yeah, it was, I like the language. With the site, going back to the life cycle renewals. So I do understand like the landscape plans have already been largely set and I don’t wanna necessarily mess up with that ‘cause I know that a lot of work has been going into that. For any type of life cycle renewal work as we replant, when would we be, if you can, if you can say, ‘cause I know this is kind of crystal balling a little bit, but when would we know or be able to actually, when we start planting within Harris Park specifically, see that diversity or any type of species that would diversify the set coming to play?

[1:07:14] Madam Chair, the tree planting strategy would be the best way for us to engage with council and the community around the type of diversity that we may wish to see in our parks and open spaces in the future. We do not and would not be in a position to bring individual planting plans for life cycle renewal in all of our 500 and some parks across the city, Norwood Council, I think, wish to take on that workload. It could be substantial. And there is interest in almost any time we replace a tree, whether it’s a street tree, a boulevard tree, a tree in a local park that there would be interest from enough residents, it’d be hard to decide where the line ought to be.

[1:07:48] The council is engaged in the replanting through life cycle renewal. The best place to set that direction is through the tree planting strategy. We also don’t bring individual landscape plans to the approval of council, much as we don’t bring designs for other infrastructure. Councillor? Thank you, okay. If we need to tie in the tree planting strategy to that, just which is a way that works for everybody, then I would be willing to add that language in there into the motion. Thank you for that.

[1:08:20] And I’ll go to the seconder of council approval. I just wanted to, there are potentially two motions here, but what I wanna state is that the staff confirmed that even the council for the ward, that there were consultations before in terms of this park, and the council confirmed that our staff did consult with residents already. I really don’t wanna stall this. Let’s move on with this one. We received this one for information, as was suggested also by our staff.

[1:08:53] And for any future, if you wanna put a motion to address the future, you can, but I would say in terms of this, let’s not slow it down. Consultations were there. Their residents had the opportunity to give a feedback of your way, our staff is already way into this. So I would like to just, in terms of this initiative, just receive for information. One moment. Councillor Preble, we do have an A and a B on one motion A to receive it, and the B part to refer to the tree planting strategy as well.

[1:10:02] You can support both or either. I think it is up in front of us right now. Yeah, I would not support this, because again, I’m okay with B for the future, but in terms of the Harris Park, we already, this would have been a conversation month ago, but not certainly now. So I certainly would not support B. I would support B for future projects, but not for Harris Park. Councillor, so we don’t have a seconder, I’ll go to the mover.

[1:10:43] Appreciate that, and I appreciate the second. I guess I just wanted to actually ask staff, ‘cause I was under the impression that this motion was not going to delay anything. So I guess I’ll just go back to staff. This wouldn’t delay the work that’s done currently right now. Madam Chair, I’m interpreting this the way that the seconder, original seconder had intended, which is that the information provided by Ms. Velostro would be referred to the future tree planting strategy for consideration in that process.

[1:11:16] If the intent is to review the landscape plan for Harris Park again, that is a different matter. So I’m thinking it might just be a question of how the wording is there. Just one moment, so the intent of the motion is to refer Ms. Velostro’s delegation to the tree planting strategy is what I understand. And Madam Chair, that’s how staff would interpret B of this motion. And I just want to confirm that with the mover and the new seconder, which is Councillor Trissell.

[1:11:59] And I’ll just go to the clerk for verification here. Through the chair, if it assists in part B, we could add something to the end to indicate it be referred to the tree planting strategy for consideration in future projects in Harris Park or something like that. I’m not sure. Madam Chair and Ms. Bunn, I would suggest that we just suggest refer to the tree planting strategy for consideration as part of that process. So it’s related to the tree planting strategy. That’s where the destination of the referral is.

[1:12:32] That we do not at this time have a future plan for Harris Park and has noted the landscape plan, which was done under scope of practice by landscape architect is done and concluded. Okay, and we’re just going to post that. Councillor Trissell? Yeah, that makes me worry about my second because I was thinking it’d be some possibility for these points to be incorporated into what we’re doing now.

[1:13:06] And now what I’m hearing is, so I think it needs to be more clear. I want to support something that allows for some additional consideration. Councillor, so you are not seconding the motion that we have in front of us. I am looking for a seconder. I will second it, just so we can move forward here.

[1:13:41] Councillor Preble. I was just going to say actually that I’m not going to second it because it’s really kind of, if there’s anyone who didn’t follow today’s conversation, it would be kind of as respect to tree planting plan for Harris Park, Harris Park is still there. And I believe this would be confusing for individuals who have not followed our conversation. So I was just going to say, I will not be seconding it. And the only thing I would second is part A. Madam Chair, if I may suggest if we were to remove the section of the B between agenda and be referred, then simply the communication be referred to the tree planting strategy, which is a future and upcoming piece of work in forestry.

[1:14:24] That would not absolve Councillor Trossa’s concerns. That I think is aligned with the original intent of the motion and the original second. And I would then leave us in committee’s hands if there needs to be further change. Mr. Sheriff, so it’s the communication piece. If you could be a little bit specific, so we could get the motion. Madam Chair, if I understand this and certainly Councillor Ferrer can correct me, the intent was that the communication be referred to the future work on the tree planting strategy, which is a citywide initiative for consideration as part of that process.

[1:15:01] I think it’s the reference to Harris Park that’s confusing as to whether or not there’s a new tree planting strategy for Harris Park. There is no intention of doing a new strategy at this time. Certainly if committee and council wishes to direct us to undertake another study of Harris Park for other tree planting outside of the boundaries of this project, that would be obviously within your purview and would be resourced when we’re able to deliver that at some future date. Madam Chair, I’d suggest that from after the comma, after agenda, to after the comma, after Harris Park, be removed, would be aligned with the original motion and second, obviously be confirmed by the mover and seconder.

[1:16:00] Chair, if I could just confirm that would make the part B that the communication from A and Velastro as appended to the agenda be referred to the future work of the tree planting strategy for consideration as part of that process. Councillor Chaselle. The dilemma I’m facing here through the chair is I don’t have an objection to submitting this to the tree planting group for further consideration.

[1:16:42] However, I don’t want to support the language if it’s done, make it very clear that it’s exclusive to what’s going on. I would be willing to support a motion from council and I hate to use the word directing in respect for the work that you’ve already done, but I do think some additional consideration needs to be made here. And the way this is drafted, it cuts that off, which means I cannot support it, but at the same time, I don’t have a problem having this considered in the future as well as now.

[1:17:19] So I need some opening where this is something that is still on the table. If you could be a little bit more specific, what you would like to see on the table? I would like to direct staff to consider the items raised in the communication from A.M. Pulasko in the current Harris Park plans. Ms. Chair, Sam? Madam Chair, those have been considered in the context of both the advice from our professional Arbor/Silentscape Architects, who as professionals, do you have a scope of practice that we are somewhat dangerously close to, I think, in adjusting?

[1:18:06] It’s been reviewed by our own internal professionals. Our advice at this point is the plan that is currently underway is the best plan related to this project. The future tree planting strategy would inform the diversity of species we use throughout the city, including in future works in Harris Park, but I will note at this time, we do not have a pending project in Harris Park to do additional planting beyond this project. If Council is directing us to change the plan for Harris Park, that is a much different consideration, but we have considered this information, and it has been reviewed by a number of folks and with a fair bit of a staff and consulting time at this point.

[1:18:47] Okay, Councillor? I’m trying as much as I can to sort of ameliorate and soften the motion I’m looking for, but I’m getting the sense that there is a division here. So maybe I could make a motion for part C, that would read, staff is directed to take the communication, take the points raised in the communication from A. M. Velasco into the current planning, into account for the current planning for Harris Park.

[1:19:27] And if I don’t get a second for that, it’s okay, but I really feel as if I need to put that on the table, ‘cause I would like to see this work done now. So I’ll— Just one moment. You added as C to the original motion, or is this a new motion going forward? I just want a little bit of clarification here for the clerk, and if you can make a— Yes, it’s a— It is an added C, it’s my question. Thank you, I’ll go to Councillor Frank. Sorry, I’m not offering to second, ‘cause I’ve heard from staff I think three times that they’ve said they’ve already considered the communication from A. M. Velasco and have factored in what changes they’ve been able to make, so I don’t know how this will add to that, because I’ve already heard three times that they said that they have, so.

[1:20:22] So, hold on, we’re gonna have it added as a C. We can divide A, B, and C out. One moment. So there is a motion for an amendment to add that clause. I need a seconder for that. Councillor Ferra.

[1:21:01] Thanks, Chair for recognizing me, just a comment with going online with Councillor Frank’s comments. I did hear staff. So I could just get a seconder for this amendment, and then I’d be happy to hear what you’ve got to say. I see, so no seconder. So we’ll go back to the main motion to be moved, and I’ll go to Councillor Ferra. I thank you, Chair. I was just saying why I wouldn’t be seconding the motion.

[1:21:35] I do like the amendment. I do like the intent, but I have heard from staff and offline as well, that the work, this has been considered, so this is why I don’t want staff to redo the work that you’ve done, I think, more than once. So that’s why I wouldn’t be seconding that. I do, the intent for me is just to ensure that the future of Harris Park, and I would like to obviously have it as soon as possible, but the future itself does have that full tree planting strategy incorporated into it.

[1:22:06] So I would be happy with the motion the way it is right now. Any other comments on the motion? Councillor Preble, and then I’ll go to Councillor Trissell. Thank you, I was just wondering if it can be dated in our system, because I still see in mind the Harris Park, for Harris Park. And there’s no word future in this, so I would like to see it because I don’t see the current one. Thank you. Just being updated, Councillor. Thank you, I do see it in the system now, thank you.

[1:23:05] Councillor Trissell. Just to say number one, I’m still gonna support this motion because I think it’s fine for this to be considered going forward, and I will be monitoring it very, very, with a lot of interest. Number two, I’m disappointed that my motion didn’t get a second, I understand that. I will be supporting this, but just so everybody understands, I think some more work could be done on this, and it would benefit it. Especially with all the other issues that are going on with Harris Park right now, I don’t think there’s a huge problem with us taking a little bit more time to take this very valuable feedback into consideration.

[1:23:50] So with that, I’ll be supporting the motion, and I will raise it a future point. Other suggestions for taking this community feedback into account? Thank you, Councillor. Any other comments from committee members? I see none, if I could just make a quick comment here from the chair. As you can see, parks are very important to residents, and appreciate the public coming out and speaking to the importance of not only Harris Park, but the importance in all our parks.

[1:24:28] And I want to thank staff for the work and that you’ve also done. It is always a big conversation, and ‘cause it’s important to the community. I’m supporting, I did second this motion. It, to me, it’s something that we can go forward with, and that is all for now. I see no further comments if we can vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[1:25:09] Moving on, deferred matters, additional business. I see none, and I’m looking forward to a German. Councillor Ferrer is seconded by Councillor Frank. We vote, hand vote, that’s carried. Thank you, everyone.