February 2, 2026, at 1:00 PM

Original link

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

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Franke

That Consent Items 2.4 and 2.5, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.4   2025 External Audit of London’s Drinking Water Quality Management System and 2025 Management Review

2026-02-02 Staff Report - 2025 External Audit-London

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following report on the 2025 External Audit of London’s Drinking Water Quality Management System and the 2025 Management Review BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.5   Contract Award: Tender RFT-2025-258 – The Queen’s Bridge Rehabilitation

2026-02-02 Staff Report - RFT-2025-087-The Queen

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 award of contract for The Queen’s Bridge Rehabilitation project (RFT-2025-258):

a)    the bid submitted by McLean Taylor Construction Limited, at its tendered price of $10,218,553.35, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by McLean Taylor Construction Limited was the lowest of six bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements and is in accordance with Section 28.2 i) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, following an Open Competitive Process conducted in compliance with applicable trade agreements;

b)    the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure (or delegate) BE AUTHORIZED, within the approved project contingency of $1,500,000, to approve contract change orders and amendments within the original scope of work, in accordance with Section 29.2 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)    AECOM Canada ULC, BE AUTHORIZED to complete the contract administration and construction inspection for this project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $1,518,917.30 excluding HST, under Limited Tendering LT-2026-315, in accordance with Section 13.3 iii) (a) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve Memorandums of Understanding between the Corporation of the City of London and public utility companies in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing contained within The Queen’s Bridge Rehabilitation project;

e)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated February 2, 2026 as Appendix “A”;

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

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

h)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (RFT-2025-258); and

i)    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

2.1   Update on Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund

2026-02-02 Staff Report - Update on Tourism Infrastructure

That the following actions be taken with respect to the report dated February 2, 2026 - Update on Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund:

a)  the Update on Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund Report BE RECEIVED for information; and

b)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report annually to the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee on any draws of up to $100,000.00 from the Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the Update on Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund Report BE RECEIVED for information.

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the motion BE AMENDED to include a new part that reads as follows:

b)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report annually to the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee on any draws of up to $100,000.00 from the Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.2   Green Municipal Fund Grant Agreement - CBR-23-0154 Establishing a Roadmap to Net Zero Emissions for Nine Community Facilities in London, Ontario

2026-02-02 Staff Report - Green Municipal Fund CBR-23-0154

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports the following actions be taken with respect to the Green Municipal Fund Grant Agreement:

a)   the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 2, 2026 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to:

i)    APPROVE the Green Municipal Fund Grant Agreement CBR-23-0154 between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, acting as trustee of the Green Municipal Fund and The Corporation of the City of London (the “Agreement”);

ii)    AUTHORIZE the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement;

iii)   DELEGATE AUTHORITY to the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, or their written designate, to act as the authorized official for The Corporation of the City of London in connection with any required statements, requests or reporting under the Agreement.;

b)   the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary with the Agreement; and

c)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward to the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee the feasibility report as soon as it is received;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated January 29, 2026 from J. Vanderbaan, Vice President, Operations & Planning, London Hydro Inc. with respect to this matter.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports the following actions be taken with respect to the Green Municipal Fund Grant Agreement:

a)   the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 2, 2026 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to:

i)    APPROVE the Green Municipal Fund Grant Agreement CBR-23-0154 between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, acting as trustee of the Green Municipal Fund and The Corporation of the City of London (the “Agreement”);

ii)    AUTHORIZE the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement;

iii)   DELEGATE AUTHORITY to the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, or their written designate, to act as the authorized official for The Corporation of the City of London in connection with any required statements, requests or reporting under the Agreement.; and

b)   the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary with the Agreement;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated January 29, 2026 from J. Vanderbaan, Vice President, Operations & Planning, London Hydro Inc. with respect to this matter.

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

that the motion BE AMENDED to add a new part that reads as follows:

c)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward to the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee the feasibility report as soon as it is received.

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.3   Sunningdale Road West Improvements – Pipeline Decommissioning and New Pipeline Agreement

2026-02-02 Staff Report - Sunningdale Rd W Improvements

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to an oil pipeline relocation agreement with Imperial Oil for the Sunningdale Road Improvements from Wonderland Road to Blackwater Road:

a)    the financing for this Agreement BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated February 2, 2026 as Appendix “A”;

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 2, 2026 as Appendix “B”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to:

i)    APPROVE the Agreement contained in Schedule 1 of Appendix “B” for pipeline decommissioning and a new pipeline between Imperial Oil Limited and the Corporation of the City of London;

ii)    AUTHORIZE the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement, largely in the form appended to this report, and any 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

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

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

2.6   Smart Commute Association Memorandum of Understanding Extension

2026-02-02 Staff Report - Smart Commute MOU Extension

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the staff report dated February 2, 2026 - Smart Commute MOU Extension, BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee to allow Civic Administration to provide more information to the Committee with respect to this program.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

None.

None.

None.

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Stevenson

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 of commercial 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.

6.2    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.

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed sale 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    Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to labour relations and employee negotiations, litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality, and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, concerning the City’s associations and bargaining units.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed session from 2:17 PM to 2:47 PM.

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 2:49 PM.

Votes

6 substantive votes at this meeting (2 contested, 4 unanimous). Procedural motions excluded.

2.1. Update on Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund

That the motion BE AMENDED to include a new part that reads as follows: b)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report annually to the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee on any draws of up to $100,000.00 from the Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund.

✅ Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Unanimous (5-0)

2.1. Update on Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

✅ Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Unanimous (5-0)

2.2. Green Municipal Fund Grant Agreement - CBR-23-0154 Establishing a Roadmap to Net Zero Emissions for Nine Community Facilities in London, Ontario

that the motion BE AMENDED to add a new part that reads as follows: c)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward to the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee the feasibility report as soon as it is received.

✅ Motion Passed (3 to 2) 🔥

View roll call

Yea (3): Susan Stevenson, Corrine Rahman, Paul Van Meerbergen

Nay (2): Hadleigh McAlister, Skylar Franke

2.2. Green Municipal Fund Grant Agreement - CBR-23-0154 Establishing a Roadmap to Net Zero Emissions for Nine Community Facilities in London, Ontario

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

✅ Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Unanimous (5-0)

2.3. Sunningdale Road West Improvements – Pipeline Decommissioning and New Pipeline Agreement

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to an oil pipeline relocation agreement with Imperial Oil for the Sunningdale Road Improvements from Wonderland Road to Blackwater Road: a)    the financing for this…

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 1) 🔥

View roll call

Yea (4): Hadleigh McAlister, Susan Stevenson, Corrine Rahman, Paul Van Meerbergen

Nay (1): Skylar Franke

2.6. Smart Commute Association Memorandum of Understanding Extension

That the staff report dated February 2, 2026 - Smart Commute MOU Extension, BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee to allow Civic Administration to provide more information to the Committee with respect to this program.

✅ Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Unanimous (5-0)

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, 44 minutes)

recording in progress. Good afternoon, everyone. Good to see everyone today. We’ll get started with the land acknowledgement.

The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenapuik, 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, in London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory.

I am joined in chambers today with all members of committee present, that’s Councilor McAllister, as Vice Chair, Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Van Meerberg, and Councillor Frank. And I’m also joined here in chambers with Councillor Pripple. And online, I know there’s a couple of Councillors on their way, potentially, so thanks to everyone. I’ve, we’ll get started one, sorry, I will first read that the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats of communication support for meetings upon request, to make a request specific to this committee, please contact icse@landin.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425.

With that, I will go to item one, looking for disclosures of pecuniary interest. Okay, seeing none, we’ll move on to the consent agenda. I’ve been asked to pull 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.6. Would anyone like to pull anything else?

Okay, seeing none, I’m looking for someone to craft a motion with 2.4 and 2.5, Councillor Van Meerberg and Councillor Frank, thank you and any discussion on those items. Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, I just had a question on the Queens Bridge rehabilitation. I wondered with these large contracts, if it’s why we don’t get a copy of the contract or the RFT, just so that we can see the details.

I’ll go to Mr. McCree. Thank you, through the chair. Yeah, the 10, Bittering and Tendering process is very detailed, involves bidding documents that are hundreds of pages long and very technical.

The information is made publicly available to Bitter’s and the purpose of the committee reports is to essentially summarize that in a concise and convenient approach for committee members and we’re available to provide additional information if necessary and desired. Councillor? Okay, thank you, I appreciate that. I will send a note asking so that I can take a look at that.

I wondered, are there community benefit agreements included in this contract? Mr. McCree? Through the chair, no, there are not.

Councillor? That’s all, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else on 2.4, 2.5?

I will say thank you to our staff for the external audit of London’s drinking water, very much appreciated, great to see the report as well as the information that we received beforehand on this matter. With that, I will look to open the vote, posing the vote, motion carries, five to zero. Thank you, that brings us to the items that were pulled. So I will go next to item 2.1, which is the update on Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund and I will look for a mover and seconder to get that item on the floor and then look for any speakers.

Councillor Frank, Councillor McAllister and anyone who’d like to speak to this item, Councillor Stinson, go ahead. Thank you, I had sent an email with a bunch of questions to staff, so thank you for the information. My question is around in the by-law, it states that approvals, less than $100,000 can be done by the city treasurer, over 100,000 need to be approved by municipal council. I just wanted to confirm what I read in the email, which is that there’s been none under the 100,000 and I wondered if there was any opposition to us amending that and taking that out of the by-law.

Thank you, I’ll go to Mr. Murray. Thank you and through you, Madam Chair. That is correct, there have been no such commitments less than $100,000 that have been approved administratively from this reserve fund.

All of the commitments to date from that reserve fund, we’ve included in the table in section 1.5 of the report in front of you today. So that is the full extent of what has been approved since that reserve fund was initiated. The approval threshold of less than $100,000 being approved by civic administration, specifically the treasurer in this case. That is consistent with a number of the reserve funds that the city holds.

The vast majority of them, I would say, have that threshold of less than 100,000 can be approved by civic administration, the individual responsible for that approval varies depending on the reserve fund itself, but that is pretty consistent and standard for most of our reserve funds. Less than 100,000 can be approved administratively. Over 100,000 requires council approval. Councilor, thank you for that.

And as a follow up, what is the reporting policies for that to be if for any of the reserve funds for the amounts under 100,000? How are they reported out publicly into council? Mr. Murray.

Thank you, three, Madam Chair. So we do prepare our annual reserve fund monitoring report that comes in May of every year now. That does not go down to the level necessarily of reporting out on every single commitment or expenditure or draw from the reserve funds. So really it would be ad hoc on request if there are specific areas or reserve funds that council is particularly interested in.

We could certainly provide that information upon request. Councilor? Thank you. So I guess that is my concern, is that if we’re gonna delegate authority for amounts under 100,000, I do think there should be an annual reporting out of the use of that delegated authority.

And that I think that’s something that we could do better at as a council is ensuring that oversight’s there, that we’re getting that information. So I’m gonna leave it for now to see what my colleagues think, but I would like to move an amendment to remove that from here, or to put in an amendment that says that any draws would be reported out annually, or potentially we do something broader as a corporate services policy setting, where we, when we talk about transparency and accountability, I think that information should be available publicly, even if people aren’t using it or reading it, that it’s there and accessible to the public. Thank you, are you looking to move an amendment? I’m gonna wait and see what my colleagues say.

Okay, thank you. I’ll go to Councilor Privel next. Thank you, Mr. Chair, if you’re on this point 2.1, I do wanna mention and I wanna thank Tourism London and Ontario Restaurant Hotel Motel Association, and mainly all the hotels, the entire accommodation sector, because if we look at this since 2018, I know 2025, it doesn’t include December, but I believe we’ll get half over 12 million times to that’s $24 million that our local accommodation sector have collected to do such great initiatives as included in this report.

So thank you all, and let’s make sure we maximize these opportunities and bring more tourism dollars to London, thank you. Thank you. Any others on this item? Councilor Van Meerbergen.

Thank you, Chair. Regarding Councilor Stevenson’s comments, I can certainly support reporting out once a year for draws up to 100,000. I think that makes a lot of sense, so I’d be prepared to second that if you wanted to, if Councilor Stevenson wants to move it. Thank you, Councilor Stevenson, did you?

Thank you, yes, I will move that then that the by-law be amended to include an annual reporting out. Councillor, instead of amending the by-law, would it be more, I think it might make more sense to just have it as a direction to civic administration instead of amending the by-law? So you mean an instruction to civic administration to amend the by-law? An instruction to civic administration to bring back a report annually.

Concern about that is how is that tracked? Like when we do these kinds of amendments and say that, like two years from now, three years from now, another term of council, how is that? Go to the clerk. Through the chair, the city clerk’s office maintains records of resolutions past that council, so we would maintain all the records of the proceedings.

Councillor Stevenson? I’ll take that recommendation. Thank you, we’ll just give the clerk a moment to put some wording together. I just have a question if I can.

Sure, Councillor McAllister, is it just on the amendment, ‘cause it’s not on the floor yet, or just on the wording that’s being drafted? Yes, well, my question would be, is this to general policy because this item is specific to one reserve fund, and I don’t believe we can make an amendment across the board when it’s specific to this item. Okay, just to the Councillor. So I just interpreted as to this reserve fund.

Yes, for now, thank you. So we’ll thank you for the clarification. We will ensure that that’s written that way and any further submission on that item would be brought forward through committee anyways, so that would be another conversation. Clerk’s going to read it.

Thank you through the chair. The motion reads as follows, that the motion be amended to include a new part that reads as follows, the civic administration be directed to report to ICSC annually on any draws up to $100,000 from the Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund. Thank you. Thank you, just confirming with the seconder as well that that’s okay.

Okay, thank you, looking for discussion on the amendment. Councillor Frank. Thank you. I’m just curious, so would this include, like if 5,000 was awarded from this reserve fund, we’d get a report on that.

Thank you, the way it reads right now draws up to $100,000. So do you mean, does it mean limits below $100,000? Is that what you’re referring to? That’s the way I interpret it.

Thank you. And if I could do a follow-up then through you two staff, I’m just wondering, would this be a significant undertaking or somewhat minimal, given the low volume that we see coming out from this area? Mr. Murray.

Thank you through you Madam Chair. What this effectively means is another report that we will bring forward annually. Functionally, there is not, at least historically, at least there hasn’t been a lot of activity through this reserve fund. So I would imagine that we would just provide any and all activity that has been approved through the reserve fund for that given year.

We have the annual report that tours on London brings forward, it may make sense to then align this reserve fund with that reporting going forward as well. Councillor Frank. Sure, thank you. Then I’ll support this just ‘cause it doesn’t seem to be a significant undertaking of work.

Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. I just wanted to clarify too, if it’s possible, that the report would only be done if there was something on it. I don’t think we need a nil report every year. I don’t know if that is administratively more challenging.

Mr. Murray. Thank you, three Madam Chair. So, I mean, ultimately, I think if even if there were no activity, I suspect Committee and Council would like to know that.

So we would probably, I suspect, bring the report every year, even if it said very little, in terms of no formal commitments. Thank you, any other speakers on the amendment? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries, five to zero.

Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Vermey van Mirberg, can I use you as the mover and the seconder on the as amended motion? Thank you. Yes, Councillor van Mirberg, are you okay at that? Okay, thank you.

So with that, I’ll look for any further discussion on this item, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. The other thing that I was emailing with staff about was the $1.6 million in debt servicing costs that’s projected to come out of the reserve fund, which with estimating revenue at two to two and a half million looks to be almost, could be most of it or all of it. Could you just share with us?

I know I confirmed that the debt is for 20 years, but that we’re expecting to reduce that by profits sharing that’s coming from that. But I’m assuming there’s gonna be a few years where that $1.6 million is going to take up the bulk of our amount. If we could just get an update from staff on that. Thank you, Mr.

Murray. Thank you and through you, Madam Chair. So the debt the Councillor is referring to pertains to the Canada Life Place expansion project, which was approved most recently through the 24 to 2027 multi-year budget. As we noted in the business case for that project, the intention is to first utilize any incremental cash flows that come to the city based on that expansion and the improvements that are being made to that facility as we speak.

So we would first use any additional or incremental cash flows from that before then covering any remaining debt servicing costs through the tourism infrastructure reserve fund. So we’ve penciled in at this point, a $1.6 million per year commitment against the tourism infrastructure reserve fund that representing the full amount at this point of the principal and interest on that debt every year. Our hope though certainly is that once the renovation project is complete, a Canada Life Place and that the facility is fully functional based on the improvements that are being made, that we will see a bump up in our cash flows coming to the city and that will alleviate some of those debt servicing costs from the tourism infrastructure reserve fund. So until that renovation project is complete and we have some experience on what our incremental cash flows will be, it’s a little hard to say at this point but we will certainly fine tune our projections and estimates going forward to update the reserve fund schedule accordingly.

Councillor? Thank you, I appreciate that. Any other speakers on this item? Okay, calling the question.

Closing the vote, motion carries five to zero. Thank you, we’re onto item 2.2, which is the Green Municipal Fund Grant Agreement. I’m looking for any, oh, looking for a mover and seconder on this item and the next speakers. Councillor Frank, Councillor McAllister, thank you and any speakers on this item.

Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’m just wondering through you to staff, like this is a $385,000 project that we’d get 200 wards. So the taxpayers would still be paying $185,000 for this and it’s going to be, I mean, we have a lot of capital projects already and I’m just wondering what value there is in getting this extra consulting work on it. I’m assuming that as we move forward with some of any of the renovations to these buildings that are listed here that we would be looking at energy efficient alternatives already and trying to reduce operating costs.

So I’m just wondering through you to staff if they could explain like what the value add is in this particular study. Thank you, I’ll go to Ms. Barbone. Thank you, I’ll start Mr.

Ritz online if I need any additional assistance, but essentially through the climate emergency action plan, a number of the action items are to continue to pursue ways to achieve net zero and to become a little bit more green. Certainly when we had originally applied to this funding opportunity, it was anticipation of certainly through the map and some of the other things that through N waves, decommissioning of steam that we were hoping might actually be able to assist us in trying to move forward ways to be more green when we implement solutions. Unfortunately, the timing has not lined up with that. So this is still work that is going to assist us to look at what that path is going to be for the next 20 years.

So in keeping with council’s direction, this was an opportunity to seek additional funding to supplement that, to be able to look at a majority of our opportunities, to look at supporting council’s climate emergency action plan to go forward for these specific facilities. Certainly as we build a new fire hall and as we look at building anything new, that is one of the opportunities we look for in terms of energy efficiency, but to the extent that we’ve been able to implement these items, these would be things that would give us a pathway forward to not only know what the opportunities are, but also what the potential costs could be. So certainly we were successful in applying for this grant to assist us in doing this. Should council wish us not to pursue it?

That’s certainly within council’s direction to direct us not to do this work. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, yeah. And I think that’s one of the concerns that I have is that previous councils have set directions and then we’re continuing on doing things because we said we would do them and maybe not because it’s of value to us right now.

So to spend 185,000 of taxpayer money, to find out how much more money we could spend to achieve a goal that really, given the economic pressures on taxpayers, I think we already know and we’re already implementing things that are energy efficient. And I don’t want to support another study that’s gonna tell us that we should spend a lot of money to achieve a goal that was committed to and that we’re not maybe reevaluating all the time to say, is this still the right path for us to be on in 2026? So I’m open to hearing from my colleagues, but this is not something that I’m interested in. I just did wanna clarify through you to staff.

If we were to say no to this, we would not be proceeding with a $385,000 study. I’m assuming that it’s not that the whole amount would then be paid by the taxpayer and we would just be saying no to the grant, but saying no to this would actually stop this study from going forward. Ms. Pervone.

Thank you through the chair. So the only reason we’re able to do all of this work at the cost, the net cost within our budget is due to the grant. If the grant is turned away, we would not be proceeding as we would not have sufficient budget to do the work as intended and we would need to go back and identify either a different scope or a different direction entirely if that’s what the will of council was to continue. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson.

I’ll pause for now. I’ll go to Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, a couple comments. So I’m very supportive of us moving forward at this grant purely from an economic perspective.

I think that there’s a lot of demonstration that choosing the right programs and projects for making these kinds of investment have long-term operating reductions and a lot of the work that we’re doing here is trying to reduce our annual operating property tax increases. Especially if we get a report back that says, there’s four really good projects you could do, but perhaps you have to wait until you have federal provincial funding to leverage them for capital. I think again, it’s important for us to understand what that looks like and when there is funding available, it’s important for us to feel act quickly to the point that was made earlier. We unfortunately weren’t in a position to be able to act quickly on some of the end wave discussions that we had and so we are forced to rely on somewhat dated infrastructure choices.

And I think that if we were ahead of the game and we had these plans ready to go and we’re able to find funders and contractors quickly, we would have been able to make some of those investments. And again, from an economic perspective, I think this is a somewhat modest investment to potentially have a lot of operating returns in the long run, including some permanently lowered utility bills for some of our facilities. And I assume many of these facilities over time will require upgrades anyway. We might as well make them as efficient as possible.

So purely from an economic perspective, I’m very supportive of this funding opportunity. Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers on this item. Councilor McAllister, will you take the chair?

Yes, I have the chair, go ahead, hands are on. Thank you and through you to staff. I was wondering if staff could share any more information on page 12, it talks about that there’s opportunity for micro-scale district energy systems within the building envelopes around deerness, tourism, London, and fire hall nine. I’m just wondering if those would be, opportunities would be able to take advantage of if we didn’t go forward with this grant.

Staff. Through the chair, I may refer to Ms. Stewart online. She may have more information and be able to answer it better than I.

Thank you to the chair for the question. So the three facilities that are located on Wellington Road, Deerness Home Fire Hall Nine and Tourism London, because they’re in geographic proximity, that’s one of the reasons that we chose those three facilities because we could investigate the possibility of a district energy system. But to optimize the efficiency of such an investment in a system, we would need to have each of those facilities functioning optimally. So this grant would give us an opportunity to look at it kind of in the more holistic, brought a scope to make sure that it could be completed.

But at the same time, we would also understand what’s required in each of those facilities to make them less carbon intensive and more energy efficient. Go ahead, so back to you, Councillor Roman. Thank you. And I know that we selected the nine locations based on the type of location as well, so that we could draw similarities across other facilities that we had.

So I see there’s value in the fact that we have an opportunity to also learn about other types of facilities, which I know when I look at some of our facilities, they’re almost built in mirror image to some others, which is great, ‘cause I think it helps us to find likeness amongst those types of buildings. From the perspective of energy efficiency, so the Canada Games Aquatic Center is in my ward, and energy efficiency is actually something I think about with that facility. I think at the time it was built, it was built, well, it’s purpose built, but it was built definitely to serve the community at a time maybe where we weren’t looking at intensification of the energy needs in that building in the same way. So I do think there is opportunity and value for us to learn from that.

I’m appreciative of the fact that we’ve received a letter from London Hydro as well. I think it’s really important to recognize that these are conversations around things like the micro-scale district energy system and things like how to be more energy efficient. These are discussions we weren’t having with London Hydro at the table as readily before, and this is an opportunity for us to look at those investments and look at those opportunities differently now, which will only help us as a community as we look towards electrification. So I do think that there are a lot of benefits here and that we will be reaping those benefits should we go ahead with this project.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. You used two minutes of your time and I’ll turn the chair back to you. Thank you for the timing and I will look for other speakers, Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I appreciate the input from my colleagues. I did want to note to on page 11 where it says the CEAP sets out actions to drive progress towards these goals. It says net zero community greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 improved resilience to climate change impacts and to bring everyone along.

For example, individuals, households, businesses and neighborhoods. It doesn’t say anything about operational efficiency or value for money or reducing operating costs. I’m just wondering if staff have any comments on that. Thank you, I’ll go to Ms.

Barbone. Thank you through the chair. So what we’ve worded here is some of the items that are outlined in CEAP. However, we’re looking to guide us as the broader strategic plan where it sets out some clear items that identified towards looking at our facilities and looking at planning towards achieving net zero.

So those are some of the things as part of the climate part of the strat plan that we have been following to guide us in proceeding with this work. So I’m not gonna go into the details on the CEAP ‘cause I know there’s a robust process to report out, but certainly from the strategic plan, there are some strategic actions that set that work, which guides why we’re proceeding to do this. Thank you, and that’s noted on page 11 at the top, bullet 3.1.2, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, yeah, I’m struggling with this one because like I said, we have so many urgent and pressing needs on us that I think we are gonna have to reevaluate some of our priorities and to again, like I said, spend money on a project that’s gonna probably tell us to spend a lot of money.

I’m reluctant, if I’m honest. If this were to go ahead, I would like to see an amendment on B that direct staff to bring the report to committee once it’s received. Thank you, are you looking to put that amendment on? If I have a seconder, I’d like to, yes.

If we’re gonna pay for it, we might as well bring it public. Thank you. Okay, so that would be a new part C, we’re just drafting something just a moment. Okay, so I will ask the clerk just to read it at what we look for a seconder.

To the chair, the motion reads as follows. At the motion be amended to add a new part that reads as follows. Civic administration be directed to bring forward to the ICSC, the feasibility report as soon as it is received. Thank you, I’m looking for a seconder on that item.

Councillor Van Merebergen, thank you. Okay, on the amendment, which is the new part C, which you would be in eScribe free as well. Any questions, comments, or Councillor Frank, go ahead. Thank you, yes, just about some of the language.

So as soon as it’s received, so my understanding is, this is an assumption that staff would probably receive the report when it’s done, and then would probably write a report saying, here’s the report and we recommend moving forward, maybe with option number one or building number one. Would the way that this is written where it says immediately as soon as we receive it, would you still be able to write that additional staff report and then append it to that? Or would you just forward the FCM report by itself to the committee? Ms.

Stewart, do you happen to know those details? If not, I can go to other staff. Through the chair, we do have reporting requirements to FCM as we work through this process. And there will be, it will be a longer term project, if you can imagine, because we won’t be doing all nine buildings at once.

I think part of what FCM is hoping to do by giving us a fairly prescribed process to follow and guidelines to follow, is to develop some comparability. So we may have, through FCM’s guidance, we may have different reports on different facilities as they’re completed. So I don’t expect that we will see one comprehensive report of all nine sites, but rather a series of reports. Councillor Frank.

Thank you, and that’s okay. I guess my question is, I would be happy to see the report, but I think what is actually sometimes more valuable to me at least as a Councillor is when staff then can contextualize, like here’s what the report said, here’s the budget, here’s the implementation plan. I don’t want to just simply receive a report by itself. So I’m just wondering if the way that this motion is written, if it would give staff enough time to kind of put the cover sheet and the information that of what we will do in alongside this report.

I just want to confirm that, ‘cause then I’m supportive of it, as long as we can get that additional staff context. Thank you, Ms. Barbone. Thank you, through the chair.

So if the intent is just to bring all the reports here, then that’s how I read or understand or interpret that motion. So I think certainly it depends on what council’s intent. If the intent is to get the reports, I mean, this is gonna take a period of years, a number of years to collect all of them. As there’s hopeful, at least in our, that we can look at them, compare them, to be able to do, doing just one and bringing it forward may not provide us the ability to provide any analysis, because we may need a number of facilities, particularly where it ties to those down Wellington Road that are in close proximity, where we’re looking at the possible of the district scale energy, we may need multiple facilities and those reports to be able to take it back and then look at how those work together to develop at those recommendations.

So if the intent is to get the report along with some analysis, then I would suggest the wording be altered to be clear about that. Otherwise, we would just be bringing the report without the analysis. And ‘cause it reads as the received, we could not wait till the end to bring them all and give the analysis. It would be very difficult to do that completely in isolation, unless you’re really talking about something standalone that you could action on its own, unless you were trying to provide more detail about how it could then be added to other facilities and truly assist in that.

So I would look for the committee’s guidance and to clarify particularly what you’re looking for. Councillor? Thank you. So I would support it if that is the intention we may be amended a little bit and I won’t support it if it’s just getting like a copy of the FCM report.

I only want it if it comes with some staff reporting and analysis. So I guess I kind of will leave that there for the mover and seconder to consider. Thank you. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I appreciate the information with this here, but I think that was the intention of my amendment, was that the reports be brought to us as they’re done, just received for information. It’s pretty simple. If otherwise we’re going to be waiting potentially a long time and be getting them at the end when they could be just coming to council and to the public as they’re brought along.

And what I don’t want to see is these studies that we pay for that just end up in drawers. And that’s what the public has been saying to me. So if the taxpayers are going to be paying 185,000, I don’t think it’s too much to just have it be received as a report and just be in the public realm. And then we’d all look forward to the staff report when it comes with the analysis.

Thank you. Any other speakers on this item? Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair.

Yeah. So I just want to confirm in terms of both Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Frank what they said. So we will be getting the feasibility report alongside the analysis or did you explicitly want the language change to include the analysis to go along with it? I just want to make sure.

Thank you. I will go to Ms. Burbone just to clarify what she had said earlier. Thank you.

To be clear, what I indicated earlier is if the request is to receive them as soon as they’re received, then we would simply write a report and say, here’s a consultant’s report. We would not be doing analysis or any review of that because as we receive them, we’ll not allow time for a comparability amongst the analysis, comparability amongst other facilities. All of that analysis will take some time to be able to look at them and look at the intent and to see where that would impact recommendations, capital planning, et cetera. So if the intent is to have some analysis along with it, then we can certainly provide that, but we would need a different motion.

Otherwise, if the intent is just to receive the report, we will provide the report, but we won’t be able to provide any commentary or anything to go along with that to give any semblance of what that could mean until a later time when we receive at least a number of them that perhaps might work together. Councillor? Thank you. So I would like to amend the amendment to include the analysis to come along with those feasibility reports.

Thank you. Councillor, because the mover of the motion stated that her reason for the motion is different from what you’re asking to be amended to, it does feel contrary to the motion. So I wouldn’t rule that in order. Okay, thank you for that clarification.

Then I’ll be voting against this. I do think it’s important to have that analysis component along with it as staff have indicated. I just think both need to be included to give us a full picture of what these projects could entail. And I think in terms of efficiencies with the facilities that were mentioned earlier, having three facilities, I’d like to see these all come as a package and not the report with nothing will attach to it.

So I will not be sporting this amendment. Thank you, other speakers. Councillor, students, go ahead. Thank you.

I understand what my colleagues are saying. I just want to be clear through you to staff. We’ll get the analysis at the appropriate time when staff would do it normally. This isn’t going to preclude us from getting the analysis.

It’s just going to provide the reports earlier. Ms. Burbaum. Thank you, through the chair.

I mean, certainly we’re in your hands. We can do the analysis later. I would caution to put a consultant’s report on facility energy modeling that will be very technical in the hands of the public without any analysis to support that. So certainly it’s at the will of council, but there could be drawbacks and some unintended consequences as a result.

Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I guess I’d want to follow up on that offline because if municipalities put this stuff out into the public realm, it would help other municipalities as well. Like I’m assuming there are others doing this work and to put a consultant study out seems like a good thing to me that we could all learn from it rather than we keep them in our desk doors and then they’re not of use until the time that the analysis is done.

And I think people are interested in this and maybe there’s people who have the expertise to read different aspects of it. I just don’t understand the downside to bringing these into the public realm, keeping that at the forefront of our thought that this is happening and then looking forward to the analysis at the appropriate time. Sometimes when they come all at once, it’s a lot of information to digest for the Councillors and for the public and getting it in pieces. And like I said, keeping the conversation going, I think was the point of this amendment.

Thank you, any further speakers on this item? Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. Again, I won’t be supporting this amendment because I do have similar concerns in regards to having, again, I love having reports in the public realm.

Like this is an area that I’m very interested in, but I do worry that without additional staff context, without some sort of implementation plan of like, yeah, we’re getting these one off ones. Let’s say we get two a year for the next three years. If each time we get it, without any context, let’s say some of the estimates for cost for modeling are significant, then people might, without any context, jump to conclusions that we’re gonna have to hike the property taxes or whatever. I think what is important about doing this kind of work is doing it in a thoughtful way that has an implementation plan that might take 20 to 40 years to work on with an associated budget that looks for the proper sources of funding and I think to just kind of drop large technical documents without any context or any plan is not necessarily, one, digestible to the public and two shows a good deal of care.

And I think that’s how these projects move forward is when they’re done in a thoughtful and productive way. So I’m again, not supportive of just dropping large technical documents onto our agendas without any staff analysis or implementation plan or budget. Thank you. Councillor Stevenson, you’ve got 30 seconds remaining.

Yeah, just to follow up, I heard long term and then I heard 20 to 40 years. What are we looking at here is probably the time when if we were waiting for the analysis, we might be looking at seeing that report. Mr. Stewart, do you have any indication of timeline?

Through the chair, thank you. So at this point, we have not had an NRP process to bring a consultant on board. So I do not have a schedule in which I could share with you at this point to suggest when we would have reports prepared. So I’m sorry that I can’t answer that.

In reference to the 20 to 40 years, my interpretation is that’s the timeframe in which we’re trying to achieve these gains in GHG efficiency. Not the time that it would take necessarily to complete the implementation. If I’m understanding the question correctly. Thank you, okay.

Looking for other speakers on this item. Okay, so on the amendment, we’ll open the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries three to two. I’ll need a mover and seconder for the as amended motion.

Councillor Stevenson, Kayle seconded it to get it on the floor on the as amended motion now. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I do, I’m still struggling with this motion in its full amount.

So the nine projects that are listed here are these ones that we’re looking at already doing significant renovations to enhance this retrofit would be in conjunction with those endeavors or is this a new investment strategy that we would need to be putting into our capital management plan, capital asset plan? I’ll go to Ms. Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair, through you.

Yes, all of these facilities, they’re of a vintage where many of them have significant building envelope and roofing and HVAC component lifecycle repairs on the horizon very shortly. So by doing this comprehensive assessment of the buildings, we would be able to understand how an investment we’re going to have to make anyway, how we could achieve optimal results with that by looking at different strategies that we could combine together to get more efficiency as opposed to doing a series of standalone projects. For example, on the building envelope and a separate standalone project on HVAC. So all of them have significant building envelope and mechanical system upgrades that are coming due in lifecycle renewals.

The other reason that these buildings were selected, there’s a number of them that present opportunities for waste heat recovery, so the pools, for example, and the wastewater treatment plan, those kinds of things. We have some other opportunities that we can use to change processes to make this differently. So I think the shortest way to express it is we would need to do some of the capital investments regardless, this study would give us the opportunity to look at ways that we can achieve better results for our investments. Okay, Councillor.

Thank you, I really appreciate that. And so by getting this study, we’re not locked into following this necessarily. It’s information that would guide the decisions. Is that correct?

Mr. Stewart? Through the chair, yes, absolutely. These would be recommendations that would guide our decisions.

And I think it’s also perhaps worth noting that this is the first step of a comprehensive program that FCM offers. So we have to do these feasibility studies. And if we complete those, there are opportunities then that potentially apply for other capital support for implementation of projects to achieve those GHG reductions and the energy efficiencies. But you cannot access that second portion of the program without having completed the feasibility studies.

This is all helpful. And we are not locked into those projects, though, that would be coming before council for a decision for each one, correct, Mr. Stewart? Through the chair, we would not be locked into those, we would not be locked into those projects.

And I think the analysis that we referred to earlier, I think what we would want to bring forward is the prioritization of those strategies that have been suggested, that maximize our already expected capital contributions for life cycle renewal, that kind of thing. So that would be the analysis we’d want to bring forward is set the priorities for each facility, but also across the portfolio of facilities so that it’s within our ability to do it in a fiscally responsible way. Councilor? Okay, thank you.

So I just have one last question. And that is that cost savings will be part of the study. Mr. Stewart?

Yes, through the chair. It’s absolutely the GHG reduction scenarios as well as the calibrated modeling of the energy consumption of the building is a requirement of these studies. So based on that, we could do some projections on costing. The emphasis, however, I should say, is on GHG reduction.

So decarbonizing, potentially electrifying our heat sources as opposed to using gas. So there may be sort of a trade off between those two fuel sources in terms of cost. Thank you. And would those options be part of the feasibility study in showing the different options?

If council, a future council were to not be prioritizing the GHGs and be looking for cost savings, would that be part, like they’d be able to see that within the study, presumably, like I know it’s hard to say, but it’s not directing it that it has to be GHGs, even if it doesn’t save as much money as another option. So through the chair, I think it goes back to your original question in that we’re not obligated to complete the projects that are identified. But the purpose of this study is to identify how to reduce GHG emissions. That’s the primary purpose.

But we would also look at energy efficiencies and reducing energy waste, which, by its nature, leads to cost efficiencies. Okay, I appreciate it. I wasn’t planning to support this, but given that we’re getting the studies as they’re done and listening to my colleagues in the letter from London Hydro, I am gonna support it here at committee. Thank you, other speakers.

Seeing none on the as amended item, I will open the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries five to zero. Thank you, that moves on to item 2.3, which is the Sunnydale Road West Improvement Pipeline Decommissioning and New Pipeline Agreement. I’ll look for a mover and seconder on this item.

Councilor McAllister, Councilor Van Mirbergen, thank you. And I’ll look for discussion on this item. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you.

So this one, I just wanted to understand, when I read through this, the $7 million that we’re spending is the full cost of the decommissioning. And then if they were to move forward and do the relocation, then basically they get the credit for this amount. And if they don’t within 10 years, then we get, then that offer expires. Am I correct in that summary?

Thank you, through the chair. So the agreement speaks to the costs associated with essentially three phases of the work. The decommissioning of the existing pipeline, the acquisition of property, and then the construction of a new pipeline. And the cost apportionment is established such that the city’s contribution would be towards the property and decommissioning phase.

And then should Imperial Oil not proceed with the construction, then that remaining value would be reimbursed to the city. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, reimbursed. So we’d get the $7 million back.

Through the chair, no, the balance remaining after the decommissioning and property acquisition would be completed. Councillor Stevenson. So for us to pay the $7 million for the decommissioning and the property acquisition, it implies that we want them to relocate the pipeline, but we can’t make them do it. So there’s an incentive there.

Just wondering then, what are the downsides to the decommissioning and potentially if it’s decommissioned long-term? What are the impacts? Through the chair. So as it relates to the city’s program for Sunningdale Road, it’s actually a significant benefit to have the pipeline decommission.

So it will remove the sort of the burden or the encumbrance associated with the existing pipeline today. So it essentially will facilitate that future construction program for Sunningdale Road. Okay, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you through you.

Just to clarify though, are there any downsides if any around the decommissioning? Like what is the impact? Mr. Dales.

Thank you through the chair again. So the decommissioning process, there are requirements, provincial requirements related to pipeline decommissioning. An Imperial Oil will be responsible to follow those requirements, conduct the work according to those requirements. So the decommissioning in itself really presents, I would go so far as to say no risk to the city, only an advantage or benefit associated with facilitating the project as I mentioned before.

Councillor Stevenson. Okay, happy to hear all that. Thanks for answering the questions. Thank you, I’ll go to Councillor Frank.

Thank you, a couple questions. I noticed that it says it’s not currently operational. I’m just wondering for how long has this pipeline not been in operation for staff now? To staff?

It has been through the chair. It has been a number of years that since the pipeline has conveyed materials. I don’t know the exact timeline associated with that, but from the perspective of Imperial Oil, the pipeline is charged with a inert gas and is available for use essentially at any time, and they maintain it in that state, and it has been maintained in that state for a number of years. Councillor Frank.

Thank you, yes, and I’m just wondering if we don’t contribute the $7 million, would they still go ahead and remove the pipeline, or is this contribution kind of the main reason why they’re moving forward at this point of relocating it? Mr. Dale. Through the chair.

So the Sunningdale Road project in itself, there are some improvements associated with the changes to the profile of the road and the location of the road that necessitate the relocation of the pipeline. So that essentially has been the trigger to initiate this work or this negotiation with Imperial Oil. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, and I, based on what I’ve seen, I do look forward to Sunningdale Road being upgraded, especially with some active transportation pathways, better bus stops, some sidewalks.

I think all of that’s important for the residents who live up there. I am reticent to what feels like to me, contribute to a large gas company’s removal of a pipeline that seems like they might eventually have had to do it anyway, ‘cause they don’t have anything running through it. But that being said, if it is the thing that is required to move forward with the improvements that would be for the betterment of Londoners, I can understand that, but it does make me feel uneasy. But that’s just feelings.

Thank you, I’ll look for other speakers. Councillor Pribble. Thank you, sir, the chair to the staff. I just want to confirm one thing is, as we just heard from the staff, that there will be three faces.

We are addressing financially the one face up to $7 million, which would represent up to 50%. If you can please confirm this. And also, in terms of the other faces, is there potential additional contribution from the city towards other faces, or is this it? Mr.

Dales. Through the chair. So for the first part of the question, in terms of the contribution, the city’s financial contribution to the relocation will allow the decommissioning work to proceed. And that is planned to start soon after conditional upon the agreement being executed.

So that will enable the Sunnydale Road Project to then proceed. Property acquisition is underway by Imperial Oil. At this time, there are negotiations with property owners. And the second part of the question in terms of future contributions, the agreement, the draft agreement that’s presented limits or caps the city’s contribution to the overall figure that’s identified in the report.

And any cost increases would be covered by Imperial Oil. Thank you for that full of question. In terms of the timing and decommissioning, the current pipeline, and we are looking at, we certainly all hope it’s gonna be less than 10 years, but potentially we are giving them the 10 years to receive the up to $7 million. But the question I have is, are we, during this time, are we gonna be able to work on it?

And not just kind of the west of Richmond, but also east of Richmond, not to wait for 10 years. And we can go all the way to Blackwater, if you can please confirm that kind of the timeline of decommissioning and us working proactively ahead. Thank you, Mr. Dale.

Through the chair. So the agreement speaks to the necessity of the city’s project to proceed. So subject to the decommissioning being completed by Imperial Oil, then the city is in a position to proceed with the Sunnydale Road improvements. Council approval.

Thank you for that. But can you maybe even more clear to me just to confirm that it’s not, while it starts to be decommissioned, we can already work on the entire stretch, and we do not have to wait till the new part, more to the north of the city boundary is already finished. So we can do it right after the decommissioning. If you can please just confirm that for me.

Thank you, Steph. Yeah, yes. So through the chair to be clear, yes, the city is in a position to proceed with the Sunnydale Road improvements to the west or to the east of Richmond, after decommissioning of the Imperial Gas Line. Council approval.

Thank you for your answers. Nothing right now. Thank you, alas. Councilor McAllister, take the chair.

If the chair, go ahead, Councilor. Thank you and through you. And I’ll follow up with my colleague, Councillor Perbault’s questions. First off, thanks, Mr.

Dales, for all your answers. And we appreciate you coming out of retirement to help us with this project. Cut me off guard by sitting in the back row again. Thank you for being here.

So I just had a couple of questions. First off, I want to thank staff for their work on this negotiation because I do realize that this is not an easy negotiation. You’re negotiating with a giant in a sense when we negotiate with pipelines and with railroads. And so anytime we’re in those types of negotiations, we have a role in it, but it’s a limited role because they hold a lot of the power in these discussions.

And that power extends to things like permitting. So in this case, and I appreciate my questions asked by Councillor Perbault on this matter, I just want to confirm at the time that they decommissioned, they have no ability, they have no sign off on any permits any longer, they are out of the project at the time that they decommissioned that line. Just to have to go ahead through the chair, yes. So that is the approach that the agreement speaks to is that after completion of the decommissioning, then the city is in a position to proceed with the Sunningdale Road projects, essentially unencumbered by a lot of the permit requirements that currently exist with the pipeline in place.

Follow up, Councillor. Thank you. And can you confirm how long they anticipate that decommissioning process will take in full for the entire stretch? Go ahead, staff.

Through the chair. So the plan is to start the work subject to Council’s approval of the agreement. And based on weather conditions, the anticipation is that it would be completed before the summer, but Imperial is in a position to essentially mobilize their forces to start this decommissioning work in a fairly prompt manner. Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you. So as we were told, this is an a line that is not necessary for their operations. It’s somewhat of a backup line. Go ahead, staff.

Through the chair, can’t speak on the sort of operational perspective, I guess, from Imperial Oil, but I think through the discussions with them, it’s fair to say that, you know, from a commercial perspective, this having the redundancy of this line does provide some value to them, but that’s really the limit to my knowledge related to their sort of their confidential proprietary information related to their business. Hello, Councillor. Thank you. And from this redundancy of the line, at the time that they decommissioned, it will be removed and they will have no redundancy in the line.

That’s correct. Go ahead, staff. Through the chairs. There potentially is a period of time that redundancy or that ability for them to convey would be limited and that is addressed through the agreement, you know, they intend to carry on with the property acquisition and the construction period, but at this point, the precise timing of that is, isn’t no one.

Follow up, Councillor. Thank you. And I appreciate the answers from staff. And I realize Imperial Oil’s not in the room to discuss this matter for other members, Councilor and Committee.

So my concern is this. I don’t see this as an equal agreement. I see that we have negotiated to the best of our ability what we can and we need this negotiation to go forward because this is how we move this project forward at this time. It has been, you know, a challenging project and we want to get this underway and get this delivered to residents in the area.

My concern, though, is if they start to operate, this is a supply line, it becomes revenue generating for them, I don’t feel right about the taxpayers having paid for that portion of the cost. And so that’s the concern for me, but I think it’s outside of this room and it’s more Imperial Oil thinking about whether or not that’s what they’d like to leave the city of London with and residents of the community with in terms of a cost where they could reap significant benefit. I think, again, negotiating as a giant, you have to understand when you’re taking advantage of folks and I think we’ve done our best and we’ve done what we can, but we’re very limited in our ability to negotiate with them where they have the ability to make a tremendous amount of revenue. So my follow-up with Imperial Oil will be one to ask them for more community benefit to benefit our local community as they continue to build out this line if they should move forward and I’ll leave it at that.

Okay, thank you, Councillor. You used about three minutes of your time and I will turn the chair to you. Thank you, looking for any other speakers on this item. Hey, seeing none, I will look to open the vote.

Closing the vote, motion carries four to one. Thank you. Okay, that moves us on to item 2.6, which is the Smart Commute Association Memorandum of Understanding Extension. I will look for a mover and a seconder on this item.

Councillor McAllister, Councillor Frank, and I’ll look for speakers on this item. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. My understanding is this one is in the multi-year budget already for $40,000 a year.

Can I just confirm through you to staff? I’ll go to Ms. Chambers. Thank you and through the chair.

That is the correct budget and just to break it down for you, 15,000 of that is for the app, for us to use that app and approximately $25,000 for employee engagement. And this is really kind of fundamental to our traffic demand management plan, given that it’s outreach to businesses and shaving peak traffic demands is definitely one of our number one priorities. So this kind of fits in and why it’s 40,000 per year. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you and those are the programming costs. My understanding was there was a half to a full FTE up until the end of 2025 as well. So what happens after that? Ms.

Chambers. We have currently two full-time employees in traffic demand management and I’m not, we’d have to report back on a temporary, which I’m not aware about this time. Councillor Stevenson. So this is one of those projects that again, we’ve got put in, it’s not a lot of money, but it is not something like, I really feel that given the economic challenges that we’re facing, all of these little things that we’ve committed to, that aren’t considered key basic services that the public expects for their property taxes, I wanna start saying no to these.

And I want us to start stopping these programs that are not providing widespread basic services to taxpayers. This, these are things that the average, a lot of taxpayers that I speak to think that people should be doing on their own, businesses should be doing it on their own, and that it doesn’t need taxpayer money for it. So I’m not in support of continuing this. Thank you, Councillor.

I will look to other members of committee before I ask Councillor McAllister to take the chair. If you don’t mind taking the chair? I have the chair, go ahead, Councillor Rhone. Thank you and through you.

So I’m interested in moving a referral on this item at this time. My reason for a referral is that I have a number of questions when it comes to this program, and I would like to have the opportunity to get more information. And I don’t think that would be satisfied just between now and council. I think that we need a report back with more information.

I did send in some questions, but I’ll wait to speak to it on the referral if I have a seconder. Okay, so the Councillor’s put a referral on the floor. Councillor Stevenson’s seconding. Do you have a specific language in terms of what you’d like that to look like?

I do, I’m happy, oh, I’ll go ahead. Through the chair, the wording is as follows that the staff report date of February 2nd, 2026. Smart commute MOU extension be referred to a future meeting of the ICSC committee to allow us to the administration to provide more information to the ICSC. Okay, so that’s on the floor looking for speakers to go ahead, Councillor Roman.

Thank you and through you. So I did have a number of questions related to this item and would require a report back at this time because I asked similar questions around the cost of the 40,000 a year. I understand what I received back was that the primary cost was 15,000 and the rest of the cost base wasn’t really shared, although I had read it in the 2023 report as well. The app has in schedule nine what the key features of the app are, but I do think this is a lot of things that Google could do or Google Maps could do for the most part, as well as conversations with your colleagues in the workplace to figure out if you wanna, hey, maybe share a ride.

But I think that the fact that only 265 employees have participated and that’s between a period of about two years and in that only 530 trips have been booked seems to me like it’s a low value program. I understand that we haven’t been in the program long, but we have committed a lot of staff resources to it over that time, so that’s part of my concern as well. When I looked at other cities comparably that we’re using this technology or using this app, they were also talking more about school and community use and I hadn’t noticed that in our data. Our data was related to employer use only.

I understand that the goal is to look at single occupancy vehicle trips in conversations with Western even and USC. This hadn’t been rolled out in that capacity as well. So I do think there are more opportunities here. I would like to understand more inner follow-up report, how we plan to build the program or how we plan to roll it out to more Londoners to have impact or something of that sort.

I feel like we’re missing a lot of information here and at this time my efforts I feel would be better off spent looking at ways to use that 40,000 to support the industrial parks and making sure we have adequate transit in that area or ways to do an on-demand system or something like that because this doesn’t seem to be meeting that need and in the initial report it was structured to do so. So I think those are my initial comments on why I’d like to move the referral but I will leave it with the chair to chair the rest of the meeting. Okay, looking to committee members to speak first, I do recognize the deputy mayor has hand up but just looking for committee members first. Okay, I’m not seeing any, go ahead, deputy mayor.

Thank you. So I’m not gonna repeat all of what Councilor Raman just said. I will just say I’m in full agreement with her. I mean, I would be prepared to say no to Councilor Stevenson’s comments but I also see the value of getting a report back first with some more data.

When I hear the numbers that Councilor Raman just shared and when I read a report that says, we’ve got 22 employer members representing 28,000 employees that’s definitely not getting the return on value for the dollars that we’re putting in small as they may be. I’m also concerned that we’re talking about, well, it’s $15,000 and there’s a $40,000 budget but we have dedicated staff time allocated to this as well and staff time is certainly not covered in that dollar amount that we’re being told, which does have a cost and a budget impact. I’m mindful of we were told not too long ago when the province was allocating money to replace speed cameras that well, we’d have to have another staff person to implement some of the traffic calming things. I don’t know whether those would be similar lines of work but I have some real questions about the value of this.

So I do want to report back, you know, when we’re talking about things like lunch and learns and webinars and annual campaigns with prizes in them, I agree with what Councilor Raman said, these are things people should be figuring out on their own because they want to reduce their commutes. I don’t think that this is something that we should necessarily be putting public dollars into. So I’m prepared to, when it comes to Council, support the referral, but I will say, I’m also hearing what Councilor Stevenson was saying and I agree with her. I don’t see the value in the dollar here and some of these things are things that we have to be willing to start saying no to.

So I’ll end there by saying, I think we absolutely need a referral. I don’t think we have the grounds to go forward with renewing the MOU at this point based on the information in the report. Maybe there’s more that might convince me otherwise but that’s where I am today. Okay, thank you Deputy Mayor, looking for any other speakers to this.

Okay, not seeing any, we’ll open this for moving. Closing the vote, motion carries five to zero. Okay, we’re turning the chair to Councilor Raman. Thank you, that takes care of all of our items for consent.

I will just look to committee to see if there’s any additional business or deferred matters. I’ve not received any notices of additional business at this time. Okay, seeing none, we’ll move on to item six, which is the confidential matters. There are a number of them in our agenda and all the reasons for those items are listed there in, looking for a mover and seconder.

Councilor Callister, Councilor Stevenson, thank you and we’ll open that. Survey on Mayor Bergen. Closing the vote, motion carries five to zero. Okay, thank you, we’re back in public session.

I’ll ask Councilor McAllister to report out please. Thank you, through the chair, noting that we went into closed session from 219 to 247 and the progress is made on all items for which we went in camera. Thank you, with that, I’ll look for a motion to adjourn. Councilor Van Meerberg in and Councilor Stevenson, thank you all in favor, motion carries.

Everyone have a great day. Recording stopped.