November 18, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:00 PM; it being noted that Councillor P. Van Meerbergen was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Consent Items 2.1 to 2.4 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

2.1   Request for Proposal 2024-01 Insurance and Risk Management Services

2024-11-18 Staff Report - Request for Proposal 2024-101-Insurance and Risk Management Services

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Manager III, Risk Management Division and Deputy City Manager, Legal Services, and with concurrence by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Request for Proposal Insurance and Risk Management Services (RFP 2024-101):

a)     the proposal submitted by Intact Public Entities at 278 Pinebush Road Cambridge, Ontario, at a total annual premium of $4,115,771 (excluding HST), BE ACCEPTED in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy section12.2 (b);

b)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts which are necessary in connection with this contract;

c)     the approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order relating to RFP 2024-101; and;

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

Motion Passed

2.2   Canada Life Place: City Approval of Equipment Lease Agreements

2024-11-18 Staff Report - Canada Life Place

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the capital leases to finance the purchase of two electric forklifts at Canada Life Place BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   Declare Surplus - City-Owned Property - 190 Egerton Street

2024-11-18 Staff Report - Declare Surplus Report-190 Egerton St

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to City-owned property municipally known as part of 190 Egerton Street, legally described as Part Lot 4, Plan 446, as in 892124, in the City of London, to be further described in a reference plan to be deposited, being Part of PIN 083350063 and further shown on the location map as appended to the staff report dated November 18, 2024 as Appendix “A” (the “Subject Property”), the following actions be taken:

a)    the subject property BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and

b)    the subject property BE OFFERED for sale in accordance with the City’s Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy.

Motion Passed

2.4   Declare Surplus - Part of 50 Rollingwood Circle

2024-11-18 Staff Report - Declare Surplus-50 Rollingwood Circle

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports and on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to part of a City-owned property being Part of Block B in Registered Plan 837, shown highlighted in red in Appendix “A” as appended to the staff report dated November 18, 2024 and municipally known as part of Rollingwood Circle Park, in the City of London, County of Middlesex (the “Subject Property”), the following actions be taken:

a)    the Subject Property BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and

b)    the Subject Property BE OFFERED for sale to the abutting property owners at fair market value, in accordance with the City’s Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy.

Motion Passed

2.5   Demolition - City-Owned Properties - 3465 and 3561 Scotland Drive

2024-11-18 Staff Report - Demolition-3465 and 3561 Scotland Drive

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned property at 3465 and 3561 Scotland Drive, the following actions be taken:

a) the subject properties BE RECOMMENDED for demolition; and

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take all necessary steps to demolish the buildings, including completing a request for quotation for work to be completed, obtaining a demolition permit and any other activities to facilitate demolition of the subject properties detailed in the report;

it being noted that existing approved capital accounts and operating accounts will be drawn upon as a source of financing to carry out the subject demolitions;

it being further noted that the Corporate Services Committee heard a verbal delegation from A. Meyer with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the delegation request from A. Meyer BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members only.)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed session to consider the following:

6.1  Land Disposition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations 

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

The Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session from 1:22 PM to 1:30 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 1:34 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (45 minutes)

Okay, we call that 17th meeting corporate services committee to order. Please check the city website for additional meeting detailed information. Meetings can be viewed by a live streaming on YouTube and the city website. City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, the Haudenosaunee of Wampuk, and they had a wandrin.

We honor and respect the history languages, culture, and the future of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. City of London is currently home to many first nations made to you in Inuit today. As representatives 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 alternative formats and communication supports for meetings upon request.

To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact CSC at London.ca, or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. Look to committee for any disclosures of pecuniary or interest. Okay, we’re seeing none. We’re on to consent items.

We’ll leave 2.5, but unless anyone else wants anything pulled, looking for a motion for 2.1 and 2.4 to be moved. Okay, Councillor Cadi, Councillor ramen. Okay, any questions on 2.1 to 2.4? Councillor Pervall.

Thank you, a couple of questions to 2.1. Even though it’s not a huge savings, any savings is good, so thank you for that. And I wanted to ask if we are decreasing the premiums, are any coverages decreased as well, or is it the same, or are they actually increased? Potentially, thank you, good stuff.

Through the chair. In review of the coverages submitted, IPE, the coverages are the same as before, and enhanced in a couple of specific areas. There will be no shortfalls in coverage compared to our current coverages. Follow-up, Councillor?

Okay, thank you for that. I just want to understand, was the IPE actually even the current one? That’s one question. And then we are looking into a four-year deal, but we have a premium only for 25.

Has it been there like that before, but if you are committing to four years, how do we know that 26, 27, 28 is going to be a tremendous increase? How do we control it? Thank you. Good stuff, through the chair.

So it is, the RFP does establish price for the next year, 2025. Pricing is based on, it can go up in the subsequent years. It’s the city’s practice to carry out the RFP in the fourth or fifth year, based on the end of terms for the current provider. And in doing that, that’s the best way to ensure best price and best coverage.

And when we issue the RFP, we make sure that we take a good look at our business to see that the insurance products and pricing match the current state of the city’s needs and those in the portfolio. By having the RFP, it ensures fairness and transparency in the process. And it also ensures that we are taking a look at the market on a regular basis to making sure that we are receiving best products with best price. Follow-up, Councillor?

Thank you for the last question is, are we protecting the cooperation, let’s say, 26? And I’m going to exaggerate, we are committing four-year deal, but in 26, they would do a 50% increase. And the market doesn’t reflect such increase. Do we have an opportunity to cut it or are we stuck for four years?

Good stuff. The reason we don’t do an RFP every year for insurance services is because you will damage the relationships that you have with the insurance community. You have to have long-term commitments by these insurance companies and by ourselves in order to provide best products of price in the short run and in the long run. And so we do have, which is consistent with most municipalities, the practice to go to market, not too often, but every four or five years.

And you do get best product, best price year one, but then everybody’s mindful that it’s only for a short-term agreement. And so everybody’s interested in doing their best work for the long run. Other questions, Councilor? Andrew, I agree and I understand that.

But my question is, let’s say in two years down the road, if the premium would drastically increase and the industry is not going that way, how do we protect ourselves without going out there? But we do know, and I’m quite sure you do know what’s happening in the industry because that’s what you do. But my question is, do we protect ourselves if such huge increase would potentially come that we can get out or are we locked in for four years? Go ahead, Steph.

There’s always some price control that you have built within your program. We could look at a variety of options. This is an insurance service provider, they’re not the insurer. And so we explore the market every year for best price and product.

And if we had to self-assure for larger amounts or explore the market harder for different carriers within the suite from the provider, we do that to guard against unwelcome increases from the insurance environment or from our own lost history. That’s right. Okay, thank you for those answers. And 2.2, sorry, ask for 2.2, are we going, okay.

72-month lease, what happens after the six years, is that a borrowed option or actually the 72 years, so sorry, 72-month does include the buyout option and it’s at the end to zero, thank you. Go ahead, Steph. Through the charity committee, this is a lease to own. So at the end, our, or sorry, Canada Life Places asset, currently they’re renting their forklifts.

So this is a lot more favorable overall with the payback of your 67 years. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you, no more questions.

And go ahead, Councillor Rhomme. Thank you, on the same report, what’s the useful life for a forklift? Go ahead, Steph. Generally assets of that nature last between six to seven years, depending on the usage.

Based on our conversations with OVG360, they’re expected to life in six years, so they feel that this is advantageous to them. Go ahead, Councillor. Sorry, so at the end of the six year contract and at which we’re borrowing against that six years, the asset would then at that point be at a commission? Right, Steph.

The useful life of the asset could vary, depending on upkeep and maintenance. The business plan or the cost benefit analysis that’s used to determine whether or not to lease finance or purchase outright or just rent is based on that useful life. And based on their experience, they’re feeling that this is beneficial to them as opposed to renting. Therefore, they have an asset at the tail end of the useful life, which could go and exceed seven, eight years, but for the calculation of cost benefit, the six years as the factor.

Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you. Thank you. And I noticed the cost of borrowing is 6.42%.

Is that typical for what we borrow at? Go ahead, Steph. Through the chair of the committee, it’s not typical for what the city would borrow at. However, it is typical for a commercial entity.

They have not entered into this lease. So given that we have seen some rate decreases on the overnight rate lately, once Councillor approves this, we expect that the OB-G360 is going to be negotiating with their finance here to get a lower rate. And based on preliminary conversations that we’ve had with the OB-G360, those look very promising. Given the current overnight rate environment.

Thank you. Follow-up? Fingers crossed that the rates continue to go down. I think that’s what we’re all hoping for.

So thank you for that. I appreciate that update. And when Canada Life Place retains an asset, it shows up on our asset plan, but correct? Good, Steph.

Through the chair of the committee, it is their asset, not the city of London’s asset. So it’s on their asset plan. And when it comes to maintenance of their assets, they have a capital replacement fund that takes care of the maintenance of that asset that gets run through the city treasurer in their capacity, sitting on the OB-G360 or the London, the LCC. Go ahead, Councillor.

Thank you. So ultimately, we could borrow and get this asset of the forklift. The six-year term could expire. They could sell the asset.

And that’s just a possibility that then they retain the sale of the product at the end of that six years and then come back to us and ask us to do the same thing again. Go ahead, Steph. So there’s a chair to committee. I expect that it will be an operational decision if they choose to replace that asset.

However, it goes against their bottom line as well. It’s not just purely on the city’s end that it gets calculated against. So if at six years time, there’s a more efficient way of providing the forklift services to their operations. I’m sure they could explore it with the asset going against potentially the purchase of another forklift or two forklifts depending on what’s going on.

Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, appreciate the answers. Okay, looking for other committee member questions or comments, okay, not seeing any. So we’ll open the voting on 2.1, 2.1.

Closing the vote, motion carries 4 to 0, noting Councillor Stevenson’s asset. Okay, we are on 2.5. We do have a request for delegation status. So looking for a mover, seconder, okay, Councillor Ramen, Councillor Cuddy.

Okay, we’ll open that for the delegation to speak. Closing the vote, motion carries 4 to 0. Good afternoon. Oh, just one moment.

Mr. Meyer, you’ll have five minutes. Just wanna give you the go ahead, just one moment. Okay, go ahead.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today. My name is Adam Meyer and my parents were the owners of the property at 3561 Scotland Drive when the city purchased it in 2005. My parents continued to live there until my brother, Nathan Meyer, who was here today, moved into the house two and a half years ago. In total, my family has lived there for almost 40 years.

This past summer, my brother was considering moving out. So we approached the city to ask about subletting or signing the lease to me. At first, they said no, but then indicated that the property, if the property passed an inspection, I would have first opportunity to lease it or be considered. As a result of that inspection, the recommendation before the committee today is at the house be demolished because it has reached the end of his economic life.

I disagree with that claim and would like to provide an alternate option that continues the leasing agreement with the family of the original owners. Before I continue, I would like to clarify that I’m only here to discuss the property at 3561 Scotland Drive, not 3465, which is also listed on the agenda. The main reason for the recommendation given in the report is the cost of repairs needed to bring the property up to rentable standards. I would like to point out that for the past 20 years, while my family has leased the property, we have continued to maintain the property with little, if any, contribution from the city.

We replaced the roof, furnace, doors, windows, flooring and appliances, and generally treated the property as if it were our own. The report claims the cost of repairs is between $100 to $150,000, but I believe those costs are over-inflated and that most of the repairs are unnecessary. The report specifically mentions the septic system and provides an estimate of $50 to $70,000 for this repair. My own research shows that the average cost of a new system in Ontario is closer to $15 to $30,000.

The septic system did require some maintenance a year ago and my brother had it serviced and when that did not resolve the issue, he had a contractor inspect it. The contractor found that it was blocked by roots and proceeded to remove the roots which resolved the issue. My brother has since removed all the trees and vegetation in the area to prevent this from occurring again and there have been no further issues with the septic system since then. I believe this one-time issue is mistakenly being used as the reason to justify demolishing the house.

The report also states that the property needs numerous other repairs to the building, electrical and plumbing, but does not provide any specifics. As far as I’m aware, after speaking with my brother, the house does not need any electrical or plumbing repairs. In regarding the building envelope elements, the roof is a steel roof that does not leak and has many more years of life and the windows, although older and inefficient, do not leak as well. The images in the report that show water damage occurred prior to the new roof.

Finally, the report states that there are numerous aesthetic repairs needed. While I do agree that these repairs are needed, I do not believe that the city needs to perform. These repairs should the leasing agreement continue with the family. As I mentioned earlier, my family has maintained the property for the past 20 years and treated it as if it were our own.

After my dad passed in 2020, my mom was unable to continue all the maintenance on her own. So since then, my brother has moved in and bid on the process of restoring and repairing the property. For example, he has cleared a lot of the overgrown gardens and debris from the property, painted and installed new flooring and carpets. And should I be allowed to move in, I would continue improving the property as if it were my own.

So in closing, I have two points. Five months ago, the city initiated and improved a new lease with my brother. If the property was actually at its end of life, why would they do this? I believe that the city sees my brother moving out as an opportunity to remove this property from its portfolio and is using the end of economic life argument to justify demolition.

Second point is considering the cost to demolish the properties between $30,000 to $50,000. Why not apply that money to the septic system repair? Assuming the system lasts another two years, the demolition cost plus two years of rent is more than enough to make the repairs, even at the inflated cost in the report. So I strongly urge that the committee deny the request to demolish the property at 3561 Schalthan Drive, and instead recommend it be available to continue to lease to the family.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Meyer. Looking to committee for questions or comments, or to put something on the floor.

Okay, go ahead, Councillor Wong. Thank you and through you. I’m just wondering if staff can provide us a little bit more insight into the components of the discussion around useful economic life and whether or not they can give us their perspective on why the recommendation is before us today. That’s enough.

Thank you and through the chair. So the main cost item that we’re concerned about is the septic tank system. So we did hire an expert in septic systems, SA Canada, who did a thorough inspection, prepared a report and came up with an estimate, conservative estimate of between $50,000 and $70,000 to replace the septic system. Property was purchased over 20 years ago and the purpose of that was as these properties are within the buffer area.

It was for the W-12A property protection mitigation program. At that time, the property owners were provided with a lease back of the property before two to five years. The plan was to actually ultimately remove the home as its location next to the landfill, due to the potential for odor, dust, and all these other concerns to property owners. And there’s a number of properties that we have been involved in through the council direction and policy to acquire.

We have not budgeted extensively for maintenance because we always planned that the properties would be removed. So there isn’t really budget to undertake all of the maintenance items. We put that together based on our team’s expertise in managing these properties as well as our experience with contractors and our estimate of somewhere between 125 and 150 over the next few years we feel as a conservative estimate. The main concern is the septic tank system.

It is going to fail. It has been inspected by an expert. And for these reasons, I’m standing by our recommendation with respect to removal of the buildings. Thank you.

Follow-up, Councilor? Thank you and through you. And is it, I don’t know if you can give me this opinion or not, so please tell me if it’s not something I can move forward with as a question, but is the highest and best use of this property or residential property? Go ahead, staff.

Through the chair. So the property is in fact zoned for the landfill and resource recovery. So it’s highest and best use is not residential. Go ahead, Councilor.

Thank you and through you. With respect, I know this isn’t the right committee to ask this question. With respect to our application that was approved by the province for expansion of landfill was any implication to this property included in that? Go ahead, staff.

Through the chair. To my knowledge, no, this property is in the buffer area and the landfill expansion relates to the footprint of the current facility. Yep, go ahead. Thank you.

So the buffer zone was not impacted by the increase to the landfill? Go ahead, staff. Through the chair, to my knowledge, it’s not. Okay, looking to other committee members, questions, comments, putting something on the floor?

Go ahead, Councilor. Thank you. I’ll look to put the staff recommendation on the floor, please, and I’ll speak to it. Okay, is there a seconder?

Councilor Cuddy? Okay, and if you wanna speak to it, go ahead, Councilor. Thank you. So through you, Chair, while I appreciate the delegation and the opportunity to hear from the public as the impacts for not continuing on with the lease, I do think that based on what’s provided in the report, specifically around the cost associated with the septic tank, I do think that I concur that staff have evaluated it to see that it has reached its useful life, or end of useful life.

The other thing that we have to consider as this is a city asset, what is the highest and best use? And if that is for the landfill, then I proceed moving forward. Okay, any other questions or comments on the motion that is put forward? Okay, go ahead, Councilor Pervell.

I just say, thank you for coming out for and giving us your feedback, but even though I’m not a voting member of this committee, when it comes to the Council, I will be supporting the staff recommendation as well. Thank you. Looking at any other Council members, I’d seeing it, we’ll open this for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries, four to zero.

That concludes our consent items. We have no scheduled items, items for direction, or deferred matters. We are on confidential, so I will, for motion, Councillor ramen, Councillor Cudi, thank you, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries, four to zero.

We are back in public session, I’ll do Councillor Cudi to report out from confidential session. Thank you, Chair and through you. We met in closed session from 1.24 to 1.30 p.m. We made progress on all matters discussed, thank you.

Okay, thank you for that, and we are on to adjournment. Can I get a motion to adjourn? Chair, before we adjourn, it’s a moment. Yeah, go ahead.

On behalf of all committee members, I’d like to thank you for chairing this session for us. We’ve had some difficult sessions, and it’s not easy, especially with disruptive members like Councillor van Miebergen, but we’ve persevered, and I think I can speak for all committee members when I want to say thank you. Thank you, I appreciate that, Councillor Cudi, and I’ll add that to your tally of comments. Sir van Miebergen, but no, I appreciate the opportunity to serve as chair of this committee, and I wish Councillor ramen all the best with the new combined committee for infrastructure and corporate services, so thank you.

And with that, look for motion. Mr. Chair? - Yeah, go ahead.

The rebuttal from Councillor Van Miebergen. I too would like to thank you, you did a fine job. I’ve seen a number of various chairs in my day, but I must say in regard to a friend here, I think I just have to serve him and tell him that he’s on notice that he is off my Christmas card list. Cudi, you’re off the list.

Okay, well, gotta get back in his good books. With that, we’ll look for that motion to adjourn. Councillor Cudi, Councillor ramen. Okay, so all those in favor of adjournment?

Opposed? - Motion carries. Thank you everyone.