Open Council

12th Meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

Open Council

12th Meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

July 16, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:02 PM.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Franke

That Consent Items 2.2 to 2.7 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.2   Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Trunk Watermain Installation Program

2025-07-16 Staff Report - Appointment of Consulting Engineers-Trunk Watermain

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Franke

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of consulting engineers for the Trunk Watermain Installation Program:

a)     the following consulting engineers BE APPOINTED to carry out consulting services for the identified Trunk Watermain Installation Program funded 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)    AECOM Canada ULC BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the detailed design of Contract 3 – Southdale Road West from 300m West of Wonderland Road to 160m East of Wonderland Road, in the total amount of $213,457.00 (including contingency), excluding HST; and

ii)    Stantec Consulting Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the detailed design of Contract 5 – Gainsborough Road from Coronation Drive West to Coronation Drive East, in the total amount of $223,634.13 (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 staff report dated July 16, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’; 

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.

Motion Passed

2.3   Municipal Drain Petition for Bailey Drain

2025-07-16 Staff Report - Municipal Drain Petition

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Franke

That on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Bailey Municipal Drain:

 

a)    the petition for a new branch to the Bailey Municipal Drain, located in the area of Robins Hill Road and Rebecca Road, BE ACCEPTED by the Corporation of the City of London under Section 4 of the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D. 17; and

b)    Mike DeVos P. Eng. of Spriet Associates London Limited BE APPOINTED as Consulting Engineer under Section 4 of the Drainage Act.

Motion Passed

2.4   Appointment of Consulting Engineer: RFP-2025-096 Southdale Road West Improvements - Colonel Talbot Road to Bostwick Road

2025-07-16 Staff Report - Appointment of Consulting Engineer-RFP-2025-096

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of a consulting engineer for the detailed design and tendering of Southdale Road from Colonel Talbot Road to Bostwick Road:

a)    the proposal submitted by AECOM Canada ULC BE ACCEPTED to provide consulting engineering services to complete the detailed design and tendering for the Southdale Road West Improvements – Colonel Talbot Road to Bostwick Road at an upset amount of $542,940, 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 staff report dated July 16, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’;

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.

Motion Passed

2.5   Contract Amendment: Detailed Design and Tendering for Highbury Avenue North Sidewalk and Cycle Track

2025-07-16 Staff Report - Contract Amendment-Detailed Design

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the contract amendment to add watermain and road renewal components to the detailed design and tendering for Highbury Avenue North Sidewalk and Cycle Track:

a)    the contract with BT Engineering Inc. BE INCREASED by $205,960 to a total agreement value of $351,622, excluding HST, to complete additional detailed design and tendering services, in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the City’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 staff report dated July 16, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’; 

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

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, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.

Motion Passed

2.6   Housing-Enabling Core Servicing Stream - Sunningdale Road West Improvements from Wonderland Road to Villagewalk Boulevard-Transfer Payment Agreement By-law Introduction

2025-07-16 Staff Report - Housing-Enabling Core Servicing Stream

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Housing-Enabling Core Servicing Stream – Sunningdale Road West Improvements from Wonderland Road to Villagewalk Boulevard – Transfer Payment Agreement:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to:

i)    approve the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement for the Housing-Enabling Core Servicing Stream between His Majesty the King in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure (the “Province”) and The Corporation of the City of London (the “Recipient”);

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

iii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports or the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure to approve further Amending Agreements to the Agreement;

iv)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute any amendments to the Agreement approved by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports or Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure; and

v)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports (or delegate) to execute any financial reports required under this Agreement;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this matter.

Motion Passed

2.7   2024 Portfolio Investments Report

2025-07-16 Staff Report - 2024 Portfolio Investments Report

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the 2024 Portfolio Investments Report, providing a summary of the performance of the City of London’s investments, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.1   Biosolids Management Master Plan - Notice of Completion

2025-07-16 Staff Report - Notice of Completion-Biosolids Management

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Franke

That on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Biosolids Management Master Plan:

a)    the Notice of Completion BE FILED with the Municipal Clerk;

b)    the Biosolids Management Master Plan report BE PLACED on public record for a 30-day review period; and

c)    the recommended implementation plan presented in the Biosolids Management Master Plan BE APPROVED following the 30-day public review period and following responses to any comments received in accordance with the Master Planning process;

 

it being noted that if comments are received that require changes to recommendations in the Biosolids Management Master Plan, the Plan will return to Council with revised recommendations;

 

it being further noted that the pace for advancing the projects recommended through this Master Plan will be further refined during design and may also require adjustment to meet the constraints of existing program budgets, and any Council decisions made through the upcoming 2028-2031 multi-year budget process;

it being pointed out that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated July 15, 2025 from C. L. Ivanitz, Law Clerk, Beckett Personal Injury Lawyers with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

2.8   Expropriation of Lands - Phase 2 - Wellington Gateway Project Civil Works

2025-07-16 Staff Report - Expropriation Wellington Gateway Project

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, approval BE GIVEN to the expropriation of land as may be required for the Wellington Gateway Project, and that the following actions be taken in connection therewith:

a)    the application be made by The Corporation of the City of London as Expropriating Authority to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as approving authority, for the approval to expropriate the land required for Phase 2 of the Wellington Gateway project;

b)    the Corporation of the City of London serve and publish notice of the above application in accordance with the terms of the Expropriations Act;

c)    the Corporation of the City of London forward to the Chief Inquiry Officer any requests for a hearing that may be received and report such to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London for its information; and

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2025 as Schedule “B”, BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to authorize the foregoing and direct the Civic Administration to carry out all necessary administrative actions.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   London Emergency Services Campus

2025-07-16 Staff Report - London Emergency Services Campus

Moved by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure and the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, and on the opinion of the Director, Planning and Development, the proposed Emergency Services Campus BE LOCATED on city-owned land at 3243 Manning Drive; it being noted that the funding for this facility is included in the capital plan in the adopted 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received a communication and heard a verbal delegation from C. Colvin, P. Verkley and K. McLean, Ontario Federation of Agriculture and received a communication dated July 15, 2025 from C. Ivanitz, Law Clerk, Beckett Personal Injury Lawyers with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That the delegation request from C. Colvin, P. Verkley and K. McLean, Ontario Federation of Agriculture BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That pursuant to section 31.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor E. Peloza BE PERMITTED to speak an additional 2 minutes with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That pursuant to section 31.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor S. Trosow BE PERMITTED to speak an additional 1 minute with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session for the purpose of considering advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose related to the London Emergency Services Campus.

Motion Failed (2 to 4)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential (Provided to Members only.)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session to consider the following:

6.1    Land Acquisition/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 lease 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.

6.2    Land Acquisition/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 lease of office space 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.

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

       

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition 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.

6.4    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.

6.5    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation  

     

A matter pertaining to advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, and advice with respect to litigation involving various personal injury and property damage claims against the City.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

The Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session from 2:55 PM to 3:21 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 3:24 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 (2 hours, 15 minutes)

[16:35] Good afternoon, everyone. I can have you take your seats, please.

[19:20] Thank you. And with that, I’ll call the 12th meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee to order. To start, we’ll start with the land acknowledgement. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabic, Haudenosaunee, Lenapawik, and Adawandran. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nation, Métis, and Inuit today.

[19:53] 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 also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats of communication support for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact icsc@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. So today in council chambers, I’m joined by all members of committee. We’ve also got the mayor who’s ex officio to this committee.

[20:27] We’re visiting councilors here as well. Councilor Trossa, budget chair plosas with us. And that is it for those right now online or in chambers. With that, I am looking for item one, disclosure of pecuniary interests and seeing none. We’ve got a number of items on our consent agenda for today. I have not had any requests to pull any as of yet, but I’ll look around to see if there’s any requests to pull items. Councilor Van Mierbergen.

[21:01] Thank you chair. If you could call 2.8 separately. Thank you, any additional councilor purple, go ahead. I would like to call 2.1 separate, please. Thank you. Okay, so I’m noting 2.1 and 2.8 have been pulled from the consent agenda. They will follow our items for direction. With that, I will look for a mover and seconder for all remaining items, 2.2 through 2.7.

[21:37] Councilor Van Mierbergen, Councilor Frank, and I will start discussion on those topics. Councilor Van Mierbergen, go ahead. Thank you chair of the comment on 2.4, which is the badly needed, much awaited, widening of Southdale West. This is truly great news. It could be considered a liberation day for transportation users in the Southwest. And I’m sure I’m joined by councilor Hopkins.

[22:12] This forms actually the boundary between two great wards. And this is actually a wonderful progressive move in terms of transportation and liberty. So I just wanna congratulate all involved and it’s great. Thank you. Thank you. Looking for other speakers on the items and consent. Councilor Hopkins, go ahead. Thank you and always a little worried and when I follow Councilor Van Mierbergen. And I do appreciate his comments though, as it relates to 2.4.

[22:50] I, you could hear his enthusiasm. Mine is there as well. I do have maybe just starting with the 2.4. So this is the Southdale Road West improvement going from Colonel Talbot over to Boswick. I understand that it’s gonna commence in 2028. So we’ve still got some time. No, we still have to figure out how it’s all going to work and come about. But if through you, Madam Chair, to staff, if you could just sort of speak to the public engagement that is still out there that is going to be part of this process.

[23:33] Thank you. I’ll go to Mr. McRae. Yeah, through the chair. There are a lot of projects in the area. There’s the Southdale Road project. We also have the Boswick Road connecting project plan for 2027. Both will be advanced proactively. There’s been public meetings on these in the past through their planning stages. As we progress the design and get closer to construction, we’ll have public meetings for them at that time as well. To at that time, it’ll be more information sharing about construction staging, impacts, traffic management issues like that.

[24:12] Councillor? Yeah, good to know. There was great interest in the community with this project that is about to happen. I do, Madam Chair, like to make a comment on 2.2 as well, which is the, we’re appointing engineers for the Trunk Water Main installation program at Southdale and Wonderland on the east and the west side as well. And I just have a comment through you to staff on the importance of this project. And I understand that traffic signals, pedestrian opportunities will happen with this project.

[24:52] And I just wanna make a comment. This is a very, very, very busy intersection. And I know residents constantly, you know, inquire, can we do a better job moving pedestrians across this intersection as well. So just wanted to leave those comments with staff and again, another project. And obviously we are going to stagger these projects ‘cause again, construction challenges in this area as well. So thank you.

[25:27] Thank you, looking for other speakers. Councillor Provel. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. I do have some questions in terms of 0.2.7, the portfolio investment. And the first question I have in the previous year’s report, it stated that we will have based on the review resulted in the net savings approximately, they have 800,000 annual operating savings and then 120,000 per year will be brought forward.

[26:02] I just want to make sure that if this is still accurate and if these amounts are accurate to the statement from year before. Mr. Murray. Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair. So yes, those figures do remain accurate and we did complete the insourcing of our investment management function in 2024. We also did bring those operating budget savings of $120,000 per year that were noted last year. We brought those forward as part of the budget business case related to right sizing in the 2025 budget update.

[26:36] So that has been followed through on an action and those figures are yes, in fact, still accurate. Councillor Provel. Very happy to hear that. That’s great news and thank you and to your teams. And the follow up is in that report also it’s stated about the comparative information will be reported on all in basis. And I just have a question. Is it, there’s the both reports they have got the table and beyond the table, is there any additional information or the table, is that it? Mr. Murray.

[27:11] Through you, Madam Chair. Yeah, the table that you alluded to, Councillor, is correct. That is the reflection of our all in return for the year. I would say overall, we had a couple of strong years, both in 2023 and 2024. We have slightly better year, maybe in 2024, just by a little bit, but largely a function of prevailing market conditions. Thanks. Councillor Provel. Thank you for that. And if it’s the changes currently, economic changes, we do have an investment strategy in place. Do you feel that kind of when we look at the changes in the Canadian yield, et cetera, bottom line, is the strategy the still the best one or should we revisit and look at the strategy to maximize our opportunities?

[27:54] Mr. Murray. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. So what I will say is we are constantly and reviewing our investment policy and strategy on an ongoing basis. I think it’s important to note, though, that we have a number of objectives in our investment policy. Those being first and foremost, adhering to statutory requirements, preservation of capital and maintaining liquidity. So maintaining or achieving a rate of return on our investments is also important, but perhaps we put greater emphasis on statutory requirements, preservation of capital and maintenance of liquidity.

[28:34] So I think the current policy remains appropriate. Those objectives, I think, are still intact and still hold. And we will respond based on market conditions accordingly in order to maximize our return. Thank you. Councillor? Thank you very much. No more questions? Thank you, looking to others on the committee or visiting Councillors. Okay, seeing no other speakers on the consent item, I will hand the chair over to Councillor Frank so I can make some comments.

[29:08] Thank you. Thank you. I have the chair in recognizing Councillor Ramen. Thank you very much. I just wanted to speak in particular to item 2.6, which is the housing-enabled core service stream Sunningdale Road West improvements from Wonderland Road to Village Walk. Boulevard, first exciting news and great to see this coming forward. As many in the room are aware, we’ve been working on or have identified Sunningdale Road is needing an expansion since 2013.

[29:44] So I’m glad to see the support of the province on this particular file. This is really an important stretch of roadway for my ward, housing-enabled absolutely a lot of the density and intensification has already happened in this area, but there’s still a lot more planned. So it’s good to see. I just wanted to go to, if it’s okay through you, to ask staff a question, just about the timeline. Right now in the report, it says that this money is, to be, I guess the project to be started September 2025 with some work and then the completion date is around 2028.

[30:27] So I just wanted to see if there’s any further information they can share on that matter to staff. Thank you through the chair. Yes, the project, sorry, the provincial program parameters are such that the project needs to start summer of 2025, and that includes design activities, which are underway for this project. The tail end of the program requirements are that the project be completed by March of 2028, and that is our goal. It’s a priority project, and we plan to get shovels in the ground as soon as possible, and they will certainly be there in earnest in 2026.

[31:10] Councillor? Thank you, and we see the need for this project and the alignment with the upgrades that are happening at Sunningdale and Richmond, and it’s fantastic to see the progress that’s being made. We know that this is going to be a challenge for residents in the area to move around during the time of construction. I know your team is working hard to figure out ways to continue to move traffic in the area, and so I appreciate all the work that’s happening. Can you tell me about what kind of consultation is planned with residents in the area on the improvements in this stretch, what we’re calling phase one of this part of the project.

[31:52] Mr. McCray? Through the chair, thanks for that too. Similar to the Southdale Road widening project, public meetings have occurred, however, it’s been some time when we recognize that, so project communications will flow. They’re similar to the Southdale Road project. There will be a public meeting for the next phase of the project, so similar to the intersection project where there was a staff presence both virtually and in-person sharing information about the construction phase and what residents can expect, detours, impacts, information of that type, that’ll be available.

[32:34] Councillor? Thank you, much appreciated, and as I mentioned, this is housing-enabled infrastructure funding. We know there’s a lot of planned development at the Wonderland and Sunningdale intersection, a new subdivision that’s coming in in that area, but there is also, with the urban growth boundary expansion, some potential for further lands to come in in the area that will continually, I think, need more work, and so I wonder if, based on that information, at what point staff will engage in discussion with the community on whether or not a full expansion of Sunningdale is needed from Wonderland all the way to Hyde Park as well, and that’s just more of a comment.

[33:26] Thank you, and seeing no other hands up, I’m turning the chair to Councillor Roman. Thank you, and with that, I will look to open the vote for items 2.2 through 2.7. Councillor van Mayeburgen, closing the vote, motion carries, six to zero.

[34:22] Okay, thank you, so we will move through to item 4.1, which is the next item for us to deal with under items for direction. This is the London Emergency Service Campus. We have a request for a delegation, as well, that has been received from Crispin Colvin, Patrick Verkely, and Karen McLean of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. So what I’m looking for is an opportunity, first, I know that at this point, there wasn’t anything staff had on the technical side, so what we’ll do is look for a mover and a seconder to accept the delegation, Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Frank, and then following the delegation, we will look to put a motion on the floor and start our discussion, and I’ll open the vote on the delegation.

[35:24] Closing the vote, motion carries, six to zero. Okay, thank you, with that, I will look to the gallery, and we have Mr. Colvin with us, is that correct? Yes, thank you, and I’m here with member service rep from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Karen McLean. Wonderful, thank you so much for joining us today.

[35:58] Really appreciate you being here. Thank you for having us. Pastor Berkeley is currently doing his week, so he’s not here. (laughs) Wonderful. So with that, I will allow for five minutes for you to give your comments, and if at the end, if you have any questions for us, then I’ll take those questions and have those addressed by staff. Thank you. You may go ahead. Thank you. First of all, let me say that the Federation of Agriculture does not oppose the emergency services training center. In fact, we’re 100% behind it.

[36:31] What we’re concerned about is the location. It’s 100 acres of flat, cleared land. It is class one land. We have less than 5% of our land in Ontario that produces food. That is, and even less than that, is class one land. So we’re concerned because the consultants from my reading on the subject had different proposed areas. This was the preferred location that you’ve chosen. My question would be why not look at the other locations more seriously, and try and stay within the urban growth boundary. London’s been really, really good at staying within the urban growth boundary, and in many ways has been a leader in protecting farmland.

[37:11] And we need to do that. We need to continue to do that. And I hope London will continue to work to protect farmland as much as possible, particularly as we are in an area of growth at this time where the province is really pushing urban areas to expand. And we have the same debates and the same points that we make with our Middlesex County municipalities to stay within their boundaries to go up, not out, to develop, not on farmland. It’s too easy for municipalities to go to cleared flat land, and it’s too easy for developers to go to cleared flat land.

[37:45] They don’t want to clear trees. They don’t want to move rocks. They don’t want to deal with rivers or creeks. So it’s always prime agricultural land that is a target. And I also would wonder, and perhaps you can answer this for one of your staff members could if I may, but the comment was made that it needs to be near 401 and 402. And I’m curious as to why a training center would need to be near 401 and 402. The 400 series, if you’re training, is not going to be something I would expect them to go to. If it was a standalone police fire ambulance station, then I could understand being near the 401, 402.

[38:22] For a training center, I fail to see the importance of being near that location. So the biggest thing that we’re concerned about is loss of farmland. When we look at Woodstock taking over 4,000 acres of prime agricultural land in Woodstock in that area, Prince Edward County lost 12% of their arable land in 2024. We can’t continue to sustain this. So I look to London to be a leader in this area because there’s a big municipality as one of the largest centers in Canada. We expect and hope that you will be one of the leaders in preserving farmland.

[38:57] So when you’re looking at the emergency services training center again, I would ask you to please reconsider the location. That’s a great piece of farmland that you’re about to lose. And it’s a non-renewable resource. We don’t get more land. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. So you had a couple of questions that you’ve asked within your delegation. What other locations were considered and those that were considered in the urban growth boundary and why they need to be close to 401, 402? So what I’ll do is I will look for a mover and a seconder for this item to get it on the floor.

[39:39] I’ll go to staff to help address the technical questions that have been asked and provide any other information and then go back to members of the committee for a comment. And I know the mayor would like to be on that list. So looking for a mover and a seconder. So I’ve got the mayor. And I’m happy to second this to get it on the floor. So with that, I will go to Ms. Smith. If you’d like to direct those questions, and let me know if you need me to repeat them at all. I know we have a number of guests joining us.

[40:13] I won’t do introductions for everyone, but hello, Chief, and hello, Chief. Thank you so much for being here. And thank you to Board Chair Ryan Goss for being here from London Police Service Board as well. So with that, I’ll go to Ms. Smith if you don’t mind addressing those questions. And then we will go to the mayor next. Thank you, and through the chair, I can start with the rationale near the 401 and the 402 and then turn that over to either of the chiefs to add on to.

[40:45] So as you would know in phase one, this is the site of a future fire station. The calls that fire make are both very busy also on the provincial highways. Also, we are working right now with the province to be a provincial hazmat location. And this is tied to PowerCo in St. Thomas. So for us, this is a opportune location. And then also in conversations with police fire in our own city of London emergency services, we see this as not only a center for London, but also a center for the region.

[41:20] We have right now mutual aid and partnerships with those municipalities surrounding us. So this will be a joint training and learning facility, not just for us, but for our partners that we work closely with in the nearby region. I don’t know if she famer by everything. Thank you. Maybe if I’m not sure if this is a planning question, but to address the urban growth boundary, non urban growth boundary question, is there anyone that would like to take that for our delegation?

[41:55] What other locations within the urban growth boundary could be, Mr. Felberg, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. So we undertook a very, very thorough review of the entire city in order to establish what location we were recommending today. Number of different things like size and configuration of the parcel was really important for us to assess, along with the agricultural potential, the soil classification, any ecological significance, the servicing, and then how that pertains to both their urban growth boundary within it and outside of it.

[42:35] We looked at over 290 different parcels, and we started this process a couple of years ago, and we started looking at it. We did an assessment of all of those parcels across the city within the boundary first. What we were able to determine is that as we, there were about 15 parcels that were reasonably reasonable at the time in those 290 parcels, but they were too close to the 401, which with the smoke emissions and the various training exercises that will be at this facility, they would have an impact on some of the restrictions around the 401 corridor.

[43:13] There are also a number of ecological constraints through a couple of the different conservation authorities. Following that, once we were eliminated at all of those parcels, we started looking outside the UGB, and in addition to these two parcels or this parcel that we’re identifying today, we looked at another 15 or so parcels outside of the UGB and in this area. We looked at this, again, we looked at the soil classifications, we looked at the ecological significance and the potential for agriculture, and we also looked at the MDS or the minimum distance separation to different livestock and different agricultural activities.

[43:53] The recommendation before you today is one, like we took a significant amount of work and the recommendation you have before you today, we think is the best option for us, also recognizing that the city owns the parcel. Many of the other parcels that we looked at were owned by private developers or private landowners with intentions to develop or would be in close proximity to other residential or other sensitive land uses. Hope that answers the question, ma’am chair. Thank you. I will now go to the mayor and look for other hands for discussion on the same.

[44:28] Yeah, so I was happy to move this and I’ll make some brief comments. Maybe I’ll save some time in case other colleagues have questions that I might want to respond to as well. I’ve done a lot of work on this because as colleagues know, this is something that we’ve been advocating for partnership on from the professional and federal governments. And the contemplation of an integrated emergency services campus that serves multiple purposes, whether that’s police, fire, our own emergency operations, but also the region, potentially in the future, airports who might need fire training who currently go to, I think it’s New York, could with the parcel land that we develop on the fireside be trained right here in the city of London in the province of Ontario and not in another country.

[45:14] And so there’s a lot of opportunity for partnership with the federal and provincial governments. I think the provincial hazmat opportunity is one of the biggest ones, right? We know that the province is going to need a localized provincial hazmat facility which the city of London fire can provide. It can be at this location which would provide easy access to not just our industrial areas, but the power co-facility in others that would require this sort of response. And so the location is strategic from those perspectives. Also, I think when you think about the types of uses here on the police and fireside, a burn tower, a shooting range, a K9 training, a scenario training, those are not something that you necessarily want in close proximity to a neighbourhood.

[46:00] You wanted a relatively isolated and in an area where it’s not going to disturb the normal activities that would be happening in an urbanized environment. And so although I fully understand why the Federation of Agriculture would be here, as was described by our staff, a very thorough search was made. And so this is the point at which we get to decide whether this is the location or not. And I think it’s a good location. As to like the contemplation of the emergency campus itself, this is something that we decided on in the multi-year budget to proceed with this. And I think since then, it’s evolved to bring in other things that we’ve identified in our budget in different areas to co-locate and provincially provide some cost savings.

[46:43] When you think about how we’ve outgrown our emergency operations centre and the need for that to be expanded, co-locating this facility makes a lot of sense. The other pieces related to the 911 call centre and integrating it into a single location rather than the multitude of locations that it is now for both police and fire, that could be co-located. And actually the next gen 911 center could be at the emergency campus. But on the provincial and federal side, there are a number of opportunities that are being actively pursued. That’s very hard to pursue those with a location.

[47:16] So the decision council makes today will actually allow me and our GR staff to accelerate our discussions with the solicitor general, the Ministry of Emergency Preparedness, the federal government and others on some of the activities that they could co-locate here. We know that emergency management Ontario is building a new facility in Etobicoke. We know that they likely need a satellite facility for the storage of provincial emergency management materials. Co-locating on an emergency management and emergency services campus could make a lot of sense for the province, especially the access to the highways from their perspective would be ideal.

[47:51] The federal connections on any sort of D&D training that could be done at a newly revamped site or even the federally regulated airports that they could access fire services there are really important. And the closing of the fire college recognizes the need for not just our fire services to have proper training facilities, but also for the regions fire services, particularly the smaller services that may not have the ability or the smaller municipalities may not have the ability to build their own facilities, but would need to contract and come and utilize ours. That is great for us too, because we get to be a regional centre of excellence and from the operations side of this facility, we get a little bit of a charge back on the fees for other services using the location.

[48:31] So I might have more to say, I don’t know how much time I have left, but I’ll leave it at that and say I’m very supportive of the location and I appreciate all the work staff have done on this file. Thank you, 55 seconds remaining. I’ll go to Councillor Frank and then look to other members of the committee before going to visiting Councillors. Thank you. I had a couple of questions through the chair to staff. So generally, I’m trying to weigh the benefits to the consequences of taking some farmland out of production. As I do see it additionally as a finite resource we have. I’m wondering have we ever explored offsetting agricultural land in the same way we offset wetlands and forestry, given those are finite environmental resources as agricultural land is as well?

[49:24] Through you Madam Chair, we’re not aware of any offsets for agricultural land at this point. Councillor? Thank you, yes, I assume so, but I want to just make sure. So one of the organizations I’ve been looking into in the last year given our urban growth boundary discussions is Ontario Farmland Trust and some of the work they do is farmland conservation. So holding land in perpetuity for agricultural purposes and given this is city-owned land that is agricultural, I do see some value in exploring those opportunities because I do see a lot of the benefits that the mayor and staff have outlined for the location, having it further away from concentrated residential areas as well as near to the highways.

[50:05] But I also see the negative consequences of taking farmland out of production. So perhaps between now and council, it’s something that I will look to work with staff providing some direction for exploring agricultural offset land because I don’t think that we should take it out of production without being able to replace it or keep somewhere else in the city viable. The other question I had through the chair to staff is, I know this is probably jumping ahead a little, but I just want to confirm kind of every step along the way that these buildings will be as green as possible and that we’re exploring funding opportunities that will help provide for that building type.

[50:41] Thank you, I’ll go to Ms. Smith and then to other staff, go ahead. Thank you, and yes, through the chair most definitely green infrastructure will be our priority as we outlined in the report. It’s also very clear in City of London strategic plan. As you know, for example, station 15, we’re working on building our first almost green fire station. So definitely and in conversation with my colleagues and planning, this is one of the big priorities for this area too, especially when you think of the opportunities around trees, berms, green coverage.

[51:15] So definitely this will be a priority. Councillor? Thank you again. I assume so, but I just want to triple check and additionally reminder that council has provided direction that any new municipal building should also have bird friendly glass, which I’m sure is on your list, but just want to say it into the air. So generally I’m supportive of this. Again, I’m going to be looking for some way to offset the agricultural land loss, but appreciate the work that has brought it to this point. Thank you. I will look for other members of committee, Councillor Purple.

[51:48] Thank you, Mr. Chair, to this staff. I do see a great opportunity to hear again, is the higher levels of government. So I think it’s very proactive, it’s very beneficial potentially. I have a question though. Last year we purchased a land on Westminster 2835 Westminster Drive for LPS. And I want to ask you, was this considered to be these facilities at the Westminster location as well? And if not, what would be the difference? What activities would be different on Westminster for LPS and also for this new location?

[52:23] Thank you. Thank you, I’ll go to Chief Trong. Thank you for joining us, go ahead. Thank you, Chair and through you. I’ll say that Westminster, sir, is inadequate. It’s nowhere near the training location that we need Westminster was purchased as a temporary solution as we grow the organization. We’re ready in a state where we require additional training space and Westminster is just keeping us afloat until the training center is a viable option.

[53:00] Thank you, Councillor Pervall. So thank you for that. So if I understand it correctly, Westminster, if this purchase goes through any of these joint facilities will be formed at one of these location or any other one, then the Westminster location will become available then. Or does LPS have any potential plans for this location? Chief Trong. Chair through you. The Westminster site, it was purchased for temporary training to meet the needs of today right now.

[53:37] It’s not sufficient for us to continue our training. It doesn’t have what we currently require, the new training site that is proposed joint with city and fire involves a indoor range and outdoor range, a vehicle track for our officers to train with police vehicle operations. The current Westminster site was an opportunity that we needed to utilize for space for currently. It was currently in our station right now at 601.

[54:13] We do not have space to accommodate the growth of our organization right now. So Westminster is alleviating some of those pressures. We’re able to provide some training at Westminster, but Westminster, as it speaks now, we cannot train according to standards and adequacy with Westminster. We, that site is simply alleviating some of the pressures that we have also with the purchase of Westminster.

[54:48] It’s also used purposely as fleet and storage as well as a multipurpose because we actually do not have no longer have that space that we had been utilizing from the city, the city had turned over that space. Councilor Provost? So thank you for that answer. If we do go ahead, what’s in front of us? Will LPS will still require the Westminster location or will it be available back to the city or back to anything that the city decides to do?

[55:44] Chief Chang? Thank you, Chair, and through you, the Westminster site is actually owned by the city. So once the training facility is built and if there is no longer a need for the London Police Service, it goes back to the city. Councilor? Thank you for that. So one last question. So currently LPS is not sure if they would need the Westminster property after and it’s still going to be evaluated.

[56:17] Is my understanding correct? Chief? Chair, and through you, I can tell you as we forecast the organization, I see a need for Westminster as well. We are bursting at the seams at 601. We are trying to future proof our organization as we see into the future, we are behind in terms of infrastructure. And I can tell you right now without a full study on where we want to go that I see Westminster being utilized in other capacities by our organization.

[57:01] Councillor? Thank you. No more questions? I have Councillor Hopkins next and I know that Councillor Pelosi is next on the list. Followed by Councillor Chaucer. Thank you, Madam Chair. And first of all, I’d like to thank the delegation for being here. I really do appreciate hearing the concerns from the agricultural community. I know it’s always been something that I’ve also been concerned during my time here, being on council. But I also understand, I’m going to thank staff for your due diligence and looking at properties.

[57:39] And I can understand why this is the preferred site, not only to the city of London, but as the mayor spoke about the importance of this being sort of a, I guess a center, a southwestern Ontario center for training facilities. But I do have some questions and some concerns still remain. My first question, maybe through you to staff, the Manning Drive location is about 129 acres.

[58:16] And I understood from reading the recommendation that we’re looking at 50 acres is what we need any, if you could sort of speak to what happens with the remaining acres and how that will proceed if we go through. Thank you, Ms. Smith. Sorry, Mr. Warner, go ahead. Thank you through the chair. So the remaining lands will be continued use for agricultural uses.

[58:50] We currently lease them and we’ll continue to do so. 50 acres is the amount of size that was recommended through the feasibility study. And depending on whether or not there’s other partners that come to the location in the facility, then there may be an opportunity for further expansion. And that site would be ideal for more expansion in the future if necessary. Yeah, thank you for that. So we will be looking at the 129 acres, not sort of severing it off and just staying with the 50 acres. I just wanna sort of have a good understanding about that given the importance of agricultural land and just trying to find a way to sort of preserve as much as possible that we are going to be looking at the 129 through the feasibility study is what I understand.

[59:41] Thank you, Mr. Warner. Through the chair. So the total property site area is 129 acres. The site necessary according to the feasibility study already completed is approximately 50 acres. So of the 129 acres, we’ll plan to build 50 acres of it and the remaining lands will continue to be agricultural. And by the way, this is city owned land, so there’s not really going to be a severance. Councilor?

[1:00:12] Yeah, thank you for that. My other question relates to the budget and I understand we’ve got money in here to proceed with the feasibility. But I’d like to have a better understanding as we go forward, are we the city going to be responsible for the development of the training facility and everything? I know you mentioned partners as well. There are opportunities out there, but I’d just like to have a general idea on expectations of the development of this property.

[1:00:53] Thank you, Ms. Smith. Thank you and through the chair. There’s currently approximately $137 million in the approved capital budget to support the design and construction of the first phase of this project. And then there’s an additional approximately 50 million in the capital plan through to 2032 to support subsequent phases. So this is the amount of money that’s approved and available to begin construction and definitely allows us, as you saw in the report, build that first phase of this facility.

[1:01:27] And as Mayor Morgan alluded to, we are in current conversations both with staff in the province and the federal government and with MPs and MPPs and the premier on the possibilities of partnerships. Councillor? Yeah, thank you for that. And my last question relates to the process, a little bit going forward. And I guess in particular public engagement or how will it look going forward as we develop these lands?

[1:02:04] Ms. Smith? Thank you and through the chair. Pending the approval at council next week, we will be pulling up a get involved page. The get involved page will keep the community and the public aware of what is happening. It will have, for example, I just worked with Chief Hamer on a video to demonstrate what a clean burn is, to show that when we do burns on our burn tower and when we, when fire practices out there, it’s a clean burn, there is no smoke. So we will be having our get involved page.

[1:02:39] We will also be doing public and community meetings. I know both chiefs on both sides of me are very passionate and excited to share what will be happening with the community. So, and alongside Mr. Latissure talking about what a state-of-the-art emergency operation center will be. So there will be plenty of opportunities to share what’s happening with the public, to seek feedback from the public as we continue to further design and layout, pending council’s approval, what the site at Manning Drive will look like.

[1:03:15] Councillor Hopkins? Yeah, Madam Chair, one last question, just as a follow up to that. So we do have facilities in the city for training. Will they continue along with the site or will they be shut down? Thank you and through the chair. That’s a very good question. I can speak on the fireside and chief hammer can too. I was actually just out last week at our training facility, as you know, on South end of London at Wellington Road in Southdale. I can’t guess how many years it has been there, but it is very old and tired, still works.

[1:03:51] But as you can imagine, in talking to chief hammers, staff out there are very excited about the potential that a new training facility in state of the art preparedness because the evolution and changes of fighting fires and supporting the safety of the community evolves and changes over the years. So this facility will allow for that. So I’m assuming, and I will ask Mr. Warner to confirm, but this is where we are now is city on land. So it would revert back to the city.

[1:04:27] Mr. Warner. Yes, through the chair, that’s correct. That’s city on land. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins, anything further? No, those are my questions for now, thank you. Thank you. I will go to Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll start by prefacing this with that. I’ve done several police ride-alongs for a full shift. I’ve done my fire ride-along. I am the past chair and still current board member of what are we at eight years of dearness home. And it’s always interesting to watch what’s happening at the tower in your site, but definitely concerns about where that site and the fire tower is located, especially with the environmentally significant area there.

[1:05:06] I have some questions first, and then I’ll proceed into comments. I will just highlight the Westminster space that you’re currently in, that’s too small. As space comes available and you potentially leave it, I will already highlight that I have other community associations in desperate space. Need a space who have had their eyes on that, just the city got it first. So if we don’t need it, there are community groups looking to do other wonderful things with that space, just for that we know that could still be loved and have life outside of this.

[1:05:39] The process from here and next steps, realizing it seems to be this report comes to us today. Council approves it and we’ve tied ourselves to this location. As a member of the Planning Environment Committee, does this require any zoning changes or because it’s city owned that we get around that? Thank you through the chair. These lands, we’ve done the due diligence in terms of the assessment of these lands and it’s identified as a public use in those zoning or official plan amendment are required.

[1:06:15] Councillor? Thank you. This report also speaks to auxiliary uses and already gave Ms. Smith a heads up, realizing a few of us, including Councillor Franken myself, had a wonderful tour of the London transit facilities that they actually have water catchment as part of their green operations. They use it to clean their buses, just I guess highlighting to make sure that part of those uses could be at this facility for city fleet vehicles, police, fire as well, just that that would be part of it or do you need direction?

[1:06:50] Ms. Smith? Thank you. And a part of our next steps, Planning Council’s approval will be to work with the consultant and look like and look at what does this training facility look like? As you can imagine this, we went out to get a third party consultant back in 2023. So a lot has happened since then. We now potentially have a piece of land that we would have to then, I’m not an expert, but lay the design down onto this piece of land. And since then we’ve also had conversations with both the provincial and federal government through the mayor’s office to look for potential partnerships.

[1:07:28] So our next step would be to take a look back, to come back together as a group with police fire in the city of London and the consultant and look at what that will look like. So, and appreciate the feedback and I’ve written it down, Councillor Palazzo of what potentially may be opportunities to leverage on this piece of land. Councillor Palazzo? Thank you, and I’m trying to have a multitude of questions and we’ll probably use it my entire time today. You had mentioned the burn tower being a clean burn that there’s gonna be a video created for public information, which I appreciate.

[1:08:07] Is there still gonna be vehicles being able to be donated and burned or anything for some of these scenario simulations on the site? Chief Hammer, hammer, go ahead. Thank you and through the chair. Vehicles can still be donated, but we don’t burn vehicles. That would be Class A burns. So that would produce smoke. The vehicles that are donated are used for extrication training and not for vehicle fires. Thank you.

[1:08:41] I did enjoy my dashboard roll up when I was for my day of training. So a question then of what is gonna be burned on this site? Realizing the report referenced that this site is preferred over something close to the highway due to the smoke. So I’m looking to see what the smoke will actually be, if any, ‘cause if there won’t be smoking, maybe consider a different location. Thank you, Chief, go ahead. Thank you and through the chair. Early when we started with the consultant in 2023, we did talk about possibility of Class A burns at this site. Since then, it’s been decided that there will not be no Class A burns at this site, so it will be only clean burns, so there’d be no smoke.

[1:09:23] My understanding is the site with the, that talked about the smoke, there was other mitigating factors for that site, but I’m not sure what factors those were. Councillor? Thank you. I appreciate that. Realizing there will be hazmat and some training on site and the burn tower which will be a clean burn. Looking to see, as we’ve already heard, that we have agricultural friends in the gallery, that the city will still maintain the property surrounding the site as it’s a larger parcel for those agricultural uses, recognizing the value of this agricultural properties.

[1:10:07] Is there any concerns about what’s being burned or conducted on site for contamination of surrounding agricultural uses, especially since it might be used for food? Ms. Smith. Thank you and through the chair, I can start. So any concerns about the burn and what we’re burning it through clean air burns is one and through that emissions are very manageable and any runoff from these burns will be handled through engineered stormwater management systems and these systems comply with the environmental regulations.

[1:10:41] So we will work very closely with our colleagues and ensure that these regulations are followed. Councillor? Sorry, thank you. These might still get us. Looking to see, I know that the report states that there was no available areas within the city’s urban growth boundary had recently had a discussion through PEC as we discussed the urban growth boundary and I had residents around Harper and Shaver asking, which is a small subdivision, a hamlet, out that way looking to see if they could be considered to be moved more into the city, if they can have growth, if they can finally have neighbors as they were annexing the city just said like that’s where you were, but we’re not interested in going that way.

[1:11:31] If we’re doing city stuff out there would potentially part of this decision if we do build out their effects in those residents that they would then be allowed to have more residential uses in that area of neighbors. I know they’re not in that close proximity, but if we’re still bringing services out and doing our site, some of those areas out there are also lacking in city municipal services. Ms. McNeely? Thank you through the chair. In terms of the land use, the Shaver subdivision, those lands are a rural settlement and identified as a rural neighborhood place type.

[1:12:11] The policy of the agricultural would still apply, no expansion to those settlement areas. And so while there may be services that are extended, my understanding of these services are explicit for this development proposal, and not necessarily for any further changes to the urban growth boundary in this area. Council, are you about four minutes so far just to give you? Okay, I realize that it also states in this report that the new fire station will enhance emergency in the southeast industrial quarter.

[1:12:47] Looks to see that this will have minimal impact in actual residential service. Madam Chair, at this point, I just will do my little wrap up, but I don’t want to get cut off. Could I just ask that for a minute extension to committee? Not just a minute extra, okay. I will have to do that as a motion. So I hope we’ll look to committee. I’ve got Councillor Friend, Councillor Per beau. And we’ve got that already for you to go. So for an extra two minutes, just to give you a little bit more grace time.

[1:13:20] And we will open that for a vote. Opposing the vote, motion carries six to zero. Please continue. Thank you. And I think in seven years on council that may be my first extension ask. So I appreciate that as my visiting members to this committee. I’m also gonna note that there was an added communication. It’s tied to the biosolid one of a resident asking for deferral of this item.

[1:14:00] She referenced the biosolid one and also in the letterhead referenced the letter emergency services. So just wanna highlight that. The concern also lies that this isn’t gonna require any rezoning. So there’s been no public participation meetings. There was an item yesterday my residents found out about there’s this one that they’re finding about about. They’re having a community meeting tomorrow night. So they haven’t had a chance to even come together themselves to discuss anything. I recognize that the mayor’s quotes, you can mention them today as well. And also in the free press that it’s not stuff you want right next to significant urban population.

[1:14:35] So having the site as a little more isolated is actual ideal for those activities. I know that my residents might not be significant in numbers but their concerns of quality of life and safety are significant. They have questions. There is no staff presentation today to over view the report. It’s just been Q and A. I recognize now that even since the consultation that the type A burn is no longer looking at it. I’m sure that we only looked at certain parcels and staff came back with their best recommendations.

[1:15:12] Looking to see, I know we’re pitching a regional facility. It would be a development for London but realizing I am concerned with the loss of the agricultural land and more things coming up for my residents. I’ll speak to the biosolids later in this meeting. Was anything outside of the city of London found is considered realizing other municipal area partners have land that’s already been used and developed. That’s currently vacant. That’s not agricultural land. Do we do a scan of anything perhaps in St. Thomas or area that could have been of use for this?

[1:15:49] Thank you, I’ll go to Mr. Feldberg. Thank you, Madam Chair. No, we were only looking at lands within the city of London given that we have a multi-year budget project for this as well. And we’re leveraging city owned land as well which is actually one of the key elements of the recommendation today is that there is no additional cost for us to purchase land. Councillor. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that answer and it helps to highlight some of my concerns that even since the consultation, some aspects have changed.

[1:16:22] The community that I represent have not had a chance nor does it see that they’ll really have a chance before the decision of where to put it. It’s actually made. I will highlight their community meeting tomorrow and we’ll thank Councillor Per be able and advance for joining me at it to hear some of their concerns. I will certainly bring some of those back. You have the residence letter as an added but my community is concerned. They don’t feel consulted. I recognize it’s our land not saying, there’s just a lot of questions and concerns and I know it’s not intentional that it’s a lack of information and the way they find out they’re also concerned that when there is notifications that go out, it is the city land all around these places.

[1:17:04] So residents actually have a hard time getting notifications ‘cause the catchment area is city land ‘cause we purchased it around the landfill. Thank you and that’s your time. I’ll go to Councillor Trossa next. Thank you and through the chair, it’s always nice to come to another committee and be a guest Councillor. I don’t have to sit in my regular seat and over here, I have a very different view of the room, so I like that. I’m a little surprised that this does not require a zone change application. What is the current zoning of this parcel?

[1:17:41] Thank you, I’ll go to Ms. McNeely. Thank you through the chair, it’s a mix of zones, it’s agricultural as well as environmental review. So why would something like, well, all the A for said shooting range and all the other things, why would that not require a zone change? Ms. McNeely. Thank you through the chair, as mentioned, it’s a public use, so any level of government would be allowed as a freight. Councillor Trossa.

[1:18:13] Okay, well, I find that an unsatisfying response, but we won’t debate the finaries of the zoning by law. Now, what I hear is that you’re gonna be doing consultation after we approve this in terms of, again, involved London site and maybe some open houses. Shouldn’t we be doing that before, typically wouldn’t we do that before we approve this? Thank you, I’ll go to Ms. Smith. Thank you, and through the chair, they get involved site is part of our way to continue to engage the community, the public on the project.

[1:18:53] There’s opportunities to receive feedback along the way, share information on the way, and inform the public of the progress of this. So I guess I turned that engaging with the community versus consulting. Okay, thank you for that, through the chair. My concern about this is you talk about continuing to engage with the public. I don’t believe the public has been engaged with at all on this, so I don’t think we should talk about continuing to engage the project, the public.

[1:19:26] I produced a list of 10 questions. I circulated it, I’m not gonna have time to go through all these. Two or three of these have been mentioned. I would like to request that these, I’ll bring these up again at council. I cannot make a motion here. If I could make a motion here, I would move to defer this subject to many of these, I think very reasonable questions being responded to. The big one though, I think, other than the zoning, is the staff report refers to a feasibility study, and hired consultants.

[1:20:07] Has this council been shown that report, because that would answer a lot of these questions. Ms. Smith, through the chair. Thank you. Sorry, Ms. Provost. The feasibility report that is referred to within the document was completed a number of years ago. That was done through the preliminary work that the London Police Services did, in preparation to inform the business case that came forward as part of the multi-year budget. So that was not something that was initiated through the city of London proper, through our procurement policy.

[1:20:44] It was done through that initial work to prepare, to be able to put forward a business case through the city of London’s budget. Thank you, and my next question— Councilor Chaucer, go ahead. My next question to the chair is, since so many of the questions that are arising here, and since this staff report refers repeatedly to that earlier report, I think that the council needs to see that report, and I’d like to just ask Point Blank, can we get a copy of this report before the council meeting? Ms. Barbone, through the chair, as that report was not commissioned by the city of London, and done through the London Police Services, I believe that report would be held in confidence and was basically done to put forward what that business case was going to be, so it’s not something that the city of London would be able to release.

[1:21:39] Councilor Chaucer? So I would ask the police services to consider that. However, basically what we have is a report, the rationale for which is based on an extrinsic study, and we’re not allowed to see the extrinsic study. So I don’t think we’re in a good position to be able to evaluate whether or not the legal finding that has to be made here, which is under the PPS, alternative locations have been evaluated, and there are no reasonable alternative locations which avoid prime agricultural areas. I don’t think this council is in a position to be able to make a reasonable determination on that question without seeing the underlying report.

[1:22:21] And again, I will request, ask, I don’t know, for this to be provided for us before the council meeting. And I just also want to say that I feel as if there were a lot of unanswered questions here. And I want to make it clear to everyone, especially the chief and the chief, that my intention here is not to delay this project, my intention here is not to stop this project, and the budgetary issues have been dealt with.

[1:22:57] So this is not about the budget. My main concern here, primarily, is protecting the prime agricultural area. I know that there was a steering committee, I’ve not been told who was a member of that steering committee, that’s one of my questions. I would hope that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture would have been a member of that committee. I don’t know, I’ll ask them later. There are too many questions here. And I guess my final question, maybe for the city solicitor, and that is, under the provincial policy statement, this finding that has to be made, that alternative locations have been evaluated, and there are no reasonable alternative locations, which avoid prime agricultural areas.

[1:23:43] That’s a matter of provincial law. And if somebody wants to challenge the reasonableness of the city’s determination on that question, who would have standing to challenge that, and how would that challenge happen? And if you want to answer that in public session, I’d be pleased, if not, I’d like to ask someone to take us into closed session. ‘Cause I think it’s an important question. Thank you, Councillor, just to let you know, you have about 30 seconds remaining. I’ll go to Ms. Pollack, go ahead. Thank you and through you.

[1:24:15] I think the questions that are being asked would have to be asked in closed session, not in public. Could you answer any part of it in terms of the framework for how we evaluate questions regarding the propriety of a finding made under this provincial policy statement? And if you can’t, I would ask a member of the committee to ask that we go into closed session, ‘cause I will do it at the council meeting, and I’d rather get this done at committee. Ms. Pollack, thank you and through you.

[1:24:48] If you look at page 147, there is some details about the provincial planning statement that provides some of the wording there. That might provide some information for you. Through the chair, my question— Councillor, you’re very low on time, so I just want to make sure you’ve got 10 seconds. If you’d like to ask for a time extension, we will look to committee to see if there’s a mover and a seconder. For a minute, you said, Councillor?

[1:25:20] Yeah, because most of my questions are in that report, so I do want to get— Okay, thank you. So you’re looking for a time extension of one minute. I’ve got Councillor Frank and Councillor Hopkins. I will look to open the vote for one minute extension. Closing the vote, motion carries, six to zero. Okay, Councillor, you may go ahead.

[1:25:52] Okay, so at this point, I would like to request that one of my colleagues on the committee make a motion to ask that specific question in closed session. My legal issues that I’d like to have resolved, and I don’t want to take time at the council meeting to do this, is how would a challenge to not having a zone change be litigated by who? How would that happen? And number two, how would a determination under the provincial policy statement be litigated if somebody wanted to challenge this finding? And I think we do need legal advice on that.

[1:26:30] Anybody on the committee, I hope can help me. Okay, is that all your time, Councillor, or are you just looking to— I don’t see anyone on committee, and Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, so I’m just trying to get the wording here exactly what we’re going in camera for, and I understand from the Councillors asked, is that it’s specific to the challenge of not rezoning or not going through a zoning process, and then I’d like to have a better understanding about the provincial part of this as well.

[1:27:23] I just want to be clear that if we go in camera, that we know exactly what we’re going in camera for, and they ask, I need to understand that before I make a motion. Thank you, Councillor. If you’re looking to make a motion, it would be your motion of what you would like to go in camera to ask. It’s not another member of committee’s question. So if you have a motion to go in camera, that you do not feel as sufficiently addressed by page 147, which speaks to the compatibility policies, then you may go ahead and position your question to take us in camera.

[1:28:00] I would like to go in camera then, and ask the question regarding the process of zoning these properties, the legal challenge. Councillor Chaso, another Councillor has a floor right now. So Councillor, you’re looking for a legal question around the zoning and the PPS. So I’ve got a motion on the floor looking for a seconder from members of the committee.

[1:28:52] Councillor Preble has seconded that. I will look to the clerk to open the vote. Any comments, I guess, sorry, I should take comments before we go in camera. Does anyone have any comments on going in camera on this item? Just that I’m not gonna participate, I’ll leave the room too, ‘cause I’m unclear on the reason we’re going in camera, and I’m not gonna do something in camera that should be done in public. So it’s not a clearly defined motion, in my opinion. So you guys can go in camera, but I’m not gonna do it.

[1:29:30] Okay, Councillor Frank, can you take the chair please? I have the chair and recognizing, are you going on the list? Okay, recognizing Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you. My understanding is that the issue around compatibility, the zoning around this issue, and what the policy statement addresses is addressed on page 147 of our report, and I don’t wanna read that out verbatim here into the minutes of our meeting, but to me, it clearly identifies why we may use these lands for major facilities.

[1:30:15] I’m just wondering if staff perhaps or would be able to give us more of the Coles notes version of what the major facilities covers. If that helps to address and alleviate some of the questions, I too am not comfortable going in camera on an issue that I believe is for public conversation. Thank you, I’ll go to staff if they have an answer, and then I’ve got Councillor Palazzo on the list, sorry. Thank you, through the chair.

[1:30:51] There’s a process that we have to evaluate in terms of the provincial planning statement. There’s a hierarchy, and certainly the elements need to be addressed. And working through those elements, looking at alternative locations as Mr. Felberg had identified, that review is done into some great length. Working through that as well, we have to ensure that the public interest is protected as we don’t want to have any impact or compatibility issues.

[1:31:25] Certainly looking at major facilities, that’s another element of the provincial planning statement that talks about airports, manufacturing uses, transportation infrastructure, corridors, rail facilities. And in our mind, so that’s the magnitude of what those elements are, but it’s not limited to. In our position from a planning perspective, we feel that this is considered a major facility. And then from that, looking at the zoning by-law, and to answer the question again, in terms of the public use, and if you may, I’d like to read it out, so that it’s very clear for everybody.

[1:32:04] Public use, when used in reference to a building structure, use or lot means a building structure, use or lot used by a public agency to provide a service to the public. Public agencies comprise. The Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario, or Municipal Corporation. Any Ministry, Department, Commission, Authority, Board, or Agency established by the Government of Canada, or the Government of Ontario, or any public utility, or municipally established organizations. Thank you.

[1:32:39] Thank you, Councillor Roman. Thank you, and just to confirm, that information’s all available publicly. Staff? Through the chair, yes, that’s correct. Councillor Roman. Thank you, that’s it for now. Thank you, so I’ll return the chair to you with Councillor Palazzo on the list. Thank you, I’ll go to Councillor Palazzo. Thank you, I was interested in going in camera. Councillor had asked a question publicly. City Legal said, I can’t answer this publicly, you need to go in camera.

[1:33:13] So, emotion’s been made to go in camera to get said advice, and now doubts being cast on the legal reason of why we’re going in camera, though it was the advice of Legal to go in camera. So, I don’t know if through you, Madam Chair, if Legal’s comfortable with the reason, I fully believe that if something that should be in public, that Legal will say this is a public item in question, and save it for public, and only discuss confidential items in camera. So, is Legal fine with the reason as it was scripted to go in camera?

[1:33:49] Thank you, I will go to the City Solicitor. I will note that the person that made the motion to go in camera was different than the requester of the motion to go in camera, and the reasons were different as well. So, I will go to the City Solicitor. Thank you and through you. My concern with the original request was that it seemed to be asking about risk to the city versus some of the explanation we’ve had filling out what is in the report.

[1:34:39] Councillor Palazzo. Thank you, I’m not a member of this committee. I don’t know if it’s a public clarity or a clerking clarity of adding in risk to the city then to clarify in closed session for members of committee and visiting members could feel comfortable going in closed session. I’ll leave that to you as you’re the chair. Thank you, I have Councillor Hopkins, and then I’ll go to Councillor Trossner. Okay, so I’m trying to do a committee work here at committee. There’s been a question raised wanting an answer.

[1:35:17] I think we all would like that answer in the public. We have been given advice that that should go in camera. So is staff comfortable or do we need to change the wording to add risk to get the information in camera? I would prefer everything being here, but I am listening to the legal advice that we need to go in camera.

[1:35:50] So whatever we need to go in camera for, I would really appreciate understanding that very clearly and only asking that question and how if I can get some advice here on the wording. Thank you, staff’s just conferring and I will go to them to help with some wording around why you’d like to go in camera as a pilot.

[1:36:58] Thank you and through you. I think it would be helpful to get the precise question again that we’re asking because I think there was some difference between the reasoning and the original reasoning. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, would you like? Well, I would have to go to the Councillor to get the precise intention from his ask. He’s not on committee. So if I could go to the Councillor and ask for the precise reasons to go in camera.

[1:37:37] Sure, thank you. I’ll go to Councillor Trossa to reiterate his question and see if that’s reason for us to go in camera. Yes, thank you. And I’ll try to be precise and clear. The second part of the question with respect to the provincial policy statement is, given provincial policy statement requirement that, quote, alternative locations have been evaluated and there are no reasonable alternatives. Given that, what would be the legal process and who would have standing in that process to challenge a determination by this council that the requirement of ruling out alternative locations has been met and has been reasonable?

[1:38:33] That’s more long-winded than I liked, but that’s very precise. Thank you, I’ll go to Ms. McNeely. Thank you through the chair. There’s no third party, no longer third party appeals. So, and the city owns the land. It’s a city development with in partnership. So, that’s as much as we can offer at this point.

[1:39:10] Thank you. Thank you. So, Councillor Trossa, you’re still on the list. So, go ahead, I’ll let you continue with your question, but go ahead. I believe the director of planning just attempted to answer my question. I would like to go into closed session and discuss this with council, ‘cause I think there are some exceptions to that. There could be an adjacent property owner and there could be a broader public, there could be a broader public interest and I think the standing rules are very fluid about this.

[1:39:44] So, I think it would be a mistake to just say, we’re not gonna worry about a potential lawsuit here because the province has restricted who can, this is not a municipal zoning question, this part of it. This is an application of provincial policy statement law. And I think the rules on standing of who can challenge and erroneous determination under a PPS requirement may be different than a run of the mill zoning application. So, I think this is a matter that this council, from a risk perspective, should be taking very seriously and I am done.

[1:40:24] Thank you, Councillor. Okay, so I will go back to the original mover of the motion, Councillor Hopkins. Is there any other amendments to the language of your motion that you’re looking to clarify in order to continue with your motion? I think that could be asked. I’m going to keep the motion, support the motion. I think we can still get the information. If we can’t get it in public, we have to go in camera then I am supporting the motion.

[1:41:01] I think it’s important that committee, committee work be done, I don’t want to go to council and have this conversation again, I think we need to address it before we deal with the recommendation. Thank you. Okay, Councillor Frank, you had your hand up, go ahead. Yes, I was just gonna say, I’m not gonna support going in camera because I think the answers to the questions I’ve been asked are in the report or staff have answered them and otherwise, I don’t know why we’re going in camera. So, I want support going in camera because I don’t know why we’re going in camera, thanks.

[1:41:36] Thank you, any final speakers on the in camera request? Seeing none, I’ll open the vote. Closing the vote, motion fails, two to four. Thank you, we’re back on the original motion, looking for speakers on this item. Councillor van Mirbergen, go ahead.

[1:42:11] Thank you, Chair. Very interested, I wanted to focus a little bit on the opportunities for contracting this new facility to neighboring municipalities and even the province and the federal government in terms of their agencies. Have we heard, even unofficially, just in perhaps small talk because obviously this hasn’t even been passed yet, but have we heard any positive signals from neighboring municipalities or provincial or federal agencies that may be interested in coming and paying a fee, of course, would result in London having revenue generation and helping to offset the cost?

[1:43:04] Have we heard anything in that regard in terms of positives, perhaps any of the emergency services or city staff if there’s any indication that way? Thank you, I’ll go to the mayor on this one. Yes, so what I’ll start is with engagements with the provincial and federal governments. I think with engagements with other fire services and how they currently come and use facilities and what the potential is that would have to lead out to our staff for those discussions.

[1:43:37] But I can tell you, and I’ll be cautious here ‘cause there are ongoing discussions. There are ongoing discussions, which means they’re positive, which means there’s interest in partnering. As you know, the provincial government has allocated a significant amount of money to support the building and refurbishment of police services across the province, including money dedicated towards the rebuilding of the Almer Police College. They are interested in investing in the space. On the fireside with the closing of the fire college, they recognize the need for adequate fire training services across the province, and the fact that we’re providing what is provincial level services potentially with the Hazmat work, which they’re very interested in ensuring that industrial areas, particularly the power co-investment has adequate fire suppression in the region.

[1:44:27] I would say they’re very positive discussions, but it is very difficult to proceed very far down that route without a location, right? So the location is a critical component to the continuation of those discussions. So there’s interest. Nothing has been solidified in any sort of way because there is not yet a location until today that could be public or until council approval that I could actually move forward to say, this is council’s preferred site. This is what we’re moving forward with. Now we can start to talk about where it is, what it looks like, the level of contributions that the provincial federal governments might make to this.

[1:45:04] Councilor Raim, Mayor Bergen. I’d like to thank the mayor for that information. I’m certainly supportive of this motion. And I think it’s a given that we will be seeing some revenue generation from this development. So thank you again for the info. Thank you, final speakers on this item. I should know Councilor Layman is also online joining us as well.

[1:45:37] Okay. And Mayor Morgan, I’ll go to you. You have less than a minute. I have less than a minute, so we’ll be clear. I just want to say through you to our staff, I believe our staff have done a good job of a thorough review of sites and a good job of applying the provisions of the provincial policy statements and what it allows to allow for a community facility to be located. This is a well-researched, well-vetted recommendation from our staff that I am very supportive of. And I just wanted to add that piece. Thank you.

[1:46:12] And with that, Alaska, Councillor Frank to take the chair. Thank you, have the chair and recognize Councillor Roman. Thank you and through the presiding officer. I want to thank staff again for this report. Thank the chief and the chief and their staff for all their work as well on this matter. I have to say, I think that this is very exciting for the city. I think that the opportunity here is really exciting. I’m glad to see that we’re at this point with the conversation. Although I do agree with Councillor Palosa and others that more consultation is needed. And with respect to this report and later on, we talk about the biosolids report.

[1:46:50] I do think that as much support as we can give that part of the city to be able to have some very meaningful dialogue and consultation, I think will be very helpful. Whether that’s maybe some extra mailings as well or something at this point to help to facilitate some more understanding, I think that would be helpful. I really appreciate the OFA being here today to provide their perspective and agree with them. And I’m glad that we won’t be using the entirety of the parcel, but I do have concerns about the use of the remaining parcel with the type of contamination that might be utilized in order to do these training operations.

[1:47:31] I wanted to speak to phase two of this project a little. And that is around the safety, fire safety, village component or the fire safety education component for the public as well. Although I understand why we would want to use this particular site for that use, I do hope that we will look to other community sites that we have potentially with, you know, Spring Bank, looking at some of our other facilities to be able to have other opportunities for teaching young children, especially around fire safety.

[1:48:13] I do think this is quite far for schools to travel to. And so I would like to see something more centralized in the city. With that thought in mind as well, while we’re looking at this great opportunity in, you know, in the 401402 corridor in the northwest part of the city, we still are in much need of facilities as well, and not to say that this facility isn’t right where it needs to be, but as we continue to contemplate community centers and other builds out in the northwest, I hope we’re able to have some police presence at those facilities, whether it’s additional training sites or whether it’s offices or something considered later on down the road.

[1:49:01] So let’s just my comments. And again, thank you for the report. Thank you, and returning the chair to you with Councilor Perbal on the list. Councilor Perbal, go ahead. Thank you, just making a couple of comments what I started with today. I think there’s a great opportunity for our city. And I do think that leveraging the other levels of government, it could be a really beneficial far as far as our community. The two things I also want to mention, though, is the W12I PLC committee, because I do think that they should have been more aware and advice and communication with them. That’s one thing is, and the second thing is which one of my colleagues mentioned that in terms of the going into camera.

[1:49:39] So I said it was quite clear that if it didn’t answer the question or if the answer is not at 147, she would recommend into the camera. And that’s one of the things that I really think that as well. This is the opportunity that we could have taken during the committee and not during the Council. But as I said, the solo city set quite clearly. If it’s not on punch 147, or if she hasn’t answered it to go into camera, but I will certainly support it. I think it is a great project, but I did want to mention those two things. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, go ahead.

[1:50:12] Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the Mayor for the work that he’s done on this. I know, and to staff as well on the importance of getting this facility up and running. I do see this as being a regional hub for emergency services. So I am going to be supporting it. I do want to make a few comments, though. As I look at these recommendations, and I may not have been up to date on everything that is going on.

[1:50:48] I do think it is my duty as a Councillor and a member of this committee to do my due diligence and ask the questions that I need to ask to make sure there isn’t a risk to the city. I will be following up with legal, just if there’s any doubts or concerns I have. I will be doing that. But overall, as much as I feel the loss of the agricultural land in the area, I do think this location and, you know, thanks staff for the work that they’ve done on this as well.

[1:51:30] So I just want to make these comments and supportive of this going forward. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other speakers online or in chambers, I will look to open the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries, six to zero. Thank you.

[1:52:03] With that, we will move to our deferred matters and additional business, item two point, sorry. Okay, I’m going back to item two point one, which is the Biosolids Management Master Plan, notice of completion. As you’ll know as well, we had an added in there. We did also flag the added in the emergency campus as well as the items were connected. I will look for a mover and a seconder for this item and we’ll start our discussion.

[1:52:35] I just need to inform you, I’m leaving the meeting after return to a police board meeting. Thank you for joining us, looking for a mover and seconder. Councilor Van Mirberg and Councilor Frank and any discussion on item two point one. I have Councilor Pelosa, I will go to you first, go ahead. Thank you, I know Councilor Pribble pulled this one. He’s welcome to Trump me and speak first if you want it. I know our guests are still leaving the room. As the word Councilor for this area as well, you have an added communication asking of a resident who is the vice chair of the Public Liaison Committee for W12A to defer it for a cycle.

[1:53:20] They have a community meeting tomorrow night. I know a member of staff offered to go out and meet with them. I fully acknowledge that staff had made them aware of the June 17th meeting. My understanding is that only one person made it to the meeting, which I think very well might be Councilor Pribble. I found this report a little bit strange that usually there is a full section of any consultation that they had in public feedback to be contained within the report. This report did not have that. The community has concerns. You just discussed one about stuff going out there. CAPS had one in their day about the public depot and how it’s going to be moved.

[1:53:54] They weren’t made aware of that one either. So within three days of committee, there’s been three reports that they have no consultation on. I know this one will go out for a posting as per ministry requirements that might not even get posted for a 30-day policy, posting until the fall. So I do believe there is time. Staff have let me know that at that time I went who’s expressed interest in the study. They’ll be notified at that time unless the comments received in the comment period that our material changed to the recommendations that they do not plan to update council a second time on this report.

[1:54:33] I’m not sure what staff would deem a material change. Just it seems to be that if we pass this today in the council that the public comments coming back in are just comments being made and they feel that there’s very little opportunity to have impact in this if we pass it. So just highlighting the community concerns as it’s not just one resident reaching out who we are usually all familiar with. It is a multitude of residents in that area reaching out and forming their own meetings to try and to discuss these things as it’s council business. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:55:05] I’ll go to staff to see if there’s any response to some of your inquiries. Madam Chair, if I may, I’ll start Ms. Ramalu and Ms. Jadakar girl. So here I may have something to add. The reason there’s no feedback contained in this report from the public is that despite a number of venues that were available for several weeks to both the members of the PLC as well as residents throughout the city, we did not receive any. So there is nothing to document. We have followed the process that is appropriate for the completion of a master plan. And we would advise that the correct path here is to proceed with the staff recommendation to file the notice of completion.

[1:55:41] We remain within 30 day comment period that is required under provincial legislation. We will again reach out to the public liaison committee at the W12A landfill to have that conversation again. And of course, all members of the public are able to comment through the legislative period of review. Thank you. I’ll look to other members of committee or visiting counselors for this item. Councilor Provost, go ahead. Thank you. I just want to add that in terms of this point, actually the biosolids, our staff did inform the PLC members. They did receive an email.

[1:56:18] So that part, I’m sure and I’m aware that our staff did. Having said that the committee they, for whatever reason, they weren’t engaged. They missed it, whatever it was. And that’s why I would like to give them that opportunity. If we were to delay this by a cycle, would be the negative consequences of that through the chair to the staff. Thank you, Ms. Chair. Madam Chair, the impacts of the project overall are probably fairly minimal, both in terms of schedule and cost. I think it’s more from a process that we have followed an appropriate engagement process when folks elect not to participate in said process to extend those processes for other projects in the future could create a bit of a precedent that you have the opportunity to not get involved and are getting involved in through those public meetings, but to then have another chance to change the engagement that’s required.

[1:57:13] Councilor Perville. Thank you. And still based on this answer and I do agree, I wouldn’t want this to become a regular occurrence. I don’t, but for this one, I still would, I know actually, as this is right counter-referring for the next cycle. You’d like to move a referral? Yes. Your purpose for your referral? The purpose is W12APLC committee to be more involved and receive their feedback.

[1:57:48] Thank you, and it was for one cycle? Yes, yes. Okay, so the clerk has done her magic and there is a motion, I’ll read it for a referral and see if you have a seconder.

[1:58:19] That the staff report dated July 16, 2025 related to the notice of completion, biosolce management be referred to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee to permit civic administration additional time to engage with the W12PLC committee. Do you have a seconder for that? Sorry, Madam Chair. I’m not sure, just legally in parameters of the W12APLC. I know it will be many members who serve on the MPLC and other neighboring residents in that rural area. I’m not, so I, as it’s not actual W12A, I don’t know if the official committee can be addressed.

[1:58:59] Jay’s usually the one, or Mr. Stanford’s usually the one to get in on that, so just as we do the wording to make sure that we’re not accidentally breaching another parameter of why that PLC exists. Sorry, just technicalities. Thank you, Ms. Chair. Thank you, I believe Ms. Mr. Stanford is on the line. However, this would not be an official meeting of the W12APLC proper. That has been our conduit for contact within the area. I think we could streamline that by just saying with the W12A committee as a non-official meeting. I’m not sure it needs to be that specific or engage.

[1:59:32] But I would like specificity, honestly, this would be deferred to next cycle and brought back. Okay, thank you, Ms. Chair, just to clarify, for the specification of future meeting versus next meeting cycle, my understanding is there is a meeting tomorrow as well.

[2:00:15] So, but this would not go to council until the next council meeting. So, I’m just trying to figure out from a timing perspective how we’d align a referral. To me, it sounds like the public consultation, although it is community driven, is something that has the opportunity to serve as a way for the community to become more involved. So I’m just trying to make sure that we’re scoping this correctly, that the referral is necessary.

[2:00:49] So, Councillor, right now it says, and I’ll just read it to you, that the staff report dated July 16th, related to the notice of completion biosolce management, be referred to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee to permit civic administration additional time to engage the W12A PLC committee, Mr. Chair. So, Madam Chair, with respect to the concerns raised by Councillor Palazzo, perhaps we can say with area property owners, and we can use the PLC as our contact point for it, but it would not be an official meeting of the PLC which has standing under by-law specific to issues related to the operation of the landfill.

[2:01:29] What I would say is staff’s recommendation remains that this not be deferred. This, the consultation would not materially change. What is in this report, it is a highly technical matter that has been going on for quite some period of time, but we are in a position where we could explain mitigation measures and other pieces that will be in place should council approve this master plan. Thank you. So, I’m just looking at this point for a seconder for this motion, which now reads additional time to engage with area and property owners.

[2:02:06] Okay, council privilege, I don’t see a seconder for your motion. Do you have any remaining comments? No, no additional comments. I just want to be more involved. And again, it’s an area that we are doing a lot of initiatives and these residents are influenced by it and I really, in terms of, I wanted this in terms of the respect. Having said that, whenever, even if you were going ahead with it, as for council proposal, I’m a stated, we will be meeting with them and I would say that certainly we don’t plan to do this on a regular basis. But certainly, I didn’t want to give them in respect of this delay by one cycle.

[2:02:40] And especially when we heard that there is not really negative influencing us in the future. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll go to Councilor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, I appreciate that. And I just want to make a comment on, I understand that the W12 will be, committee will be meeting tomorrow. I would like to see some comments from the community. I think it is missing in this master plan. And I know there is opportunity before it goes to council. I’m just wondering if that those comments can be shared with us before council.

[2:03:20] I’d also like to make a comment to encourage the communities still be engaged with staff. I think there are opportunities. I see staff heads nodding to continue these conversations. I think they are very, very important as we go forward as well. So I want to encourage the communities to still be engaged, encourage them to pass on their comments before this comes to council as well. But I do agree there is a little bit of missing information here when it comes to comments from the community.

[2:03:54] Thank you. Thank you. I’ll go to councilor Frank next. Thank you. And I have a couple of questions through you to staff. I was excited about the opportunities for alternative energy production. And I’m curious about, I do know them past, in the past we have tried to connect the landfill, methane glass gas flaring to the grid. I’m wondering if there’s some opportunity given that they’d be in close location for a stronger application in addressing that with RNG to go forward in the future. If that’s something that is being looked at. Thank you, Ms. Chair.

[2:04:29] Thank you, Madam Chair. I can start and certainly Mr. Odaker, custom information as well. We are continuing to evaluate our ability to use the renewable natural gas that is coming from our landfill as part of a future venture. There will be more information provided to committee and council as that continues to evolve. At this point it would be difficult to share the exact nature of it due to the need to partner with a expert organization in delivering said work. But if I can get away with the stay tuned, there will be information to come. And yes, we will explore any potential synergies with other uses in the immediate vicinity as appropriate.

[2:05:05] Mr. Odaker, anything to add? No, my Ms. Chair covered it very well. The co-location with W-12A and the existing methane collection is actually a significant portion of why the site was selected in the first place. It opens up the doors for a lot more in the beneficial reuse area. Councilor? Thank you, yes. That’s again, one of the reasons why I think this location looks promising. Additionally, with the Greenway Pollution Control Plant, which is in my ward, I do know that they have the organic ranking generator. I’m wondering if similar technologies would be perhaps used at this location as well.

[2:05:44] Mr. Oenkirk. Thank you and through you, not specifically yet. There would have to be a lot of work done to decide what the best form of recovering that gas and utilizing it. You know, there’s a broad spectrum. You can go anywhere from power generation to actual generation of RNG, renewable natural gas, even to district energy type applications. So there’s a very broad spectrum that we’d have to reevaluate. I think at this point, we just wanted to start with, okay, what makes the most sense in terms of the best use of that resource? And then we’ll build through the detailed design process to better clarify those.

[2:06:18] Councilor Frank? Thank you. Those are all my questions. Appreciate it. Thank you. Councilor Pervell, go ahead. I would just like to say one more comment. I encourage all my colleagues, Councilors to attend sometimes the meeting of this committee, even though it’s in Councilor Palazzas ward, the waste from the entire city goes into that area. And I would strongly encourage you to attend the meetings. So you are aware of the issues, especially when it comes to us to vote on certain things. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Councilors on this item?

[2:06:51] Seeing none, I will open the vote. Close in the vote. Motion carries four to one. Thank you. That takes us to item 2.8, the expropriation of lands, phase two Wellington gateway projects, civil work. I’m looking for a mover and seconder on this item.

[2:07:25] Councilor Frank and Councilor Hopkins, any discussion? Councilor Frank, go ahead. Thank you. And given a lot of the expropriation will be happening along Wellington, so word 11. I just wanted to triple check. Most of those were just slivers of front, frontage of people’s property for the most part. That’s my understanding from looking at the maps, but I just wanted to double check that. Mr. Warner. Yes, through the chair. Yes, that’s correct. So your interpretation and this report specifically identified partial acquisition of properties. Previously, a few months ago we were before you with the report for the eight remaining bio or fully impacted properties.

[2:08:07] So they were separate reports due to timing with respect to the due diligence that we had to do. Thank you. Councilor? Thank you, that’s it. Thank you, Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, just as a follow up as well, I found it quite interesting that it’s 68 properties still need to be settled. I know this project, this is phase two, is gonna be starting in 2027. So any concerns of any delays?

[2:08:40] It seems like there’s a lot of work still to be undertaken, but just wanted to ask that question. Thank you, and through this, great, go ahead. Thank you, and through the chair. The project is actually scheduled to start in 2026. It’ll be tender just two separate contracts this fall. It is a lot of properties, but again, as we’re widening, it’s a lot of slivers along those properties. Also, some of these are acquisition of property fee simple. Others are temporary construction access easements, which allow us to grade on to that property and make a smooth transition along the edges.

[2:09:15] So it’s a combination of both of those, and this is the stuff to make sure we have everything we need to construct in 26. Sorry, Ms. Stan, I accidentally called you Ms. Grady. You usually sit over there, and I don’t have my glasses on right now. My apologies, Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, I appreciate the clarification when it comes to properties, thank you. Thank you. Okay, any other questions on this item? Ding, none, I will open the vote.

[2:10:00] Close in the vote, motion carries four to one. Okay, thank you. Before we go to our in-camera items, as many of us are here right now at this time, and after we’ll probably have less folks with us, I just wanted to take a moment to recognize that today is Mr. Warner’s last meeting before he retires, and he did ask me not to do this. But we all know what a significant role Mr. Warner has played in the city of London, from not only advising us with great opportunities to invest in our city, to grow our city, but also doing that with such a calm and such a professional demeanor at all times.

[2:10:54] So I want to take a moment to thank you as you head into retirement. I hope that the real estate market rebounds and becomes more favorable, not because you’re leaving, but just generally, but just wanted to say a big thank you from the committee for your service, even though you’re still going to be providing us advice for the next, for our next items, but I’m sure staff may want to say something as well, so I’ll give anyone the opportunity, Ms. Burbone.

[2:11:33] Thank you, he’s not gonna be happy with me, ‘cause I promised I wouldn’t do anything, but I think you’re really just to recognize Bill in the great work that he’s done with 15 years of the city of London, he’s been a tremendous asset to the corporation, and we’re sad he’s leaving, but we wish him all the very, very best, and certainly if the city is ever looking for advice and opportunity, there’s always contractual services that might be perhaps an opportunity in the future to continue lending this advice, but I am pleased Mr. Brian Barr will be taking over for him, so we have a really great transition plan, and he will be taking over the big shoes that Mr. Warner leaves behind, so we thank him for all the great work he’s done.

[2:12:23] Thank you so much. Okay, with that said, you’re still not off the hook. We have some items for in-camera discussion, there’s five of them, 6.1 through 6.5. I will look for a mover and a seconder to take us into confidential session, Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Van Meerberg, and we’ll open the vote. Councillor Pribble, Councillor Pribble.

[2:13:12] Councillor Pribble, we need you to vote. Closing the vote, noting Councillor Pribble’s absent motion passes, 4-0. Thank you, just give us a moment. Recording in progress, recording stopped. Hey, I will go to Councillor Frank to report out from our in-camera.

[2:15:35] Thank you, I’m pleased to announce that we made huge progress for the items for which we went in-camera for. Thank you. And we’ll go to item seven, adjournment, and I saw Councillor Van Meerberg in first, so I’ll go to him. Seconded by Councillor Hopkins, all in favor. Thank you, everyone.