June 11, 2024, at 9:30 AM
Present:
A. Hopkins, J. Pribil, S. Franke, D. Ferreira
Absent:
S. Trosow
Also Present:
A. Alkema, K. Chambers, J. Dann, D. Escobar, G. Dales, D. MacRae, K. Oudekerk, A. Rammeloo, A. Rozentals, K. Scherr, J. Stanford, P. Titus, J. Bunn
E. Hunt, E. Skalski
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 AM.
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 2.9 BE APPROVED.
Vote:
Yeas: Absent: A. Hopkins S. Trosow J. Pribil S. Franke D. Ferreira
Motion Passed (4 to 0)
2.1 6th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by J. Pribil
That the following actions be taken with respect to the 6th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on May 15, 2024:
a) the London Transit Commission BE REQUESTED to provide the following information to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee:
i) provision of transit services;
ii) current Service Plan (Conventional and Special);
iii) criteria of provision of transit services in new subdivisions;
iv) areas and subdivisions in London where no transit services are available;
v) zero emission bus fleet implementation and rollout plan;
vi) when Londoners may see the first group of zero emission buses on the roads; and,
vii) how many buses and which routes will be used in the pilot project; and,
b) clauses 1.1, 2.1 to 2.3, 3.1 and 3.2 BE RECEIVED.
Motion Passed
2.2 Hyde Park Pumping Station Single Source Pump Purchase
2024-06-11 - SR (2.2) - CWC-Hyde Park Pumping Station Single Source Pump Purchase - 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 June 11, 2024, related to the Hyde Park Pumping Station Single Source Pump Purchase:
a) the price submitted by Directrik Inc. of $282,697.64 CAD (excluding HST) for the supply of one vertical turbine pump BE ACCEPTED;
b) the financing for this project 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 purchase;
d) the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; 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. (2024-E03)
Motion Passed
2.3 Mud Creek Phase 2B: RFT-2024-060 Construction Contract and Consultant Supervision Award and Project Budget Increase
2024-06-11 - SR (2.3) - CWC-Mud Creek Phase 2B-RFT-2024-060 – Construction Contract 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 June 11, 2024, related to Mud Creek Phase 2B: RFT-2024-060 – Construction Contract and Consultant Supervision Award and Project Budget Increase:
a) the bid submitted by CH Excavating (2013) at its tendered price of $11,864,196.42 (excluding HST) BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by CH Excavating (2013) was the lowest of four (4) 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 “Mud Creek Phase 2B RFT-2024-060 – Construction Contract” in accordance with the estimate on file, at the upset amount of $1,349,144.83 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;
c) the financing for these projects 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, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (RFT-2024-060); 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. (2024-A05)
Motion Passed
2.4 Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program: Round 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 June 11, 2024, related to the Appointment of Consultant Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program Round 2:
a) the following consulting engineers BE APPOINTED to carry out consulting services for the identified projects, at the upset amounts identified below, in accordance with the estimate on file, and in accordance with Section 15.2(e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:
i) GM BluePlan Engineering Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, detailed design and construction administration for sanitary sewer infrastructure upsizing on Second Street, from Oxford Street to Pottersburg Creek, in the total amount of $412,379.00, including contingency (excluding HST);
ii) AECOM Canada Ltd. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the Downtown Core Area Sanitary Infrastructure Assessment Study, in the total amount of $124,607.00, including contingency (excluding HST);
b) the financing for this project 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 project;
d) the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; 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. (2024-E01)
Motion Passed
2.5 RFT-2024 -084 Greenway Flood Protection Tender Award
2024-06-11 - SR (2.5) - CWC-RFT-2024-084 Greenway Flood Protection Tender Award 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 June 11, 2024, related to RFT-2024-084 Greenway Flood Protection Tender Award:
a) the bid submitted by Stone Town Construction Limited at its tendered price of $24,477,992.06 (excluding HST), for the construction of flood protection at Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant BE ACCEPTED;
b) the increase in fees for engineering services related to design and contract administration for the Greenway Flood Protection projects of $760,641.00, plus HST, BE APPROVED;
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 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. (2024-E13)
Motion Passed
2.6 RFP-2024-078 Byron Bridge Rehabilitation Detailed Design and Construction Administration Appointment of Consulting Engineer
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 June 11, 2024, related to RFP-2024-078 Byron Bridge Rehabilitation Detailed Design and Construction Administration Appointment of Consulting Engineer:
a) the proposal submitted by Dillon Consulting Limited BE ACCEPTED to provide consulting engineering services to complete the detailed design, tendering and construction administration services at an upset amount of $403,749.50 (excluding HST), as per Section 15.2 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;
b) the financing for this assignment 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 assignment;
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 agreements, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-T04)
Motion Passed
2.7 Funding to Support the Continuation of UTRCA Monitoring Program for the Dingman Creek Subwatershed
2024-06-11 - SR (2.7) - CWC-Funding to Support the Continuation of UTRCA Monitoring Program FULL
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by J. Pribil
That on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated June 11, 2024, related to Funding to Support the Continuation of the UTRCA Monitoring Program for the Dingman Creek Subwatershed:
a) the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority BE APPOINTED to complete the 2024 Dingman Creek Surface Monitoring Program in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $161,550 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 14.4 (d), (e) and (h) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;
b) the financing for this project 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 project;
d) the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; 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. (2024-F11A)
Motion Passed
2.8 Temporary Recycling Residual Disposal Fee Adjustment for Existing Customers at W12A Landfill
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by J. Pribil
That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated June 11, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024, to amend By-law A-59, being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges” to establish a new temporary fee for existing customers that can no longer haul recycling process residuals in walking floor transfer trailers to the W12A Landfill due to operational constraints. (2024-E07)
Motion Passed
2.9 Contract Price Increase: Dundas Street TVP Active Transportation Connection
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 June 11, 2024 related to a Contract Price Increase for the Dundas Street TVP Active Transportation Connection:
a) Dundas TVP Active Transportation Connection (Tender RFT21-04) construction contract value with L-82 Construction Ltd. BE INCREASED by $170,000 to $2,535,763.20 (excluding HST) in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;
b) the financing for these projects 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 these projects; and,
d) the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-F18)
Motion Passed
3. Scheduled Items
None.
4. Items for Direction
None.
5. Deferred Matters/Additional Business
None.
6. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:57 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 (40 minutes)
[14:12] Good morning everyone. I think we should get started on the 10th meeting of the Civic Works Committee. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, the Haudenosaunee, the Lupine Walk, and the Adewandran. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse, indigenous people who call this territory home.
[14:50] 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. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings on requests. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact cwc@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425.
[15:30] So moving on to number one, disclosures of pecuniary interest. Anyone? I see none. We’ll move on to the consent items. There are nine consent items looking for emotion, maybe to start the conversation, to put the consent items on the floor. I would like, yes, Councillor Frank, moving the motion, and looking for a seconder in Councillor Privel. And with that, I would like to bring the committee members, the attention for committee members on the sixth report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee.
[16:17] There is a request from the advisory group to reach out to the London Transit Commission. With, if it is supported, the process is that this will go to council for final approval. And then a resolution will be made and sent to LTC to request to respond back to the advisory group. So with that, moving on to any questions of the report, Dean Nunn.
[16:54] So moving on to 2.2, the Hyde Park Pumping Station, single source pump purchase, any questions? With that one, see none, a lot of growth going on in that area and the importance of getting water there. 2.3 is the McCreek phase to be construction contract and consultant supervision award and project budget increases. Any questions? Dean Nunn, Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, Chair.
[17:28] So I was reading through this report. I do like to see kind of like while we’re here, we might as well do the work that we’re proposing here just so we don’t, I guess, disrupt the area again. So I did wanna make a comment to staff saying I appreciate that, that’s a good call. And I can see some of the areas, I’m assuming we just don’t have the plans yet ‘cause we still are putting this out for, I guess, some third parties to give us some information. I’m looking at the trunk sanitary sewer capacity for infill growth.
[18:02] I was wondering if I’d maybe get some extra comments on that from staff ‘cause I do have a note here saying, yeah, I’m wondering if we’re still going out to get that information from third party. Thank you, through the chair. So I’m not gonna switch information through third party. It’s, I was just going through this.
[18:37] I’m looking at the trunk sanitary sewer capacity for infill growth and I do see that we’re looking to add a trunk sanitary sewer. I think it was on the west side of the channel remediation and I just wanted to know. I was seeing, I was wondering if we had any kind of like, like a plan, like a design looking from above, like we do for the mud creek location and phasing map of where that would be located. Thank you, through the chair. So we are installing it on the west side of the creek. So it is not shown on the location map, but I’m more than happy to show you where it is.
[19:13] So it basically will run parallel to the existing trunk sewer and connecting at the downstream end. So it will be there to accommodate additional future growth in the area. And then the meantime, it also provides additional storage because it’ll be connected to that trunk sewer. So it provides additional storage for wet weather flows and reduces overflows. Councillor. No, thank you. It was well described in the report. I was just asking to see if we could have like a visual of it, but no, that’s fully understandable. So thank you.
[19:48] Councillor Pribble. Thank you, so the chair to the staff. Now when the question was asked about the capacity, how do we work together with planning? Because of course, this area that are huge or the infills projection is really high. So how do we work together with planning to determine really the sufficiency of the diameter of the sewer trunks? Swamela, thank you, through the chair. So you’re right, we do work closely with planning to determine the sizes and to try and project future growth in the areas and so on.
[20:21] So we do have the base population densities that are allowed for in the London Plan. And then we also look at what we’re actually seeing on applications and what we expect if we’re seeing higher densities. So we would apply those to the, they’re called design sheets. And they apply a flow per capita. And so that flow, that anticipated flow is what drives the design. Thank you and follow up. And I’m quite sure the ones with the vicinity, those new projects that they would be included. But how about the two, for example, the ones that we just did on the Wonderland behind nice jewelers and then also the one behind Costco.
[20:59] Would it be using the same trunk or there would be additional one going down the Wonderland? Thank you through the chair. Yes, those folks do go through the same trunk. So that is part of the work that we’re doing here to upsize that to continue to accommodate to more growth in that area. And based on all this, what I just heard, we feel very confident that it’s proposal is sufficient and it’s gonna lead us through all these entire infill in this area, correct? Thank you, yes to the chair. This is not an area we want to go back into, given that we’re doing a lot of work to create a nice naturalized amenity space.
[21:36] So we definitely don’t want to go in again. So we are definitely sizing this so that we are future proofing this sewer for what would come in. Great. Thank you very much. No more questions to this point. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. I see no further questions and I’d like to move onto 2.4, which is the appointment of consulting engineers for infrastructure renewal program. This is round two. We want to see if I can just go to staff just for a short introduction.
[22:14] This is pretty exciting stuff happening here. Thank you through the chair. Yes, these are two engineering consulting assignments that we’re very excited to get going. So first mentioned here is the second street sanitary sewer. So this is the design using housing accelerator fund money that directly supports multiple high density developments in the area of Oxford and second street that we previously had holding provisions on. So doing this work allows a number of developments to move forward in an area where we really need that housing. Secondly, the downtown court area sanitary infrastructure assessment study.
[22:51] So we’d have studies in the past that looked at the downtown sanitary capacity, but a lot has changed since then. So we’ve done a number of projects to separate and combine sewers and increase sewer capacity in conjunction with the rapid transit projects. As well, we have the ongoing trunk sewer upsizing on Cavendish in the park north of the river going on right now and we’re planning for the LaBette siphon increase next year. So we are doing this year and next year over $40 million of work in the core to address sanitary capacity in the downtown because as we have seen, there’s a lot of interest in developing that high density residential in the downtown, both from the towers that we’ve already seen go up and the applications that we continue to see come in.
[23:35] So we want to make sure that we’re able to support those with sanitary servicing. So in addition, so this updated study will look at all the projects that have been completed since the past one. Look at how we allocate these in a planful way so that we’re ensuring that good developments can move forward in a timely manner and also identify if there’s other projects that we should be doing to ensure that we don’t have bottlenecks in our system. So this will be very important work for ensuring that sanitary capacity can be allocated to those developments as they’re coming online in the downtown.
[24:11] Thank you for that. I will go down to the downtown counselor, counselor Ferrer. Thank you, Chair. So obviously I’m happy to see this one, the downtown sanitary infrastructure. That’s obviously a conversation that I’ve had with you that’s been ongoing and this is critical to the development. So I really like how you’re tying it in with the future developments that we’re gonna have and just trying to increase the capacity like that. This would be the make it or break it if we’re gonna be able to actually do the initiatives we wanna do downtown.
[24:43] So very happy to see that and looking forward to seeing more information in the future on this one, ‘cause I know I might have been asking a little bit too much sometimes, so I appreciate that. Councillor Pippo. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. Incredibly, incredibly happy to see this and at these locations, because as he said, great developments, great developments. So I’m really happy to see that. One question in terms of the second street and if I look at the Oxford and Highbury, the South, the East corner, which used to be the lands for the soccer fields as well as the site of London, psychiatric hospital, those lands.
[25:24] I don’t imagine that they will go all the way to second. I would imagine there is something to the Highbury and that area, do we have it covered for this infill order and it plans to increase the sanitary trunks and services? Thank you, through the chair. Yes, so you are correct that those flows go over to the sanitary, or Highbury side rather, and the fascinating improvements to accommodate that infill development is all included within the rapid transit project as well.
[26:00] And that, because I don’t know the dads, that is coordinated with the developer and with planning that is the our bus transit, the VRT that is coordinated time-wise and we are going to slow, develop and down. Coordination was done. Yes, and through the chair, through the design of the East London Link project, which is currently under construction, we coordinated with planning and with the developer to ensure that all of our infrastructure underground is being upsized to accommodate that.
[26:32] We’re able to come up with some really great synergies so that the project can go forward in our timeline and also align with theirs. Councillor. Perfect, thank you very much. No more questions to this point. Thank you. I see no further questions. Just a quick comment here from the chair. Really pleased to see this coming forward. This study, in particular downtown, as we support the development of downtown, do have a question though, around the findings of the study, is that reported back to CWC or is it just more or less left within the different divisions to be shared?
[27:13] Not sure. Thank you for the chair. We do expect that there will be some policy recommendations out of the study that would be coming back either to Civic Works or to Planning Committee. This is also going to be informing the land needs study, the potential for a downtown GMIS, if you will, as well as potentially informing other projects that would then come through the normal design and construction award process. So yes, like we will see some of the results of this and we’re always a staff happy to answer questions offline too about the process.
[27:48] Thank you, good news. Thank you to staff for the work on this, the much needed work as we change the way we develop downtown and move forward. Moving on to 2.5 then, is the Greenway Flood Protection Pender Award. Any questions from committee on that? Councillor. Thank you and through the chair to the staff, very happy to see that we are using 40% of the higher money of the higher level of government. So thank you for that.
[28:21] But I do have a question in terms of the timing that what was the, and I don’t know if it was included, the report by then see bottom line is it was 143 weeks as compared to 80 weeks, which is 63 additional weeks, which is kind of increased, I don’t know roughly, 85%. What was the reasoning behind it, thank you. Yes, thank you through the chair. So that 80 weeks was used before we even started design as a basis for the consultants to be able to provide a consistent price so that they were all using the same number when they submitted their price for the design and construction administration of the project.
[28:59] We wouldn’t know the actual number of working days required until we got further into the design, looked at the construction methods and so on. So that 80 was really just a baseline to ensure consistent bidding across the consultants without knowing how we would actually be constructing it. Thank you for more questions. Any other questions from committee members on the Greenway Flood Protection Pender Award? Do not see any, I do have a good question from the chair just around the work that obviously is needed here, but also the closure that is going to happen at the on the TVP and appreciate it’s going to be done in the winter months, but representing the West End, that TVP is an important link to our downtown and just would like to have a better understanding of how we promote or send out notices today.
[30:01] The public on the closure. Thank you through the chair. Yes, we recognize that this would be disruptive to those who use the TVP, especially those who use it to commute. So we have had signs on it and had quite a bit of attention on this since several months ago. So we have been communicating that way with the QR code that people who are using the TVP regularly are aware. We are happy to say that at first we are predicting that this could be a six month closure and we’re down to about two. We will continue to have signage out there for those users and on all our social media on the Get Involved page and so on.
[30:38] Also in that we do have incentive, disincentive clauses in the contract to encourage the contractor getting that connection open faster. Thank you for that information. Moving on now to 2.6, which is the Byron Bridge rehab, detailed design, construction, administration appointment of consultant engineer. Any questions, comments from the committee? Seeing none, the committee will allow me just to pass on my thanks to Esther for taking a look at this bridge and doing the rehabilitation and making it a safer bridge as we have very few entrances into the west end of the city and this is an important link.
[31:20] So good to see this going forward. Moving on to 2.8, which is 2.7. Sorry, funding to support the continuation of the UTRCA monitoring program for the Dingman Creek sub watershed. Any questions from committee? See none, good to see this going forward. It is an important, a tributary in our city and a lot of work to be done when it comes to mapping.
[31:54] Moving on to 2.8 is the temporary recycling residual. Disposal fee adjustment for existing customers at W12A landfill. I would like to just go to staff for a quick introduction on this recommendation. Mr. Stanford. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the committee’s benefit, the motion of a separate recycling residual disposal fee has been something that the city has had for many, many decades.
[32:28] And essentially it is an incentive for the recycling industry to continue to process more materials. But of course, as they process materials, they do create a residual product. So it is essentially offering locally a lower disposal fee. So the gap right now between the regular disposal fee of $46 and the existing recycling residual disposal fee, of course, is six bucks. What is a current or landfill site because we’re entering the last portion, essentially the last year of the existing approved landfill site. We’ve run into really a space constraint.
[33:03] We’re not able to accept very large transfer trailers. These are the ones that you would see out on the highway that are extremely long. We do receive this at the landfill site right now from two companies that use the very large vehicles to basically save on transportation costs, reduce fuel use. Unfortunately for about a year, we’re not going to be able to receive vehicles at that size because there’s just no location at the landfill site to turn them around. What’s going to occur for the industry, and it’s really two million businesses that have 95% of the business, they’re going to see an increase in their costs for that period of time because they have to move to smaller vehicles and costs go up with that.
[33:41] So what we’re suggesting in this report is a temporary fee to assist not only the two businesses locally, but of course, the businesses in London that use their services. So in this case here, we’re suggesting a reduction in the fee from $40 per ton down to $30 for 2024 and likely into 2025. The fee in 2025 would be part of our fees and charges bylaw, which you’ll see later this year, but it’ll be really the same discussion that would occur there. This is just an opportunity to support local businesses, but at the same time from a city perspective, ‘cause we just completed the multi-year budget, we have counted on the revenue coming in from this particular material stream.
[34:25] So we will see during this period of time, a small reduction of about $230,000 in 2024, which could easily be made up by other revenue streams at W12A, ‘cause some of our fee streams are tracking higher after five months. So this is something that we’ve, of course, report out at mid-year through SPPC as part of the budget monitoring. So before you basically is the temporary fee, really to do a couple things, to finalize comments, help local industry protect our revenue stream, ‘cause it is important, and at the same time, as we develop our future sales, which, of course, as you know, we have approval to do so, that’s going through the final phases of approvals of the Environmental Protection Act.
[35:15] This allows us to basically continue to serve our local businesses. Thank you, Mr. Sandford, for that extra information on the recommendation that we have for various fees and charges to our landfill. And I really appreciate the update. I found lots of the information important, but I also appreciate the monitoring that’s gonna go forward through our budget process to make sure that we can come up with that balancing of the fees and charges.
[35:54] So any questions from committee, Councillor Preble? Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. I’m quite sure we’re under the only municipality that’s kind of in this situation, or I would imagine the other ones are as well. Did we do the comparison if there are other municipalities and in terms of the fees and potential reduction? Did we do comparison with other municipalities in terms of this project, or are we the only one who are experiencing this? Thank you. Mr. Sandford?
[36:26] Through the Chair, other municipalities really have different fee structures to serve their particular industry. What we do consider though is what the private sector, landfill sites in Southwestern Ontario and Michigan, what they would be charging. And essentially as we look at those kinds of fees, we do our best to remain competitive. At the same time, we do like that revenue stream. So this fee reduction is really designed to make sure that the local industry is not really having a cost increase that they would have to pass on to their customers.
[37:00] Councillor. Great, and let’s just last follow up. You know, I’m quite sure you answered it. We do do competitive analysis with others when we do such projects and we consider that as well to competitive analysis. Through the Chair, yes, on a regular basis, we’re looking at our tipping fees to make sure they remain competitive. And that’s the opportunity of any changes to the fees and charges by-law on an annual basis that right now they’re locked in for the next four years, or if something changes, we will bring that to our committee and council’s attention.
[37:35] Thank you, no more questions. Thank you. Councillor Fuehrer. Thank you, Chair. So just mind my lack of knowledge here. So that’s what, so I’m just gonna, I wanna know my, like my experience with like being at the landfill, the W12A landfill is I drive up, I go on the scale. I have materials that I wanna throw. This is not to do with that. This is the recycling process for residuals. Look, like I just wanted to know the difference between like a personal individual who’s coming in, goes on the scale, drives around, oops, goes to the bins and throws things into the bins.
[38:15] This is not for that. This is for something else. Mr. Stanford. Through the Chair, that is correct. This is, there’s two very large companies in London, Tri-Recycling Green Valley that handled the majority of what’s referred to as construction renovation and demolition waste. They take that and put that through different processing operations to extract materials of value. This would become the residual product that has no value. We provide just a local tipping fee that is supportive of that particular industry. So this does not impact residents.
[38:49] Those fees remain unchanged. In fact, it really only impacts two customers for the most part because the others basically will continue at the same rate because they bring in very small volumes. Councillor. Thank you for that. That was the piece that I needed to really kind of visualize it in my head. So thank you for that answer. That leaves, I have no questions after that. Thank you for your questions. Moving on now to the last consent item, which is 2.9, the contract price increase for Dundas Street, TVP, active transportation.
[39:26] Any questions from a committee? I see no further questions on our consent items and we do have a motion that has been moved and seconded and we can proceed to vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Moving on to scheduled items.
[39:59] There are none, items for direction. There are none, different matters, additional business. Any, I see none and I am looking for a German. Councillor Preble and seconded by Councillor Frank. And hand vote, don’t leave yet, hand vote. And that is carried, have a great day, everyone.