INNES SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY - 2170 MER BLEUE ROAD

SITE DE DÉPÔT À NEIGE DU CHEMIN INNES - 2170, CHEMIN MER BLEUE

ACS2007-PWS-SOP-0002

Mr. John Manconi, Director, Surface Operations, Public Works and Services Department (PWS) made a detailed PowerPoint Presentation on the aforementioned report. In the Presentation, he outlined the citywide context on Snow Disposal Facilities (SDFs) in the City of Ottawa. He also outlined the provisions of the approved 2002 SDF Plan, as well as citywide context changes since then, including some unanticipated SDF closures.

He then summarized the details of the Innes SDF. He presented a chronology of this particular project; a detailed outline of the site design and the proposed SDF Land Exchange; and an overview of the integration of other SDF sites. He also discussed the result of the OMB Appeal related to the Innes SDF.

He enumerated and evaluated the various options the City has with regards to east end snow disposal and concluded that the Innes SDF was in fact the most sound as it was the least expensive; the most consistent with long term plans; the most environmentally responsible and the lowest risk. He then concluded by presenting Staff’s recommendation and outlining the next steps should that recommendation be approved. A copy of Mr. Manconi’s PowerPoint Presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

In response to Councillor Bloess’ question on the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) ruling on the issue of the setback distance, and on the minor variance issue at the Committee of Adjustment, Karen Currie, Manager of Developmental Approvals, Planning, Transit and the Environment explained that the minor variance issue would be somewhat dependent on the timing of the process. The appeal on the variance, which they were not successful on, will be a question of going back through the process again to deal with the reduced setback from 300 meters to 150 meters. Another possibility, depending on the timing of the process, is that the new zoning by-law may address the issue as well, as there are discussions in the new zoning by-law to address this setback. She suggested that the sense staff had was that, given the time frame involved with the new zoning by-law and the likely appeals to that, they would have to go back through the process of the variance once again. With respect to the new zoning by-law, Councillor Bloess wanted to know if the set back was being adjusted specifically for this site. In response, Ms. Currie explained that her understanding was that the proposal was to be an amendment throughout the City.

In response to a series of questions from Councillor Bloess regarding the loss of the OMB Appeal, Tim Marc, Manager of Planning and Environmental Law, Corporate Services provided the following information:

· Mr. Manconi had correctly characterized in his presentation why they were unsuccessful.

· The Board was completely satisfied that the site had been properly engineered.

· The two areas in which the City was unsuccessful are: the noise study and the non-compliance with the Official Plan.

· On the first point, the noise study was completed on 28 April 2006, two weeks before Council adopted new noise guidelines. Therefore, the Board noted that the study was not done in accordance to these new guidelines.

· On the second point, if one is to review the mixed-use centre policies of the Official Plan, it is not readily apparent that those policies would include the provision for a snow disposal facility.

· In addition, there was a requirement that, before any development of any kind take place in the Mer Bleue area, there must be a Community Design Plan (CDP), and there is none for this area.

· Notwithstanding that, the other three community design plans which had been put before the Board all acknowledged without adverse comment the existence of the snow disposal facility.

· The Board noted that the policies of the mixed-use centre area in the plan did not appear to allow for a snow disposal facility, and this has lead to the recommendation.

· He suggested a way to address the Board’s decision is by updating the noise study and bringing forward an Official Plan Amendment consistent with the other three community design plans that have been approved by Council and acknowledge a snow disposal facility at Innes.

With respect to the value of this property, Mr. Robin Souchen, Program Manager for Real Property & Asset Management (RPAM), Corporate Services, explained that the property value is dependent on its development horizon. He advised that this site is near the end of the projected servicing for that neighbourhood. He also advised that the estimated values in the area are $75,000-$80,000 per acre, and the area that is being used for the snow disposal facility is roughly 7 hectares or 26 acres.

Councillor Bloess inquired about the amount of tax revenue that could be generated from this particular site. Mr. Souchen stated that this was a difficult question to answer. He noted this area is completely vacant except for the recent commercial development along Innes, and would likely be a long time in developing. He stated that it would be very hard to project into the future what tax revenue could be generated by it. He suggested that it would be dependent on the use, and noted that vacant land does not generate a significant dollar amount in taxes for the City, and this site would be a land bank.

Councillor Bloess explained that the reason he was trying to get these figures was related to his next question to staff, regarding a slide in the presentation relating to the most significant costs to the City of hauling to another site such as Conroy. He wanted to make sure that they had some understanding of whether the revenue that can be gathered from the land is greater than the cost of hauling.

Mr. Souchen stated that he would look into the taxation rights for the vacant land based on the current Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) values on the site and forecast those out for the Committee.

With regards to the cost of hauling, Mr. Manconi explained that the 10-year operational cost is $1.6 million for the various sites. He agreed that the Councillor brought up a good point, but suggested the calculation of lost revenue versus hauling costs was a complicated one. He maintained that there are other factors in play, which is why staff has used the net present value calculation, which takes into consideration land acquisition and other costs. As the City does not own other suitable land, there would need to be acquisitions and related complexities involved.

Further to additional questions and comments from Councillor Bloess regarding capacity and snow volumes, Mr. Manconi explained that the model staff used was built by Stantech Engineering, and uses Environment Canada forecasts and numerous years of data. He explained it is a 1 in 50 years, and is an exponential process not a linear one. He suggested that, while in recent years there has been less snow, climate change will likely result in increased volatility, and therefore predictability is the key risk on snow amounts. He advised Councillor Bloess that changing it from 1 in 50 years to 1 in 25 years would not result in a straight 50% reduction.

Councillor Bloess explained that he has a motion that deals with and tries to maybe quantify that change the threshold. He believed 1 in 25 years was the right level.

Councillor Jellett raised a few issues. Regarding the value of the land, and the potential revenue from this land, he noted that the 21 acres at the Orléans Town Centre would generate $3,000,000 in tax revenue per year. He suggested they could get a pretty good ballpark as to what kind of tax revenue is a potential loss as a result of this SDF being developed.

He noted that the issue of truck traffic was also of concern to the community, as they will be in close proximity to nearby residences. Councillor Jellett suggested that the extension of Vanguard might alleviate some of the truck traffic currently running on Innes Road. He would like staff to explore the possibility of front-ending the extension of Vanguard and charging back the businesses when the lands are developed around it, looking into such issues as what it would cost, what the sensitivity analysis in terms of when the surrounding lands would be developed and when the City might get its money back. Mr. Manconi agreed to take this as direction.

Councillor Jellett expressed his confidence that the site was well engineered, and that if it were opened it would be run professionally; however, he suggested the policy decision of putting the SDF there needed to be looked at. He referred to Environment Canada Statistics, which indicated that total snowfall accumulations in the City of Ottawa have been significantly declining and noted there had not been a very large snowfall since 1976. He feels that there was merit in discussing the 1 in 25 years time horizon in terms of how the City takes snow off the roads and where they put it. He also feels that this would result in significant savings for the taxpayer, if the City does not build as many SDFs in the coming years. He hoped the Committee would submit to Councillor Bloess upcoming motion to that effect.

Mr. Richard Hewitt, Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services, pointed out that climate change would likely result in more variability, rather than just reductions in snowfall. He cautioned that, while the criteria may very well change in the future, Committee should be careful when making such decisions on the basis of a relatively short period of time.

Councillor Jellett agreed, and suggested Council needed to weigh all the risks against what is financially responsible. He concluded that perhaps the number of snow disposal sites needed to be evaluated, and affirmed his support for the proposed motion.

Councillor Cullen noted that the East was in desperate need of economic development. He wanted to know what would be lost in going forward with the site. He wondered what the Economic Development Branch had to say on the issue.

In response, Mr. Manconi advised that the site in question only accounted for 2% of the employment lands, and noted that other SDFs had been integrated into commercial and business parks without any major economic losses. He also noted that the comments he had heard were that it was a sustainable plan.

Councillor Cullen wanted to know what uses would be there if there were no snow dump, and what would that mean in terms of employment and tax revenue. He wondered how potential benefits of not having the dump would compare with the costs of going elsewhere. Ms. Currie advised that discussions had taken place on how the project would affect the mixed-use centre, and employment area. She also advised that part of those discussions was that it was important to protect the mixed-uses in the area and provide enough intensity of development around the future transit station. She noted that led to the land exchange deal that was dealt with by the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee (CSEDC) the previous day.

She also noted that the SDF site was now located behind the development that will front on Mer Bleue Road, and behind developments that will front on surrounding roads. Therefore, there will be large-scale, mixed-use development, with the SDF site behind. She pointed out that the scale of development being looked at for the areas in question is very high-density mixed-use residential/employment. She suggested that the land for the proposed SDF is not of the same value as the surrounding land fronting on the roads, as it is less accessible. She reiterated that, from a planning perspective, this land was still a long ways away from development, and that there were no locations within the urban boundary where the SDF could be relocated, thus it would likely need to be in the rural area on agriculturally designated lands that would require re-zoning. She suggested that the Planning, Transit and the Environment Department looked at all these issues from a planning perspective, and economic development were a part of that, and the Department felt strongly that this site was the best plan for the long term for the east urban community.

In response to questions from Councillor Cullen regarding what had transpired at the CSEDC Meeting, Ms. Currie explained that there was a land exchange with a developer of parcels of land that were originally a part of the site in question, resulting in a smaller-scale site. Councillor Cullen asked if there were any applications in the works that would turn employment lands to residential lands, as this would affect the total amount of lands available for employment. Ms. Currie answered that there had been a number in the area in the past, but there were none at this time. She noted that staff has in all cases been in opposition to such re-designations.

Mr. Marc added that Council has endorsed the re-designation of the frontage along Innes from employment area to arterial-main street, which will proceed to the OMB on April 23.

Councillor Cullen asked if the area was still within the Official Plan target ratio for residences to employment. Ms. Currie replied that the re-designation of lands south of Blackburn Hamlet Bypass brought the Orleans Community below the OP targets.

Councillor Leadman wanted to know what issues and costs would arise from having to look at a new site, aside from the purchase of the land. In response, Mr. Manconi outlined the following costs:

· Staff would have to initiate a new study for the East end.

· Because there are no readily available sites, staff would also have to look citywide.

· Land Acquisition.

· Preliminary Designs.

· Detailed Engineering and Public Consultation.

· Environmental Assessment.

· Consultants.

In response to further questions from Councillor Leadman regarding how the various costs and benefits were balance, Mr. Manconi confirmed that all these costs were covered in the net present value calculations, and increased costs would be looked at in the calculation of the business case.

Councillor Leadman noted that the snow removal process changes with intensification. Mr. Manconi explained that staff was reluctant to count on significant reductions due to climate change due to intensification; the volatility mentioned by Deputy City Manager Hewitt, and the fact that Council has increased snow removal operations standards. He also suggested that with aging demographics, there would be increased pressure to improve bare conditions on sidewalks and roads.

In response to Councillor Leadman’s question on the proximity of residences to the site, Ms. Currie explained that the site is surrounded by lands designated employment, but there are a few existing homes approximately 150 metres away. However, these are designated employment and are anticipated to convert to employment at some time in the future. Councillor Leadman wondered if the existing City of Ottawa snow dumps had a similar buffer to the proposed one. Mr. Manconi explained that the new sites, such as Conroy and Michael did enjoy the same buffers. However, the Bayview site did not, that is why night-time operations were stopped at this site in 2005. He pointed out that since approval of the 2002 report, a number of sites, Bayview included, have been closed or are under pressure to close although they were anticipated to remain open for long-term use.

In response to questions from Councillor Leadman regarding how the new noise by-law standard would affect existing snow dumps, given that it had been an issue at the OMB, Mr. Manconi did not have that information on hand, and agreed to look into it and report back to the Councillor.

Regarding the OMB decision, Mr. Marc clarified that the site had not failed the new noise by-law standards, but it had just not been analyzed.

Councillor Leadman wondered about the feasibility of using capacity in existing snow dumps instead of the new site. Mr. Manconi explained that in order to do that staff would need to do a study to look at the operational impacts, examine service levels etc., which would be a complicated analysis. He could not say that additional capacity was possible or easy to implement, as they have not looked at it in detail. He stated that staff would need to examine the feasibility, and report back.

Councillor Wilkinson referred to slide 8 of the staff presentation, a map of the overall urban area. She noted that there would be 9 snow dumps in total, with the proposed site being the only one in the Orleans area. She wondered how the environmental impact of bringing the snow longer distances was calculated. Mr. Manconi explained that there was an optimized hauling distance, and the further you get from the centre of the catchments area, there are higher costs, more trucks needed to remove the same snow, and emitting more diesel by hauling longer distances. Mr. Manconi confirmed that staff quantifies this in terms of costs, rather than in terms of carbon emissions.

In response to questions from Councillor Wilkinson, Mr. Manconi explained that staff had reduced the safety margin from what was originally in the Regional Plan. In terms of the impacts of intensification, he explained that this was analyzed by staff on a number of occasions as the standards are changed, most recently looking at the soon-to be approved new urban standards. He confirmed that they would be coming forward in the future with a report on updating the standards and the impacts on snow volumes.

Councillor Wilkinson wondered how much money had been spent on the site so far. Mr. Manconi replied that the engineering costs were in the range of $400,000, plus the land purchase, which Mr. Marc suggested, was approximately $1.5 million when the Region purchased it for the purposes of a snow dump.

Councillors Wilkinson suggested that if, due to climate change, there was much less snow in the future, some sites could be closed. Mr. Manconi agreed in theory. However, he suggested that even when there is less snow, all the sites are used in order to optimize the operation. Therefore, he did not anticipate the closing of any of the sites. He noted that the Bayview Site was a different situation for various reasons, but conceded that it was possible for circumstances to change enough in 30-40 years that it would be in the City’s best interests to close the proposed site as well.

Councillor Bloess wanted to make it clear that, although he was negative about this site, there were some positive things arising from it such as the land deal that took place at CSEDC. He also noted that he did not disparage the quality of the engineering of the site or even the location.

In response to further questions from Councillor Bloess regarding the proximity of the SDF to the proposed Transitway Station, Ms. Currie advised that she would probably not have started out with the intention of having that situation. However, she did not think the decision to have them in proximity would compromise the ability to build the Transitway Station.

Concerning traffic issues, Councillor Bloess wondered where plans were in terms of extending Belcourt, the central north-south out through the area. Ms. Currie replied that it will be extended as a part of the development in the area; was not to her knowledge being expedited; and was likely on a long-term timeline.

Councillor Bloess suggested that the extensions of Vanguard and Belcourt might alleviate some of the traffic issues, as mentioned by Councillor Jellett earlier. Ms. Currie noted that none of these roads are city-built roads, and thus will happen at the time of the abutting development.

Councillor Bloess then asked Mr. Manconi to look at these roads, and see what opportunities there were in conjunction with the developers to get that link made. Mr. Manconi agreed he would work with PTE and RPAM Staff on that.

Councillor Bloess then put forward the following motion:

Be it resolved that staff review the 1:50 year snow storage event criteria and evaluate the impact of the 1:25 year criteria and report back on the City’s needs for current and planned snow disposal facilities in the context of modeling for this evaluation.

At that point, Chair McRae noted that Deputy City Manager Hewitt indicated he has no problem with a unanimous endorsement of Councillor Bloess’ motion.

In response to further questions from Councillor Bloess regarding the timeline of the item going to Planning and Environment Committee once approved by Transportation Committee, Ms. Currie explained that the OP Amendment had not been initiated, and the process would likely be in the range of three months at the earliest. Mr. Manconi added that if Transportation Committee approved the staff recommendation, it would rise to Council on April 11 along with the Land Exchange. Deputy City Manager Hewitt understood that the Bloess Motion would be information that staff would look to include in advance of the OP Amendment, but would not be available before this item went to Council on April 11.

Councillor Thompson had a question regarding the staff presentation, which showed a snow dump facility on Mitch Owens Rd. He advised that this area was in fact a cornfield. Mr. Manconi suggested this was a legacy site, being used infrequently, and agreed to provide the Councillor with details on that particular site.

In response to questions from Councillor Legendre regarding the rationale behind closing some of the other snow disposal facilities servicing the east, and the status of the Michael SDF, staff provided the following information:

· Mr. Manconi confirmed that Michael is a permanent site.

· Regarding Canotek, Mr. Marc explained that the status of Canotek was appealed to the OMB by an adjoining landowner with respect to its Official Plan Designation. The Board approved the zoning; however, the Board put a qualification that it could be used for up to 30,000 cubic metres per year, but only after it was engineered. Mr. Manconi suggested that 30,000 cubic metres of capacity was not worth the investment in engineering that was required, and the site was not located centrally for the catchments area.

· Mr. Eric Katamarian, Manager, Operations Planning, Research & Technical, Public Works and Services explained that the Cyrville and Tenth Line sites were closed because of the 2002 Study that looked at the consolidation and optimization of sites in the City.

· In response to further questions from Councillor Legendre regarding the reasons for those closures, Mr. Katamarian clarified that many of the sites, including Cyrville, were not engineered to bring them up to standard would not be worth the considerable investment.

· He confirmed that Industrial has recently been closed because the site is being used for a transit garage.

· Mr. Manconi explained that Rideau was being considered as the possible relocation of the Central Canada Exhibition. Staff did some environmental scans of the site, and where the SDF was to be located was going to require extensive clean up and decontamination and was thus not worth the cost of development.

· Regarding Mitch Owens, Mr. Manconi confirmed that it was open for a small volume of snow.

In response to further questions from Councillor Legendre regarding staff’s response to the OMB decision, Mr. Manconi confirmed that they would be updating the noise study based on the new criteria. He also confirmed that staff would exempt the site from the need to be part of a Community Design Plan in order to be in conformity with the OMB decision. As to why staff did not just do the CDP, Ms. Currie explained that the timing of the CDP was something the PTE Department felt was premature. Because they do not realistically expect development for 10-15 years, they felt it might be better to wait closer to that time to better reflect future planning and design standards. Councillor Legendre suggested that having the snow dump would be a constraint on that CDP. In response, Ms. Currie explained that they were looking to employment uses in the area, not residential uses, thus the degree of constraint is very limited. Councillor Legendre noted that when a CDP is done in an already-developed area, it is more difficult and time consuming; and suggested one could proceed much faster in a largely empty area. Ms. Currie agreed that it could be done in a year, or in five years, as this area was to be the last phase of a 3-phase plan, but repeated the feeling that it should be done closer to the time.

In response to more questions from Councillor Legendre regarding the effect of Councillor Bloess’ motion, Mr. Manconi suggested it was a review of what a 1 in 25 year standard would mean in terms of capacity requirements. Further to his previous questions about the closed facilities, Councillor Legendre suggested that if the City moved to the lesser 1 in 25 standard, and there was an exceptional winter, they could move to sites that were a little bit further away for that one particular year.

In response, Mr. Manconi advised that staff needed to be very careful with planning for emergency operations in a manner, which could cause contravention of by-laws, noise issues or environmental issues. He explained that the Council-approved plan speaks to handling snow in an environmentally sensitive area, including up to the 1 in 50 year. He stated that staff would have no problem going lower than that, but maintained that staff would have to examine all these possible environmental and compliance issues. Therefore, he cautioned that it was not as simple as finding an empty field to dump the snow in.

Mr. Marc added that, in order to use a site for a snow disposal facility, it has to be zoned for that use. He pointed out that, according to the Official Plan, if it is zoned for that use, it must be engineered for that use. Thus the site must be engineered for it to be used in those exceptional years when there is a lot of snow.

Mr. Manconi clarified his earlier response to Councillor Thompson and apologized for his misunderstanding of Mitch Owens with Scrivens. He confirmed that Mitch Owens is in fact a cornfield, acquired by the Region for future possibilities if development goes out that far.

Councillor Jellett referred to PWS Charts showing the historical snow volumes at Conroy Rd. site and Michael St. sites and noted the figures for Conroy that indicate that it used approximately ¼ of its capacity in its highest volume year. At the Michael St. site, a much larger site, it used approximately 2/5 of the capacity in its highest volume year. He hopes that as part of staff review (should the Bloess Motion pass), staff would look at snow volumes, provide updated figures on all of the facilities, and project the added volume that will be taken to them from the closed sites. Chair McRae stated that Deputy City Manager Hewitt had indicated that, in the event the Bloess Motion passed, he would take Councillor Jellett’s comments as direction.

Councillor Bloess mentioned the fact that the City was able to use some of the land originally dedicated for the snow dump and exchange it for the woodlot, and the fact that staff has reduced the size of the original site, he feels this was very positive. However, he urged Committee to vote against the project going ahead.

He suggested that this project had picked up momentum over time, but things had changed in terms of volumes and capacities. He understood that staff wanted to be cautious. He stated that the current reality, regardless of the history of the site, is that this site is not the ideal location for a snow storage facility. Therefore, even though he had no concerns about the engineering of the site, he did have concerns about the land use, the location, and the costs.

The Committee then considered the following motion:

Moved by Councillor R. Bloess:

CARRIED

At that point, Councillor Legendre proposed an amendment to the Report Recommendation - that staff takes the necessary steps to complete the noise study, then come back for Committee’s approval before proceeding with the SDF.

Mr. Manconi advised that staff needed the noise study in order to proceed to the next steps. Mr. Marc agreed that the noise study was one of the inputs necessary to the decision, so it would be done, the results would be available, and there would then be a recommendation that would come forward to the Planning and Environment Committee. Councillor Legendre feels that this was entirely compatible with his motion. Mr. Marc clarified that the motion would have the matter come back to Transportation Committee (TRC) before going to Planning and Environment Committee (PEC), which is another step.

Chair McRae noted that due to the urgency of the item, it was scheduled to go to the April 11 Council Meeting, and wondered if this was consistent with Councillor Legendre’s motion. Mr. Manconi explained that the intent was to bring the item to the April 11 Council meeting at the same time as the related land exchange from CSEDC.

Deputy City Manager Hewitt wondered what benefit would be gained by bringing the issue back to TRC, should the noise study be found satisfactory. He suggested that if it were not satisfactory, staff would certainly be coming back to Committee at some point anyway.

Councillor Legendre feels that if Committee approved the staff recommendation as written, it is sending a message to PEC that TRC has no problem with the site. He would prefer that TRC have the noise study before PEC consideration of the item.

Chair McRae wanted to know how approving the Legendre Motion might impact on the land deal, as the two were supposed to go to Council together. Mr. Marc explained that Council would have the authority to approve the land deal on April 11, independent of the motion. He anticipated that questions might rise at Council regarding why they were proceeding with the land deal if the SDF was on hold.

In response to questions from Councillor Wilkinson, Mr. Marc confirmed that if the Legendre Amendment passed, it would still go forward to Council, but that would result in the report coming back to TRC before the application could be made to planning. Mr. Manconi advised that it would take less than a month to complete the noise study.

Councillor Wilkinson suggested that perhaps it might be a good idea to have the item come back to a Joint meeting of the PEC and TRC in order to avoid delays.

Chair McRae suggested that if it was the will of the Committee to speak to Councillor Hume about a joint meeting, that was fine, but asked Mr. Manconi to comment on the feasibility of a joint meeting.

Mr. Manconi advised that the strategy was to have the decision on this site rest with TRC, as it is within its mandate; then the matters pertaining to planning proceeding with the development of the site would go to PEC. He also advised the thrust to have the item go to Council on April 11 was due to some sensitive timelines about the land deal. He did not see the benefits of the joint meeting, and saw the Legendre Amendment as adding another step to the decision.

Councillor Bédard suggested that it was TRC’s job to decide if it agrees in principle, and PEC should be left to deal with issues from a planning perspective, such as the noise by-law, and feels that the Legendre Amendment would just result in more delay and red tape. He maintained that he would not support Councillor Legendre’s motion.

Councillor Legendre suggested that, as a matter of principle, it was very important to not assume the results of the noise study before approving the SDF. He suggested the delay would not be long, and Mr. Manconi agreed that the impact of a couple of months delay on the SDF would be relatively insignificant.

Following further discussion, the Committee considered the following motion:

Moved by Councillor Legendre:

That the recommendation be amended by directing that the noise study required by the OMB proceed, and that the approval of the snow dump facility be considered after completion of the noise study.

YEAS (1): Councillor J. Legendre

NAYS (8): Councillors G. Bédard, R. Bloess, A. Cullen, C. Doucet, D. Thompson, M. Wilkinson, C. Leadman, M. McRae

LOST

The Committee then voted on the following Report Recommendation:

That the implementation of the Innes Snow Disposal Facility at 2170 Mer Bleue Road proceed, and that staff undertake the necessary steps of updating the noise study using criteria of the current Official Plan and developing an Official Plan Amendment to exempt the Innes Snow Disposal Facility site from the Mixed Use Centre designation as proposed in this report.

YEAS (8): Councillors G. Bédard, A. Cullen, C. Doucet, J. Legendre, D. Thompson, M. Wilkinson, C. Leadman, M. McRae

NAYS (1): Councillor R. Bloess

CARRIED