Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-17PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2011 CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee met this date, commencing at 6:02 p. m. Present: Councillor B. Vrbanovic -Chair Mayor C. Zehr, Councillors S. Davey, J. Gazzola, Y. Fernandes, P. Singh, K. Galloway, B. loannidis, F. Etherington, Z. Janecki and D. Glenn-Graham. Staff: C. Ladd, Chief Administrative Officer J. Willmer, Deputy CAO, Community Services D. Chapman, Deputy CAO, Finance & Corporate Services P. Houston, Deputy CAO, Infrastructure Services G. Murphy, Director of Engineering Services R. Hagey, Director of Financial Planning A. Pinard, Director of Planning B. Korah, Manager of Development Engineering B. Sloan, Manager of Long Range Planning C. Bluhm, Manager of Downtown Community Development S. Ross, Assistant City Solicitor A. Pires, Planning Technician C. Goodeve, Committee Administrator PRESENTATION - RE-URBANIZATION WORKING GROUP The Committee was in receipt of a presentation entitled "Re-urbanization in Our Community", dated October 17, 2011 regarding the activities of the Regional Re-Urbanization Working Group. Messrs. Jeff Casello, University of Waterloo and Craig Beattie, Perimeter Development, reviewed the presentation, advising that formed in 2003, the Re-urbanization Working Group is comprised of representatives from the area municipalities and the development community, with a goal to increase the number of re-urbanization projects throughout the Region of Waterloo. Mr. Casello stated that the Working Group provides a forum for the discussion and resolution of identified obstacles to successful re-urbanization activity and to identify and share success stories, skill sets, techniques, incentives, and opportunities among its members. In addition, it also takes on special projects and initiatives designed to generate increased investor and homebuilder interest in the development of lands within the Region's existing urban areas and to enhance political and public awareness, support, and demand for re- urbanization. He indicated that the Region's population is forecasted to reach 729,000 by 2031, and accordingly, a new approach is needed to manage this estimated growth. Achieving a more balanced growth means directing a greater share of new development to the existing urban areas to make better use of land, existing infrastructure and services. He noted that this also means building more compact and complete communities, with walkable neighbourhoods and a better mix of employment, housing, shopping and services. He stated that this is supported by Provincial Policy Statement (2005) as well as the Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006). He added that the new Regional Official Plan has detailed policies and targets for guiding and directing development within the Region's urban areas. He commented that a key objective of those policies is to more closely link land use and transportation planning decisions in order to ensure that, by 2015, at least 45% of new growth is in designated re-urbanization areas. Mr. Casello stated that re-urbanization is growth and development that helps increase the number of people living and working within urban areas, which can be pursued through the following four different approaches: 1. Infill: new development on formerly vacant land; 2. Intensification: expanding the use of an existing structure to increase the number of people who can live and work there; 3. Adaptive reuse: a change in the use of a structure, usually from commercial/industrial to residential, that results in more residences or jobs; and, 4. Redevelopment: converting a site from one use to another, often involving some form of land assembly and/or demolition, which results in significantly higher number of people or jobs using the site than during its previous use. PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 17. 2011 - 67 - CITY OF KITCHENER 1. PRESENTATION - RE-URBANIZATION WORKING GROUP ICONT'D Concerns were raised regarding the potential impact that intensification may have on the City's heritage resources in the Downtown core. Mr. Casello advised that the Re-Urbanization Working Group are advocates for adaptive re-use, as a means of ensuring the heritage character of an area or building is maintained in a positive way. He added that concerns regarding the impact of development on those resources could be addressed by the City setting out clear guidelines as to how the adaptive re-use should proceed. Councillor P. Singh requested clarification as to the hurdles that may be seen as impeding in- fill development. Mr. Casello advised that there is a fear of longer than necessary approval processes. He stated that with when undertaking the traditional greenfield development process, the path from concept to profit is clear; however, the same cannot be said for in-fill development. Mr. Beattie added that compared to other municipalities, the City of Kitchener has made great strides over the past eight years through its Downtown investments; which gives developers confidence to undertake intensification projects. He stated that, in his experience, the City's existing Mixed-Use Zoning is broad enough to accommodate the needs a developer may have when pursuing intensification. He noted that with each success, it makes it easier for the next in-fill project to proceed with confidence. 2. CSD-11-133 -KITCHENER GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - 2011 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT The Committee considered Community Services Department report CSD-11-133, dated October 12, 2011 regarding the 2011 Kitchener Growth Management Strategy (KGMS) annual monitoring report, which tracks the supply of development opportunities as well as the achievement of intensification and density targets. Ms. A. Pires presented the report, advising that the results of the updated growth management data are encouraging. She stated that the number of residents and jobs per hectare (RJs/ha) in Downtown Kitchener is gradually increasing from approximately 151 RJs/ha in 2009 to approximately 160 RJs/ha in 2010. She commented that this is an excellent step towards achieving the Provincially-mandated target of 200 RJs/ha by 2031. She indicated that another significant achievement is that the amount of residential development occurring through intensification has reached to 56%. She added that this now brings the five-year average to 41%, which is close to the target for urban municipalities in Waterloo Region. She noted that these positive results serve to validate the work taken over the past decade by the City and its partners to support intensification. At the request of Councillor Z. Janecki, staff agreed to circulate mapping to indicating the Built- up Area boundaries for in-fill development. In response to questions regarding the Region of Waterloo intensification target, Mr. B. Sloan advised that it would not be appropriate for staff to comment on specific details as that is one aspect of the new Regional Official Plan that is under appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). He indicated that Kitchener is positioned to achieve the proposed Regional intensification target of 45%. Councillor J. Gazzola estimated that based on the current rate of growth, the City would surpass the Regional targets by 2019. He questioned if it was possible that the City was growing too fast. Mr. Sloan advised that the Province requires that the City's Urban Growth Centre should have a minimum of 200 RJs/ha by 2031. He added that when this requirement was enacted, Kitchener had the third highest urban growth density in Ontario. He stated that estimates do not mean that the City will definitely grow, just that the capacity exists to accommodate potential growth. He added that this also indicates that it may not be necessary to pursue further re-zoning or re-designation in the City's Urban Growth Centre to manage future intensification. On motion by Councillor K. Galloway - itwas resolved: PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2011 - 68 - CITY OF KITCHENER CSD-11-133 -KITCHENER GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - 2011 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT (CONT'D) "That Community Services Department report CSD-11-133, Kitchener Growth Management Strategy - 2011 Annual Monitoring Report, be received for information; and further, That Report CSD-11-133 be submitted to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in fulfilment of Clause 22.1 of the Administrative Agreement between the City of Kitchener and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo regarding delegated authority." FCS-11-171 - 2012 BUDGET -DEFERRAL OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES PROJECTS The Committee considered Finance and Corporate Services Department report FCS-11-171, dated October 12, 2011 regarding the need to defer growth-related capital projects to address the deficits projected for the Development Charge (DC) Reserve Fund. Mr. R. Hagey presented the report, advising that across-functional team met several times to review and prioritize the upcoming growth-related projects in the Capital Forecast. He noted that a timeframe of 2012-2014 was chosen as that was when the largest funding gaps occurred, and it coincided with the timing for an update to the DC Background Study. He stated that in addressing this matter, the team agreed not to negatively impact the DC Reserve Fund balance and improve it to a surplus by the end of 2014; which meant that some projects within that timeframe would need to be deferred. He pointed out that all projects deferred beyond the 2012-2014 window were moved out to 2015. He noted that since a new DC Background Study is scheduled to be prepared in 2014, the timing of all projects in 2015 and beyond should be considered very tentative. He advised that the prioritization of the 35 projects within the 2012-2014 window was completed using a scoring matrix. He stated that 17 projects qualify for DC funding using a funding cut-off point of $29M, as that is the estimated amount of DC revenue available to the end of 2014. Accordingly, 18 projects fell below the funding line and are proposed to be deferred to 2015. He reviewed the revised projection for the DC Reserve Fund based on the deferrals, which shows an overall balance by the end of 2011 of -$5.2M. He indicated that the Reserve Fund balance remains relatively unchanged at -$5.3M in 2012, worsens to -$7.9M in 2013, before improving to $1 M in 2014. He gave an overview of the following known challenges which will need to be addressed in the next DC Background Study: projects deferred from 2012-2014 to 2015; DC revenue shortfall; and, Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision Background Study. regarding the Town of Orangeville's DC Councillor J. Gazzola requested clarification regarding the allocation for the DC Study Consultant, which is shown as costing $220,000., and questioned what the disadvantages would be if certain projects were delayed; such as the Huron Road/Strasburg to Fischer Hallman, and/or Block Line Road East projects. Mr. D. Chapman advised that the DC Study Consultant fee is estimated to come in under $200,000. Mr. G. Murphy indicated that construction has already commenced on the Huron Road/Strasburg to Fischer Hallman project, which is anticipated to be completed in 2012. He added that the detail design phase is underway for the Block Line Road East project. He stated that while tenders have yet to be issued for this project, its timing is intended to off-set transportation restrictions caused by projects anticipated to be undertaken by the Region of Waterloo in 2014/2015. Questions were raised as to whether other municipalities were facing a similar situation with their DC Reserve Funds. Mr. Hagey advised that this situation is not localized to the City of Kitchener. He added that even though the City has experienced an increase in the number of building permits processed, this does not necessarily equate to an increase in DC Revenue if a portion of those permits are for projects that are exempt from paying DC fees; such as, educational facilities, or provincial institutions. Councillor K. Galloway expressed concern that while projects originally intended for 2012-2014 have been tentatively slotted into 2015, this could still give the proponents for those projects an expectation that they will proceed in 2015. Mr. Hagey advised that a number of projects that PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 17. 2011 - 69 - CITY OF KITCHENER 3. FCS-11-171 - 2012 BUDGET -DEFERRAL OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES PROJECTS (CONT'D) were in 2012-2014 were moved out to 2015 and identified for reprioritization during the development of the next DC Background Study. He stated that in order to accommodate those projects in 2015, others would need to be deferred, which could cause a domino effect of project deferrals in order to balance available funding with project requests. He added that another issue impacting this is that the OMB recently ruled that the Town of Orangeville should not have used the gross population methodology to determine their charge; and, should have used a net population methodology. He pointed out that while the OMB decision only applies to Orangeville, Kitchener used the same methodology in its current DC Study; and, there is a risk of lost DC revenue in future, due to the OMB's decision. He estimated this potential negative impact to Kitchener's DC revenues as being in excess of $30M, which would affect the following primary services: indoor recreation, public works, library, outdoor recreation, parking and fire. Mr. Chapman stated that it would not be possible to re-prioritize the projects proposed for deferral to 2015 until after the new DC Background Study has been completed. He noted that it is staffs' opinion that the methodology used by the City of Kitchener to develop the current DC Study is supported by the Development Charges Act; and, he agreed to circulate copies of the OMB's decision to the Committee. Councillor Z. Janecki questioned why line 4.2 of the scoring matrix, as outlined in Appendix `B', was left blank. Mr. Hagey advised that the criteria was established prior to undertaking the ranking exercise. He added that when the matrix was developed it was contemplated that, should a project create DC revenues less than its cost, this should be noted in the matrix. He commented that even though none of the projects met this criteria, the team decided to leave it in the matrix as a means of showing that it was taken into consideration. Councillor Janecki further asked about the one salary that was indicated in Appendix `C' as being funded through planning studies. Mr. A. Pinard advised that this account is used to fund a variety of growth-related activities including studies that support the growth management program and the Official Plan review. He stated that the position is not currently filled, noting that the future use of that portion of the account has yet to be determined. Councillor Janecki suggested that given the projected deficit, this may represent an area of potential savings. Councillor Y. Fernandes questioned the possibility of delaying the Freeport Sanitary Pumping Station Upgrades, and/or the Consolidated Maintenance Facility (CMF) project. Mr. Hagey advised that the CMF is close to completion and this funding is intended to cover some of the remaining outstanding expenses. Mr. Murphy advised that the Environmental Assessment for the Freeport Station has been completed, adding that as a means of mitigating the impact of this project on the Capital Forecast, its component costs have been spread over several years. He noted that the existing pumping station is old and needs to be replaced in the near future. Councillor S. Davey requested clarification as to the impact of the Economic Development Investment Fund (EDIF) ending in 2014 may have on the DC Revenue Fund. Mr. Hagey advised that EDIF is responsible for funding the non-residential DC rate phase-in and the Downtown exemption. He stated that as part of the next DC Background Study consideration needs be given as to whether the City should continue the Downtown exemption. Clarification was requested regarding the DC Credit Refund Agreement. Mr. Chapman advised that this is an option to allow for the completion of projects in the near future, without negatively impacting the DC Reserve Fund. He stated that the City would enter into a credit/refund agreement with a developer, who would construct infrastructure that the City is unwilling or unable to fund itself. He added that the developer would not be reimbursed until the time when the project was scheduled to be undertaken in the Capital Forecast, provided the City has realized all of the anticipated growth related to the project as stipulated in the agreement. Accordingly, a refund is only paid once the City has received the full revenue for the credit that was issued. In response to further questions, Mr. Hagey confirmed that this matter was brought forward to allow an opportunity for input in advance of the 2012 Capital Budget deliberations. Councillor B. Vrbanovic suggested that the staff report could be referred Council's 2012 Capital Budget deliberations, as a starting point for those discussions. PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2011 - 70 - CITY OF KITCHENER FCS-11-171 - 2012 BUDGET -DEFERRAL OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES PROJECTS (CONT'D) On motion by Councillor K. Galloway - itwas resolved: "That Finance and Corporate Services Department report FCS-11-171, be referred for consideration as part of Council's 2012 Capital Budget deliberations, with Appendix `A' (Project Division -Above the Line and Below the Line) being acknowledged as the starting point for discussion on the impending need to reprioritize growth related capital projects." CSD-11-134 -KITCHENER GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (KGMP) FALL 2011 -FALL 2013+ The Committee considered Community Services Department report CSD-11-134, dated October 12, 2011 recommending the approval of the Kitchener Growth Management Plan (KGMP) Fall 2011 - Fall 2013+. The Committee was in receipt this date of comments/materials submitted by: Mr. Glenn Scheels, GSP Group; Ms. Jennifer Passy, Cook Homes Ltd.; Mr. Thomas Hardacre, IBI Group; and, Mr. Chris Pidgeon, GSP Group. Mr. B. Sloan presented the staff report, advising that the KGMP is an evolution of the former Staging of Development program and is used as a tool to assist with the implementation of the Kitchener Growth Management Strategy (KGMS). He stated that the KGMP establishes priority levels for development and projects for each growth area within the City. He added that it includes the prioritization and allocation of resources towards completing initiatives that are required to move lands from the draft approval stage to registration, construction and developing complete communities. He advised that development applications and initiatives identified as Priority `A' are given highest preference. He stated that those identified as Priority `B' would also be actively worked on in the coming two-year timeframe; however, Priority `A' areas would take precedence if there is a competition for resources. He noted that both Priority `A' and `B' lands are eligible for consideration for potential Development Charge (DC) Credit Refund Agreements for infrastructure. He further indicated that for parcels identified as Priority `C' if all necessary studies and technical items are complete, planning applications and initiatives would be actively worked on, but those lands would not be eligible for DC Credit Refund Agreements within the coming two-year timeframe. He added that for Priority `C' parcels the necessary engineering and community infrastructure may be later in the City, Region or agency Capital Forecast and/or there may be other additional financial implications. He noted that staff would not actively work on development applications or undertake property- specific municipal work in the coming two-year timeframe for Priority `D' parcels. Mr. Sloan further advised that due to the financial position of the DC Reserve Fund consideration was given to the City's capacity to construct additional community infrastructure as well as associated long-term maintenance obligations. He indicated that this, along with the progress achieved on numerous planning initiatives prompted a need to change the descriptions of the priority categories in the KGMP; which primarily impacted parcels identified as Priority `C'. He stated that the revised approach meant that some parcels of land in Doon South Phase 2 were changed from Priority `B' to Priority `C'. He added that while consideration could be given to processing subdivision modifications and engineering drawings, the ultimate development timing for these parcels is dependent upon infrastructure further out in the Capital Forecast; such as, the Doon South Pumping Station and forcemain. He added that a similar approach was taken in the Rosenberg Community where parcels dependent upon the future extension of the Middle Strasburg Trunk Sanitary Sewer were revised to Priority `C'. He indicated that the revisions occurred after the preliminary circulation of the draft version of the KGMP, and some landowner groups have only had a week to submit comments. Accordingly, staff are open to deferring consideration of these parcels to provide an opportunity for additional consultation. Councillor P. Singh requested that Urban Growth Centre Al be considered separately, as he may have a potential conflict of interest regarding certain lands in that area. Mr. Glenn Scheels, GSP Group advised that he represents the owners of Parcels #97 and #101 (Monarch -Doon South Phase 2), and requested that the status of those properties be PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 17. 2011 - 71 - CITY OF KITCHENER 4. CSD-11-134 -KITCHENER GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (KGMP) FALL 2011 -FALL 2013+ (CONT'D) changed from Priority `C' to Priority `B' or `A'. He stated that during the City's 2011 Capital Budget deliberations, the Doon South Pumping Station (DSPS), which has an estimated total cost of $16M, was moved from 2013 to 2019. He noted that the DSPS could proceed prior to 2019, as the City has invested in the project by completing the Environmental Assessment (EA) and acquiring the required land. He added that in the EA, the DSPS was originally contemplated to be constructed in three separate phases, with the costs associated with Phase 1 estimated at $5-7M. He indicated that this Phase would involve the initial completion of the DSPS along with the construction of an interim forcemain to accommodate additional flows to the Homer Watson Pumping Station (HWPS). He noted that this additional capacity would allow for the development of the remainder of the Monarch neighbourhood as well as some additional lands to the west. Mr. Scheels commented that Parcels #97 and #101 need to be categorized as Priority `B', in order to allow for the opportunity to frontend the initial Phase of the DSPS through a DC Credit Refund Agreement. He suggested that the development of the Monarch neighbourhood would result in DC revenues to the City in excess of $3M. Councillor Y. Fernandes questioned the return to the City if the DSPS was constructed through a DC Credit Refund Agreement, when Phase 1 is estimated to cost $5-7M and the DC revenues being paid to the City would only be $3M. Mr. A. Pinard advised that the DC Credit Refund Policy sets out that a developer would not be reimbursed until such time when the project was scheduled to be undertaken in the Capital Forecast provided the City has realized all of the anticipated DC revenue associated with that project. He stated that in this case theoretically, the project would be undertaken in the near future, but the City would not issue a refund until 2019. Mayor C. Zehr questioned the status of the north portion of Parcel #97, which is not subject to the construction of the DSPS, and was advised that the units located in that section are set to go forward, with new homeowners anticipated for the Spring of 2012. Mr. David Freure, Freure Development Ltd., addressed the Committee regarding Parcel #30 (Primeland Developments -Huron South). He indicated that these lands represent the last half of the subdivision south of Huron Road and west of Strasburg Road. He requested that Stages 4 and 5a be changed from Priority `B' to Priority `A', to ensure that an adequate supply of building lots are available in 2012. He stated that the lands in the subject area represent approximately 160 lots, noting Stages 5b and 6 accounts for approximately 150 lots. In response to questions, Mr. Freure advised that zoning change applications are currently being processed to reduce the lot sizes from 40 to 30 feet, adding that these lands do not require a servicing solution, only roads. He confirmed that Stages 4 and 5a are the lands in Parcel #30 that are closest to Strasburg Road. He noted that the subject lands would be impacted by the extension of Strasburg Road. Ms. Jennifer Passy, Cook Homes Ltd., addressed the Committee to request that Parcel #120 be moved from a Priority `C' to a Priority `B'. She advised that when the draft KGMP was circulated in August 2011, the subject lands were identified as Priority `B'; however, in the draft attached to Report CSD-11-134, which was released on October 11, 2011, Parcel #120 had been downgraded to a Priority `C'. She stated that it is their position that the subject lands should be given the same priority as those located in Area 4 (Mattamy/Tru-Villa), which are identified as Priority `B'. She added that as the affected stakeholders have filed complete subdivision applications in 2008 and 2009, the City has a statutory obligation to process those plans. She asked that should their proposed re-prioritization not be approved at this time, the matter be deferred to allow for dialogue with City staff in an effort to resolve their concerns. In response to questions, Ms. Passy suggested that a two week deferral should allow sufficient time to discuss their concerns with City staff. She confirmed that Parcel #120 was impacted by Council's decision during the 2011 Budget deliberations to delay the Middle Strasburg Trunk Sanitary Sewer until 2019. She indicated that at that time it was assumed that with a Priority `B' ranking they would have the ability to discuss the timing of that project; however, with a Priority `C' ranking they are not eligible to enter into a DC Credit Refund Agreement within the coming two-year timeframe. PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2011 - 72 - CITY OF KITCHENER CSD-11-134 -KITCHENER GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (KGMP) FALL 2011 -FALL 2013+ (CONT'D) Mr. Sloan noted that staff are recommending that the construction of the Middle Strasburg Trunk Sanitary Sewer proceed in 2017, instead of 2019. Mr. Paul Britton, MHBC Planning attended with respect Parcel #90 (Activa - Doon South Phase 2), and suggested that it might be preferable to defer consideration of the KGMP in its entirety to allow for further consideration of the proposed priority rankings. He indicated that the issues impacting Parcel #90 are interrelated with those of Parcels #97 and #101, as reviewed by Mr. Scheels. He added that the combined DC revenues generated from all of those Parcels is approximately $18M, compared to the estimated $5M cost to frontend the DSPS. He suggested that moving these Parcels forward could produce revenues that would put the DC Reserve Fund in a positive position. He requested that these Parcels be changed to Priority `B' to allow for an opportunity to enter into DC Credit Refund Agreement. In response to questions, Mr. Britton advised that that Parcel #90 is not impacted by the Strasburg Road extension. He confirmed that portions of Parcels #97 and #101 would not be able to proceed without Parcel #97, as each is interrelated in terms of drainage. Mr. Vaughan Bender, Schlegel Urban Development addressed the Committee with respect to Parcel #121, advising that his concerns are similar to those expressed by Ms. Passy. He requested that Parcel #121 be changed back to a Priority `B' ranking and short of that, this matter be deferred for two to three weeks to allow for further discussions with City staff. In response to questions, Mr. Bender reiterated that a Priority `B' ranking was necessary to allow the Middle Strasburg Trunk Sanitary Sewer to be pursued through a DC Credit Refund Agreement. He then spoke to the importance of Parcels #121 and #120 to the town-centre concept being implemented on the lands just north of those two parcels. Several members spoke in support of deferring this matter to the November 7, 2011 Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting, to allow time for the various landowner groups to discuss their concerns with City staff. Councillor K. Galloway acknowledged the short timeframe with which some stakeholders have had to respond to the proposed changes in the KGMP and requested that the development community not provide any late or day of submissions when this matter is next considered. On motion by Councillor K. Galloway - itwas resolved: "That consideration of the Kitchener Growth Management Plan Fall 2011 -Fall 2013+, as attached to Community Services Department report CSD-11-134, be deferred to the November 7, 2011 Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting, to allow an opportunity for City staff to review and consider the impacts of new information submitted on behalf of affected landowners." FAREWELL TO DAN CHAPMAN Councillor B. Vrbanovic advised that after six years of service to the City of Kitchener, Mr. D. Chapman, Deputy CAO -Finance & Corporate Services Department and City Treasurer, was leaving the Corporation. On behalf of City, Councillor Vrbanovic thanked Mr. Chapman for his invaluable service and wished him the best of luck in his future endeavours. ADJOURNMENT On motion, this meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m Colin Goodeve Committee Administrator