Peterborough city council has voted against asking GE Vernova to provide a demolition plan for 25 buildings in the historic General Electric (GE) factory complex at 107 Park Street North in downtown Peterborough, and has also voted against asking city staff to obtain more information about the contaminants on the site.
Both decisions were made despite several councillors acknowledging the health and safety risks to the community from the potential demolition.
At its regular meeting on Monday night (February 23), council considered two amending motions put forth by councillors Alex Bierk and Joy Lachica — the two councillors in whose ward the factory complex is located — at last Monday’s general committee meeting in response to a report from municipal operations commissioner Ilmar Simanovskis that provides a high-level outline of a health and safety approach for the demolition of buildings at the GE Vernova site.
Proposed amendments to city staff’s health and safety report
Last October, based on a motion from councillor Bierk, council had directed city staff to develop the report in response to community concerns about the demolition given the long history of toxic substances used at the factory complex.
The report outlines which agencies could be involved in the demolition and describes their regulatory authority, and includes a guideline document for a community health and safety approach, proposing a “joint oversight table” that would include the city, the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), Lakelands Public Health, GE Vernova, the demolition contractor, and an independent environment monitor hired by the city and funded by GE Vernova.
At last week’s general committee meeting, councillor Bierk said the report did not reflect what he had asked for in his original motion.
“My concern for this report is simple,” he said. “It explains jurisdiction, but it does not provide the city’s plan that council requested for this site. I am moving to not defer this, but to refer this back to staff so that council can actually receive that plan with clear deliverables, roles and timelines, and I have a motion which I will submit to the clerk.”
Councillor Bierk’s motion requested that staff report back with a “city health and safety plan” for the GE Vernova site that is not limited to the demolition plan itself, referring to the original discussion on the item in October that led to the staff report.
After the motion lost in a 5-5 vote, councillor Joy Lachica put forward a detailed amendment to the main motion that council request that GE Vernova disclose its full demolition plan under the Ontario Building Code through the city’s chief building official and to all members of municipal council as part of its application for demolition.
Due to the length and detail of councillor Lachica’s motion, councillor Gary Baldwin put forward a motion to defer consideration of the motion to give councillors time to review the motion before voting on it at the regular city council. His motion carried 8-2, with councillors Lachica and Bierk voting against the deferral.
The debate at last week’s general committee consumed almost two hours and, at Monday night’s council meeting, councillors spent almost another two hours debating the item.
Neighbourhood resident urges council to “take power back”
Council only heard from a single public delegation at the meeting: Nicholas Lato, who lives on Frederick Avenue near the GE factory complex and whose child attends Prince of Wales Public School on Monaghan Road northwest of the complex.
“You gave away the power from this council to determine how the demolition proceeded and you gave a large chunk of the power to General Electric, presumably for nothing in return,” Lato said, referring to a previous decision by council to only proceed with heritage designation of a few of the buildings at the site and permitting GE Vernova to demolish the rest.
“It’s up to you to figure out to take enough power back that we determine how the demolition proceeds, not General Electric. I imagine everybody here doesn’t trust General Electric to do what’s best for the community.”
Councillor Keith Riel asked Lato if he would have bought his home knowing what he knows now, and whether he intends to sell it.
“I would not have bought it, and we are wondering if we should sell,” Lato replied.
In response to councillor Lesley Parnell, who told Lato that council has already decided on the heritage designation, he said, “That’s what I’m saying — you screwed up and you need to fix it. You need to figure out what levers you still do have after you gave it away.”
Legal limits debated as demolition plan motion fails
Later in the meeting, after council voted to approve general committee’s decision from the previous week to reverse its earlier decision and exclude from heritage designation all four buildings at the GE site leased by BWXT Nuclear Energy Canada Inc., councillors debated the amending motion from councillor Joy Lachica that would require the city’s chief building official to request a demolition plan from GE Vernova.
“We need to be proactive, to use this window to take charge of the narrative,” councillor Lachica said. “This is our city, this is our Prince of Wales community, this is our Town Ward. It is our city and region that could be impacted by the scale of something like this.”
While he said he supported the intent of the motion and the need to ensure the safety of the community, councillor Matt Crowley echoed concerns raised by the city’s legal staff at general committee that the motion would direct “a chief building official that is free from political (and) bureaucratic influence to do a thing from the municipality, which we are not allowed to do.”
In response to a question from councillor Crowley, the city’s legal services director Alan Barber confirmed the independence of the city’s building official and outlined the responsibilities of those involved in any demolition.
“There is comfort to be had for members of council and for members of the public that anything that happens on that site will be watched by the (provincial) ministries with oversight, will happen in accordance with the statutory requirements of the Building Code Act, and under the professional obligations of the owner’s engineer of record,” Barber said.”
“One final thing I’d like to say about what the city can’t do, is it would be improper to try and add a condition onto the owner, through a council resolution or otherwise, that would change what the owner is required to submit under the building code to get a permit,” Barber added. “That is improper and should not be done.”
Councillor Crowley said that, “while every single one of us around this table have dire concerns,” he didn’t want to be in a position where he’s putting the city at risk for a lawsuit. He suggested instead that, when city staff receive a demolition plan from GE Vernova through the proper process, they could come to council to provide an overview of the plan.
For his part, councillor Keith Riel said GE Vernova “will do the bare minimum” to protect the community.
“They’ll tear the buildings down, they’ll fence it off, they’ll seed it and plant a couple of trees, and you’re left with a 43-acre brownfield in the City of Peterborough,” he said. “The problem with the site is underneath the ground.”
“I can tell you they know exactly what contaminants are there, exactly what it’s going to cost them to remediate the property complete(ly). They already know that — they’ve drilled enough holes, they’ve done enough sampling … they know what their liability is. They’re trying to get off scot-free. I have dealt with this company for 38-and-a-half years. I’m not trying to sit here and fear monger — I’m telling you how they operate.”
Councillor Bierk said he’s “not buying” the argument about what the city can’t do — “all that we’re doing here is asking for something.”
“The worst that can happen is they can say no,” he added, noting that the chief building official could bring information to council in closed session and advise council if they are overstepping their authority.
In response to questions from councillor Baldwin, city CAO Jasbir Raina said that GE Vernova has not yet applied for a demolition permit and that it was under no obligation to do so, but would otherwise be required to maintain the buildings, noting that the company is spending around $5 million a year for such maintenance.
Although he said he understood the “spirit and intent” of the motion, councillor Kevin Duguay said he found it “unnecessary and somewhat superfluous” given the existing process for demolition.
“For the city at this point to introduce any language that would suggest we expect more from our chief building official, or more of the process above and beyond the prescribed regulatory framework would be inappropriate,” he said. “I’m satisfied there’s a process that will follow, that will protect the interests of our community.”
Council then voted on councillor Lachica’s amending motion, which lost 3-8, with councillors Bierk, Lachica, and Riel voting in favour.
Council rejects asking city staff to obtain contimination information
Following the defeat of councillor Lachica’s amending motion, councillor Bierk reintroduced his original motion with changes, asking city staff to report back to council with any available information about the extent of contamination on or around the site, and that the city request GE Vernova to provide any available information about contamination on or around the site.
Councillor Baldwin said he couldn’t support the motion, after the city’s infrastructure commissioner Blair Nelson told him “I’m not certain that we have any of the information” about contamination and the city would have to hire an outside consultant if testing is required.
After councillors Riel and Lachica spoke in support of his motion, councillor Bierk said “I feel like we’re in the Olympics right now, with all the mental gymnastics and the twisting and turning that’s going on with the logic around this.”
“I did not mention a consultant. I did not mention doing core sampling of bricks at General Electric. I’m not an idiot, I understand that we don’t have the capacity or the funding to do that. That’s not what I’m asking. It says very clearly in the preamble (of the motion) ‘to the city’s best available knowledge.'”
“I’m not asking for us to do anything beyond our capacity,” he said. “We need the subject matter experts in our city to review the documents that they can get their hands on — the documents through the ministry (of environment), the documents through these many meetings, and give the public a sense of what the contamination is, because we have not heard a clear and definitive answer through any of this discussions as to what that is.”
“We own sidewalks and roads and sewers, and we own portions (of the rocks that keep Little Lake around there. We own all that, and I see them (GE Vernova) testing around there, and the public sees them testing around there. We don’t know what they’re testing for. We don’t know how frequently.”
“What’s the list of contaminants? There’s a lot of conjecture going on in the community. ‘Can you set the record straight? Can you tell us what’s going on at that site and how it’s happening?’ This is what the ask is, and I don’t understand the resistance to this.”
In her comments, councillor Parnell said GE Vernova is a private company that holds all the liability and that the motion could place the city in “legal jeopardy.” She asked Barber if councillor Bierk’s motion could be considered as interfering with the authority of the chief building official prior to a demolition permit application.
Barber replied that, while the debate and the motion itself is not “definitive evidence that council is interfering” with the chief building official, somebody could conclude that council is seeking to influence the chief building official.
To avoid that perception, he suggested that council could reconsider the motion at a later date after GE Vernova has made its application for a demolition permit and the chief building official has issued their decision to either approve or deny the permit.
“That may be the safest course of action, to both limit the city’s potential liability and to best protect the city’s reputation so that no one outside of this room could think that council is trying to influence the (chief building official),” Barber said.
After some further debate, council voted on councillor Bierk’s motion, which lost 4-7, with councillors Lachica, Bierk, Crowley, and Riel voting in favour.
Councillor Crowley proposed an amendment to the main motion to request city staff obtain a copy of GE Vernova’s demolition plan when it is available, but Mayor Jeff Leal ruled it out of order as it was too similar to councillor Lachica’s motion that council had already voted against.
Council then voted on the main motion to receive the report from commissioner Simanovskis, which carried 9-2, with councillors Lachica and Duguay voting against, although Duguay subsequently said he voted incorrectly.
