May 25, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 4:02 PM, with Mayor E. Holder in the Chair and all Members participating, except Councillor M. Salih; it being noted that the following Members attended the meeting remotely:  M. van Holst, J. Helmer, M. Cassidy, J. Morgan, S. Lehman, A. Hopkins, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Turner, E. Peloza, A. Kayabaga and S. Hillier.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor E. Peloza discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 9 (2.8) of the 8th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee and related Bill No. 247, having to do with Integrated Subsidized Transit Program:  Phase 1 Funding Agreement, by indicating that her son makes use of the Subsidized Transit Program.

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 4.4 (6.4) of the 8th Report of the Council, In Closed Session and related Added Bill No. 265, having do with Minutes of Settlement and Letter of Understanding providing for a bilingual stipend,  between The Corporation of the City of London and Local Union No. 101 (Canadian Union of Public Employees (“CUPE Local 101”), by indicating that he supervises CUPE Local 101 employees and the Middlesex London Health Unit.

2.   Recognitions

2.1   His Worship the Mayor recognizes, in absentia, the recipient of the 2021 Tim Hickman Health and Safety Scholarship: Skylar Synesael

2.2   Recognitions

2.3   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Turner

That pursuant to section 6.5 of the Council Procedure By-law, the following changes in order BE APPROVED:

a)     Stage 4 – Council, In Closed Session be considered after Stage 13- By-laws, with the exception of Bill No. 243, being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 25th day of May, which will be considered, prior to Stage 14 – Adjournment; and

b)     Stage 9 – Added Reports –Item 9.1 – 8th Report of Council, In Closed Session be considered after Stage 4 – Council, In Closed Session.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

2.5   Confirmation and Signing of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting(s)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the Minutes of the 7th Meeting, held on May 4, 2021, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

2.6   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the following communications BE RECEIVED and BE REFERRED, as noted on the public Agenda:

6.1       2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West  (Refer to the Planning and Environment Committee Stage for Consideration with Item 11 (3.2) of the 8th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee);

1.         P.W Vandenbosch, Cram and Associates

2.         J. Pratt, Thames Valley District School Board

6.2       Property Standards By-law (Refer to the Community and Protective Services Committee Stage for Consideration with Item 5 (2.4) of the 8th Report of Community and Protective Services Committee):

1.         M. Atalla, R. Hawkes, L. Kleinert, M. Niazi, A. White, and LifeSpin

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

2.7   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

2.8   Reports

2.8.1   8th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2021-05-10 PEC Report - Full

Motion made by P. Squire

That the 8th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Items 10 (3.1), 11 (3.2) and 12 (3.3).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

2.8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by P. Squire

That it BE NOTED that  no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

2.8.1.2   (2.2) 1620 Noah Bend (Block 95, Plan 33M-733) - (P-9338)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Kenmore Homes (London) Inc., to exempt Block 95, Plan 33M-733 from Part-Lot Control:

a)      pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting, to exempt Block 95, Plan 33M-733 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act; it being noted that these lands are subject to a registered subdivision agreement and are zoned Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-4(4)) which permits street townhouse dwellings;

b)      the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Block 95, Plan 33M-733 as noted in clause a) above:

i)      the applicant be advised that the costs of registration of the said by-laws are to be borne by the applicant in accordance with City Policy;

ii)     the applicant submit a draft reference plan to the Development Services for review and approval to ensure the proposed part lots and development plans comply with the regulations of the Zoning By-law, prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office;

iii)    the applicant submits to the Development Services a digital copy together with a hard copy of each reference plan to be deposited. The digital file shall be assembled in accordance with the City of London’s Digital Submission / Drafting Standards and be referenced to the City’s NAD83 UTM Control Reference;

iv)    the applicant submit each draft reference plan to London Hydro showing driveway locations and obtain approval for hydro servicing locations and above ground hydro equipment locations prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office;

v)     the applicant submit to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office; any revised lot grading and servicing plans in accordance with the final lot layout to divide the blocks should there be further division of property contemplated as a result of the approval of the reference plan;

vi)    the applicant shall enter into any amending subdivision agreement with the City, if necessary;

vii)   the applicant shall agree to construct all services, including private drain connections and water services, in accordance with the approved final design of the lots;

viii)  the applicant shall obtain confirmation from the Development Services that the assignment of municipal numbering has been completed in accordance with the reference plan(s) to be deposited, should there be further division of property contemplated as a result of the approval of the reference plan prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office;

ix)    the applicant shall obtain approval from the Development Services of each reference plan to be registered prior to the reference plan being registered in the land registry office;

x)     the applicant shall submit to the City, confirmation that an approved reference plan for final lot development has been deposited in the Land Registry Office;

xi)    the applicant shall obtain clearance from the City Engineer that requirements iv), v) and vi) inclusive, outlined above, are satisfactorily completed, prior to any issuance of building permits by the Building Controls Division for lots being developed in any future reference plan;

xii)   the applicant shall provide a draft transfer of the easements to be registered on title;

xiii)  that on notice from the applicant that a reference plan has been registered on a Block, and that Part Lot Control be re-established by the repeal of the bylaw affecting the Lots/Block in question; and,

xiv)  in accordance with condition v), the applicant provide servicing drawings of municipal servicing to each of the blocks created within 1620 Noah Bend to indicate that all municipal servicing can be provide to each property/block created without conflict. (2021-D05)

Motion Passed

2.8.1.3   (2.3) 335 Kennington Way and 3959 Mia Avenue (33M-765, Block 1, RP 33R-20777 Parts 2 & 3) - (P-9304) (Relates to Bill No. 251)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Prosperity Homes, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021 to exempt Block 1, Plan 33M-765, RP 33R-20777 Parts 2 & 3 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, for a period not exceeding three (3) years. (2021-D05)

Motion Passed

2.8.1.4   (2.4) 3964 Mia Avenue (33M-765, Block 2) - (P-9305) (Relates to Bill No. 252) 

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Prosperity Homes, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021 to exempt Block 2, Plan 33M-765 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, for a period not exceeding three (3) years. (2021-D05)

Motion Passed

2.8.1.5   (2.5) 146 and 184 Exeter Road – Middleton Subdivision - Phase 3 - Removal of Holding Provisions - (H-9294) (Relates to Bill No. 259)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to lands located at 146 and 184 Exeter Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-h-100-R1-4(29)) Zone and a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-h-100-R1-13(7)) Zone TO a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-4(29)) Zone and a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-13(7)) Zone to remove the h and h-100 holding provisions. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.8.1.6   (2.6) 1639–1685 Brayford Avenue – Removal of Holding Provision - (H-9336) (Relates to Bill No. 260)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Jefferson Homes Ltd., relating to lands located at 1639 to 1685 Brayford Avenue, legally described as Lots 12 to 15 Plan 33M-713 and Lots 13 to 17 Plan 33M-714, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R1 (h-37-R1-4) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone to remove the h-37 holding provision. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.8.1.7   (2.7) 2258–2334 Wickerson Road – Removal of Holding Provision - (H-9337) (Relates to Bill No. 261)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Kape Developments Ltd., relating to lands located at 2258 to 2334 Wickerson Road, legally described as Lots 4 to 11 Plan 33M-713 and Lots 1 to 12 Plan 33M-714, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-37-R1-3(7)) Zone TO a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-3(7)) Zone, and FROM Holding Residential R1 (h-37-R1-4) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone to remove the h-37 holding provision. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.8.1.8   (2.8) 1284 and 1388 Sunningdale Road West - Kent Subdivision - Phase 3 - Special Provisions - (39T-04510-3C)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Foxhollow North Kent Development Inc., for the subdivision of land over Part of Lot 23, Concession 5, (Geographic Township of London), City of London, County of Middlesex, situated on the south side of Sunningdale Road West, between Wonderland Road North and Hyde Park Road, and on the north side of the Heard Drain, municipally known as 1284 and 1388 Sunningdale Road West:

a)      the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Foxhollow North Kent Development Inc., for the Foxhollow North Kent Subdivision, Phase 3C (39T-04510-3C) appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED;

b)      the Applicant BE ADVISED that Development Finance has summarized the claims and revenues appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 as Appendix “B”;

c)      the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute this Agreement, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions. (2021-D12)

Motion Passed

2.8.1.9   (2.1) London Plan Appeals Update – Results of April 15, 2021 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) Decision

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, the staff report dated May 10, 2021 entitled “London Plan Appeals Update - Results of April 15, 2021 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) Decision”, with respect to an update on the status of London Plan Appeals, BE RECEIVED for information. (2021-L01)

Motion Passed

2.8.1.13   (4.1) Councillor M. van Holst - Meadowlilly ESA

Motion made by P. Squire

That, the communication from Councillor M. van Holst with respect to the preserving environmental heritage near the Meadowlily Environmentally Significant Area BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.8.1.14   (5.1) 3rd Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

Motion made by P. Squire

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee from its meeting held on April 28, 2021:

a)      Municipal Council BE ADVISED that the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee recommends that road narrowing be a priority for the Neighbourhood Street Renewal Program projects, to maximize the space for trees and sidewalks within the right of way;

it being noted that a verbal presentation from D. MacRae, Director, Roads and Transportation, with respect to this matter, was received;

b)      the following actions be taken with respect to the Veteran Tree Incentive Program:

i)       the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to explore options to target recipients who genuinely need additional financial support in order to maintain their veteran trees;

ii)      the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to consider and compare, during its review of the above-noted program, its cost-efficiency relative to the canopy cover that is expected to be gained; and,

iii)     the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to seek to prioritize low canopy neighbourhoods and non-invasive species for the above-noted program, given that funding is limited and not all of the veteran trees can be maintained;

it being noted that the presentation, as appended to the added agenda, from S. Rowland, Urban Forestry Planner, with respect to this matter, was received;

c)      the final 2021 Trees and Forests Advisory Committee Work Plan, BE APPROVED;

d)      the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, as appended to the added agenda, from J. Kogelheide with respect to tree care communications:

i)      the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to implement the Trees and Forest Advisory Committee’s recommendation with respect to the distribution of promotional materials related to tree care practices including:

A)     proper tree mulching;

B)     watering newly planted trees; and,

C)     not travelling with firewood;

it being noted that the above-noted communication, with respect to this matter, was received; and,

e)      clauses 1.1, 2.3, 3.1 and 3.2, inclusive, 5.1 and 5.2, inclusive and 5.5 BE RECEIVED, for information.

Motion Passed

2.8.8   Reports

2.8.8.1   8th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2021-05-10 PEC Report - Full

2.8.8.1.10   (3.1) 192-196 Central Avenue, 193-197 Central Avenue, and 200 Albert Street (TZ-9316) (Relates to Bill No. 262)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, with respect to the application of Farhi Holdings Corporation relating to the properties located at 192-196 Central Avenue, 193-197 Central Avenue, and 200 Albert Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), by extending the Temporary Use (T-70) Zone for a period not exceeding three (3) years;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

●      a communication dated May 3, 2021 from M. Smith, by e-mail;

●      a communication dated May 4, 2021 from K. Langdon, by e-mail;

●      a communication dated May 4, 2021 from G. Anastasiadis, by e-mail;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

-      the recommended extension to the Temporary Use (T-70) Zone is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

-      the recommended extension to the Temporary Use (T-70) Zone conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to, the Temporary Use By-law policies;

-      the recommended extension to the Temporary Use (T-70) Zone conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to, the Temporary Use Provisions;

-      the recommended extension to the Temporary Use (T-70) Zone does not compromise the ability to achieve the long-term goals of Our Move Forward: London’s Downtown Plan;

-      the recommended extension to the Temporary Use (T-70) Zone is appropriate to help maintain an adequate supply of parking to service businesses in the Downtown and on Richmond Row pending the gradual transition away from the use of surface commercial parking lots as transit ridership increases and as alternative parking spaces are provided; and,

-      the parking lots have existed for periods ranging from 15-28 years and have achieved a measure of compatibility with the surrounding land uses. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

2.8.8.1.11   (3.2) 2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West – (O-9190) (Relates to Bill No’s. 253 and 254)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Auburn Developments Inc., relating to the property located at 2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West:

a)      the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021 to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM an Open Space designation TO an Urban Reserve Community Growth and Environmental Review designation;

b)      the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021 to amend The London Plan to change the Place Type of the subject lands FROM a Green Space place type TO a Future Community Growth place type and Environmental Review place type; it being noted that the amendments will come into full force and effect concurrently with Map 1 and Map 7 of The London Plan;

c)      the request to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM an Open Space designation TO a Low Density Residential designation BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)       the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 as it does not ensure an appropriate process can be undertaken prior to development which will allow for the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit-supportive development, intensification and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, ensuring that necessary infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available;

ii)      the proposed amendment does not conform to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Secondary Plan policies, Urban Reserve Community Growth policies and Environmental Review policies;

iii)     the proposed amendment does not conform to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions and Secondary Plan Policies;

iv)     the requested amendment is premature. The site needs to be considered through a larger planning review process (a secondary plan) to determine its integration within a larger future neighbourhood, the applicable vision and character for the new neighbourhood, what an appropriate land use pattern is for the area, and other technical requirements;

v)      the subject site is at a key location within the broader planning context and its designation and potential future development without consideration of the surrounding lands is not “big-picture” or long term thinking and if designated in isolation of these lands, it could result in future land use, servicing, and road network issues;

vi)     the subject site has not been reviewed for urban land uses which would have taken into account servicing demands/road networks and schooling/public service facility requirements for the subject site within the larger context of the Fox Hollow Community Plan;

vii)    the proposed amendment in isolation of the surrounding lands could result in an inefficient development and land use pattern and create issues with the future expansion of the settlement area as the current amendment may ultimately conflict with the vision and goals of the future Secondary Plan in the area; and,

viii)   the lands were originally designated and zoned for the sole purpose of a cemetery use;

d)     the request to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM a Green Space place type TO a Neighbourhood place type BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)       the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 as it does not ensure an appropriate process can be undertaken prior to development which will allow for the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit-supportive development, intensification and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, ensuring that necessary infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available;

ii)      the proposed amendment does not conform to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Secondary Plan policies, Urban Reserve Community Growth policies and Environmental Review policies;

iii)     the proposed amendment does not conform to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions and Secondary Plan Policies;

iv)     the requested amendment is premature. The site needs to be considered through a larger planning review process (a secondary plan) to determine its integration within a larger future neighbourhood, the applicable vision and character for the new neighbourhood, what an appropriate land use pattern is for the area, and other technical requirements;

v)      the subject site is at a key location within the broader planning context and its designation and potential future development without consideration of the surrounding lands is not “big-picture” or long term thinking and if designated in isolation of these lands, it could result in future land use, servicing, and road network issues;

vi)     the subject site has not been reviewed for urban land uses which would have taken into account servicing demands/road networks and schooling/public service facility requirements for the subject site within the larger context of the Fox Hollow Community Plan;

vii)    the proposed amendment in isolation of the surrounding lands could result in an inefficient development and land use pattern and create issues with the future expansion of the settlement area as the current amendment may ultimately conflict with the vision and goals of the future Secondary Plan in the area; and,

viii)   the lands were originally designated and zoned for the sole purpose of a cemetery use;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to these matters:

-      a communication dated May 6, 2021, from S. Stapleton, Vice-President, Auburn Developments; and,

-      the staff presentation;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves these applications for the following reasons:

-      the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2020 as it ensures an appropriate process can be undertaken prior to development which will allow for the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit-supportive development, intensification and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, ensuring that necessary infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available;

-      the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Secondary Plan policies, Urban Reserve Community Growth policies and Environmental Review policies;

-      the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Secondary Plan Policies, Future Community Growth and Environmental Review policies;

-     the recommended amendment ensures that the subject site is reviewed through a comprehensive review process along with the surrounding lands to ensure the efficient expansion of the settlement area and comprehensive review of land use and servicing needs for the area; and,

-     the recommended amendment prevents ad-hoc planning and prevents future compatibility issues with the surrounding lands in regards to land use impacts, servicing constraints and sufficient public service facilities being able to support the proposed development. (2021-D08)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Squire

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

2.8.8.1.12   (3.3) 3557 Colonel Talbot Road (SPA20-063)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2749282 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 3557 Colonel Talbot Road:

a)      the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval to facilitate the construction of the proposed residential development:

i)       the lack of consultation with the property owners on the west side of the property;

ii)      potential runoff on the west side of the property;

iii)     the impact of the removal of the three mature evergreen trees; and,

iv)     the potential impact of the retaining wall and any potential impact of that on the cedar hedge; and,

b)      the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council does not have any issues with respect to the Site Plan Application, and Council supports the Site Plan Application;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters. (2021- D11)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That part b) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

b)      the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council requests that the following matters be considered by the Approval Authority with respect to the Site Plan Application:

i)       the comments received to date regarding the privacy concerns and loss of boundary landscaping be considered; and,

ii)      the City’s Landscape Architect be requested to continue to work with the applicant’s Landscape Architect to develop a landscape plan that would enhance the existing and proposed landscaping to provide for greater privacy between the proposed development and adjacent properties;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Squire

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Item 12 (3.3), as amended BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Item 12 (3.3), as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2749282 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 3557 Colonel Talbot Road:

a)      the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval to facilitate the construction of the proposed residential development:

i)       the lack of consultation with the property owners on the west side of the property;

ii)      potential runoff on the west side of the property;

iii)     the impact of the removal of the three mature evergreen trees; and,

iv)     the potential impact of the retaining wall and any potential impact of that on the cedar hedge; and,

b)      the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council requests that the following matters be considered by the Approval Authority with respect to the Site Plan Application:

i)       the comments received to date regarding the privacy concerns and loss of boundary landscaping be considered; and,

ii)      the City’s Landscape Architect be requested to continue to work with the applicant’s Landscape Architect to develop a landscape plan that would enhance the existing and proposed landscaping to provide for greater privacy between the proposed development and adjacent properties;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters.

2.8.8.2   8th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2021-05-11 CPSC Report

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 8th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding item 9 (2.8).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

2.8.8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Helmer

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.2.2   (2.1) 4th Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 22, 2021:

a)     the Municipal Council BE ADVISED that the Accessibility Advisory Committee (ACCAC) continues to support its previous recommendation, from its meeting held on January 28, 2021, with respect to the installation of sidewalks in the City of London; it being noted that the recommendation read as follows:

“That the following actions be taken with respect to the Memo dated January 20, 2021, from the Director, Roads and Transportation, related to the 2021 Neighbourhood Street Reconstruction Projects - Complete Streets Sidewalk Assessments:

i)     the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Accessibility Advisory Committee (ACCAC) supports the inclusion of sidewalks on both sides of the streets listed within the above-noted Memo except in circumstances that warrant sidewalks on only one side of the street; and,

ii)     the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the only instances that call for zero sidewalks on a street should be situations where the circumstances are insurmountable for the installation of sidewalks and, in those cases, the ACCAC should be consulted”;

it being noted that the ACCAC reviewed the Municipal Council resolution letter, from its meeting held on March 23, 2021, with respect to New Sidewalks in 2021 Infrastructure Reconstruction Projects; and,

b)     clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 4.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.2.3   (2.2) 2nd Report of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 2nd Report of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 22, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.2.4   (2.3) Health Canada Consultation - Personal Production of Cannabis for Medical Purposes

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, related to Health Canada Consultation for Personal Production of Cannabis for Medical Purposes:

a)     the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and,

b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue to consult with the Federal Government to identify challenges relating to public safety, nuisance control and Building Code compliance associated with the personal production of cannabis for medical purposes. (2021-P09)

Motion Passed

2.8.8.2.5   (2.4) Property Standards By-law (Relates to Bill No’s. 248, 249, and 250)

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, related to the Property Standards By-law:

a)     the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, and the Schedule ‘A’ to the by-law, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021 to provide standards for the maintenance and occupancy of property and to repeal By-law CP-16, being “A by-law prescribing standards for the maintenance and occupancy of property”;

b)     the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021 to amend By-law A.-6653-121 being “A by-law to establish the positions of Hearings Officer”;

c)     the revised proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021 to amend By-law No. A-54, as amended, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London” to provide for an amended Penalty Schedule “A-6” for the Property Standards By-law; and,

d)     the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2021-P01)

Motion Passed

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021, to approve the demolition of an abandoned building at municipal address of 508 Riverside Drive, City of London, and the property shall be cleared of all buildings, structures, debris or refuse and left in a graded and levelled condition, in accordance with the City of London Property Standards By-law and Building Code Act. (2021-P01/P10D)

Motion Passed

2.8.8.2.7   (2.6) Housing Stability for All Plan 2020 Update and Priorities for 2021

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Managing Director, Housing, Social Services and Dearness Home, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, related to the Housing Stability for All Plan 2020 Update and Priorities for 2021:

a)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit the Housing Stability for All Plan (HSAP) 2020 Update and Priorities for 2021 to the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as the annual update to the local homeless prevention and housing plan, in accordance with the Housing Services Act, 2011 (HSA);

b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to circulate this report to stakeholders, agencies, and community groups including, but not limited to, Middlesex County, London Housing Advisory Committee, and the London Homeless Coalition; and,

c)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to circulate this report to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to form part of the Housing Development Corporation, London’s (HDC’s) 2020 annual report to the Shareholder. (2021-S11)

Motion Passed

2.8.8.2.8   (2.7) 2020 Ontario Works Participant and Service Delivery Profile

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Manager Director, Housing, Social Services and Dearness Home, the staff report dated May 11, 2021, with respect to the 2020 Ontario Works Participant and Service Delivery Profile, BE RECEIVED. (2021-S04)

Motion Passed

2.8.8.2.10   (2.9) London Fire Department Emergency Repairs

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the staff report dated May 11, 2021, with respect to London Fire Department Emergency Repairs, BE RECEIVED. (2021-V01)

Motion Passed

2.8.8.2.11   (4.1) Cosmetic Lawn Care

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to Cosmetic Lawn Care in the City of London:

a)     the delegation request from J. Morton with respect to Cosmetic Lawn Care BE APPROVED to be heard at this meeting;

b)     the communication from J. Morton, as appended to the Agenda, the communication, dated May 6, 2021, from T. DiGiovanni, Landscape Ontario, as appended to the Added Agenda, and the verbal delegation from J. Morton, with respect to Cosmetic Lawn Care, BE RECEIVED. (2021-E05)

Motion Passed

2.8.8.2.12   (4.2) Securing Spaces to Offer Support Services

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the communication from Councillor M. van Holst, as appended to the Agenda, with respect to Securing Spaces to Offer Support Services, BE RECEIVED. (2021-S04)

Motion Passed

2.8.8.2.13   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at May 3, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.2.9   (2.8) Integrated Subsidized Transit Program: Phase 1 Funding Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 247)

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021, to:

a)     authorize and approve a new Funding Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between The Corporation of the City of London and the London Transit Commission for the purpose of providing subsidized transit for:

i)       individuals who are visually impaired;

ii)      children 12 years of age and under;

iii)     youth 13-17 years of age; and,

iv)     individuals 65 years of age and over;

b)     authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement;

c)     authorize the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their designate to approve and amend the Schedules of the above-noted Agreement; and,

d)     repeal By-law No. L.T.C.-54-99, By-law No. A.-7744-239 and By-law A.-7494-20. (2021-T03/F11)

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

2.8.8.3   8th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2021-05-10 CSC Report 8

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 8th Report of the Corporate Services Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding Items 2 (2.1), 5 (2.2) and 8 (2.6).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

2.8.8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.3.3   (2.5) 2020 Annual Report on Development Charges Reserve Funds

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken:

a)      the 2020 Annual Report on Development Charges Reserve Funds BE RECEIVED for information in accordance with section 43 (1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, which requires the City Treasurer to provide a financial statement relating to development charge by-laws and associated reserve funds; and,

b)      the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports BE DIRECTED to make the 2020 Annual Report on Development Charges Reserve Funds available to the public on the City of London website to fulfill Council’s obligation under section 43 (2.1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.3.4   (2.7) Employee Absenteeism 2020

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Director of People Services, and concurrence of the City Manager, the staff report dated May 10, 2021 regarding Employee Absenteeism 2020 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.3.6   (2.3) Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Program Transfer Payment Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 245)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on May 25, 2021 to:

a)      approve the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London for the provision of funding under the Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Program (“Agreement”) attached as Schedule “1” to the staff report;

b)      authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement;

c)      authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports to approve any future amending agreements between Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London with respect to the Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Program (CPST);

d)      authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute any future amending agreements between Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London with respect to the Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Program (CPST) approved by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports; and,

e)      authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports (or designate) to execute any reports required by the province under the Agreement.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.3.7   (2.4) City of London Strategic Advocacy Framework

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Strategic Communications and Government Relations, the City of London Strategic Advocacy Framework BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.3.9   (4.1) How to Strengthen Accountability for Municipal Council Members

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the communication dated April 27, 2021 from Steve Clark Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, with respect to strengthening accountability for municipal council members BE RECEIVED, and that Councillor J. Morgan BE APPOINTED to participate in the consultation outlined in the communication.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.3.10   (4.2) Creation of an Architectural Heritage Reserve Fund - Councillor M. van Holst

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the communication dated May 2, 2021 from Councillor M. van Holst with respect to Architectural Heritage Reserve Fund and the means to establish an appropriate opening balance, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.3.11   (4.3) 1st Report of the County/City Liaison Committee

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the County/City Liaison Committee from its meeting held on April 8, 2021:

a)      the following actions be taken with respect to Paramedic Services:

i)       the verbal update provided by B. Rayburn and N. Roberts with respect to services being carried out by Middlesex London Paramedic Services, BE RECEIVED; and,

ii)      the Mayor and the Warden BE REQUESTED to send a letter to the Premier, Minister of Health and Solicitor General indicating the willingness of the County of Middlesex and City of London to continue to work with the Province to assist with the COVID-19 Mobile Vaccine Program through the use of the Middlesex London Paramedicine Program;

it being noted that the letter noted in b) above is to be copied to the local MPPs and the Middlesex London Health Unit;

b)      the following actions be taken with respect to Housing Services:

i)       the verbal update provided by K. Dickins with respect to Housing Services, BE RECEIVED; and,

ii)      the County of Middlesex Chief Administrative Officer and the London City Manager BE DIRECTED to advocate to the Province with respect for the need to establish a sustainable funding model for Middlesex London Housing and to report back to the County/City Liaison Committee (CCLC) with an update with respect to the result of the advocacy;

c)      the following actions be taken with respect to Children Services:

i)       the verbal update provided by C. Smith with respect to Children Services, BE RECEIVED; and,

ii)      the County of Middlesex Chief Administrative Officer and the London City Manager BE DIRECTED to advocate to the Province with respect for the need to establish a sustainable funding model for Middlesex London Children Services and to report back to the County/City Liaison Committee (CCLC) with an update with respect to the result of the advocacy; and,

d)      clauses 3.1 and 4.4 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.3.12   (5.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - June is Deafblind Awareness Month

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That based on the application dated May 6, 2021 from Sensity Deafblind and Sensory Support Network of Canada, the month of June, 2021 BE PROCLAIMED June is Deafblind Awareness Month.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.3.2   (2.1) Integrity Commissioner Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 244)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of an Integrity Commissioner for The Corporation of the City of London and local boards:

a)      the staff report, dated May 10, 2021, entitled “Integrity Commissioner Agreement” BE RECEIVED; and,

b)      the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 as Appendix “A” being “A by-law to approve an Agreement for Municipal Integrity Commissioner between The Corporation of the City of London and Gregory F. Stewart and to appoint Gregory F. Stewart as the Integrity Commissioner for the City of London and to repeal By-law A.-7842-121, being “A by-law to approve an Agreement for Municipal Integrity Commissioner between The Corporation of the City of London and Gregory F. Stewart and to appoint Gregory F. Stewart as the Integrity Commissioner for the City of London” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

2.8.8.3.5   (2.2) 2021 Council Compensation Review Task Force

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2021 Council Compensation Review Task Force:

a)      the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to commence the 2021 Council Compensation Review Task Force review based on the Terms of Reference as appended to the staff report as Appendix “A”; and,

b)      the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to invite the members of the 2016 Council Compensation Review Task Force to undertake the 2021 update based on the Terms of Reference noted in a) above.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

2.8.8.3.8   (2.6) Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members 2021 Remuneration

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report dated May 10, 2021, BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the communication from Councillors Cassidy, Kayabaga and Helmer was received.

Motion Passed (8 to 6)

2.8.8.4   7th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2021-05-11 CWC Report - Full

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding Item 10 (4.1).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

2.8.8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.4.2   (2.1) 4th Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 27, 2021:

a)        the Autonomous and Electric Vehicles Sub-Committee Report, dated March 22, 2021, from M. Rice, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Works Committee and to the Connected and Automated Vehicle (CAV) Strategy Project Team for review; and,

b)        clauses 1.1, and 2.1 to 2.6, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.4.3   (2.3) Sarnia Road/Phillip Aziz Avenue and Western Road Intersection Environmental Assessment

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, related to the extension of a Consulting Engineering Assignment for the Western Road and Sarnia Road / Philip Aziz Avenue Environmental Assessment:

a)        AECOM Canada Ltd. BE APPOINTED Consulting Engineers to complete the Environmental Assessment Study for the Western Road and Sarnia Road / Philip Aziz Avenue area in the amount of $309,980, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)        the financing for this appointment BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

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

d)        the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the Consultant for the work; and,

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, including rail agreements, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-E20)

Motion Passed

2.8.8.4.4   (2.4) Appointment of Consulting Engineers for Construction Administration Services - 2021 Infrastructure Renewal Program Sackville Street and 2021 Infrastructure Renewal Program Watson Street

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, related to the appointment of consulting services for the construction administration of the 2021 Infrastructure Renewal Program Sackville Street project and Watson Street project:

a)        IBI Group BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the Sackville Street project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $229,284.00, including 10% contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)        AECOM Canada Ltd. BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the Watson Street project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $262,661.30, including 10% contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

d)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with these projects;

e)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; and,

f)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-E01)

Motion Passed

2.8.8.4.5   (2.5) RFP21-30 - Supply and Delivery of Hydraulic Drum Brush Chippers

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, related to RFP 21-30, supply and delivery of hydraulic drum brush chippers:

a)        the submission from Vermeer Canada Inc., 10 Indell Lane, Brampton, Ontario L6T 3Y3, for the supply and delivery of one (1) 18” Hydraulic Brush Chipper and three (3) 15” Hydraulic Brush Chippers at a total purchase price of $382,045.80, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED in accordance with Section 12.2 (b) of the Procurement of Goods and Services;

b)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with these purchases;

c)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval in accordance with Section 12.2 (b) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; and,

d)        the funding for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2021-V03)

Motion Passed

2.8.8.4.6   (2.7) Supply and Delivery of Intersection Detection Systems

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, related to the supply and delivery of intersection detection systems:

a)        Black & McDonald Limited BE AWARDED the contract to supply and deliver intersection detection systems in the amount of $573,896.20, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 12.2 (a) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED in accordance with the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

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

d)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the Contractor for the work; and,

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-T08)

Motion Passed

2.8.8.4.7   (2.8) RFT21-07 - Innovation Park Assumption Works: Tender Award

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Development and Compliance Services and Chief Building Official, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, related to the award of contract for the Innovation Park Assumption Works project:

a)        the bid submitted by Cassidy Construction London Ltd., at its tendered price of $3,237,130.99, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Cassidy Construction London Ltd. was the lowest of seven (7) bids received;

b)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted report;

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

d)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (Tender No. RFT21-07); and,

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-D21)

Motion Passed

2.8.8.4.8   (2.2) Contract Award - Dingman Creek Pumping Station Construction Tender T21-19

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, related to the award of contract for the construction of the Dingman Creek Pumping Station facility:

a)        the bid submitted by Hayman Construction Inc. at its tendered price of $21,632,010.00, excluding HST, for the Dingman Creek Pumping Station Construction project (RFT21-19), BE ACCEPTED, it being noted that the bid submitted by Hayman Construction Inc. was the lowest of four bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)        Stantec Consulting Ltd. BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the Dingman Creek Pumping Station Construction project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $749,029.38, including 10% contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report, noting the required wastewater capital budget transfers and adjustments;

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

e)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project; and,

f)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-E03)

Motion Passed

2.8.8.4.9   (2.6) Supply and Install 2022 to 2028 Infill Tree - RFT20-80 - Irregular Result

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 11, 2021, related to the supply and install of 2022 to 2028 infill trees:

a)        the irregular bid submitted by Kamarah Tree Farms at its tendered price of $3,233,920.00, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED in accordance with Section 8.10 (a) and (b), Section 13.2 (b), and Section 19.3 (b)(i) and (b)(ii) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation negotiating prices, terms and conditions with Kamarrah Tree Farms to the satisfaction of the Manager of Purchasing and Supply and the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure;

c)        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 program (RFT20-80), and subject to future budget approval;

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

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, as required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-E04)

Motion Passed

2.8.8.4.11   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at May 3, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.4.10   (4.1) 3rd Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 21, 2021:

a)        the following actions be taken with respect to the Public Meeting Notice, dated March 10, 2021, from S. Wise, Senior Planner, related to an Official Plan Amendment for the Masonville Secondary Plan:

i)          a Sub-Committee BE ESTABLISHED to review the above-noted Masonville Draft Secondary Plan and report back at a future meeting of the Cycling Advisory Committee (CAC);

ii)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend the above-noted future CAC meeting to discuss the Sub-Committee Report to be brought forward; and,

iii)        the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to provide maps of the cycling routes in the area under the Masonville Draft Secondary Plan and how they connect with existing cycling infrastructure and integrates with the Cycling Master Plan;

b)        the following actions be taken with respect to a City of London PumpTrack:

i)         the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Cycling Advisory Committee (CAC) supports the creation of a pumptrack facility; and,

ii)        the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back on the process and fees associated with a feasibility study with respect to the establishment of a pumptrack facility in the City of London; it being noted that the communication, as appended to the agenda, from B. Cassell and the delegation from S. Nauman, with respect to this matter, was received; and,

c)        clauses 1.1, and 3.1 to 3.5, BE RECEIVED.

Motion made by E. Peloza

The motion to approve Item 10 (4.1), part a) is put:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 21, 2021:

a)        the following actions be taken with respect to the Public Meeting Notice, dated March 10, 2021, from S. Wise, Senior Planner, related to an Official Plan Amendment for the Masonville Secondary Plan:

i)          a Sub-Committee BE ESTABLISHED to review the above-noted Masonville Draft Secondary Plan and report back at a future meeting of the Cycling Advisory Committee (CAC);

ii)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend the above-noted future CAC meeting to discuss the Sub-Committee Report to be brought forward; and,

iii)        the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to provide maps of the cycling routes in the area under the Masonville Draft Secondary Plan and how they connect with existing cycling infrastructure and integrates with the Cycling Master Plan;

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

The motion to approve to approve Item 10 (4.1), part b) i), is put;

b)        the following actions be taken with respect to a City of London PumpTrack:

i)         the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Cycling Advisory Committee (CAC) supports the creation of a pumptrack facility; and,

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

The motion to approve Item 10 (4.1), part b) ii) is put:

b)        the following actions be taken with respect to a City of London PumpTrack:

ii)        the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back on the process and fees associated with a feasibility study with respect to the establishment of a pumptrack facility in the City of London; it being noted that the communication, as appended to the agenda, from B. Cassell and the delegation from S. Nauman, with respect to this matter, was received; and,

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

The motion to approve Item 10 (4.1), part c) is put:

c)        clauses 1.1, and 3.1 to 3.5, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

2.8.8.5   9th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2021-05-18 SPPC Report 9

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 9th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding item 2 (2.1).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

2.8.8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.5.3   (2.2) 2025 Development Charge Study Initiation Report

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2025 Development Charge Study:

a)      the draft Committee / Council Timetable as appended as Appendix “A” to the staff report dated May 18, 2021 BE ENDORSED;

b)      the following policy matters BE ENDORSED for review as part of the 2025 Development Charge Study:

i)       consideration for area-specific development charges (i.e. area rating);

ii)      Additional services for potential development charge recovery:

A.     Housing Services

B.     Emergency Preparedness

C.     Water Supply

iii)      Service standards and future capital needs for Parkland Development;

iv)      Growth / non-growth methodologies for development charge recoverable services;

v)       Local service policies that establish cost responsibilities related to construction and engineered growth infrastructure;

vi)      Municipal Servicing & Financing Agreements Council Policy;

vii)     Development Charge planning horizon for ‘soft’ services;

viii)    Development Charge rate model technical adjustments;

it being noted that the policy items above will be subject to consultation with the Development Charge External Stakeholder Committee prior to recommendations being advanced to Council.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.5.4   (2.3) Area Rating Policy Review

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to area rating to inform the upcoming 2025 Development Charges Background Study:

a)      the staff report dated May 18, 2020 and memo from Hemson Consulting on area rating BE RECEIVED for information; and,

b)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with an area rating policy review that focuses on the Development Charge services for Wastewater, Stormwater and Water Distribution.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.5.5   (3.1) 2022 Growth Management Implementation Strategy (GMIS) Update

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development regarding the implementation of the London Plan growth management policies applicable to the financing of growth-related infrastructure works, the following actions be taken:

a)      the 2022 Growth Management Implementation Strategy Update BE APPROVED as appended to the staff report dated May 18, 2022 as Appendix “B”; it being noted that:

i)       Sunningdale SWM 8 will be rescheduled from 2022 to 2023;

ii)      Kilally Water Phase 2 will be rescheduled from 2022 to 2023;

iii)     Pincombe SWM P4 - West will be rescheduled from 2022 to 2026;

iv)     North Lambeth SWM P2 – North will be rescheduled from 2025 to 2023;

v)      North Lambeth SWM P2 – South will be rescheduled from 2023 to 2025; and

vi)     project design work for Kilally Road – Webster to Clarke will commence in 2021;

b)     the Capital Budget BE ADJUSTED to reflect the timing changes associated with the projects noted in clause (a) above;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated May 16, 2021 from R. Biddle with respect to this matter;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individual made an oral submission regarding this matter:

Mike Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute (LDI) - expressing support for the report, and recommendations and indicating a need for a three-year supply of building lots in order to respond to housing needs.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.5.6   (4.1) London Community Recovery Network – Community Led Ideas –Business Cases

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the London Community Recover Network, Community-Led Ideas:

a)      the staff report dated May 18, 2021, entitled “London Community Recovery Network – Community Led Ideas – Business Cases” BE RECEIVED; and,

b)      the following Business Cases BE APPROVED:

i.       Business Case #1: City Wide ‘Support Local’ Promotional Campaign in the amount of $760,000, Tourism London community lead;

ii.      Business Case #2: Circular Economy Work and Training Platforms in the amount of $249,000, Goodwill Industries community lead;

iii.     Business Case #3: The Good Foods Project in the amount of $9,800, Reimagine Institute for Community Sustainability community lead;

iv.     Business Case #4: Investment in Ventures with Innovative Solutions in the amount of $180,000, TechAlliance community lead;

v.      Business Case #5: Pandemic Recovery Resources and Training to Enhance Employment for Londoners in the amount of $135,000, Employment Sector Council community lead.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.5.7   (4.2) Request for a Shareholder’s Meeting - Housing Development Corporation, London

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2020 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the Housing Development Corporation, London:

a)      the 2020 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the Housing Development Corporation, London BE HELD at a meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on June 23, 2021, for the purpose of receiving the report from the Board of Directors of the Housing Development Corporation, London in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration and the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16; and,

b)      the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the 2020 Annual Meeting to the Board of Directors for the Housing Development Corporation, London and to invite the Chair of the Board and the Executive Director of the Housing Development Corporation, London to attend at the Annual Meeting and present the report of the Board in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated April 21, 2021 from S. Giustizia, President & CEO, Housing Development Corporation, London with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.5.8   (4.3) Request for a Shareholder’s Meeting - London Hydro Inc.

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2020 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for London Hydro Inc.:

a)      the 2020 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for London Hydro Inc. BE HELD at a meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on June 23, 2021, for the purpose of receiving the report from the Board of Directors of London Hydro Inc. in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration and the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16; and,

b)     the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the 2020 Annual Meeting to the Board of Directors for London Hydro Inc. and to invite the Chair of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer of London Hydro Inc. to attend at the Annual Meeting and present the report of the Board in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated April 28, 2021, from G. Valente, Chair, Board of Directors, London Hydro Inc., with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.5.9   (4.4) Request for a Shareholder’s Meeting - London & Middlesex Community Housing

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2020 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the London & Middlesex Community Housing:

a)      the 2020 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the London & Middlesex Community Housing BE HELD at a meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on June 23, 2021, for the purpose of receiving the report from the Board of Directors of the London & Middlesex Community Housing in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration and the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16; and,

b)      the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the 2020 Annual Meeting to the Board of Directors for the London & Middlesex Community Housing and to invite the Chair of the Board and the Executive Director of the London & Middlesex Community Housing to attend at the Annual Meeting and present the report of the Board in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated April 26, 2021, from A. Mackenzie, Interim CEO, London & Middlesex Community Housing, with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.5.10   (4.5) 2nd Report of the Governance Working Group

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Governance Working Committee from its meeting held on May 2, 2021:

a)      the following actions be taken with respect to Standing Committee and Council Meetings and Councillor Members’ Expense Accounts and supports:

i)       the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to circulate a questionnaire to current Members of Council seeking their input on the following matters:

A.     the potential scheduling of Standing Committee and Council Meetings during day-time hours and other recommendations that they may have with respect to the scheduling and the holding of Meetings; and,

B.      enhanced or alternative supports for Councillors, including, but not limited to budgetary and staffing and support; and,

ii)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED report back to the Governance Working Group on how comparable municipalities schedule Standing Committee and Council Meetings and budgetary and staffing supports provided to Councillors;

it being noted that the Governance Working Group (GWG) received the Council Resolution dated April 14, 2021 and the communication dated April 13, 2021 from William H. Brock with respect to this matter;

b)      clauses 1.1 and 3.2 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.8.8.5.2   (2.1) Comprehensive Report on Core Area Initiatives

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, and the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken:

a)      the staff report dated May 18, 2021 entitled “Comprehensive Report on Core Area Initiatives” BE RECEIVED;

b)      the changes to target dates for action items under the Core Area Action Plan described in the above-noted report and summarized in Appendix B: Core Area Action Plan Implementation Status Update, May 2021 BE APPROVED and used as the new basis for future progress reporting;

c)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to revise the Core Area Action Plan Item #9 (Install kindness meters to directly support Core Area social service agencies) from a City-administered program to a program that provides access for community groups to meters that have been removed from active use; it being noted that Civic Administration continue to explore digital options for a City kindness meter program;

d)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting to be held in the 2nd Quarter of 2022 on the status of the geographic distribution of parking demand, parking revenue and any recommended modifications or alternatives to the Core Area Action Plan #11; it being noted that future structure parking opportunities will also be explored;

e)      the Core Area Ambassador Pilot Program BE APPROVED as described in the above-noted report;

f)       the Dundas Place Animation and Activation 2021 plan BE RECEIVED;

g)      Project Clean Slate BE APPROVED as a pilot in 2021 and that the reallocation of $37,500 in one-time funding resulting from COVID-19 impacts on other Core Area Action Plan efforts BE APPROVED to fund it;

h)      the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to reallocate the remaining $100,000 in one-time funding that cannot be spent in 2021 due to COVID-19 impacts to other emergent opportunities aligned with the Core Area Action Plan in 2021;

i)       the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with Business Improvement Areas and other stakeholders to develop a comprehensive engagement strategy to work with other levels of government to ensure supports are in place for mental health and addictions, homelessness and housing, business supports and law enforcement; it being noted government relations work is already underway on many of these issues;

j)       the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop an “Eyes on the Street” program for City operations and engage with other agencies and organizations that routinely work in the Core about integrating such a program into their operations; and,

k)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop a performance measurement plan to assess the outcomes and impacts of various Core Area initiatives and report back to Committee and Council at year-end with an update on the information contained in the report.

Motion made by J. Morgan

The motion to approve item 2 (2.1), excluding parts) e) and h) is put:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, and the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken:

a)      the staff report dated May 18, 2021 entitled “Comprehensive Report on Core Area Initiatives” BE RECEIVED;

b)      the changes to target dates for action items under the Core Area Action Plan described in the above-noted report and summarized in Appendix B: Core Area Action Plan Implementation Status Update, May 2021 BE APPROVED and used as the new basis for future progress reporting;

c)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to revise the Core Area Action Plan Item #9 (Install kindness meters to directly support Core Area social service agencies) from a City-administered program to a program that provides access for community groups to meters that have been removed from active use; it being noted that Civic Administration continue to explore digital options for a City kindness meter program;

d)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting to be held in the 2nd Quarter of 2022 on the status of the geographic distribution of parking demand, parking revenue and any recommended modifications or alternatives to the Core Area Action Plan #11; it being noted that future structure parking opportunities will also be explored;

 

f)       the Dundas Place Animation and Activation 2021 plan BE RECEIVED;

g)      Project Clean Slate BE APPROVED as a pilot in 2021 and that the reallocation of $37,500 in one-time funding resulting from COVID-19 impacts on other Core Area Action Plan efforts BE APPROVED to fund it;

 

i)       the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with Business Improvement Areas and other stakeholders to develop a comprehensive engagement strategy to work with other levels of government to ensure supports are in place for mental health and addictions, homelessness and housing, business supports and law enforcement; it being noted government relations work is already underway on many of these issues;

j)       the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop an “Eyes on the Street” program for City operations and engage with other agencies and organizations that routinely work in the Core about integrating such a program into their operations; and,

k)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop a performance measurement plan to assess the outcomes and impacts of various Core Area initiatives and report back to Committee and Council at year-end with an update on the information contained in the report.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

At 6:03 PM, Mayor E. Holder places Deputy Mayor J. Morgan in the Chair and takes a seat at the Council Board.

At 6:05 PM, Mayor E. Holder resumes the Chair and Deputy J. Morgan takes his seat at the Council Board.

Motion made by J. Morgan

The motion to approve item 2 (2.1) part e) is put:

e)      the Core Area Ambassador Pilot Program BE APPROVED as described in the above-noted report;

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by J. Morgan

The motion to approve Item 2 (2.1), part h) is put:

h)      the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to reallocate the remaining $100,000 in one-time funding that cannot be spent in 2021 due to COVID-19 impacts to other emergent opportunities aligned with the Core Area Action Plan in 2021;

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

2.8.10   Deferred Matters

None.

2.8.11   Enquiries

None.

2.8.12   Emergent Motions

None.

2.8.13   By-laws

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No’.s 244 to 262, excluding Bill No. 247, and Added Bill No. 268 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Bill No’.s 244 to 262, excluding Bill No. 247, and Added Bill No. 268 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No’s 244 to 262, excluding Bill No. 247, and Added Bill No. 268 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 247, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by J. Helmer

That Second Reading of Bill No. 247, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 247, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

2.8.4   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Council rise and go into Council, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering the following:

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition 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. (6.1/8/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition 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. (6.2/8/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed 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. (6.3/8/CSC)

4.4       Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to reports, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation concerning labour relations and employee negotiations in regard to one of the Corporation’s unions and advice which is subject to solicitor-client privilege and communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.4/8/CSC)

4.5       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. (6.5/8/CSC)

4.6       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. (6.6/8/CSC)

4.7       Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation, and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation, with respect to litigation currently before the Superior Court of Justice, Court file No. 1181/20 affecting the municipality in relation to the Wilton Grove Road Sanitary Sewer Project. (6.1/7/CWC)

4.8       Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation, and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation with respect to the Wilton Grove Road Sanitary Sewer Project. (6.2/7/CWC)

4.9       Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Confidential Information Supplied to the Corporation in Confidence

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation; information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board by Canada, a province or territory or a Crown agency of any of them, and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation with respect to the City’s right-of-way abutting 840 Highbury Avenue. (6.3/7/CWC)

Motion Passed

The Council convenes, In Closed Session, at 6:21 PM, with Mayor E. Holder in the Chair and all Members participating, except Councillor M. Salih.

At 6:41 PM, Councillor S. Turner leaves the meeting.

At 6:51 PM, Council resumes into public session, with Mayor E. Holder in the Chair and all Members participating, except Councillor M. Salih.

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by M. van Holst

Pursuant to section 13.2 of the Council By-law, the enactment of Bill No.’s 253 and 254 related to Item 11 (3.2) of the 8th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, having to do with the applications regarding 2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West BE RECONSIDERED, as this matter was referred to a future meeting of Planning and Environment Committee.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward draft Bill No.’s 253 and 254 related to Item 11 (3.2) of the 8th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, having to do with the applications regarding 2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West for consideration at the time the matter is brought forward to the Planning and Environment Committee.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

At 7:04 PM, Councillor A. Kayabaga, leaves the meeting.

2.8.9   Added Reports

2.8.9.1   8th Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

1.      Partial Property Acquisition - 1424 Southdale Road West - Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road Improvements

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Transportation and Mobility, and Division Manager, Transportation Planning and Design, on the advice of the Manager of Realty Services, with respect to the partial acquisition of a portion of property at 1424 Southdale Road West, further described as Part Lot 48, Concession 1, being part of PIN 08420-0018, designated as Part 6, on a draft plan to be deposited, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road Improvements Project, the following actions be taken:

a)      the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, attached as Appendix “C”, submitted by Mahamed Meddaoui (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $158,800.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement; and

b)      the financing for this acquisition BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report attached hereto as Appendix “A”.

2.      Partial Property Acquisition - 1429 Southdale Road West - Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road Improvements

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Transportation and Mobility, and Division Manager, Transportation Planning and Design, on the advice of the Manager of Realty Services, with respect to the partial acquisition of property located at 1429 Southdale Road West, further described as Part Lot 48, Concession 2, being part of PIN 08224-0266, designated as Parts 11, 12, 13, and 17, on a draft plan to be deposited, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road Improvements Project, the following actions be taken:

a)      the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, attached as Appendix “C”, submitted by Christopher Alfred Andreae, Antonia Ellen Andrews and Peter Robert Andreae, (the “Vendors”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $112,200.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement; and,

b)      the financing for this acquisition BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report attached hereto as Appendix “A”.

3.      Sale of City-Owned Surplus Land – 330 Thames Street

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Manager of Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned surplus land located south of west King Street, containing an area of approximately 0.36 acres, legally described as being Part of Lot 25, South of King Street; Part of Lot 25, North of York Street, designated as Part 2, Plan 33R-19956 and being Part of PIN 08322-0127 (LT), as outlined on the Location Map attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”) attached as Appendix “B”, as submitted by the Middlesex Condominium Corporation No. 158 (the “Purchaser”), to purchase the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $190,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement.

5.      Offer to Purchase Industrial Land – 12935473 Canada Inc. – Innovation Park, Phase IV

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Innovation Park, Phase IV, containing an area of approximately 25 acres more or less subject to survey, located on the east side of Bonder Road, legally described as part of Block 1, Plan 33M-609, subject to an easement as in ER662838, as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by 12935473 Canada Inc. (the “Purchaser”), to purchase the subject industrial land from the City, at a purchase price of $1,750,000.00, reflecting a sale price of $70,000.00 per acre BE ACCEPTED, subject to the conditions and terms set out in the Agreement.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by M. Cassidy

4.      Minutes of Settlement and Letter of Understanding re: Bilingual Stipend – CUPE Local 101

That on the recommendation of the Director, People Services and the City Manager, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in order for the Director, People Services to obtain the necessary authorization to ratify the Minutes of Settlement and execute the Letter of Understanding providing for a bilingual stipend attached (Appendix “A”) between The Corporation of the City of London and Local Union No. 101 (Canadian Union of Public Employees (“CUPE Local 101”).

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 243 and Added Bill No.’s 263 to 267, excluding Bill No. 265, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 243 and Added Bill No.’s 263 to 267, excluding Bill No. 265, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by J. Helmer

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 243 and Added Bill No.’s 263 to 267, excluding Bill No. 265, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by J. Helmer

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 265, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Second Reading of Bill No. 265, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.265, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

The following are By-laws of The Corporation of the City of London:

Bill

By-law

Bill No. 243

By-law No. A.-8116-167 – A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 25th day of May, 2021. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 244

By-law No. A.-8117-168 – A by-law to approve an Agreement for Municipal Integrity Commissioner between The Corporation of the City of London and Gregory F. Stewart and to appoint Gregory F. Stewart as the Integrity Commissioner for the City of London and to repeal By-law A.-7842-121, being “A by-law to approve an Agreement for Municipal Integrity Commissioner between The Corporation of the City of London and Gregory F. Stewart and to appoint Gregory F. Stewart as the Integrity Commissioner for the City of London”. (2.1/8/CSC)

Bill No. 245

By-law No. A.-8118-169 – A by-law to approve the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London for the provision of funding under the Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Program; and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (2.3/8/CSC)

Bill No. 246

By-law No. A.-8119-170 – A by-law to approve demolition of abandoned building with municipal address of 508 Riverside Drive under the Property Standards provisions of the Building Code Act. (2.5/8/CPSC)

Bill No. 247

By-law No. A.-8120-171 – A by-law to approve a new Funding Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and the London Transit Commission, authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement and the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or designate, to approve and amend the Schedules of the Agreement, delegate authority under the new Agreement, and repeal By-law No. L.T.C.-54-99, By-law No. A.-7744-239, and By-law No. A.-7494-20. (2.8/8/CPSC)

Bill No. 248

By-law No. A.-6653(b)-172 – A by-law to amend By-law A.-6653-121 being “A by-law to establish the positions of Hearings Officer”. (2.4b/8/CPSC)

Bill No. 249

By-law No. A-54-21006 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A-54, as amended, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London” to provide for an amended Penalty Schedule “A-6” for the Property Standards By-law. (2.4c/8/CPSC)

Bill No. 250

By-law No. CP-24 – A by-law to provide standards for the maintenance and occupancy of property and to repeal By-law CP-16 being “A by-law prescribing standards for the maintenance and occupancy of property.” (2.4a/8/CPSC)

Bill No. 251

By-law No. C.P.-1563-173 – A by-law to exempt from Part-Lot Control, lands located at 335 Kennington Way and 3959 Mia Avenue, legally described as Block 1 in Registered Plan 33M-765, RP 33R-20777 Parts 2 & 3. (2.3/8/PEC)

Bill No. 252

By-law No. C.P.-1564-174 – A by-law to exempt from Part-Lot Control, lands located at 3964 Mia Avenue, legally described as Block 2 in Registered Plan 33M-765. (2.4/8/PEC)

Bill No. 255

By-law No. S.-6126-175 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Pond Mills Road, east of Ailsa Place)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes, registered as ER1360310, pursuant to SPA20-047 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 256

By-law No. S.-6127-176 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to White Oak Road, north of Exeter Road)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes, registered as ER1346762, pursuant to B.036/19 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 257

By-law No. W.-5674-177 – A by-law to authorize the New Major Open Space (Project PK204319). (2.2/7/PEC)

Bill No. 258

By-law No. W.-5675-178 – A by-law to authorize the Lambeth Growth Area Greenway PCP Sewershed (Project ES2494) (2.2/7/PEC)

Bill No. 259

By-law No. Z.-1-212932 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at 146 and 184 Exeter Road. (2.5/8/PEC)

Bill No. 260

By-law No. Z.-1-212933 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at 1639 to 1685 Brayford Avenue, legally described as Lots 12 to 15 Plan 33M-713 and Lots 13 to 17 Plan 33M-714. (2.6/8/PEC)

Bill No. 261

By-law No. Z.-1-212934 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at 2258 to 2334 Wickerson Road, legally described as Lots 4 to 11 Plan 33M-713 and Lots 1 to 12 Plan 33M-714. (2.7/8/PEC)

Bill No. 262

By-law No. Z.-1-212935 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 192-196 Central Avenue, 193-197 Central Avenue, and 200 Albert Street. (3.1/8/PEC)

Bill No. 263

(ADDED)  By-law No. A.-8121-179 – A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Mahamed Said Meddaoui for the partial acquisition of a portion of the property located at 1424 Southdale Road West, in the City of London, for the Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road Improvements Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.1/8/CSC)

Bill No. 264

(ADDED)  By-law No. A.-8122-180 – A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Christopher Alfred Andreae, Antonia Ellen Andrews and Peter Robert Andreae, for the partial acquisition of a portion of the property located at 1429 Southdale Road West, in the City of London, for the Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road Improvements Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.2/8/CSC)

Bill No. 265

(ADDED)  By-law No. A.-8123-181 – A by-law to approve and ratify a Letter of Understanding between The Corporation of the City of London and CUPE Local 101 to be added to the Collective Agreement between the parties to provide for a bilingual stipend and to authorize the Director, People Services to execute the Letter of Understanding. (6.4/8/CSC)

Bill No. 266

(ADDED)  By-law No. A.-8124-182 – A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and 12935473 Canada Inc. for the sale of the City owned industrial land, located on the east side of Bonder Road, legally described as Part Block 1, Plan 33M609, subject to an easement as In ER662838, City of London, containing an area of approximately 25 acres, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.5/8/CSC)

Bill No. 267

(ADDED)  By-law No. A.-8125-183 – A by-law to authorize and approve the Agreement of Purchase and Sale as submitted by Middlesex Condominium Corporation No. 158 for the sale of City owned surplus lands, described as being Part of Lot 25, South of King Street; Part of Lot 25, North of York Street, designated as Part 2, Plan 33R-19956 and being Part of PIN 08322-0127 (LT), in the City of London, County of Middlesex, and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute this Agreement. (6.3/8/CSC)

Bill No. 268

(ADDED)  By-law No. A.-8126-184 – A by-law to transfer delegated authority to reflect organizational changes within Planning and Economic Development. (City Clerk)

2.8.14   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Squire

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourns at 7:13 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 49 minutes)

I can’t hold on with that. (indistinct) Half screens on, please. Thanks very much. Welcome to the eighth meeting of City Council, a virtual meeting held during the COVID-19 emergency.

I will invite viewers to check the city website for current details of COVID-19 service impacts and remind you that meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council standing or advisory committee meetings and information on request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-249 extension 2425. Colleagues, I look for any disclosures of beginner interest.

Councilor Palosa. Thank you, Your Worship. I’d like to disclose interest on item 2.8 on the community protective services agenda. 2.8 on community protective services.

Thank you, any other disclosures? Can you clarify if you would please, Councilor Palosa, the nature of the conflict? Yeah, the conflict has to do with its the transportation subsidies and we do benefit from the subsidized youth transit as my son uses them to go to central and I’ve made the chair of the committee aware of this conflict as well. So noted, thank you.

Colleagues, we have four recognitions. I’d like to start with Councilor Hopkins, please. Thank you, Your Worship. Nature Canada recently announced Canada’s first four certified bird friendly cities and the city of London is one of them along with Vancouver, Toronto and Calgary.

So for us to be recognized, we had to as a city demonstrate how we reduce the threats to birds, provide communication and education to the community as well as providing habitat programs and restoration for the birds in our city. Certification is a badge of honor and a source of community pride that tells the world that your city or the town takes action to help birds and reverse their declines in our own backyard. I’m so pleased that we’re one of those cities. We are also doing a poll on London’s favorite birds.

So if you’re interested in doing a poll, just go to www.birdfriendlylondon.ca dash city pride poll and pick your favorite bird. Thank you. Thanks very much. Colleagues, Councillor Kabaga, please.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Boys and Girls Club of London has provided 65 years of tremendous service and support to families across the city and it has been a key community partner. The club has also been an outstanding supporter of aging adults in one and in surrounding areas for 34 years.

Founded in 1956, it has opened a safe place for at-risk boys. What started in a second floor room at the Roosevelt branch of the Royal Canadian Legion has become a both a landmark and anchor to the corner of Horton and Richmond streets. From its humble beginnings, the club’s mission was always to help children and youth discover and achieve their dreams. From being a school, cigar factory, a union gas storage facility, the building has been transformed to include two swimming pools, a large gym, a weight room, meeting rooms and a full recording studio to give our youth opportunities to explore their interests and to share their talents.

Their summer camps are extremely popular in the community and give parents and children the ability to choose from several themes, including arts and outdoors and athletics. They’re passionate about giving back to community. In 1987, the club opened the Horton Street Senior Center and affordable recreational club for aging adults. And it uses the buildings during the day when the children are at school.

The membership has increased to approximately 1,200 people. The club has also grown to provide transportation for adults 55 years and older to Horton Street and other day programs in the city, helping key thousands of seniors connected to important activities. During the pandemic here, they’ve experienced the same challenges that we all have to keep up with their usual activities, but under the leadership of Chris Harvey, their CEO and their commitment to the city, they continue to shine. Like the rest of the world, the club is looking forward to when we can fully reopen and welcome the community back to their building.

However, they continue to provide opportunities for community connection through the virtual. As the ward counselor, it gives me great pleasure to recognize an outstanding achievement for Boys and Girls Club of London. And I look forward to continuing to work with them as the BGC London. Congratulations on your 65th year.

Thank you, I’m now going to go back to Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you again, Your Worship. We have many great community organizations that give back to the city of London. And I would like to recognize the London Sea community here in London.

And in particular, Gurmeet Malhotha and the volunteers and high school students that are very active in giving back in the community. The last April was Sikh Heritage Month. And it was an opportunity for the Sikh community to support homelessness as well as setting up food stations. They’ve been doing this for years, not only through the recovery, but they’ve been very active in the community.

Recently, the Sikh community has donated to the city of London, 150,000 K-95 masks. And they have been given to the five community resource centers that we have here in the city of London. So I would like to thank them on behalf of city council for their generous donation and also for making our community stronger. Thank you.

Well, thank you very much, Councillor and colleagues. As it is annually, it’s my honor to announce the winner of the Tim Hickman Award. I have the honor of having met the Hickman family. And I know this is an opportunity for us, not only to pay tribute to a fine young man who was a city employee, but at the same time to talk in terms of work safety.

So today, colleagues, I’m pleased to announce that Skyler Seniso as the 2021 recipient of the Tim Hickman Memorial Health and Safety Scholarship. I should tell you that Skyler is not here in person, but instead is watching this presentation through live streaming. This annual $3,000 scholarship for students in an occupational or public health and safety related program was established in 2006 by the city of London and Kupi Locals 101 and 107 as a tribute to employee Tim Hickman who died in service to the community at the young age of 21. As an essential frontline worker in our healthcare system, Skyler has shown his commitment to the health and safety of our community already.

So thank you for the work you’re doing now as a personal support worker and the work you will continue to do as you receive your nursing degree. The Tim Hickman Memorial Health and Safety Scholarship recognizes the importance of raising awareness of occupational health and safety. Skyler’s commitment to health and safety in his education and career path demonstrates that we all win when we look out for the safety of each other. So on behalf of city council, I’d like to honor and congratulate Skyler on this very prestigious scholarship.

So colleagues, that’s what I have for recognitions at this point. Thank you. I’m not aware of any confidential matters to be considered in public. However, as is our practice, I’m looking for a change in order of item four, which is our confidential session to move that and the eighth report of council and closed session to after stage 13 bylaws.

Do I have a mover? I have Councillor Van Mirberg and seconded by Councillor Turner. Let’s turn to the screen and we’ll vote. Sorry, I’m not sure if Ms.

Liff like power is waiting for me to close the vote. Sorry about that. Closing the vote in the motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you.

I was wondering the reticence of the clerk clerk and thank you for doing that. You’ve been mindful as always. So colleagues, I’m looking for a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting held May 4th, 2021. I’ll look for a mover, please.

Councillor Palose, seconded by Councillor Layman. Any discussion? Let’s call the vote. Closing the vote in the motion carries 14 to zero.

Thanks very much. Colleagues under communications and petitions. Item six, specifically 6.1, we have two items related to 11, 3.2 of the eighth report of the planning environment committee. One Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunnydale Road West and under 6.2, we have one item related to five, 2.4 of the eighth report of community and protective services committee having to do with the standard property standards by-law.

I’ll look for a motion to refer those items in the particular areas of committee that they should be dealt with. Do I have a mover? Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Palose. Thanks very much.

Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Councillor van Mirbergen and Councillor Turner. Closing the vote in the motion carries 14 to zero.

Thank you, colleagues. There are no. It has been given, which turns us to item eight, the reports section under E.1, the eighth report of the planning environment committee. I’d like to call the Councillor Squire, please.

Thank you very much, Your Worship. I’m aware that item 11 and item 12 will both have to be pulled. There are motions related to those two items. And item 11 was a split vote.

Other than that, I haven’t heard of any other items to be pulled. Thank you. Does anyone wish any other to be dealt with separately? Councillor Turner.

Lieutenant. Item 10, it is. Any other items, colleagues? Back to you, Councillor Squire.

I’ll put the balance of the items on the floor. So that’s been moved. Is there a seconder for that? Councillor Hopkins.

Comments or questions on all items with the exception of 10, 11 and 12? Councillor Turner. Thank you. With respect to the number nine, the plan of appeals update.

I’d just like to thank staff for the continued hard work in advancing negotiations and servants with those places that have put sections under appeal. I think we’re making great progress. As mentioned in the report, 97% of the London plan is now in force and effect. There are still some matters yet to be resolved.

And I look forward to those being resolved quickly so that we can have the London plan as the official plan document for the city. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Dean, no one will call the question.

Closing the vote in the motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, Councillor Squire. The first item is which was pulled was item 10’s approval of surface parking lots as at the address is set out in the agenda and Councillor Turner called that matter. Pulled that matter, sorry.

Thank you. Comments or questions, Mr. Turner? Not just really quickly.

I’ll be voting against it. I’d imagine the rest of council will support her many well, but the length of these extensions of temporary use are such that I think it’s probably time to seek the highest invest use for these properties and granting these temporary extensions to non-accomplish that. The other comments or questions? Councillor Layton.

Thank you, Chair. Excuse me, as I said in the committee, I will not be declaring a junior interest on this as my shop has our own private parking lot for customers and staff. However, I encourage my colleagues to support this. These parking lots are desperately needed for businesses and merchants retail and restaurant along Richmond Street as well as employees of companies in the area.

As also for events in Victoria Park, many folks come from my ward and other wards that are not a downtown to enjoy those events and these parking lots are crucial to that. At this time in the pandemic and recovering from the economic hardship that’s being experienced by so many, this would be the wrong time to take away this much needed parking. Thank you, any other comments or questions? Councillor Cressy.

Thank you, Your Worship. So I have a question to staff. I believe it was this very parking lot that triggered the direction of staff some years ago to create the downtown parking strategy. And one of the reasons was to stop these ever ongoing rolling three-year exemptions for temporary use, which obviously the use has not been temporary.

So what’s the next step in that downtown parking strategy from the city staff point of view, from what’s being driven forward by city hall? We’ve got the strategy and that gives us the knowledge to know where the parking is most needed in the downtown area. So we already did remove the temporary exemption from another lot that had low utilization that hadn’t complied with site plan requirements over eight years time. So what’s happening next?

Would I look to Mr. Cospis for that? I believe so. Go ahead, please.

Well, thank you, Your Worship. In the strategy, I believe there was approximately nine nine strategies identified or key recommendations that were put forward, if I recall. And it ranged from a multitude of initiatives like the CIPs, which we’re doing. Again, TZs, there was a discouragement in within the downtown area.

Now this one falls outside of that downtown plan, but there was also the joint venture that we had sought out the responding strategies put in place. So there’s a number of other initiatives that are underway to implement the strategy. And that was outlined in the report back then and we’re continuing to do so moving forward. Councillor Cassey.

Thank you. I also was wondering, you know, this report and I recognize that personnel have changed, but this report was slightly different. Every time these have come to us before, I believe it was contained right in that top part, the to the from the subject. It always said exemption or rezoning or, and it mentioned that this was a temporary use parking lot.

And I’m wondering why the format of this report has changed and why it wasn’t more clearly showing right in that top part that this had to do with a parking lot exemption. Mr. Cassey. I actually might ask Mr.

yeoman to assist with the report format and the template I wasn’t aware of the change. Go ahead, Michelle. Thank you through your, through you, your worship. I don’t believe there has been a formatting change.

The recommendation does clearly state that’s for a temporary use, the summary of request states that in the purpose and effect of the recommended action stated as well. It may be that we didn’t include it in the subject of the report, perhaps that’s something that’s been inconsistently done over time. And so I’ll take that back and discuss that with the team. Anything else, Cassey?

Yeah, thank you for that. And I really do think nobody wants to make it more inconvenient for people to shop. Nobody wants to make it harder for businesses to do their thing. I would argue having lived in Toronto and the Toronto area for 10 years that London has plenty of downtown parking.

It’s just that Londoners, for some reason, don’t wanna walk more than two minutes from their car to their destination. Other cities, they’re not as reticent to do that. I just want to urge staff to continue to go forward with the problem with these parking lots is this is prime real estate. We see the outsized property tax assessment and so the value to the city of London to get the highest and best use from these lands.

We can’t let them continue to sit, follow as, and many of them in not very good condition, crumbling asphalt. They do not make our downtown look very good. And I just urge staff to approach this with a sense of urgency. Thank you, Councillor Adholst.

Oh, thank you, Your Worship. And I realize that downpump parking lots being extended is a bone of contention for many Councillors. I hope that they may turn out to be a silver lining for the film industry because that is a very valuable commodity for people hoping to film in an urban center. So we’ll see if that silver lining comes to pass as we sort of roll out the filming that’s happening.

And I’m excited to hear that there are some productions in the works. So thank you. Thank you. I see no other speakers on our list.

So we’ll call the vote. Moving the vote and the motion carries nine to five. That’s your square. I’m 11 on the agenda, which was item 3.2 from the committee, which Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunnydale Road West.

This is a split vote at committee four to two. Since the committee met, we’ve received further information, one of which is a letter from the Thames Valley District School Board with regard to their plans. A second was information with regard to sewer connections and water connections and from the applicants. So that’s where the matter stands now.

And I know there’s a motion being brought forward for a referral, Mr. Brown. Indeed, there is Councillor Lehman. Thank you.

Yeah, this motion for a referral was driven by the communication that Councillor Squire referenced from the Thames Valley District School Board. It has been circulated to council and with your permission, Chair, I’d like to read it. Good. That item 11, 3.2 of the A3 port of the Planning Environment Committee, having to do with the application from Auburn Development Sync, relating to the property located at 2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunnydale Road West, be referred back to civic administration in order to provide an opportunity for discussions to be held with the Thames Valley District School Board to receive details on the board’s requirements for and the timing of the construction of a future school on the subject land with consideration also being given to the timing of the development of a future plan of subdivision and the possible future servicing on the subject land and report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee on the results of those discussions.

And do you have a seconder for that? I do. I’d say, can I hit that matter? Seconder by Councillor Squire, comments.

Councillor Morgan. Yes, thank you, Your Worship. And I appreciate that the council circulated this so I could have a chance to talk with them about it. I’m gonna support the referral for a couple of reasons.

First off, because it doesn’t make a decision yet on the matter. And second, because it is centered around the issue with the school. And I wanna emphasize as this is in my ward, the situation at the current public schools in ward seven. Sir Arthur Curry, which many on this council know was built very recently, was built for 533 students and will end up servicing about 950 students this year.

They’ll end up moving to, I think they’re gonna move to 17 portables. This was articulated in the letter. This is like, this is a very serious issue. And in talking with staff, that the number of blocks of land available are either all taken or have been returned through the development process.

And so to me, it seems like the school board has this opportunity or expropriation because their funding is actually geographically bounded to a specific area as well. So I’m interested in knowing what the school board is, plans are for approaching this. I’m interested in knowing what their timelines are on this. And I’m interested in knowing if we contemplate even proceeding with the plan, with this particular Auburn site for a school, whether or not they desire to bring it forward early in the development process, as was done with Sir Arthur Curry, or sorry, St.

Andre Bassett High School, because that was brought early. And there were some challenges we faced with that being brought early with walking connections, not being connected to where the students were. And I would endeavor and desire to ensure that all of those things and everything we’ve learned from that process is taken care of before I would even contemplate making a decision on bringing that forward early. So I think that the dialogue is good.

The report back is good. On the servicing side, I’m not really stuck on that. I know engineers can pretty much figure out anything. But the school issue is important to me.

The other thing that’s important to me is how a plan of subdivision would proceed and the public engagement that would be associated with that. There are impacted residents in the area who have significant opinions on this. And I want to be clear about all the points of public engagement that would usually happen through a planned subdivision process that those are not compromised in any significant way. Again, I haven’t made my final decision on this block, but I’m certainly supportive of the counselors getting more information on these particular items and engaging with the school board.

I know it would be very easy just to throw this on the school board or the province and say, they’re not funded for big enough schools. But frankly, the parents in the area do not care whose problem this is. Like, and if there’s something we can do to try to facilitate a discussion in the area on this land or others, then, you know, I’m all for helping out in some way. Those are my comments and I appreciate the motion.

Thanks very much, Councillor Turner. Thanks, Your Worship. I have a few questions. I had an opportunity to review the file and talk with the board as well.

I’m not comfortable with the recommendation as it stands. I think Deputy Mayor Morgan identifies a few of those key points in the discussion and those are specifically around how does the board avail itself of land in order to develop and get a school and a much needed site? That’s the number one question. But that is not the central discussion around this application.

I think the board is being leveraged, unfortunately, and a little bit unfairly. I think the discussion needs to be around how do we get opportunities for the school board to find parcels of land, whether that’s through development application processes and identifications of parcels as to being brought forward to draft plan of subdivisions or expropriation. The challenge is the time when draft plans are coming forward, often we see draft plans develop to 10, 20 years in advance of a neighborhood actually coming to fruition, which is far an advance of a school needs study being conducted to figure out when you’re gonna need students and that facility is to be able to accommodate the students and new developments. So instead, we’re left right now where the board is kind of scrambling because they just got approval to be able to develop in this area.

And as Deputy Mayor Morgan, it’s kind of landlocked and identified in those areas. But this isn’t an approved parcel for development. And so it kind of subverts the entire planning process when it’s being anchored and pivoted around the school needs, which is really unfortunate because I think it’s not fair to put the school board in that position, that they’re being leveraged to try and change rules for planning because environmental studies are required. This land was built as open space to accommodate cemetery.

And now the cemetery wants to be able to sell its land as developable because they see it as surplus. In the OMB hearing, the cemetery successfully argued that there wasn’t enough land to develop a cemetery within the urban growth boundary. And so the OMB found that land and the urban growth boundary could be extended to accommodate the cemetery, not developable lands. That wasn’t the purpose of it.

And now that the ownership wants to switch, what’s a way to leverage into that? Well, we need a school there too, and we’ll offer some of that land. So I would ask, I guess, through your worship to staff, what would be some of the options available to the school board as we explore opportunities to find land for them to be able to develop a school in the Northwest that might, and is it appropriate that that’s independent of the application for this person? I’m not sure if I take that to Mr.

Kotsfish, Mr. Yeoman, please help me out there. I could start, we’ve got Mr. Yeoman and Mr.

Barrett on the line. We had had some preliminary conversations early on about school board needs in this area. And this is one of the sites that they were identified, as well as Councilor Morgan mentioned, there is the ability to appropriate possibly in other areas. I think I’ll defer to Mr.

Yeoman about the application and maybe Mr. Barrett about the school board needs and planning within these areas. Let’s start with Mr. Yeoman’s and as we need to, Mr.

Barrett. Forgive me, Your Worship. I’m gonna have to defer to Mr. Barrett on this.

Okay, then it’s Wacomol. Let’s go to then, please, Mr. Barrett, if you don’t mind, please. Thank you, Your Worship.

I think it’s both Mr. Kotsfish and the Deputy Mayor mentioned, there are other options. And I think that’s actually one of the reasons for the referral is that we can actually sit down with the board and discuss what some of those options might be. The primary reason and the Deputy Mayor also spoke to it is that there is the issue of timing and we want to ensure that the board understands the issues of timing if council is to decide at some point in the future that these lands are appropriate for development and would be appropriate to be considered through a plan of subdivision.

It’s still a number of years before you would actually be able to get shovels in the ground. So that’s actually a large part of the conversation that we wanna have with the board, get a better sense of what their timing needs truly are, how that all sits and how that can be accomplished. And if in fact, this is the only way or the only site where that can be accomplished. So with respect to sites that might be available, I think that that’s something that will sort of reveal itself as we have some discussions and confirm with the board exactly what their needs are.

There are as yet undeveloped lands that are part-way through planning approvals processes within the area, including within the Fox Hollow subdivision and the Fox Hollow lands south of Fanshawe or Sunnydale, sorry. And so the referral will give us the opportunity to have those discussions and just confirm, in fact, the timing issues and where that all sits with the board’s needs. Got your turn. Thank you, Mr.

Barrett, for your worship. So that does raise a few questions is that there’s something that staff would desire as an alternative because it seems to kind of presuppose that this ends up being the development personally. The recommendations in reading the report seem to point towards going through in a stepwise process to do the land studies and the secondary plans. There might be opportunities as that, as you have independent discussions with the board, perhaps not directly associated with this application at this time to say, how can we help accommodate that and work with the applicant, the refusal at this point is just basically recognizing that we don’t have those prerequisite documents and process in place in order to make those approvals.

So is this something that you would prefer as a course of action or are there other options to be able to look at all opportunities on the table rather than just this parcel? Prefer’s an interesting word when it comes to staff recommendations, but go ahead, Mr. Barrett, please. Yeah, through your worship, there’s a staff recommendation already in front of you, which was the refusal of the specific application.

This, in fact, is to go to exactly as the Councillors indicating, which is, are there other options? And what are options outside of this parcel that might be available to the board to provide for their needs? But as it relates to this particular parcel, also conferring with the board. In fact, if this parcel was to come forward, there are a lot of steps.

And I don’t know that the board is fully apprised of what those steps are and what those considerations would be before this site could even be on the radar screen. So that’s part of the conversation is to say, these are the constraints on this site. Staff has not recommended that it be included. If Council were to direct that the land’s be included, there are many, many steps that take a long time to get to and through before development could potentially occur on these lands.

So it is primarily focused at what opportunities might there be to meet the school board’s needs? Councillor Turner. Thank you. As I was reading this, I was trying to figure out what the best course of action would be.

And the referral really speaks to the applicant’s wishes rather than how do we accommodate the board’s needs? And the board isn’t really a party in this. They have some stake in the game because they need land, but they’re not the applicant and they’re not a party in the application. And so what I was thinking was probably a more appropriate motion was that we direct staff to look for opportunities to accommodate and support the school board in its search for a suitable location for a school in the Northwest.

30 seconds. So I’m not going to support this motion. I think a more appropriate motion would be to provide direction to staff to help look for, to work with the TVDSB in order to find a suitable site at location and that could be within this parcel or not. But that I think is completely independent of this application.

Thank you, Councillor Squire. For me, the referral is much simpler from my point of view. There were two issues that came up at the planning meeting that had not come up before. And the first was, of course, the issue of the school and the location of the school.

And having been involved in, with the school board, having been chair of the school board when St. Andre Bassett was built. I know the challenges and I know what happens to school boards is you apply for a school, you wait, you wait, you wait, and you wait. And then it’s approved in a certain area and you’re limited immediately by what you can do.

So I appreciate the challenge that the school board has and I appreciate it may not match up to what the development of this property might be. However, there’s nothing wrong with canvassing that and finding out the answer to that because I suspect the answer may be that this land in any event will not become available soon enough for the school board. I think that might be the simple answer to this entire question because there seems to be a belief on the part of the board that this land is gonna be available for development in a very short period of time and I’m not sure that will be the case. But let’s find out.

The second issue that arose during the debate was the entire issue of servicing this area and staff indicated there were real challenges to servicing the site and staff spoke to that at length. We then received a letter from the applicant discussing that issue and presenting another point of view on that issue and from my point of view, that also is something that we should look at some resolution to as to whether it’s a problem or not before we go ahead. And I certainly believe from my point of view is someone voting on the planning committee. That was almost a larger issue to me than the school board issue because I wasn’t satisfied that the board would be able to build a school in the timeframe that they wanted.

So for me, the referral is to send it back to try to get more information and have it come back with a clearer road forward in terms of making a decision. So that’s why I supported the referral. It was much simpler for me than going into length as to what the final result of the application would be. Thank you.

Any other speakers to this issue? I have Councillor Hopkins please. Yeah, thank you Your Worship and really appreciate the conversation here. I am not convinced that a referral should happen here as it pertains to Auburn’s application for these lands.

I’m very much in favor of continuing the conversation with the board to find a suitable location in the Northwest. I have great empathy for Deputy Mayor Morgan when it comes to the need for schooling based on all the development that’s been going on in the North part of the city. We’re having the same concerns in the Southwest. And I was glad to see that the board is acknowledging the need for priorities in the Southwest to look at schools and really supportive of, I’m glad the provincial government is allowed for a school to take place in the Northwest.

That’s great. But I find that this referral back is specific to the cemetery lands. And I’m not, I think there’s options with the board to look at other opportunities. I’d be very supportive of a referral back.

But for me, I do find we’re circumventing the system here a little bit in terms of setting up and allowing for something to take place going outside the urban growth boundary when we know that the review is going to take place. And maybe that’s a question through Your Worship if staff can just speak to the urban growth review and where we’re at because for this parcel of land, we are going to need that comprehensive review that will take place in this area because there are lands to the north of Auburn Blans and lands to the east as well. So if staff can just add a little bit more so we can understand the timelines that we’re going to be confronted with as well as the board for these lands. Mr.

Barrett, do you want to comment? Thank you, Through Your Worship, comprehensive review process is the process that would be undertaken in the direction of council to look at what the city’s future growth needs are. The urban growth boundary discussion is potentially an outcome of that review. It’s not necessarily a foregone conclusion of that review.

With respect to timelines, it’s our intent to bring forward a report later this fall that would outline in fact what that process would look like, what the comprehensive review process would look like, what some of the milestones would be. And then come back to council likely in the fall of 2022 on the actual terms of reference for the comprehensive review. And it’s at that time where we would be asking council to make that decision whether or not we proceed and we would provide the terms of reference. The reason for that timing is twofold.

First and foremost, a large component of the information that goes into the consideration of the future land needs isn’t understanding the futures of the city’s future needs. So we know the supply side because that’s what we look at as the land base. But it’s the demand side and that’s driven by an updated city’s population employment and household projections. And that’s a process that we would look to be starting near the beginning of next year because that process is very much driven by the census.

And as you know, the census is just underway and just completed. The first data from that census will be rolling out near the end of this year, beginning of next year. And it’s when we have that new data and that updated data that we then start that whole projections process. So that’s one of the reasons why won’t be starting that up until 2022.

The other reason, of course, is the outcome of the London Plan hearings. And as we was on the agenda earlier, we are very well on our way to resolution of a lot of those hearings, but there are still some outstanding matters. The final dates to hear those have not been set. We are coming back in September for another case management conference with the tribunal, at which point hopefully we’ll be bringing forward some further matters for resolution.

And those matters that can’t be resolved. We will then be looking to say these are the outstanding issues and we would then be looking to establish hearings times. And those hearings times would now likely be into 2022 as well. So that’s two reasons why we would be looking at 2022 to bring that, but that’s the process that we’d be going through.

Pastor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you for that. I think it’s important that we understand the process that we do not circumvent the process of looking at these lands and opportunities for them to be brought into the urban growth boundary are in the near future. And I understand the board wanting confirmation if these lands are available in particular, the Auburn lands, but I would prefer the referral going back to work with the board to look at opportunities in the Northwest for lands for school, a much needed school like the deputy mayor said.

So happy to look forward to hearing other comments from my colleagues. But one of the things I got out of the public participation meeting was that there’s other owners around these lands as well that I’m sure would like to know what’s going on if they’re going to be included. And that will all take place in that comprehensive review. For me, it’s a little premature in particular when we really don’t know what the costs, if we start making decisions of more or less allowing a subdivision and a school to go forward here that we really do not understand the costs that Londoners will bear.

So like I said, I’m looking forward to other comments, but for now I will not be supporting the referral back as is. Now let’s hear from Councillor Hummer. Thank you, I wanted to ask through the mayor when the application was received and how we’re doing in terms of the opportunity to appeal for a non decision. Mr.

Britt. Sorry, through your worship, that one, I’ll have to plan back to Mr. Yeoman who I believe can answer these questions. Go ahead, Mr.

Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, through you. The application was received last year.

So it is now beyond the statutory period of when an appeal could be made by the applicant. Councillor Hummer. Thank you. I think when we’re talking about the location of school sites, it can be very difficult to focus on the land use aspects of the applications that are in front of us because the location of schools is a very important thing.

We have some schools that are under capacity, some schools that are over capacity, and the school board has a big challenge on its hands. All of them have big challenges in their hands trying to manage those problems throughout the city. We have in some core parts of the city, large schools that have surplus capacity being closed and demolished, and then new schools being built. The edge of the city to accommodate growth.

And that is a dynamic that is very difficult for residents. And in the long term, I think is contrary to what we want to see in terms of more compact, more inward and upward growth as envisioned in the London plan. And colleagues who are on council last term over call actually voted against the rezoning of a school property to turn it into a school in the northeast corner, which is right up against the urban growth boundary northeast corner of the city, because I think we need to put a stop to this idea of we’ll just locate schools wherever we can wedge them in, and not really taking a thoughtful planning approach to location of school sites. These are extremely important community assets.

They need to be located in great spots and putting them on the edge of the city is not a great idea, except for the people who are very, very close to that edge of the city, you know, or their kids would be close by. Everyone else will have to be jumping on a bus or jumping in cars to get over there. The schools will have to pay to get transportation to happen. Just putting them on the edge of the city is just not a very good idea for a location perspective.

So, you know, I think we have been very good about identifying school blocks, but I think the coordination between, you know, what we’re doing with our city planning and what the school boards are doing with their capital planning really needs some improvement. I don’t think it’s a process that’s working very well. And I don’t think it’s very helpful for us to say, here’s our 20 year plan for London. We’re going to go inward and upward.

We’re going to try and focus the growth in these areas. And then basically the first time there’s funding available for school in the northwest part of the city would say, well, I mean, unless that’s the only spot you got, then we could create a whole new subdivision right up against urban growth boundary. And, you know, forget what we said about the inward and upward thing. I guess we’ll just figure it out kind of ad hoc.

I just don’t think that’s a good way to do the long-term planning that’s necessary. It’s really solving a kind of coordination problem with like, I guess this is what we’ll settle for kind of solution. And, you know, it may be in the future that those areas are brought fully inside the urban growth boundary, all those pieces, they’re designated for residential, very similar to what’s on the south side of the Sunnydale. And it does develop into a subdivision and there’s a school site located there.

But like, I don’t think that the urgent need for the school, like that’s an overriding issue that should just have us set aside all the planning policies and say, this is not a good idea. You know, we’re the city government, at the local government level, and we need to make a planning decision on this matter. So, you know, I think the referral, I’m okay with it if, you know, I buy some time to have a discussion about these things. I’m very nervous about it because we’re already passing on decision time and I’d prefer to have a decision of council on the record that’s consistent with our policy framework.

You know, the school board is still going to have to look for a school site, regardless of what we do here, refer or approve it or refuse it. And so, I would prefer to refuse it because I’m convinced by the arguments in the report that refuse all is a good idea at this stage. I do think we need to improve how we’re working together with the school boards on the school planning and sites for those because we shouldn’t be caught, you know, short like this. You know, we’ve got lots of time to plan these things out.

30 seconds. And I think we can do better on that front, but, you know, we have schools right now that are maxed at capacity. The province wanting to build a school in a particular spot, you know, we went, I don’t know, a decade or more with an empty school site in the southeast corner of the city where people in summer side were begging for a school and had a spot for it. And it’s a way to wait and they finally got it funded.

So, you know, I think we shouldn’t be chasing the ball. We should really do a better job of planning these things out. I don’t want to turn a land use planning discussion into a building schools discussion because the land use issues, the one that’s before us. Thanks very much, Councillor Lewis.

By the way, may I say with some biased colleagues, the best-dressed Councillor tonight, go ahead, please. Thank you, Your Worship. Colleagues, I will say at committee, I supported the staff recommendation, but I’m also going to support the referral tonight. And I’ve heard a couple of Councillors and I don’t think that they were doing this deliberately but there was a couple of statements made that make it sound like this parcel of land is not inside the urban growth boundary right now.

It is inside the urban growth boundary. Something is going to be developed there and the cemetery is clearly now off the table. So what this referral does and to just clarify, there are lands to the north and the east as referenced by Councillor Hopkins that are not in the urban growth boundary and maybe part of the comprehensive review, there may be a recommendation to bring them in or not, but none of that is decided. And that’s a ways away.

What this referral does is leave this land on the table for a little while for our staff to have some conversations with the school board as well as with the applicant. They can talk about the servicing. There are some things that they can consider here before we make a final decision. It may well be, in fact, in the northwest that the school board is going to need potentially this property and another property.

We heard from the deputy mayor, they have a school right now with 17 portables on the tarmac, 17. I think if any of our children were attending that school, we’d be quite upset with that situation and justifiably so. And Councillor Helmer’s absolutely correct when he talks about the very significant challenges the school board faces in terms of its planning. Quite frankly, and this is not specific to the current provincial government.

It’s provincial governments going back for decades. The school planning process for new schools is backwards. And we’re building schools that are full the day that they’re open. And that is not helpful to the health of our community or any other community in this province.

However, we’re not the provincial government. We can’t change that process right now, although we can certainly lobby them to bring some more flexibility to that process. But supporting this referral and leaving this land at least open as an option for a little while is something that I’m more than prepared to do because it makes sense in terms of the fact that this land is in the urban growth boundary. It is going to be in an area where we’re seeing increasing residential development.

There’s already a need there. And I’m not making this decision just based on the school need, although that’s certainly an important factor. But I don’t think the new information that’s been received since planning committee is something that we should just discard either. I think that sending a referral back is not circumventing the process.

It’s actually part of the process in this case. We’re referring it back to ask our staff to take a second look, to talk to the interested parties and take it from there. So I’ll be supporting this referral, and I hope that others will as well. Thank you, Councillor Pietrangelo.

Thank you, Your Worship. So this was an interesting discussion to follow up. At the committee and it wasn’t a unanimous vote. Of course, one of the other issues that came up was the idea of housing and the demand for housing.

And that seems to be almost unlimited, or at least that’s how it feels here in London now. I’m not sure if our hopes to grow inward and outward or inward and upward are mutually exclusive to growing outward as well. And certainly we would be growing within the urban growth boundary. I think that schools are part of the planning process, and those should be considered strongly.

I don’t think there’s an urgency in turning down this application now as opposed to doing a referral. So I think I would support the referral to see what comes of it. And I hope that this process of getting subdivisions online can be speeded up, that it doesn’t have to take a generation from the time we spot a new parcel until somebody can move in. So I’m interested to see what those discussions are there.

With respect to the urban growth boundary, I just had a question through you to staff. I always thought that part of the reason for the urban growth boundary is that we saw value in retaining agricultural lands around London. And is that the case as well, or is the urban growth boundary essentially for helping us with the timing of expansion so that we’re not leapfrogging services? Mr.

Chair. Thank you to the Chair, the purpose of the urban growth boundaries to define the settlement area to accommodate sufficient lands for the city’s growth, for the projection period. The urban growth boundaries to set up a boundary in case of London for 20 years worth growth. The boundary that London has in fact was set before any of these parameters were developed.

This boundary was actually set as an urban growth boundary as a result of the Vision 96 process. And at that time, the rigor that goes into developing and examining what your future land needs was not in place. And in fact, it wasn’t even a provincial construct to identify such a thing as a settlement area boundary. But the boundary was done originally for exactly the purpose that the Councillor said, which was to define the areas that would be set aside for urban growth and define the areas that would be set aside for agricultural growth and agricultural preservation.

The boundary that was ultimately drawn for London, given that it was drawn back in 1996, is showing that it’s probably closer to about a 50-year growth boundary. And that’s part of the issues that we’ve had, is that we’ve had so much land that it’s gone all around the city. And we have some areas of the city where in fact, we’re pushing up and close to the boundary, but other areas of the city where there’s sufficient lands. And so the whole notion of whether or not there are sufficient lands to accommodate growth is based on the quantum of what’s available city-wide, not what’s available in the northwest or the northeast or the southeast, but what’s available city-wide.

And up until now, we’ve been running with quite a, I would say pad on our supply of sufficient lands. But we are getting close to where we’re gonna have to make that examination. But at the outcome of that examination, it would be a boundary that would be identified to accommodate 20 years worth of growth. And lands inside would be set aside for development and the lands outside would be preserved for agriculture.

But again, the councilor also raises a good point because among the considerations of where do you draw that lines is avoiding prime ag lands. And in the case of London, that’s a pretty difficult exercise because all of the lands surrounding London are prime ag lands. So that becomes a balance that council has to consider at that point. And that’ll be a few years down the road.

Mr. Ann Holst. Well, thank you. I appreciate that thoughtful response from staff.

I will say that I remember attending school in a portable back in the 70s. And so it’s too bad we haven’t been able to solve that problem or at least get ahead of it. But I’m sure these discussions will be fruitful in one way or another. So thank you.

Thank you. I’m going to move to councilor Cassidy. I know by the way, councilman, I see your hand up. You made some comments when you made the referral.

I’ll let you do a wrap on that. Go ahead, councilor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. I have a question.

I know this referral references servicing of the land. So I did want to ask staff that if something, and we do know how long subdivisions generally take to go through the whole process, but if it were built the way it looks, if you look on the map right now, there’s literally nothing built around it right now. So who does pay the cost to service this land to get the appropriate services out there for the homes that would theoretically be built there? Mr.

Barrett. Sorry, through you, Your Worship. I’ll punt that one back to Mr. Yeoman.

Hunt away. Go ahead, Michelle. Through you, Your Worship. So to answer the council’s question, it would be a bit of a combination of situations.

In a normal situation, major infrastructure is provided by the city to service the lands. In this case, we don’t have plans for major sanitary service in particular for these lands to the north. There is a sanitary outlet that is available that requires a pumping station and a force may not a gravity connection. Generally we’re trying to have gravity connections going forward for all of our sanitary lands.

So we would have to contemplate in a future study the servicing of these lands for the broader area. The private, the pumping station though and the force main would be provided by the developer. However, the city’s policy framework for temporary servicing discourages temporary servicing unless they’re supportable when the ultimate solution is known and right now we don’t know the ultimate sort of sanitary servicing solution for the lands. The water servicing for the lands still needs to be studied at this time.

There may be some capacity going forward, but the lands haven’t been considered in our water servicing studies to date for that. And for stormwater, we do have a stormwater pond that the lands could avail of. However, we need to work through the issues of having the services cross over a sunny day road as they go forward. Engineers could of course come up with servicing solutions on anything, it’s just a matter of timing and cost and working through details through a subdivision process.

Thank you, actually. I think Mr. Wert, you meant to say past the puck as opposed to punt the ball in light of the season. So go ahead, Councillor Cassidy.

Thank you, Your Worship. So if council were to give approval to for this developer to go ahead with their plans here, would we have to speed up plans with that effect? Other plans would infrastructure that we have planned in other areas for development that is happening there, would things have to be juggled and moved around? Mr.

Wert. Through your worship, not necessarily to answer the question. We do have some works that are coming online within the next few years. It would mean that the lands couldn’t proceed immediately, but they could be within the period that we could consider through the subdivision review process.

The sanitary issue though, is the key issue going forward. We have had challenges in the past with private pumping stations in the Southwest, for example, where we have to deal with things like operating costs and agreements related to that without knowing when the long-term services are going to be provided so that can get into some definite challenges there. Councillor? Thank you.

So I’m on the fence right now about this referral. I do think it’s important to have these conversations with the school board, absolutely. I think the bringing in this argument that London has this housing shortage is a false argument in this particular case. There’s a ton of development going on in Ward 5, a long-standing down road between Richmond and Adelaide Street.

That development has been approved. Most of it has been approved or it’s actually in the process. So all of those homes will come online well in advance and we’re talking thousands of units, well in advance of anything going up on this site. And this is service plans or lands that have servicing available to be connected to.

This is true sprawl. If you look at it, it is the furthest west and furthest north in the city that you can go. And yes, technically it’s in the urban growth boundary, but is specifically in the urban growth boundary for a cemetery. It was not contemplated for residential development.

What happens when we allow this kind of sprawl to continue as it’s continued for decades in London is you see schools like Lorne Avenue School get closed because that neighborhood empties out because young families are able to buy houses more cheaply way out on the outskirts of town. And we continue through policies that we have continued in the past to encourage that kind of development and to make it as cheap as possible for developers to build those kinds of homes which contributes to the emptying out of our core and then you have schools closing down. What happened immediately after they closed down Lorne Avenue Schools, they had to build an addition. Well, and I can’t remember the name of the school, but it’s the one on Quebec and Oxford Street.

They had to build, we had to give zoning permission to build an addition to that school because all of a sudden families were starting to, that’s what happens in neighborhoods. There’s rejuvenation. Families were starting to move back in there and now all of a sudden Lorne Avenue Schools closed. The kids had to go somewhere.

So I agree with conversations with the school board that they are essential. We do have to work together doing our planning in conjunction with school board needs and do a much better job than has been done in the past. There’s a reason for inward and upward. There’s a reason for developing in already built up areas because it costs us millions of dollars, probably more than millions, probably in the billions to service those areas that are way far out and it costs us in smog.

And I’m not even talking about climate change. I’m talking about quality of life for Londoners. There are more cars that there are on the road. There are more smog that there is in the air and we are all breathing that matter that’s in the air.

LTC has to extend their service out there. It costs us money through LTC. It costs us money. It’s snow plows.

It costs us money in soft services like libraries and things like that. All of that has to be made available to these people that will now be living in the furthest reaches of the city. So I’ll wait to hear further, although I think Councillor Layman is next and he’s going to wrap up. So like I said, I agree with more conversations.

I don’t agree with referral if it’s a matter of just delaying a decision so that the developer can get what he wants because I’m not sure what this developer wants is necessarily in the best interest of all Londoners. Thank you very much. Sorry, Councillor Square. I just have a point of order and I have to correct something that the Councillor just said because I read the OMB decision.

I went through it and read it. And the OMB in the decision did not say that the land was being approved within the urban growth boundary for use as a cemetery. In fact, they specifically said that they were not doing that and they were including it in the urban belt’s boundary for other purposes. And it did not require in their decision for them to make a finding it was needed for a cemetery.

I want to make that crystal clear because I read the decision and that’s what it says. So to say, it was the only dealing with a cemetery. Sorry, go ahead. Point of order.

Okay, well, I just heard one point of order which sounded like a point of order. Sorry, it’s not making a point of order. He is making debate and argument. He’s arguing with my point that is not a point of order.

A point of order is an error in process, not following the rules of council. That is not a point of order. So noted then, Councillor Square feels his point of clarification is made. Councillor Lehman for a wrap up, please.

Thank you, so today we’ve touched on a lot of things. We’ve touched on urban sprawl. We’ve touched on the frustration of some schools closing for lack of population growth there for young families and other schools opening at the other end. We’ve touched on urban growth boundaries.

Before I get into my comments, I’d just like to go to staff because we’ve had a discussion of time, length, et cetera. When a ward or city has to expropriate land for the purposes of building a school, how long is that process generally? Well, I’m not sure if Mr. Gilmer and Mr.

Barrett wants to tackle that. One of you can decide though. Through the mayor, I don’t know that either of us can comment on the time of an expropriation of another boarder commission. Sorry.

Thank you. That’s good. Okay. I can’t comment either ‘cause I don’t have that knowledge.

But my guess is that it’s no small thing. You know what I do know, being a ward councillor in the West End with this area just north of our ward boundaries, the incredible amount of young families that have moved into this area. And here we have a school that’s designed for 500 pupils and they’re at 900 with 17 portables on the property. In my opinion, this is not a healthy environment for the best education possible.

I know my kids, we were in a relatively new area and my kids were in importables. My concern is, and I saw this firsthand, is the delay and the delay and the delay to address this. You could have a person having their child go in the kindergarten and potentially see the possibility of many years in elementary schools being spent in a portable. So I think, you know, it should be great if the province funding came at the right time with the school board.

So all of this could be planned, you know, in a proper, well thought out manual, but that’s not where we are today. Where we are today is we have a extreme lack of available schooling, not just with, you know, one site desperately needed, but I have the feeling there’s going to be additional sites required in the coming years. We have a potential property that is within the urban growth boundary. What I think we owe the parents and the students in this area is at least to fully investigate the pros and cons of going down whatever path we eventually go down.

This referrals not a decision, yes or no. All it is, is getting staff in the school board to have that conversation now. Understanding that time is not on our side here. And it’s still going to be a number of years before we get, you know, a school bill.

I understand that, but we want to reduce the number of years until that happens. So I encourage my colleagues to support this referral so that when we make our decision, we can have the best information at hand. Thank you. Thank you, with that we’ll call the vote.

This is on the referral. Dr. Helmer, you were muted when you found it. Dr.

Helmer, you have it now. Thank you. Moving the vote and the motion carries and for— Thank you, Councillor Squire. Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair. We’ll now move on to point three on the planning agenda. This was matter was approved at council, but I know Councillor Hopkins has a motion that she’s watching us bring with regard to this. Why don’t we turn to you then, Councillor Hopkins, please.

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I did send, or the City Clerk sent out the proposed amendment that I would like to bring forward. I do have a seconder in Councillor Cassidy for this amendment. And this is a public participation site plan, public participation meeting that we had at planning.

And as you could see, the comments are listed in the recommendation, but given the concerns that exist in the community for landscaping and for privacy, I would like to add a clause B that speaks to those concerns and that the landscape architect for the applicant and the city’s landscape architect continue to work with the trees in this area. This is a 21-unit townhouse complex right next to an open space four, open space five, just off of Colonel Talbot. It is, there are residential homes around this area and it is really important to note the need for landscaping where possible as well as for the privacy and the boundaries that will delineate the homes to the townhouses. So I’m hoping colleagues will support this added request to continue working through the site plan process to look at privacy and boundary trees.

Thanks very much. Vinduli, seconded Councillor Cassidy, that was a yes from you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions on the amendment to this motion?

Let’s call the question. Boating the vote in the motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. Now I’ll turn your attention to the motion as amended, but that will require a mover and a seconder, please.

Moved by Councillor Squire, seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Any other comments or questions? Let’s call that vote. Mayor.

First time ever. Boating the vote in the motion carries 14 to zero. Sorry about that, thanks for much, Councillor Squire. It’s up to say, go Habs.

Yes, I will, for those who are otherwise so bent, as is my son-in-law, you’ll see another dressy wear from the chair of the planning environment committee. Thanks very much for your report. Now I’ll turn your attention, colleagues, to the eight to four to the committee of protective services, I’ll call on Councillor Helmer, please. Thank you, Councillor Palosa has integrated, she has an opinionary interest on item nine, which is 2.8 from the original report, an integrated subsidized transit.

So we should pull that. I’m happy to put everything else on the floor. I haven’t heard from anybody else that they want anything pulled. I will say we refer to communication from a number of students who are involved in the community engaged learning project with lifespan to item 2.4, which is the property standards by-law.

And I wanted to commend the group for their work on that project and obviously lifespan for their continued advocacy on behalf of tenants on this issue. Does anyone wish to have any other item dealt with separately? Seeing none, dealing with all the issues in the supportive community of protective services with the exception of item 2.8, excuse me, any comments or questions? Councillor Squire.

I just want to follow up on the issue of lifespan. I really appreciated the input that they had. I think it’s great to see a community organization that’s really passionate about a particular issue. And it’s also bringing us real evidence and real stats on those particular issues.

And I don’t think they should ever be hesitant in doing that. And I know they won’t be through their executive director. I think that one of the biggest things about enforcement in the city is having the community understand how enforcement works, what it does. And I think engagement, whether we like it or don’t like it, I think we have to accept it.

And I think we have to use it to make these things work better. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, we’ll call the vote.

Mosing the vote in the motion carries 14 to zero. Councillor Omer. I’ll put item 2.8 to graded. Sometimes that is transit agreement.

I bring together a number of programs into one program, which is going to be simplifying things for the city and also for a limited transportation. Thank you. Comments for questions. And we’ll call the question.

Posing the vote in the motion carries 13 with one work used. Councillor Omer. Is that for me? Thanks very much.

We appreciate that very much. I’ll now turn your attention to the eighth report of Corporate Services Committee and Councillor Cassidy, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I will put the entire report on the floor, except for item eight, which is 2.6 from the committee agenda.

And then I have not heard from anybody else yet. Thank you. Does anyone wish any other item dealt with separately? Councillor Turner.

Thank you. If I could have 2.1 and 2.2, I guess two and five. 2.5 being the report on development charges reserve fund. I’m looking at the right one.

I’m looking at the eighth report of Corporate Services. 2.1 is integrity commission agreement and I’m sorry, I’m reading this wrong. A five is the 2.2 council compensation review task force colleges. All right.

So we’re talking then colleagues in terms of dealing with all issues with the exception of 2.1, the integrity commissioner agreement, the 2.2, the 2021 council compensation review task force and 2.6 elected officials and appointed citizen members, remuneration, any other items? Seeing none, any discussion on those items with the exception of the three that will be dealt with separately. Seeing none, we’ll call the question on all, but those three items. Councillor Layman.

Moving the vote in the motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you. Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship.

I’ll put number two, which is 2.1 from the committee report. And it’s the integrity commissioner agreement. I’m just going to stop. Councillor Turner, I think you had this pulled.

Did you wish to have a comment on that then? I did. I just wanted to vote on it separately. I see.

Thank you very much. Seeing no questions, we will call the question now. I think the vote in the motion carries. While.

Councillor Cassidy. It is number five or 2.2 from the committee agenda. The council 2021 council compensation review task force. Councillor Turner also pulled that one.

Thank you very much. Comments for questions. Councillor Turner, is that a hand up or? Yes, thank you.

I have my apologies to say I haven’t fully digested this if I might screw you, your worship to staff or to the chair. Just why now do we need to do this? Is given that we’ve in the last round, we had a fairly strong recommendation, I think, to index this and allow that to kind of be depoliticized. Is this a requirement at this point that we do so to strike the task force or is it a recommendation?

That’s asked to clear. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, yes, this is in response to direction that was given to staff by council at the end of the last review with which was to bring it forward for review again prior to the next election. Councillor Turner.

Thanks, that’s helpful. I see the, when we made that recommendation, thanks for refreshing my memory and the clerk, that in doing so, I mean, it needs to be revisited from time to time. I felt fairly comfortable with the recommendation that was made at the time. My challenge is it’s a fairly significant amount of work.

The recommendation, if we were unsatisfying with the recommendations that were made through the last review and hadn’t created an indexing clause associated with that, then I think it would probably be incumbent on us to do a revisit of the council compensation framework. But at this point, we’re not, well, I mean, personally, I’m not dissatisfied with what that recommendation was at the last pass. And I think it can carry and I’m comfortable with it standing rather than going through all the significant work that’s associated with it. Unless council is taking a look at fairly significant change in structure composition and the way we do business, but I think that the two conversations haven’t really met each other yet.

And so either this is premature or it’s divorced from the conversation that needs to happen in order to get there. And so I’m not really supportive of it at this point. Thank you. Any other comments or questions?

That’s wrong. Thank you. I wanted to ask through the mayor, just about the timing for the review. I know that one of the recommendations from the task force last time was that we, the review completed basically a year before nominations started happening for the next term of council.

And I went to wondering about the timing, whether you think that there’s enough time to get the work done by the committee and the task force. Let’s ask the clerk. Through you, Mr. Mayor, through the terms of reference for this review, I was recommending a much scaled down review which is, it would basically mean looking at the most recent median full-time employment income data for Londoners.

So it’s a very scaled down review. I’m not recommending a wholesome look at everything. In fact, I’m having some difficulties in having the former members willing to come back. So there’s also a possibility that you could just direct us staff to undertake that review based on the previous recommendation and report back on what that would look like without going through a full task force and having a task force called.

That’s wrong. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote in the motion carries 12 to two.

Councillor Cassidy. On this item, there was a submission for the elected officials and appointed citizen member, sorry, it’s item 2.6 from the committee agenda. So that was just received for information and the committee voted against the motion that Councillor Kailabaga and I had put on the floor. So I’m wondering if it’s in order and I threw you to the clerk to add, so we’re receiving this information and I wonder if I can do a B which is my original motion that I put on the floor at the committee.

That might well be contrary, but let’s ask the clerk. Mr. Mayor, sorry, I had to public the clause there. I do not believe it would be contrary because the motion on that on the floor is just to receive the report and the communication.

So you could put an amendment on to add a B in my opinion, of course it’s up to council. I’d like to do you a motion. I would actually trust the clerk’s opinion versus my own from time to time on such matters. Do you have wording for that, Madam Chair?

Your worship is on the committee report that I just had and then I just closed it off. There it is. That notwithstanding the provisions of the council policy remuneration for elected officials and appointed citizen members. The remuneration for elected officials and appointed citizens, no increase to the remuneration for elected officials or appointed citizens be made for 2021.

It being noted that the corporate services committee received a communication dated May 7th, 2021 from Councillors Helmer, Cassidy and Kayabaga with respect to this matter. So I’ll move that and I’ll look for a seconder and then I would speak to it. Mr. Mayor, I have a point of order.

Yes, please. Good customer. Thank you. But committee, when we went through this, I questioned if we needed to simply receive as the report would be to proceed as per the policy or if I needed one to receive this and authorize the payout increase as the report had noted to be done and was told what was before us is would have done it and I didn’t need to have two parts.

So questioning which was actually right, which we did at committee or where we find ourselves today. Let’s go back for the clerk for an opinion. Through you, Mr. Mayor, the council policy authorizes staff to move forward with the increase.

So by receiving the report, it’s also authorizing the increase in accordance with the policy because policy already provides that authorization to staff. So what you were, you’re hoping to achieve or had suggested to achieve had been it can be achieved by just receiving the staff report because the policy authorizes the increase unless there’s a motion by council to not authorize the increase. Is that clear, Councilor Plaza? From what, personally, I view this as contradictory to what come out of committee, but I’ll leave it to the clerk’s judgment.

Well, that’s why I did feel it was contrary to and so you’d have to either vote down the recommendation and deal with this separately. But, Clerk, you feel that this and I’ll be guided by council, but I don’t want an extended discussion on this if we could unless you feel it’s appropriate. But, Clerk, can I ask you just to, just to retune your thoughts on that, not to change them, but just to give us clarity again around what you just said. Through you, Mr.

Mayor, again, my, my advice is basically the same, but I also understand Councilor Palosa’s point that if by receiving it, you’re improving it, then adding a B is contrary to that. So, I’m gonna change my mind based on that information and my advice to you and lead suggest that perhaps it is contrary. That would have been my view as the chair that this, so it’s directly contrary to what was supported at committee. So with that, if you would like to make an amendment to Councilor Cassidy, which you’ve done, but I’m going to just give you the floor for a moment here.

Before you talk to it, I just wanna be clear, you’re still looking to put that on the floor. Well, if it’s contrary, then the clerk is telling me that I can’t put it on the floor, well, as we would have to defeat this motion and then. That’s, that would be, that’s my interpretation. So with that, I’ll take a speaker’s list.

So I would like to speak to this, Mr. Mayor. Please go ahead. So obviously, people are not comfortable voting on the motion that I would like to bring forward.

It’s what we do every year. We have to vote on our compensation. It is in the policy, but it has to come forward by law as a report every year. And we have to endorse the policy basically every year.

My concern, and it would have been the concern if we were looking at a 10% increase to our remuneration or a 0.1% increase to our remuneration. The size does not matter. There are people in our community who have lost their businesses. There are people in our community who have lost their jobs.

There are people in our community who are waiting to go back to work, but with the current lockdown, they cannot. And I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to take an increase, no matter how small, no matter how large. I think we need to stand in solidarity with the people in our community who are suffering. And so I will vote against the committee recommendation if that is the only way for me to get my motion on the floor and I would urge colleagues to follow suit because I think we need to let the people in our community know that we hear them, we feel they’re suffering and what small thing we can do to show support to them, I think we should.

Thank you, Councillor Turner. Thanks, Your Worship. I can certainly appreciate intent of the motion that was brought forward to committee. I support where the committee headed with it at the end of the day.

And one of the reasons was, as I talked about the previous item, was that a fair amount of discussion and deliberation went into trying to figure out how to one deep politicize the compensation for Councillors. This will always be a circumstance that we have to face. And by indexing it against the income, the average income, that allowed us to be able to kind of rise and fall with how the city went to. So the same economic factors that impact council compensation are the same factors that impact employment across the city and how people are fairing.

I know it’s very sensitive. I know that the optics of council compensation will always be bad. It will never be good. And so trying to take it out of a council debate and deliberation by pegging it to something that is an economic indicator of the health of the city, I think is the best way to take it out of our hands, put it into something that’s tangible and measurable and is quite appropriate.

So I can’t support the motion. I’m always cognizant that anything that we do with our compensation will be self-serving in either circumstance, whether we freeze it, decrease it or increase it. It will always be seen as self-serving. There’s no way about around that.

And so let’s follow the recommendations that the frustration I have with every time we strike the council compensation task force and then ignore their recommendations. That’s one of the reasons why I was not supportive of the idea of striking another council compensation task force for us to only ignore their recommendation again, despite the hours of work they put into all that. So I think it’s respectful to the process. It’s respectful to the people of London and appropriate for us to maintain with the policy as a side of the assessment.

Thank you, Castro. Yeah, thank you, your worship. So this, as much as I appreciate councilor Turner’s comments on this one, I agree the task force, the starting that up again, not having the availability to even do that. I have great concerns about moving forward with that.

And then with the recommendations coming forward from that task force, how do we support that and sort of keep us out of the mix? So sorry, I think you’re combining two things and I just want to be clear. I know I am, but I’m just going to go to the previous recommendation that I didn’t support. And I feel like I want to clarify that.

I was not at corporate to hear the conversation that I know when this motion came forward last year, it wasn’t a conversation at all. We, most of us supported it. I am unsure why we would not do this again. We are still in COVID and this is something that we can still do and show some sort of, show some compassion or companionship with Londoners and what they’re experiencing.

I know other municipalities have done it. I agree, Councillor Cassidy, size does not matter if it’s $2 or $2,000, that’s not the point. The point is why would we not do that? So if I can have an explanation from any of the members why we would not do this.

I’m just at a loss. They’re not required to respond to that, but certainly for me. Okay, that explains— No, no, that’s not fair, Councillor Hopkins. I would say that there’s certainly, we’ve got the minutes and there’s ample opportunity for any and all of us to speak to colleagues, but I’m very mindful of any potential first versions, but I’ll let you carry on if you wish.

That’s all I’ve got to say. Thanks very much, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. And I’m going to speak only to the committee recommendation that’s on the floor.

If that’s defeated and another motion comes forward, then I may have some more to say, but about a month or so ago, maybe six weeks now, a motion to send council operations to governance working group for a review was something that came onto the floor. And because it had compensation in it, I heard arguments, including from members tonight, who are saying, well, notwithstanding our policy and the council compensation task force, I heard arguments then, oh, we’ve got to take council compensation out because that’s the compensation task force’s job. So let’s stick with council compensation task force reviews recommendations. And let’s follow through on this.

Let’s not throw it out. Councilor Turner is absolutely right. This is always going to be a political football of sorts. And I agree with him when he says the best way to do this, and whether or not I think the compensation task force has to review its recommendations or not apart, I think that by having this as part of an independent group and then following through on their recommendations rather than ignoring them as the best way to go.

So I’m going to encourage colleagues to support the committee recommendation on this. Thank you, Councillor Unholst. Thank you, Your Worship. And if I may, through you to staff, could they again answer the question, how much money will this, how much will this make a difference financially for the city this change?

If the clerk has those numbers as yet? Through the chair, it’s Ms. Burbon. It’s approximately $7,800 in total.

Councillor Unholst. Okay, thank you. I guess the question of the size, does that matter? In a Godzilla movie, I think they said size matters.

So in this case, this is small. And trying to look at this from just a citizen’s point of view, if we’re paying council an extra 0.7%, I would be content if they did 0.8% better job, that would be fine. And seeing that for many of our Councillors, they’re now two years into this without an increase. They’re certainly the experience they’ve had will make up for that.

And I would hope that that difference, this small amount, you know, would leverage itself over the billion dollar budget that we have. So I don’t, you know, I don’t see this as a problem. And I hope that we try to do things to help the residents of London get something similar. So I too think it’s, this is always an uncomfortable situation.

And really it’s more of the, right now, it’s more of the ideological and emotional arguments that are at play against the really practical argument of the easiest thing to do is base the salary on a London metric and then provide a London increment for it. That’s pretty smart. And that was a smart way to deal with it. And again, we’ve kind of circumvented that and now we have to have this discussion.

And this is, as was said, is gonna come up every time. And when we do the next review, perhaps we can come up with some way to avoid this happening. And maybe that’s just baked into the first year. We figure out, okay, well, what are they likely to make each year?

And then we’ll pick the center point of that and say that’s what you’re gonna get all four years. There’s no change and there’s no discussion. Except, but I do have this question through you to our staff, if we actually did that and said that counselors make the same amount every year, would we still get this report coming back to us saying this is how much counselors make? Do you want there to be a change?

That might be a moot question since that’s not the situation with Clerk. I’ll let you try to handle that. Through you, Mr. Mayor, we could certainly include indexing or asset council compensation review task force to consider an automatic indexing based on a figure every year.

And then we wouldn’t need this specific report. However, under the Municipal Act, finance is required to report out annually on any expenses and salaries being given to counselors. So we’d still report out, but not ask for permission. Thank you, customer and host, anything else?

Okay, thank you. So it seems like we may always have this discussion. So at that point, I’ll just support the committee recommendation ‘cause that’s what I did previously. Thanks very much.

I see no other speakers. So with that, Councillor Hummer. Thank you. So if we follow the policy this year, we will hit 50% compliance with the policy.

And if we don’t, we’ll drop down to 40% compliance with the policy. That’s over the last several years. Going back, I think to 2014, maybe just before that. So usually we don’t follow the policy as the point I’m trying to make.

And the policy allows for a couple of things. One is, look at these two numbers and see which one has gone up the least and then use that one. So I think it’s got restraint built into it, which is like, look, if the labor index is higher than the CPI, we’re not gonna increase it by the labor index. We’re gonna increase it by CPI.

We wanna choose the lower number. And there’s a provision in there to not have an increase. And the provision is when non-union staff wages are frozen. And there have been situations in the past when that has happened where management staff, for example, have got no increases.

And in those circumstances, also Councillors, if you follow the policy, don’t get an increase. And the mayor doesn’t get an increase either. And I think that there’s an element there of solidarity, solidarity with the non-union management staff, recognizing that for whatever reason, generally speaking, financial restraint and economic situation that’s making increases to management staff salaries not wise or very difficult, we go without an increase. And I think generally the policy is good, increase it by inflation, that’s smart.

I think the general practice of picking the median income was a big improvement over what we had before and then adjusting by inflation from that point on. We’re not really in normal circumstances, right? And so I think this is one of those circumstances where you say, you know what, we’re not gonna increase it by inflation. Last year, I thought it was a very good reason because I thought we were in a very high period of uncertainty, really didn’t know what was gonna happen.

We were in a very bad financial situation and it definitely restraint was needed at that time. Now, things are a bit more clear. I think the fiscal situation of the city is a lot more clear and I’m less concerned now than I was last year when we decided to not have an increase than I am now. But I do think it’s still a very bad situation and it’s just not the time to be increasing the wages for counselors and salary for counselors.

I just think we should leave it the way it is. The status quo is fine. We’re gonna have to increase it sometime in the future because we’re gonna have to catch up with inflation. There’s gonna probably be an adjustment when we look at the median income.

It could be up, could be down depending on how things are going in the economy. And I think we’ll have to do that at that time. But right now, I just don’t think it increases a good idea. I obviously do not agree with the idea that voting against receiving the report is necessary.

But since that is the ruling of the mayor and nobody challenged it, I’m going to vote against receiving the report. Hopefully we have another motion that’s on the floor. Thank you. I see no other comments.

I do. Councillor Ann River. Thank you Mayor. I think those of us who are saying that it would increase at this time would be first to admit that this is largely symbolic.

But the fact of the matter is that it’s also about the leadership. Councillor Van Mirberg, can I just ask you to check your volumes there because you’re breaking in and out. And I’m just, we’re just a little challenged to hear that as complete sentences. Is that better?

Better, thank you. Go ahead. Okay. Well, thank you again Mayor.

What I started to say when I was beginning to speak to is for those of us who are not in favor of taking an increase at this time, I think most of us would readily agree that this is largely symbolic. But most of us in leadership position, particularly those of us who are put in office directly by the public, these symbols or the use of symbols is very important. And from time to time, very poignant. And I would suggest that especially at this time, this place, this position in the pandemic, makes sense for us to show solidarity and empathy with the people who put us here.

It shows that we understand where we’re at right now and taking an increase no matter how small is not warranted at this time in my view. And again, it’s largely symbolic. Symbols are important, especially right now. Thank you.

I see no other speakers. We will call the question. Mr. Mayor.

Good Councilor. I’m just wondering if this is the motion before the one that Councilor Cassidy had put forward? No, this is not Councilor Cassidy’s amendment. This is the recommendation from committee.

So wouldn’t her amendment come before the motion since she proposed one already? No, I had already ruled that her motion was contrary to the committee motion. So if this fails, then we can deal with Councilor Cassidy’s motion, if it passes, it passes. Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I just have to ask again just because Councilor Cassidy’s name is on the motion. And if he is not for this motion, I’m just wondering if there’s a contradiction in her moving the motion and she’s intending on voting against it.

No, she’s allowed to put it on the floor as the chair and not supported. Okay, thanks. Closing the vote in the motion carry a fee. Thank you, colleagues.

Councilor Cassidy, is that it? Great, your worship. Thank you very much. I’ll now look to the Seventh Report of Civic Works.

Councilor Palosa. Thank you, your worship. We had a good Civic Works Committee meeting in my opinion. We have no advance notice to pull anything from committee or from council.

Our highlights, just as everyone switches agendas is a Digman Creek Popping Station construction tender, which is gonna allow for capacity growth in the south end, including the Maple Leaf plant and some redundancies in infrastructure to help with water protection. We had a regular tree supply on this agenda, which is gonna be accounted for in a better caliper of trees and hopefully lower tree mortality as the city seeks to do its tree campy coverage. And the Cycling Advisory Committee had asked committee for two motions in regards to a Masonville secondary plan, some work to be done and a pump track. So that’s included in your agenda today.

So I have no advance notice of anything to be pulled, but if anyone would like anything, please do so now. I’m sorry, Councillor, I was just… Yeah, I believe Councillor Dan Mirbergen wishes for something to be pulled. All right, and colleagues, it’s all on the…

No, I think Paul wants something pulled. Yes, no, I understand. Thank you, Councillor Palosa. Anyone wish to have anything dealt with separately, Councillor Van Rosk.

Your worship, I didn’t ask for anything to be pulled. Councillor van Mirbergen, then please. You’re gonna have to get closer to the mic again. Sorry, Councillor.

4.1 B2 separately, please. I’m not separately. Does anyone wish anything else dealt with separately? Dean Nunn, I will entertain discussions on all items of the report with the exception of 4.1 B2.

Comments or questions? Under the advice account of Clerk, we will pull 4.1 and deal with that separately. Thank you. Seeing none, let’s call the question.

Closing the vote in the motion carries 14 to zero. Councillor Palosa. Thank you, I’ll now put 4.1 A on the floor and that will have to do with civic administration working with the cycling advisory committee in regards to the Masonville secondary plan. Comments or questions?

Call the vote. Closing the vote in the motion carries 14 to zero. Councillor Palosa. 1B1 on the floor and that’s that civic administration be advised that the cycling advisory committee supports the creation of a pump track facility.

Thank you, comments or questions? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote in the motion carries 14 to zero. Thanks very much.

Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll now put 4.2 on the floor and that’s that civic administration requested to report back on the process and fees associated with the feasibility study with respect to the establishment of a pump track facility in the city of London and several communications were also included in our agenda. Thank you, comments or questions?

Dean Numb will call the question. Closing the vote in the motion carries 13 to one. Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Worship, that concludes the question of the seventh cycling advisory committee.

First civic works advisory committee meeting. Thank you. Just bear with us a second. Go ahead, Clerk.

Through the chair, we need a motion to approve part C of item 4.1, please. I’ll ask the clerk just to clarify C. Through the chair, that would be clauses 1.1 and 3.1 to 3.5 be received and that’s from the third report of the cycling advisory committee. So that’s just not an address.

So noted comments or questions about that? Dean Numb will call the question. Closing the vote in the motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, is that it?

Yes, thank you, Worship, that concludes my report. I appreciate that, thank you very much. Now the ninth report is the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, I’ll call on the Deputy Mayor to present it to the report, Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yes, thank you.

This is the ninth report of SPPC. I do know that there was some divided votes on components of the core area initiatives. I guess I would look to see if colleagues actually want that pulled separately to vote differently again. So I’m happy to put the whole thing on the floor but I’ll see if you can just pull colleagues to see who would like what pulled separately.

Well, let’s do that just that. We’ll see the thoughts of colleagues who will start with Councillor Squire. I would like to vote against 2.1 item H. So I’d need that, the matter pulled separately.

So 2.1 will be pulled out for separate deliberation. I say that for the benefit of the Deputy Mayor and all of us. Councillor Van Merbergen, did you have your hand up? I did, Mayor, but that covers it.

2.1 is pulled and we’re voting on each part separately. That’s fine. Thanks very much. Any other comments or questions?

Items that colleagues wish to have dealt with separately. Seeing none, any comments or questions at all on the ninth report of SPPC with the exception of 2.1, Councillor Turner. Thanks, Your Worship, to reiterate my comments from an SPPC, thanks just after all the work and the prep work heading to the development charges that work ahead of us for setting the new by-law and consideration of area ratings for development charges as well. I do think that area ratings are going to be a really important component of the next development charge by-law in order for us to be able to help support development and infill and intensification and to ensure that true cost is recognized when building and green build lands.

So I’m looking forward to the return at that report. So once those discussions have been had with stakeholders and recommendations remain from staff. Any other comments or questions? Councillor Unholst.

Thank you, Your Worship. And my thanks to all those who helped out with the London Community Recovery Network ideas. I think there was some very promising things there. I’m glad Council supported them.

And I suspect that we’re in the midst of a massive transfer of wealth because of the COVID restrictions. And we may need in the future many more ideas, but there was some very exciting ones here. And I look forward to seeing how they turn out. Thanks.

Thank you. Other comments or questions? I might ask the deputy mayor to take the chair. Sure, I’ll go to the mayor.

Actually, that feels a bit odd since this is your report, but thank you very much. Colleagues, I’d like to comment on a topic that you just heard Councillor Unholst reference, and that is the London Community Recovery Network. So essential to London as we go forward when we’re working through the pandemic. I mean, today, for those who don’t know, in the public, we announced some 11 new cases of COVID, our best day like in my memory.

And I share that because while that may or may not be real in the sense of as numbers get reported over weekends, it just tells us how fragile certain circumstances can be as we deal with COVID. And today, as you’ll know, and this is all supported, I think, through what we’re trying to do in terms of this COVID recovery is that people as young as age 12 can now get their shots. But I’d like to give a shout out to staff, Dr. Adam Thompson on the London Community Recovery Network, but all the partners who had so much to play.

And then the contributors who provided those very solid recommendations for us to consider, which, at a prior meeting, we were quite supportive. And I think for a very good reason. So my kudos to those who put these projects in. Thanks to everyone who’s had a role in participating thus far in London Community Recovery Network, and again, in particular Mr.

Thompson for his great work. We can’t get this far in these challenging times with the kind of support we get from our staff. So that would be my comments, Deputy Mayor, thank you. Thanks, and I don’t have anyone else in the speakers, let’s say I’ll return the chair to the mayor.

Do we have any other speakers? Seeing none, we will call the vote on all items, except 2.1. Officer Turner, thank you. Closing the vote in the motion carries, 14 to zero.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan. Given the voting record is to deal with everything except for EASRS pilot program and H, which is authorizing the reallocation of the $100,000 of one-time funding. So I’ll pull both of those things out and leave everything else in. And that would align with those things that we’re unanimous in those that we’re contrary.

So if that means I’ll put everything except parts E and H on the floor. Okay, so before we presume that, are there any other, does that satisfy those individuals who think anything else should be dealt with separately? I’ve got a couple of thumbs up here, thumb and an odd, that’ll work. So just clarify what you’re putting on the floor and we’ll open that up to questions again, Deputy Mayor.

All parts of 2.1 with the exception of E, which is the core area ambassador pilot program and H, which is the reallocation of the $100,000. Those are not in this vote, everything else is. Thanks very much. Any comments or questions on those items?

Dean Nunn will call the question. Posing the vote in the motion carries 14 to zero. Deputy Mayor. And next I’ll put 2.1 E, which is the core area ambassador proved as described in the above noted report on the floor for consideration.

Thank you, comments or questions. That’s wrong. I’m gonna do my best to try and convince Councillor Mirbergen to come around on this issue. Just this morning, I had a conversation with the restaurant owner on Dundas Street.

She’s really at her wit’s end, trying to figure out what she can do to get through the construction, the pandemic, the impacts from street activity on her business. We talked for about an hour about all the things the city’s doing. I committed to her that I was gonna do my best to convince colleagues to do everything we possibly can to help her. The problems that she’s experiencing, some of them are people don’t know how to get to where I am because the streets impacted.

So I need people out there to kind of point them in the right direction. We need better signage. We need some people who know where things are. They can point people out, make it easier for them at a time when things are really difficult, which is the kind of thing that the ambassador program will do.

She got a problem with, there’s garbage and litter and things that need to be dealt with. She doesn’t have time to do it. She’s gotta run her business. She can’t be going out in front of the store and cleaning those things up.

And having an extra set of eyes out there to point those things out and flag to city staff who can come by and collect the refuse and take it away as they would normally do, that’s gonna make things a bit better for her. Now it’s not gonna solve all of her problems. It’s just one thing, but it is something that will help. And so I wanna make one last chance effort to try and convince everybody to support this program.

I do think it’s gonna help with the specific problems that people are experiencing in the core right now. And many of which are gonna persist even after the construction projects finished. And as the pandemic subsides, there’s still gonna be issues like this that the ambassador team can be helping with. I hope that people will maybe reconsider their previous opposition to I think would be a program that will help people.

Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Opposing the vote and the motion carries 13 to one. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Yes, the next item is which is civic administration be authorized to reallocate the remaining $100,000 in one-time funding that cannot be spent in 2021 due to the COVID-19 impacts to other emergent opportunities aligned with the core area action plan in 2021. Thanks very much. Any comments or questions? I see Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship. I did not support this at SPPC, but through you, I do have a question to our staff ‘cause I’ve been thinking about this. I realized that there might be some opportunities, but how would the decision-making process around allocating any of these funds operate? I mean, my concern, of course, is that there’s not council oversight.

So how would these asks come in? What would the process be before any funding was allocated? I believe Ms. Sherrod spoken to this before and I might go there unless Ms.

Barbone is more appropriate. Ms. Sher, what do you think? Your Worship, I believe this one is me.

Our intent is to have the core area steering committee make decisions related to this funding. The hope is that they will come through our discussions with the two BIAs. We meet with both of them weekly right now on action items and with the one strategic items monthly. I can share an example that came up at our last weekly meeting, which was a request for a loan library, essentially, of some cleaning equipment, like pressure washers, squeegee, those sorts of things that people can use to do their best to be old.

Currently not funded, a very small expenditure, but not an expenditure that could probably wait for a two to three month report cycle. So it really was about providing the accountability to the core area steering committee. We would report back out, of course, with our year-end report. And we would use our relationships with the BIAs to generate ideas that will be well supported.

Councillors? Thank you, Worship, and through you, just a follow-up question to that, because I am a little more comfortable hearing that it’s not a unilateral single person staff decision that it’s gonna be made through a steering committee. Would there be any eligibility requirements? Obviously this is for the core area, so it would need to be located in the core area.

But in terms of eligibility requirements, would there be any additional requirements for accessing funding allocations in terms of alignment with the strategic plan? I know it talks about emerging opportunities here, but also is there any requirement to look for other opportunities before coming to the city asking for money? So whether that’s a BIA funding first or some other method of funding, what are we looking at around those kinds of questions? Miss Sherry, can you help us?

I can, Your Worship. Our intent would be that this would be to fill gaps that are not filled by current programs, such as neighborhood decision-making or funding that’s provided to the BIAs to fulfill their mandate. This would be things aligned with the core area action plan that were not contemplated as a specific action at that time. And again, we’d be looking for smaller price tag items that we use as pilot programs.

It’s one-time funding, so there’s certainly no belief in the long-term or capital investments from this. Specialist? Okay, so a final question here then. So this does not necessarily mean that the entire $100,000 is going to be spent then.

It would have to be an ask first and then a consideration process. And if that’s the case, then any remaining funds get returned to just general revenue surplus or how would that work with a surplus at the end? Miss Sherry, perhaps you can clarify. Thank you, Your Worship.

I will try, and if I get it wrong, I’m sure Ms. Barboon will let me know. So this is operating funding that cannot be spent due to COVID impacts on the delivery of other operating work in the core area action plan and it’s unspent operating funds at year and get returned to their funding source. Now, sir, okay, thank you.

Any other comments or questions? Then we’ll call the question. Mr. Lewis, closing the vote in the motion carries 10 to four.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan. The SPPC report. Thank you very much. Colleagues, there are no deferred matters or no inquiries of which I’ve been made aware and no emergent motions.

I think for the benefit of the public, what I’m going to add here is that we are going to vote on a number of bylaws, then we’ll be moving into a closed session deal with some issues. And from there, we will then report back out in public session and then adjourn the meeting shortly after that. So with that, colleagues, I’ll turn your attention to Bill 244 through 262 with the exception of Bill 247, which was the conflict declared by Councillor Ploza regarding subsidized transit. So with that, and first reading of added Bill 268, I’ll look for a mover and seconder of introduction first reading.

Councillor Ploza, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. We’ll call the question. No, sir, can I buy the? I can’t open it, so I’ll just vote yes.

Thank you, closing the vote in the motion carries 14 to zero. Colleagues, I’m looking for mover and seconder, a second reading of Bill 244 through 262, 47, and added Bill 268 to open mover. Please, Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Any comments or discussion?

And with that, we’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, and the motion carries 14 to zero. Colleagues, for third reading and enactment of Bill 244 through 264, excluding Bill 247, and including added Bill 268. I’ll require mover and a seconder.

Please move by Councillor Vanholz, seconded by Councillor Turner-Coff. I wasn’t sure if that was a motion, but I saw Councillor Hopkins, seconding, we’ll call the vote. Dangerous to Cough on screen, everybody sees. All right, no action.

Closing the vote in the motion carries 14 to zero. Colleagues, now for Bill 247, I’m going to mover and seconder for introduction in first reading. Moved by Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Lewis. We’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote in the motion carries, 13 with one repeat. Thank you very much, Colle 7. For second reading, I’ll look for a mover, and a seconder moved by Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Helmer. Thank you, any discussion?

Let’s call the vote. Councillor Karygiannis. Closing the vote in the motion carries, 13 with one repeat. Thank you, and now for third reading, 47.

I’ll look for mover and a seconder. Please move by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman. Let’s call the question. Councillor Helmer.

Closing the vote in the motion carries, 13 with one repeat. Before we move into closed session, I’m going to ask the clerk, as we always do, to share with the public the reasons for going into confidential session. Clerk, if you would, please. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. We’re going into closed session to discuss nine matters. A number are related to the land acquisition matters, and we have one related to personnel matter, and three related to litigation matters. Thank you very much, and I’ll remind the public that from there we will come back into a public session and complete our meeting.

So with that, I’ll look for a motion to move into a confidential session, moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Van Mirbergen. Let’s do a show of hands so the clerk can’t see us. So, show of hands, please. And I can’t see the chambers, but I do see that it goes carried.

I’m working out of my office right now. All right, so what’s the verdict, clerk? Motion carries, I could see a majority of council. Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we’ll be just back in a few moments time as we set up for the confidential session. Thank you. I’ll ask for screens on, please. Before we start with the report from the before the closed session, I’ll recognize Deputy Mayor Mirbergen.

Thank you, Your Worship. I would like to confirm with the clerk if we passed Bill 253 and 254 in the bylaws section when we did the bylaws. I’ll call the clerk, but I can tell you it’s pretty clear that we did, but clerk, go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. And thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan for bringing that forward. Yes, we should have pulled those two bylaws because they’re related to the Hyde Park signing down roads matter, which was referred. So procedurally, what I would recommend council do is pass a motion to reconsider those two bylaws.

If that reconsideration passes, then put a motion directing the civic administration to bring those bylaws forward at the time that the matter is being dealt with at the planning and environment committee. Sorry, we’re gonna move reconsideration, Deputy Mayor. I would be happy to move both of those things. All right, seconded by Councillor Van Holst.

Seeing no comments or questions, we will call that question. Posing the vote in the motion carries, 14 to zero. Deputy Mayor. Yes, and I believe the clerk had a suggestion on ensuring that this lands a committee at the proper time given we move reconsideration.

I’d be happy to hear her language on that and put it on the floor. Clerk, let’s get your thought. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

The motion would be to direct the civic administration to bring forward the bylaws for consideration at the time the matter is brought forward to planning and environment committee for further consideration. How does that sound to you, Deputy Mayor? I, given we meant to refer them, I think that sounds appropriate. Do we have a seconder for that?

I see Councillor Lewis, thank you. Any comments? Let’s call the question. Oh, yes.

Thank you. Council Hammer. Moving the vote in the motion carries, 13 to one. And I apologize for that error that’s all on me.

Thank you for raising it, Councillor Morgan. Well, thank you as well, Deputy Mayor. I appreciate that. For the eighth report with Council on closed session, we have five items being reported out in public and I will call on Councillor Lewis to put the report on the floor.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’m going to separate this as Councillor Turner has declared a conflict on item four. So I’ll be reporting out on items one, two, three and five first and then on item four separately for the Councillor’s conflict. So your Council in closed session reports that as a procedural matter pursuant to section 239 of the Municipal Act of 2001, the following recommendations be forwarded to Council in closed session for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to Council for deliberation and vote in a public session.

One, that on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Finance supports with the concurrence of the Director of Transportation and Mobility and Division Manager of Transportation and Planning and Design on the advice of the manager of Realty Services with respect to the partial acquisition of the portion of the property at 1424 Southdale Road West for the prescribed as part lot 48, concession one, being part of pin 08420-0018 designated as part six on a draft plan to be deposited as shown on the location map as Appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road Improvement Projects so the following actions be taken, A, the purchase and sale as Appendix C submitted by Mohammed Medoudi, the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of $158,800 be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement, and B, financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here too as Appendix A. Two, partial property acquisition, 1429 Southdale Road West, Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road improvements, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the director of transportation mobility and division manager of transportation planning and design on the advice of the manager of Realty Services with respect to the partial acquisition of property located at 1429 Southdale Road West further described as part lot 48, concession two, being part of pin 08224-0266 designated as parts 11, 12, 13, and 17 on a draft plan to be deposited as shown on the location map as Appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road improvement projects, the following actions be taken, A, the agreement and purchase of sale as Appendix C be submitted by Christopher Alfred Andre, Antonio Ellen Andrews and Peter Robert Andre, the vendors to sell the property, the subject property to the city for the sum of $112,200 be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement, and B, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing here to attach as Appendix A. Three, sale of city owned surplus land, 330 Tem Street, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports on the advice of the manager of Realty Services with respect to the city owned surplus land located south of West King Street containing an area of approximately 0.36 acres legally described as being part of lot 25 south of King Street, part of lot 25 north of York Street designated as part two, plan 33R-19956 and being part of pin 08322-0127 as outlined on the location map here too, as Appendix A, the agreement of purchase and sale as Appendix B be submitted to the Middlesex Condominium Corporation number 158, the purchaser to be purchased the subject property from the city at a purchase price of $190,000 be accepted to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement, and part five, offer to purchase industrial land 12935473, Canada Inc. Innovation Park phase four, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports on the advice of the director of Realty Services with respect to the city owned industrial land across from located in Innovation Park phase four, containing an area of approximately 25 acres, more or less subject to survey located on the east side of Bondur Road, legally described as part block one, plan 33M-609, subject to an easement as in ER662838 as outlined on the sketch here to as Appendix A, the agreement of purchase and sale as Appendix B submitted by 12935473, Canada Inc., the purchaser, to purchase the subject industrial land from the city at a purchase price of $1.75 million reflecting the sale price of $70,000 per acre be accepted, subject to the conditions and terms set out in the agreement.

That has been put on the floor by Councillor Lewis. Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Lehman, thank you very much. Any discussion?

Then we’ll call the vote. Councillor Karygiannis, closing the vote in the motion carries 13 to zero. Thank you colleagues, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, worship.

And item four from closed session is minutes of settlement and letter of understanding, rebilingual stipend, QP Local 101. That on the recommendation of the director, people services and the city manager, the civic administration be directed to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in order for the director, people services to obtain the necessary authorization to ratify minutes of a settlement and execute the letter of understanding, providing for a bilingual stipend, Appendix A between the corporation of the city of London and local union 101, Canadian union of public employees, QP Local 101. And with a goal lease go, I will put that on the floor. Is there a seconder for that please?

Seconded by Councillor Cassidy, Councillor Turner. Worship, if I could declare it, conflict with the Canadian interest at this point as I manage employee bargaining groups, which includes QP 101 at the Middlesex line house here. So noted, thanks very much. Any other discussion?

Seeing none, let’s call the question. Closing the vote in the motion carries 12 with one working. Colleagues just bear with us a moment as we work through a by-law question here. Just clarifying colleagues, what we’re gonna be doing is we, for the benefit of the public, we’re going to be dealing with bills 243 and bills 263 through 267, exclusive of bill 265 by virtue of the conflict is declared by Councillor Turner.

So in the spirit of that, I’m going to be looking for a mover and seconder for introduction of first reading of bills 243 and bills 263 through 267, exclusive of the bill 265, I see Councillor Lehman, Grady Keene. Do I have a seconder, Councillor Turner? Thank you very much. We’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote in the motion carries 13 to zero. Colleagues, I’m going to look for mover and seconder, second reading of bill 243 and add bills 263 through 267 with the exception of bill 265. Look for mover and seconder, please move by. Councillor Van Mereberg and seconded by Councillor Lewis.

Thank you very much. Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote in the motion carries 13 to zero.

Colleagues, I’ll now look for mover and seconder third reading in an act when it bills 243 and add a bills 263 through 267 with the exception of bill 265. Councillor Van Mereberg, seconded by, that’s always the fun part, the seconding. It’s such so suspenseful. Councillor Halmer, thank you very much.

We’ll call the vote. Closing the vote in the motion carries 13 to zero. Thank you, Colleagues. We’ll now deal with bill 265.

I’ll be looking for mover and seconder of introduction in first reading. Please move by. Councillor Palazzo, seconded by Councillor Halmer. Thank you very much.

Let’s call the vote. Closing the vote in the motion carries. While with one review. Thanks very much.

I’ll now look for mover and seconder, second reading of bill 265. Move by Councillor Van Mereberg, seconded by Councillor Layman. Thank you very much. Any discussion?

Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote in the motion carries. While with one review. And now Colleagues, I’ll look for mover and seconder for third reading and an act of bill 265.

Move by Councillor Halmer, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Thank you. Let’s call the vote. Closing the vote in the motion carries.

While with one review. Thanks very much colleagues for all the business that we dealt with today. Before we look for a motion to adjourn, just a couple of things I will point out that just literally a few days ago, I had the honor to be with Councillor Palosa, Councillor Cassidy and Councillor Turner at Nichols Arena to announce that particular site. Councillor Palosa has sent her award, Councillor Cassidy and her capacity as chair of the Middlesex London Health Unit and Councillor Turner’s capacity as a employee of Middlesex London Health Unit.

It was extremely impressive. But what was equally impressive about that and perhaps more was how our own city staff were so intimately involved with the health unit. I’m gonna give a shout out to Dave O’Brien who was there today for the grand opening of Nichols Arena. I think that will be a great site as Councillor Palosa indicated very geographically centered but extremely impressive as was the work done by our staff.

And I think Ms. Livingston, if I could ask you to acknowledge on our behalf a city council of the great work that was done by all of our folks who were involved in this. Of course, we know the health unit’s great commitment because it doesn’t happen without a team. But certainly there was huge involvement by the city and for that, I think they deserve our thanks as well.

And to the work of the staff that have been done, a lot of unsung heroes that go through this city hall and do so much work to help us as council members. And again, Ms. Livingston, if we could ask you to share that with them as well. So with that colleagues’ help from motion to adjourn.

Councillor Squire has his hand up first. That will not surprise me. And I see two hands from Councillor Lewis, the two hockey fans. So with that, let’s just do a hand vote.

If we could please all those in favor. We’ll get the clarification on that. Very good folks. If you’re watching the game tonight, good luck to you and most importantly, we will see you soon.

Thanks for your commitment and contributions today. Meeting adjourned.