Open Council

14th Meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

Open Council

14th Meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

September 15, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:00 PM.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Consent Item 2.4 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.4   RFP2024-311 Supply and Implementation of a Property Tax Software System Award

2025-09-15 Staff Report - RFP Property Tax Software Successful Proponent

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to Request for Proposal (RFP) 2024-311 for Supply and Implementation of a Property Tax Software System along with associated licensing for the City of London:

a)    the proposal for the supply and implementation of a property tax software system including annual licensing for a five (5) year term, with an option to renew for another five (5) year period, submitted by CentralSquare Canada Software Inc, 155 Wellington Street West, Toronto, ON, BE ACCEPTED in accordance with the 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 September 15, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’;

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

d)    the approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the City of London (The Corporation) entering a formal contract, agreement or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval.

Motion Passed

2.1   Design Contract Price Increase: Wellington Gateway Transit and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements RFP20-29

2025-09-15 Staff Report - Wellington Consultant Contract Increase

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by J. Pribil

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Wellington Gateway Transit and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements project:

a)    the contract with AECOM Canada ULC for detailed design for RFP20-29 – Consulting Services for Rapid Transit and Infrastructure Improvements – Wellington Gateway Project BE INCREASED by $803,764 to $8,479,052 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the 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 September 15, 2025, as Appendix ‘A’;

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 1)

2.2   Replacement of Steam Services at City Facilities

2025-09-15 Staff Report - Replacement of Steam Services

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to providing alternative heating, domestic hot water and humidification for City Hall; Centennial Hall; Central Library and Museum London:

a)    the report BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the financing for this project(s) BE APPROVED, as outlined in the Source of Financing as appended to the staff report dated September 15, 2025 as Appendix “A”; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary with this assignment.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.3   Affordable Rental Housing Subclass Report

2025-09-15 - ICSC - Staff Report - Affordable Rental Housing Subclass Report Final

Moved by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report on the optional affordable rental housing subclass as described in Ontario Regulation 73/25 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential (Provided to Members only.)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

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 of 2835 Westminster Drive land by the London Police Service Board, 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    Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations / Litigation/Potential Litigation / Matters Before Administrative Tribunals / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to labour relations and employee negotiations in regard to one of the Corporation’s unions, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation, litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals and advice which is the subject of solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

The Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session from 2:13 PM to 2:40 PM.

Moved by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by A. Hopkins

The Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed session to consider the following:

6.3    Solicitor-Client Privilege Advice

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and employees of the Corporation pertaining to the Replacement of Steam Services at City Facilities.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

The Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session from 1:22 PM to 1:31 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 2:44 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (1 hour, 25 minutes)

[20:31] Good afternoon, everyone. We are ready to get started with the 14th meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee. We’ll start with the land acknowledgement. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, 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. As representatives of the people of the City of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication support for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact icsc@london.ca or 519-661-2489 Extension 2425.

[21:23] I’m joined in council chambers with all members of the committee, including Mayor Morgan, and we have lots of guests as well, joined by Councillor McAllister and Councillor Ferreira, and I do not see any guests online as of yet. So welcome everyone. Good to see you, and we will get started with item one, which is disclosure of pecuniary interests. Okay, seeing none, I’ll move on to the consent items. I’ve been asked to pull 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. I’ve not been asked to pull 2.4.

[22:01] With that in mind, I’ll look for some of the craft of motion to include 2.4, please. Councillor Frank, Councillor Hopkins, thank you, and that will be opening the system one moment. Let’s open the system for you to vote. Sorry, any discussion? I guess I’m moving too fast. Any discussion on this item? Okay, seeing none, thank you to those that brought this report forward. This was the Supply and Implementation of Property Tax Software System Award, and we will open that to vote. Opposing the vote, motion carries, 6 to 0. Thank you. Being that we have no other items in the other categories, we’ll move back to item 2.1, which is the design contract price increase for the Wellington Gateway Transit and Municipal Infrastructure Improvement, RFP, 2029, looking for a mover and a seconder on this item, Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Pribble, and any discussion.

[23:38] Councillor Frank, and then Councillor Van Mereberg, and go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you. Yes, and I was pleased to see some of the items in this report as I’ve had discussions with residents along Wellington Street in regards to overland flows, and I was just wondering, I know I’d send a question, and I’m just wondering if Thomas Jane and Moore Streets and the streets along that area that don’t have stormwater catch basins and connections to a stormwater pipe, if those will be receiving connections into the stormwater pipes. Ms. Ramaloo, go ahead. Thank you through the chair. So this sewer that we’re doing on Wellington Road is meant to take the overland flow from those areas. The work with the R2 would be kept to Wellington Road itself and possibly stepped out onto those side streets. Any more work on those side streets would be subsequent projects, but we can certainly get back to you on timing for anything that we feel is needed there in addition to this, but this does provide the outlet. This is the biggest piece to making that better. Councillor Frank. Thank you. And then that is kind of what I was anticipating.

[24:43] You wouldn’t rip up all of Thomas Jane and Moore to replace all the storm service for those. So then will the catch basins that kind of line up at Wellington and Moore and Thomas Jane, will they be so big that the overland flow coming down those two streets will fill up into that and not stay on the property side? Ms. Ramaloo. Thank you through the chair. So yes, the intent is to take that overland flow. So we are still in design work. So I don’t know exactly how it’s going to be laid out and function, but the idea is to alleviate that overland flooding. Councillor Frank.

[25:18] Thank you. I appreciate that. I have had many residents with flooded basements in that area. So I think this will be very welcome. Thank you. I had Councillor Van Meer work next. Thank you, Chair. With regard to 2.1, I believe the ask for the bump up is around $800,000. That’s a lot of tax money for an increase just for design. Then of course, the construction costs will be on top of that. I’m wondering, was there any inkling when we first started this BRT that these, this type of expense and when we first let the contract with the designers or the design company, that this type of infrastructure would be necessary? And if we didn’t have that idea, why did we not have that idea? Look at our staff. Thank you. I will go to Ms. Stan.

[26:25] Thank you. And through the chair, as part of our environmental assessment for this project, we worked with all of our different servicing partners to do our best to be able to assess based on available condition information, what coordinated infrastructure should be done and included as part of this project. Through design refinements, we determined areas where there’s additional pipe that needed to be repaired, or in the case of the large component of this design change, which is the water infrastructure and the commissioners in Wellington intersection. The further we got through the design process, we realized that coming back in and doing this work later would be very difficult once the rapid transit infrastructure was installed. We also realized that the lifecycle remaining in that infrastructure made it so that we would be into this intersection again within the 20 to 30 year range, which we felt was too short. We’re also able to address some operation and maintenance issues to be able to make it easier to safely maintain the infrastructure within the intersection. So there were a lot of benefits to incorporating that work now. And this is the time to be able to get it done all at once.

[27:29] Thank you, Councillor. I’ll just go to Ms. Ranland. Then I’ll come right back to you. Go ahead. Thank you. Through the chair, I just also wanted to highlight the bulk of the work is related to a water chamber. So this is a large, large water chamber. It does look like a lot of money for design work. I acknowledge that. But when compared to other projects that we’ve done recently of similar type scopes. So recently, for instance, we did the chamber 13 work up in Old North. So when we looked at the dollar value for the design work and the amount of effort for that type of construction, it is on par with other projects we’ve done. Councillor. Thank you again, Chair.

[28:12] And thank you to staff for those responses. It wasn’t that long ago we bumped up the funding for BRT. I believe it was in the neighborhood of 174 million. Please correct me if I’m wrong. That is a huge amount for an increase. Now, is this 800,000 and the resulting shovels in the ground construction increase costs? Will that come out of that $174 million? Thank you. I’ll go to Ms. Stan. Yes. And through the chair, the multi-year budget request did right size the budget for the entire rapid transit program to meet the costs of delivering that in today’s economy. All of the work that we’re doing now in terms of our forecast remain within that budget. So that covers our construction costs, design costs, land costs, everything to complete the project. And we do remain within that increased multi-year budget increase ask. Councillor, Mayor Bergen.

[29:17] Thank you for that. My concern and I would dare say the concern of taxpayers is we haven’t heard the last of increases on this BRT project. There’s still a ways to go with it. And I guess the question without being unfair, the question is how confident are we that it’s going to stay within this already inflated budget without having to come back to Council and ask for even more money?

[29:53] Thank you. I’ll go to Ms. Stan. Go ahead. Thank you. And through the chair, we are quite confident in the numbers that we presented with the multi-year budget. At this point, we actually have more of rapid transit construction behind us than ahead of us. This phase that we’re doing the design on for Wellington Gateway Phase 2 is the last design section for the entire corridor. The intent is to tender these last two construction phases under this design scope for this fall to start construction next year, 2026. So we are, we have rounded the bend and we’re coming near the end of the construction of rapid transit, which again increases our confidence in the numbers we’ve provided. The same goes for the East London Link project, which same thing, we have one last phase to tender this fall for construction next year. So based on where we sit, we’re confident with the numbers that we’re moving forward with for both design and construction. Councillor Vamea-Brian. Thank you very much for the answers, but I will not be voting in favor of this motion. Thank you. Thank you. I have Mayor Morgan next to my speaker’s list followed by Councillor Frank. Thank you. So I’ll be supporting this addition.

[31:13] I think the the additional work that’s being done as Councillor Frank outlined will assist those neighbourhoods in mitigating some potential adverse effects to overland water flows. I think it’s appropriate to do so at the time that we’re working on this project. I’ll say it in the project as a whole and to with respect to Councillor Vamea or some of Councillor Vamea-Brian’s points, yes, the overall project is costly, right? And part of the challenge we have with this is we had an opportunity to take advantage of funding from other levels of government to do some necessary work on our transit system, but also recognize that there is underground water and wastewater work happening as part of this project. Yes, there is a bus rapid transit system on top of it, but getting the federal provincial governments to pay a significant share of some of that underground infrastructure was a decision that was good on the part of the city to take advantage of. I think the challenge we have is based on when we lock into these agreements with the federal and provincial governments to when we actually are able to construct them is the clauses and the agreements as they as they always have been with federal and provincial governments saw the municipality absorb the additional costs of increased construction over that time. And we were on the hook for that at the time when we know every cost of construction went up, even the cost of our other needed infrastructure projects like the Adelaide Street underpass and other road works all had additional price appreciations because of the cost appreciations that happened generally across the world through the pandemic and coming out of it. Where I think we can be a little more strategic in the future is, you know, should we and under the masterability plan expand rapid transit routes that we engage in and I’ll say other mayors have raised this as well because we’re not the only ones who faced increased cost pressures and I’ll say not just rapid transit but others who partnered with the federal and provincial governments on wastewater treatment plants and sewer plants, they all are in the same situation where there are municipalities that absorb these costs.

[33:10] In the future, we need to sign agreements with the provincial and federal governments that recognizes that as costs change over time, that there is a proportionate share from those levels of government so that the municipalities may have been a one-third partner at one point but then becomes a 50% partner over time because they’re responsible for all of the increased costs between the time of the project being approved financially and the time of it actually being constructed. We need to change that in the future because it’s just not something that municipal levels of government have the cash to bear for every single project but this is not the only project that is appreciated in costs. This is not the only project across the country where municipality had to absorb that increasing and I think this is something that is a good advocacy point for municipalities and is an advocacy point for municipalities at the tables I’m at in the future for future iterations of any infrastructure project that would occur in a city whether it’s transit related, wastewater related or anything else. So appreciate the council’s concerns about increasing costs. I think we’re all very conscious of that but there are reasons that this is still a good opportunity to take advantage of doing that underground water and wastewater work and getting the federal and provincial governments to pay for a good portion of it as well.

[34:19] Thank you. Councillor Frank, before I go back to you, Councillor Pribble did have his hand up for the first time so I will go to Councillor Pribble and then back to you. Thank you, Chair and through to the staff and it’s certainly based on the report and all the details. It certainly does make sense to me to get it done absolutely but I was actually when I saw the amount for the engineering and this it was quite high for me as well. I did hear the feedback from the staff for example it was comparison to the chamber 13 what we’ve done but still this organization that we are giving it to there was no we we went with them because they are familiar with it they did this part or was there an opportunity to go to other organizations and actually to see if there would be someone who would be coming up with a lower amount.

[35:08] Can you please kind of go into more detail of this process how we how this came about with onto the report. Thank you. I’ll go to Ms. Ramlu. Thank you through the chair. So this is a project or scope extension so we already have the consultant on board doing the design work for the Wellington Gateway so this becomes part of that scope rather than bringing in a second consultant who would be potentially working doing rework the high level of coordination would drive up costs etc. So it’s it’s best value to have the same consultant doing all the pieces. Thank you for that and I will have follow up in certain projects like this happen and they realize these organizations they realize that it’s the best to go with them as they’re already familiar familiar and they are they have worked on this part of the project having said that on the other hand these companies they realize it as well and therefore they know that they will be the preferred ones that we will go to again besides the chamber 13 we really have comparisons that the the quote that we received from ACOM is is competitive to potentially the other ones so let’s say if a taxpayer or if I were to say show me comparative of the work done here done previously it is 100% in line and we are getting the best possible deal. Ms. Ramlu. Thank you through the chair. So yes the original competition for this design work would have been a competitive process so all those comparisons between you know the rates and the scope of work and the amount of effort that is all compared during that procurement process so yes I would be confident that they remain competitive again we looked at I believe it was actually a different company that did chamber 13 so looking at that as a comparison it does help us have a high degree of confidence that this is a reasonable amount of money for the considerable scope of work required for these chambers counselor.

[37:12] Thank you for the answers no more questions. Okay thank you I’ll go to Councillor Frank. Thank you yes and through you I was hoping to ask staff in their best estimates what percentage of the BRT the entire BRT project both the south and the east link what percentage of the costs are related to below ground work like sewer and water mains versus above ground work like the paint and the lights to the chair. Go to Ms. Stan go ahead. Yeah thanks to the chair I don’t have the exact information I can provide that afterwards what I can speak to is the fact that when we are doing this type of work there are efficiencies not just in the fact of avoiding having to go back in twice to the same area but as the rapid transit project is going through it’s covering the restoration costs on the ground if these underground infrastructure projects had advanced on their own they would have had not just the cost of the underground infrastructure but the restoration that costs as well so we really are finding efficiencies in being able to maximize any infrastructure we can fix life cycle and for growth to support growth and intensification as we do these projects. Councillor Frank. Thank you yes I’ll be supporting this as throughout the entire project every time I see these reports it seems to me personally just based on reading these reports even this one for example about 50 percent of the work seems to be below ground and I think being able to leverage as the Mayor’s side provincial and federal funding to do infrastructure work to allow for more homes to be built in the community I think is really important so again I’ll be supporting this and I see it just as much of a rapid transit project as I do see it as sewer and stormwater projects. Thank you Councillor Hopkins go ahead. Yeah thank you Madam Chair I just want to thank staff for finding these efficiencies I’ll be supporting the increases I know we don’t like to see increases come forward but I do see that we need to find efficiencies and again like the Mayor said taking advantage of other grants is also important somehow I can’t see us not doing this and continuing with the project and then coming back and having to do it again somehow I cannot see the construction on Wellington starting all over again I think residents would not be too happy so with that I’ll be supporting it. Thank you I have no further speakers at this time I will open the vote closing the vote motion carries five to one thank you that moves us on to item 2.2 the replacement of steam services at city facilities I understand Deputy Mayor Lewis is online as well I just wanted to let you know that if you’re looking to speak if you don’t mind just turning on your camera perfect thank you so much and please let us know so before we get this discussion started I’m just looking for a mover and seconder before we begin our discussion Councillor Priblow Councillor Frank and I’ll look to those on committee for speakers Mayor Morgan go ahead. Yeah before I make comments on this in order for us to have a full viewpoint from our staff I’d like to make a motion to move into camera to receive legal advice from our solicitor on this matter. Thank you I look for a seconder Councillor Hopkins and we’ll just wait for oh she’s quick she’s got it already to go we’ll open that for a vote any debate or question on going in camera okay seeing then we’ll open that for a closing the vote motion carries six to zero thank you we’ll just take a few moments to get the room ready thank you I will go to Councillor Frank to report out from in camera thank you I’d like to share that progress has been made for the item for which we went in camera for thank you we’ll go back to our item we’ve been moved and seconded looking for discussion on this item that’s 2.2 the placement of the steam services at city facilities Mayor Morgan go ahead thank you and thanks for indulging up an opportunity to go in camera so for first on the report that our staff have crafted I appreciate the the report that you’ve given us I think it’s responsible for us to allocate a source of funding early on to address the the issues of transition from the steam service that that London District Energy and Enwave are discontinuing that impact both us and other civic buildings I recognize there’s also a number of private organizations that may be impacted which we I’m not aware of exactly who they are but I am aware of the specific buildings obviously and I think again it’s responsible for us to identify that we probably have some costs it’s early on these are just envelopes obviously by as our staff work through any sort of design work they’d be able to bring those down as well there may be boards and commissions who have things like stabilization or reserve funds that could address unforeseen capital maintenance improvements that they that may be able to contribute to this as well I anticipate all that work would be done by our staff so I I support the report I want to just let colleagues know that I have spoken to representatives from Enwave about this and consultation with our staff they did forward a letter which did not make it for the added agenda but was circulated to members of the community and council there’s a couple of lines in there that they they added that I do want to read out it says we’re investing in a smooth transition process for customers affected by the steamland line decommissioning impacted customers including the city have access to dedicated community liaison and a project management supports to help ensure that the heating transition is clear transparent and responsive to customer needs we understand the importance of ensuring that this transition is handled responsibly by the city for stakeholders LD remains committed to working alongside the city to support a smooth coordinated transition from the steam system we look forward to maintaining our active partnership with the city of London team as as this work progresses so I’ll give my opinion on this and again separate from the staff report but related to the issue I think that this is a an organization that if they want to have a good reputation in our community want to continue to have a great partnership with the city needs to do a little bit more than just a community liaison I think that their timeframes are relatively short for a transition of this magnitude and it would be ideal if they were going to expand and give us a little more time to work through the changes especially even the design work that’s necessary it would be ideal to have more time and more flexibility there and and I believe that that’s something that should be pursued I would also say it’s my personal belief that they should make a financial contribution to the city’s situation it’s an organization that has provided a service for quite a number of years they’re not able to provide that service anymore I recognize it’s an unregulated section of the utility industry and they may not necessarily have obligations to participate on that side of things but I think it would be I think it would be a good show of good faith and good community partnership to to consider that and I’ll be fair I I suggested that to the the N wave executives and team as well and I know that they’ll engage with our staff on on what matters look like moving into the future but I will support the staff report again this is just us identifying the envelope that we would work within so that we actually have that allocated because irrespective of what contribution they may make or not or the time frame they may give or not it is clear that they are going to discontinue the service and we need to move towards replacements and this is a responsible identification of an envelope of funding to ensure that we’re prepared to do that whether we need to use the full envelope or not thank you I will look to members of committee before going to visiting counselors I’ve got a counselor provol and then counselor hopkins then counselor for rarer then counselor for register counselor provol go ahead thank you and completely agree with the statement that was made by the mayor in addition I just want to ask it says you know of course there is a challenging and complex project and as we all know actually sometimes refurbishing and working with old is much more expensive and lengthy than actually building brand new based by the I don’t see anywhere yes the funding very important sources etc but do we know if even if it’s feasible that this is because again these units these buildings it’s not just heat most of them or maybe all of them are on cooling system as well is this even feasible to it to do it by the time do we know that thank you I’ll go to miss stewart thank you chair through you the early investigations that were undertaken which suggests that it is feasible to do it at each facility the questions about the actual design as we’ve mentioned remain to be seen but there are feasible options the space that we have available could be a challenge like to your point in terms of retrofitting an existing system versus building new that kind of thing so there are options but the the more detailed design will tell us specifically what those are cancer purple thank you and follow up retrofit retrofitting options are in place or possible how about staffing wise in these buildings any of these options or sorry all of these options if you already know now would allow the staff to stay in those buildings or we have to move some of the staff or at this or we don’t know that at the stage mister through the chair that’s correct we don’t know at this stage our intention though if we couldn’t maintain heat would be to look at temporary boiler solutions as an interim step hands approval okay thank you no more questions right now thank you go to Councillor Hopkins go ahead yeah thank you madam chair and i don’t want to get too far ahead of myself here but just trying to understand when we’re spending this amount of money it’s not in our budget obviously we do have a source from the corporate contingency budget but i guess my my question maybe is any opportunities that we have available to address any kind of grants are there any such grants out there that we as a nonprofit corporation can take advantage of is it something that there are opportunities or is it something that we may have to just advocate a little bit more turning over the stone as much as you know the stones along the way as we we deal with upgrading our heating system but wanting to know a little bit more about the funding opportunities and grants thank you thank you for the chairs so right now as we’re undertaking a great deal of the work to try to get the design completed that is urgency in terms of moving to the procurement stage so that we try to maximize every opportunity that we have to try to get the work complete concurrently one of the things that we’ve also been doing is investigating other options certainly we are trying to have discussions with n-wave to look at that opportunity if there is any potential support from them as well as any grant opportunity so there are a number of things that we had looked at and have submitted applications for attentively to look at some other opportunities some of them were actually prospective in nature in terms of things that we were trying to do that now we may have to switch gears because obviously the priority is to maintain heat into the buildings as we get into the fall so that work is going to continue and we’re going to continue to seek out opportunities at any levels if there’s federal provincial funding to seek out any opportunities that if there is anything that we’re successful with will then mitigate the amount of the cost in total for all of the municipalities including the boards and commissions that are impacted. Councillor Hopkins? Yeah thank you for that and I’ll continue to encourage you to seek those sources. Another question I had is around the disruption to the workplace is that something that we’re going to sort of have to deal with as we go through the design or through the changes or do we really know much about how the disruption of changing our heating is going to be in the building and not only in our building but the other buildings as well. Mr. Go ahead. Through the chair it’s really difficult to comment because each of these facilities operate very differently. I can say from our experience with the J. Allen Taylor building at 267 Dundas we maintained operations throughout that project. However I will put a proviso on that.

[53:08] It was during the summer months that we were doing the heating upgrade but we were able to maintain all services there and that would certainly be our intention. I’m glad that you’re aware of that and thanks to the questions I will be supporting the recommendation. Thank you. I have Councillor Ferreira next. Go ahead. Thank you Chair and for recognizing me as a visiting member. Some of the questions that I have I guess will be kind of tied off with some of the questions that I heard from Councillor Pribble on feasibility and I do see that with this report if we approve it next steps would be to engage in consultants to start planning for the work and kind of moving ahead. So I guess my question my first question would be with respect to that do we have any consultants that we already know that we’re going to be engaging that we’ve already had contact with especially considering we’ve kind of gone through this the first round already. Mr. Stewart.

[54:08] Through the Chair so yes we have engaged a couple of consulting firms local consulting firms to even do the investigation to get us to this point both of which are firms that have worked in these facilities before. So we have the consulting firms on hand we what what we could do is look towards like a design build solution where we may look for a package or a consortium that you know designer and a constructor can work together to move it forward so that would be determined in the next steps through the procurement. Councillor Ferreira.

[54:46] Thank you for that and I appreciate that answer. So for me obviously we have our four buildings here that are listed in this report that we need to address also with being the council that holds downtown. I have several properties that have the same issues some of them are large residential complexes and they’re managing and trying to navigate their way through this as well. I am concerned with a potential competition with certain consultants whereas if we have consultants that are able to help us and to do the work we may leave no other organizations or businesses to do the work for other residential areas or condos that I see affected in my ward.

[55:29] So I do have that concern with that and on top of that like I’m I will say on the record like I’m very unhappy with and waves decision to decommission and I’m very unhappy with the time frame that we had. We had our first round on the low pressure line they did the same thing and we had to manage with that. We see it happening again. I do understand that we did get that letter for a smooth transition but it is an accelerated transition. So it really kind of forces us to move as fast as we can as well as other condo groups or other properties that are captured within the steam line to move fast as well and it’s putting a lot of pressure. It’s putting a lot of pressure on certain properties around in the city and when it comes to knowing that and wave or acquired London District energy so many years not too long ago and assume the service to provide the service. Seeing that citations with issues with the infrastructure and these are the reasons why we see this decommissioning.

[56:32] I would like to think that if a business came and bought up a service they would continue that service. The impact that’s happening obviously to us at City Hall is costly above 8 million dollars at the moment. That number could change obviously but then we have the same impact with other properties around the city as well. So I’m just really concerned that some properties especially the residential ones may be stuck in a position where they may not have their heat especially considering the whole environment that we’re navigating through right now. So like those are my main concerns. I do see that there’s other properties. There’s other areas out there that are affected that are taking a different course of action than this report may be leading us to.

[57:22] I do see there are some comments at committee that there’s a possibility for other courses of action. I myself struggle a lot to support this like this is good work from staff and this is exactly you know the path forward that will help us in the end but at the same time considering how we have received the information how we receive the information last minute how this is the second round going through this again I just wonder is the high pressure line going to be next is there going to be further future issues that are happening with our underground network for steam heat.

[58:01] So I’m not going to ask that question because obviously that is a question that we can’t really answer and from our discussions with N-Wave it’s been hard to get some of that information out. I do appreciate the assistance with that smooth transition but ultimately I think we should get financial compensation. I think we should be covered in full and I think that all of the other properties in in my ward that are affected should be covered in full as well because this is turning out to be a big issue we have you know downtown has its issues that we have to deal with and this is just another one happening with you know a company that should be good partners with the city good partners for our city our partners that not only pursue you know don’t like for companies they don’t just pursue profits or or or shedding of any costs but they also pursue the promotion of a better downtown and also pursue creating an environment that’s livable and in this situation it’s very direct to livable no heat in the winter that’s not a good partner as far as I’m concerned and I’ve been holding these comments back trying to see if we can get some leeway some forward movement but it seems it seems at this point you know we’re we’re we’re left to to have to do this obviously we can’t lose any of these buildings we can’t lose their heat especially with museum London they have a lot of important artifacts and paintings there that need to be temperature controlled but I fear for the large residential complexes I fear for them being able or not able to raise the funds to do this not being able to do it in the time that they have been provided and with the competition of certain contractors that we’re looking for to do that work thank you I’ll take that was comment for the most part I’m not sure if staff have anything they want to say response to any of those comments check in miss barbone thank you and certainly the from staff’s perspective our main objective is to ensure the continuity of of heat and these are public very important buildings that we are working with the boards and commissions that are impacted to assist them and try to coordinate across certainly the next step will be our procurement strategy to go out to the market and look at how we can do that in an expedient way but also in a realistic way to ensure that that can go forward certainly through some of the mayor’s discussions I’ve also reached out to them to have a conversation and to continue to advocate for additional timing if that is a possibility to delay and that will be a continued discussion as we move forward with the work to also try to work with them to see if there are other options that might be considered that would assist not only the city but across the the downtown as well thank you I had council McCallister next thank you and through the chair I appreciate the opportunity to speak as a visiting counselor I chair a lot of the frustrations of my colleagues and you know I’ve heard from other Londoners we’re very upset about this as well so you know I’ll join them in blowing off some steam pun intended I think where I’m at with this is I mean it’s just a reality unfortunately they’re going to do what they’re going to do it’s unregulated which has already been addressed the mayor brought that up so I guess my first question and I guess on that is in terms of the regulatory side of things and understanding that this was a topic that was engaged with at AMOL have we heard anything from the province in terms of any action they might take on this thank you I will go to Miss Dater’s there and thank you through you chair and it is not my understanding that we’ve heard anything from the province but certainly as the mayor indicated we have a letter from Enway but directly okay council McCallister sorry and thank you and through the chair and I believe Miss Barbone also just touched on this but I am wondering have Enway been engaged at all in terms of doing a phase decommissioning as clients obviously work to get off of this recognizing obviously that would reduce the load on you know that their their network have there been any discussions about doing this over maybe an extended period of time instead of the timeline that they’ve identified recognizing that they did say you know that there there may be issues with it but I would imagine as you take clients off of the system that it would reduce the load and perhaps there’s an opportunity to to work with them on that timeline Miss Barbone I thank you through the chair so it’s a really good question and something that we did try to initiate having some conversations on what I can tell you is the majority of the city buildings are at the very outermost end of those lines so that was one of the questions originally is it ends at the city hall campus so the furthest the further you get away from the central plant is where the greater amount of the risk lies so the museum the city hall campus are at the outermost ends and would be one of the first buildings to be impacted even if they were able to phase it in so from that perspective it certainly doesn’t support the city of London in any way from having a phased in process but if there are any other ways that would extend the timing to at least get through the winter that’s going to be something that we will continue having discussions and trying to push if there’s any opportunities for that would greatly assist us. Councilor McAllister thank you and I appreciate that answer that might be something helpful for council for in terms of your engagement with with your residents there might be some opportunity there I get my last question and recognizing obviously this is an accelerated timeline but is there any way that this work can be folded into the master accommodation plan or is that kind of outside the scope of any work that would be done to our facilities.

[1:04:16] Thank you for the chairs so based on the timeline this is done significantly before anything related to the master accommodation plan so the earliest that any of those other things would happen are certainly well beyond the October time frame so obviously there’s really not an ability to look at that in the short term or the primary objective is going to be to replace it with some form of a system that will ensure the heat and because of the short timeline that coordination doesn’t allow us that ability to look at another options that would give us some certainty unless there was a temporary solution in which case temporary solutions are probably going to be as likely just as costly as doing a permanent solution in this case.

[1:05:04] Councillor. Thank you through the chair and just to dovetail off of that because I know we talked about this earlier in terms of finding those efficiencies but recognizing it can’t be part of map per se but are there any other plans that we need to upgrade at the same time that we could you know put the projects together instead of having to do it twice over. Thank you through the chair it’s certainly that’s something that we’re looking at we don’t know with anything at this time that would be conducive to collaborating between the two projects but certainly something that will keep our eyes open as we land on a final solution. Certainly the one that we do believe will give us a little bit of efficiency is to look at if there’s solutions between Centennial Hall and the City of London that or the actual City Hall building may allow us to have some opportunities and efficiencies there but again till the final designs are done we don’t know that for sure but those are the kinds of things we will be looking forward to try to create any efficiency between the projects as much as possible. Councillor McAllister.

[1:06:10] Thank you and through you and yeah I think you identified the reason why I was bringing that up is that I think my concern is in terms of anything we replace it with I just want to be mindful that if the map or whatever we decide to do with that you know obviously that project is farther it’s down the line but I just don’t want to install something and then recognize later on that it’s insufficient for what we need to to read about the campus so just keeping those two things in mind I know we have to do one before the other but you know just again being mindful of you know not trying to do things twice over and thank you for all the the answers and I don’t have any other questions thank you. Thank you looking for any further speakers on this item Mayor Morgan.

[1:06:58] I just want to ask the staff any general updates that they’ve had from I don’t know if there’s been I know I’ve engaged with that and we have a no staff have is there anything that you might have that’s any new information since the time of the writing the report that would be relevant recognizing this report is really just the identification of the of the funding envelope. Ms. Barbone. Thank you through the chair I did follow up further to your discussion and I have not received any information back so unfortunately I don’t have any new information but we will continue to follow up and hopefully before council we may hear something further.

[1:07:33] Okay seeing no further speakers on this item we’ll look to open the vote closing the vote motion carries 60 y’all okay that brings us to item 2.3 which is the affordable rental housing subclass report I will go to Ms. Barbone first just to give us a little bit of a preamble to this one thank you Ms. Barbone go ahead. Thank you through the chair so just to provide a bit of an overview so this is something that was introduced through the most recent provincial budget and the regulations have been passed to allow the city of London to consider whether they wish to add a subclass for the affordable rental housing this is an optional subclass so this is not something that the city is obligated to do however what I would point out is that in order to receive the information as part of the tax role the province we need to request the inclusion of a subclass before September 30th of each year so if the city were to support moving forward we would provide that information to the province and then impact would include and work towards inclusion of that subclass and the associated properties as part of that prior to the return of the role for this year that would then allow the following year the council to consider whether they wish to include a discount which can range in the form of zero all the way up to 35% so so there are a couple of different so one is if you establish a subclass you’ll receive the role in time to be able to consider it next year the following year so each and every year the city has that opportunity once a subclass has been established if the municipality wishes to do so then the following year through the tax policy that is when the council could consider so there’s if you don’t decide to include the subclass then those properties will not be there but if you wish to do so in the future then as long as you pass a by-law to do so before September then impact would be able to include it for inclusion and discussion of a potential discount the following year so there’s a couple of different stop gaps in the different decision points for the the council to take but certainly I think the most important part is that if you do introduce a subclass and council does wish to put in a discount that discount that is is born by all the other classes so where you have a discount that has to go up elsewhere and is proportionately across the other classes would bear that discount so certainly up to the council so we wanted to bring this forward and have everything ready to go should the council wish to proceed if you don’t wish to proceed you can certainly entertain this in future years to have the subclass included for a potential discount in future years thank you and we appreciate that uh that input um so to begin our discussion i’ll go to mayor morgan to look to move yeah so i want to put just a on the floor um which includes receiving the report but not creating the subclass for this year and then i’m happy to uh there’s a seconder for that i can explain my rationale thank you i’ll look for a seconder i’m happy to second it um with that item on the floor i will look for discussion on this item and i’ll start with mayor morgan okay so it’s not that i have any i’m not i’m not permanently opposed to creating a subclass and then investigating um applying a discount to it but there’s a couple of considerations that i think council should and committee should be aware of um should we go that route and and when we go that route because again we’re not precluded from doing this we just have to do it by a certain date each and every year to get the role from impact but there’s a couple of things to be aware of one is i i still think there’s some advocacy work to do with the province on the regulations the regulations are relatively broad in how they define um the affordable subclass and and i think that you know we don’t have the option this time to say hey we want to supply provide a tax break for rgi housing but not you know 90 percent of market based rents it’s it’s a specific definition in the um uh in the regulations that refer to um the development charges act i believe i can’t remember exactly where but our staff can say that that is is relatively broad at this time and i think it would be nice to have more flexibility there on behalf of municipalities to decide you know where and how why do we want to supply any sort of discount the second is if we supply a fairly wide discount uh it’s not like we’re just given money away every other tax class in the city including the residential tax class the industrial tax class the the commercial tax class will all absorb the cost of that reduction like they’ll pay for that reduction and at this time we don’t know the extent of how big that group would be we also don’t know whether we want to make it that big and we don’t want to necessarily add that burden to the other classes especially at a time where we know that the classes have been frozen since 2016 so there will be a point at which the province comes up with a plan on how they’re gonna unfreeze the classes and we may see wide swings and who across the city actually pays for the municipal budget because there are different ways that the different tax classes have appreciated over the last decade or so so i just think at this time layering something else on top of all that at a time when there’s a lot of unknowns and at a time where i think there’s still some advocacy work to do with the province about giving municipalities and a little more flexibility on how broad they want to make that class um doesn’t stop us from doing it in the future but if we’re going to try to answer all those questions over the next in a while and we’re not going to provide a discount in 2026 which i don’t think we would because we wouldn’t have all those questions answered then we can entertain this in the future the only decision point we’re making today is do we want to establish the subclass this year to give us the option for 2026 and i just don’t see us pursuing a discount in 2026 given how many things we need to engage with the province on how many questions there are and the fact that we still don’t know where the province is headed on the unfreezing of of of the impact assessments so for me there’s there’s just way too many unknowns with proceeding at this time doesn’t mean i’m i’m against it in the future but i’d rather get a number of these questions answered before i proceed with having our staff do all of the work of creating the subclass having impact do all the work of populating out and then we may be dissatisfied with that grouping of properties because we want it to be a little bit more narrow which we would have to go through asking the province for support to adjust the legislation anyways we’d have to go through the whole process again after that point so i’d rather get this right in the steps in the order that council would want to and i think there’s some advocacy advocacy steps before we take the province up on this new option of even creating this class which again we have the ability to do at any point in the future would need not be the very first year that it’s available before us thank you okay i’m looking for other speakers on the report and i’ll go to council provol thank you sir the chair to the staff if you were to implement it this subclass and is it states in your report it does it’s based on unit by unit basis so it doesn’t have to be hundred percent of the building hundred percent of the units i have a couple of questions how would this be actually tracked how will this be kind of potentially enforced how will this be that if the owner decides throughout the year to change the classification as potentially changing their mind going from the affordable to to the market trend how would this actually work in the in the kind of the everyday real life everywhere to implement this through the chair the the assessment value and the classification are all determined by impact so we would receive that information from them if there was a change in year just as there are in some cases with other classes then we would receive an adjusted assessment from impact right so if they no longer qualify for that class then they would revert to whatever class the impact determines most likely a new multi res or multi res cancer provol okay i do have a follow-up so yes that would be all by impact do we know how impact deals with this how if i were to ask impact these questions in a municipality where this potential is in place how is this answered i’m just curious in terms of the tracking in terms of the owners changing throughout the year their their mind their policy changing from market to an affordable etc so i understand that it’s all we are putting it all onto the impacts site and we are just taking their information i’m just as a as this would influence as we heard from the mayor other classes other classifications how could we defend it if the if the resident were to ask us how do we know it’s appropriately done in terms of fairness of these building owners who would be applying for such classification mr. McMillan i’m going to start because it’s a very general um so so the council raises a good question and i think the answer to that is we don’t know um this is work that impact so note this is brand new impact has to determine how to identify what properties need to get added to the tax role we do not would know what that process is yet and certainly that is part of the challenge of being immediately implementing it is we do not know what that process is yet that is something that impact still has yet to determine what we do know is that it requires an agreement in place so the agreement would ultimately govern it but how the logistics are going to work and where that work falls um there will be some work we expect also on the municipality to help them determine what that is subject to the agreements in place but the exact logistics we do not know and we do not believe impact knows at this point in time what that process is going to be councilor provol thank you very much for your answers and that helped me to determine how am i gonna vote and to be not supporting it because at this time i cannot justify the fairness towards the all taxpayers within city of london thank you thank you just to clarify the motion that’s on the table right now is to receive just the report okay i will look to other speakers i have counselor hopkins go ahead yeah thank you madam chair when i first read this report i was pretty excited about it having another class structure supporting true affordable housing having that ability there i i think we do need something like that but i do appreciate the mayor’s comments when it comes to the impact assessments that have not been done since 2016 i know at emo we have been pushing the provincial government to get us this municipality’s an understanding we need to know where we are what we have and where we can go uh and we’re still not there so uh it really just boils down to we do not know and and that causes me to um be a bit concerned uh as as we uh try to institute a new class sub-class but we have to have that information i wonder uh question through you madam chair to staff is there an opportunity i i know impact is is given uh the task of finding these properties and figuring that out but is there any way we can have that kind of information ourselves when we look at this next next year or do we have to wait and see um i’m just trying to be a little bit more um have more information more data as a city when we we revisit this or or not um on a yearly basis it it’s really um unsettling to to have to make decisions when we really don’t know anything um and and uh i wonder are there opportunities to get information and understand about these properties a little bit more um as we prepare for another conversation when this comes back to us thank thank you through the chair i’ve had some discussion with her liaison at impact and and really they don’t have a framework yet as to even how they’re going to uh determine or or evaluates legislation and what their their tasks are for identifying which properties will will qualify for the the new uh real tax qualifiers so really the the timing of this report is such that if if the city chose to implement it 2026 we would need to do it by the end of this month and it’s no way saying that that’s you know the best option it was just making sure that council is aware of the opportunity i was at arm trill last week and the general consensus there was also that there’s not enough information and that people are waiting to see um how it’s going to be identified like how properties will be able to to be identified as as qualifying for this subclass. Councillor Hopkins yeah i appreciate this feedback uh so we’re definitely not there so um again i want to thank the mayor for bringing this to our attention and i will be supporting a and uh seeing what comes back to us next year who knows thank you thank you looking for other speakers okay seeing none this is moved and seconded to receive uh well the vote closing the vote motion carries six to zero thank you that takes us to our confidential items we have two items to deal with in closed session 6.1 land acquisition and the reasons are in the agenda we have 6.2 labor relations as well cited in our agenda all looked for a mover and a seconder of Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor van Mirbergen and look to open the vote. Councillor van Mirbergen closing the vote motion carries six to zero recording in progress thank you i’ll ask uh Councillor frank to report out from in camera please thank you and i’m pleased to share that progress has been made for the items for which we went in camera for thank you and with that item 7 adjournment i’ll look for a motion to adjourn Councillor van Mirberg and Councillor Hopkins all in favor by hand motion carries thanks everyone