August 30, 2021, at 12:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 12:01 PM; it being noted that the following Members were in remote attendance: Councillors M. van Holst, J. Morgan and E. Peloza.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. van Holst

That Consent items 2.2 to 2.6 BE APPROVED, excluding item 2.4.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

2.2   2020 Annual Reporting of Lease Financing Agreements

2021-08-30 Staff Report - 2020 Annual Reporting of Lease Financing Agreements

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. van Holst

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the staff report dated August 30, 2021 regarding the 2020 Annual Reporting of Lease Financing Agreements BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.3   Various By-law Amendments to Implement Organization Structure Change

2021-08-30 Staff Report - Various By-law Amendments Reorganization

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. van Holst

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the various By-law amendments to implement organizational structure changes:

a)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated August 30, 2021 as Appendices B1 to B41 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 14, 2021 to amend the following By-laws to change Civic Administration titles to reflect the current organizational structure and other housekeeping changes:

By-Law Short Title and Number

  1.    A by-law to approve and authorize the use of the Affordable Housing Development Loan Agreement template between The Corporation of the City of London (the “City”) and Registered Owner of a property to provide for a loan for the creation of new affordable rental housing units and to delegate the authority to enter into such Agreements to the City Planner or delegate (C.P.-1560-106)

  2.    A by-law to delegate certain authority of Municipal Council to consent to or grant permits for alterations to heritage designated properties (C.P.-1502-129)

  3.    A by-law to require an applicant to consult with the municipality prior to making an application under the Planning Act (C.P.-1469-217)

  4.    Abandoned Refrigerator, Freezer and Container (PW-2)

  5.    Additional Residential Unit Loan Agreement (C.P.-1561-107)

  6.    Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPS) (A-54)

  7.    Animal Control (PH-3)

  8.    Basement Flooding Grant Program (A.-7562-160)

  9.    Boulevard Tree Protection (CP-22)

  10.    Business Licensing (L.-131-16)

  11.    Committee of Adjustment and Consent Authority (CP-23)

  12.    Complete Application Delegation and Acceptance (C.P.-1470-218)

  13.    Council Procedure (A-50)

  14.    Dog Licensing and Control (PH-4)

  15.    Drainage (WM-4)

  16.    Execution of Certain Documents (A-1)

  17.    Heavy Loads on Roads (S-2)

  18.    Informal Residential Care Facility Licensing (CP-21)

  19.    Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways (A.-7769-461)

  20.    Municipal Waste and Resource Material Collection (WM-12)

  21.    Naming of Highways and Numbering of Buildings and Lots (B-1)

  22.    Parks and Recreation Area (PR-2)

  23.    Pit Bull Dog Licensing (PH-12)

  24.    Public Nuisance (PH-18)

  25.    Public Pound Bylaw (PH-5)

  26.    Residential Rental Units Licensing (CP-19)

  27.    Sign (S.-5868-183)

  28.    Site Alteration (C.P.-1363-381)

  29.    Site Plan Control (C.P.-1455-541)

  30.    Smoking Near Recreation Amenities and Entrances (A.-6924-85)

  31.    Sound (PW-12)

  32.    Streets (S-1)

  33.    Subdivision & Condominium Delegation and Approval (CP-17)

  34.    Swimming Pool Fence (PS-5)

  35.    Traffic and Parking (PS-113)

  36.    Tree Protection (C.P.-1555-252)

  37.    Vehicle for Hire (L-130)

  38.    Vital Services (PH-6)

  39.    Waste Discharge (WM-16)

  40.    Wastewater and Stormwater (WM-28)

  41.    Water (W-8); and,

b)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated August 30, 2021 as Appendices C1 to C3 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 14, 2021, to repeal the following By-laws:

  1.    By-law No. L.-8 being “A By-law to provide for the licensing and regulation of Methadone Clinics and Methadone Pharmacies in the City of London” as the By-law is no longer required as Clinic and Pharmacies are regulated by other legislation and regulations.

  2.    By-law No. A-10 being “A By-law to provide for the Regulation of Adult Video Cassette and Disc Outlets” as the By-law is no longer required due to technological changes.

  3.    By-law No. A-11 being “A by-law to provide for the Regulation of Adult Book and Magazine Outlets” as the By-law is no longer required due to technological changes.

Motion Passed

2.5   Strategic Plan Variance Report

2021-08-30 Staff Report - Strat Plan Variance Report

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. van Holst

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports and the City Manager, the staff report dated August 30, 2021 with respect to the Strategic Plan Progress Variance BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.6   Leave of Absence - Federal Election

2021-08-30 Submission - Leave of Absence - A. Kayabaga

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. van Holst

That the communication dated August 13, 2021 from Councillor A. Kayabaga regarding an unpaid leave of absence until September 20, 2021 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.1   City of London’s Credit Rating

2021-08-30 Staff Report - City of London Credit Rating

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by M. van Holst

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the City of London’s Credit Rating Report, providing a summary of Moody’s Investors Service Credit Opinion of the City of London, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

2.4   Industrial Land Development Strategy Annual Monitoring and Pricing Report - City-Owned Industrial Land

2021-08-30 Staff Report - Industrial Land Development Strategy

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with concurrence of the Interim Director, Economic Services and Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services with respect to the City of London’s Industrial Land Development Strategy, the following actions be taken with respect to the annual monitoring and pricing of City-owned industrial lands:

  

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated August 30, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 14, 2021 to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001” by deleting Attachment “B” to Schedule “A” – Sale and other Disposition of land Policy of the By-law and by replacing it with a new Attachment “B” to Schedule “A”  to amend the current pricing for City-owned serviced industrial land in Innovation Park, Skyway Industrial Park, River Road Industrial Park, Cuddy Boulevard Parcels and Trafalgar Industrial Park as follows:

Innovation Park (Phases 1 to 4), Skyway Industrial Park, River Road Industrial Park, and Huron Industrial Park, and Cuddy Blvd Parcels:

  • Lots up to 4.99 acres from $80,000 per acre to $125,000 per acre 

  • 5.00 acres and up from $70,000 per acre to $115,000 per acre

Pricing for serviced industrial land in Trafalgar Industrial Park:

  • All lot sizes – from $65,000 per acre to $115,000.00 per acre;

b)    the staff report dated August 30th, 2021 entitled “Industrial Land Development Strategy Annual Monitoring and Pricing Report – City-Owned Industrial Land”, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Vacant Residential Property Tax Review

2021-08-30 Submission - Vacant Residential Property Tax

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. van Holst

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review, including but not limited to gathering information from other Ontario municipalities advancing this option, to determine the potential scope and feasibility of developing and implementing a vacant residential property tax on the residential property class and report back to the appropriate Standing Committee.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.2   Covid Perception, Reality and Legality

2021-08-30 Submission - COVID Perception Reality and Legality

Moved by M. van Holst

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the communication dated August 21, 2021 from Councillor M. van Holst with respect to COVID perception, reality and legality BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.3   Municipal Support for Truth and Reconciliation

2021-08-30 Submission - Truth and Reconciliation

Moved by M. Cassidy

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the information from the AMO Board of Directors meeting of August 14, 2021, related to municipal support for truth and reconciliation:

a)    the information BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the appropriate standing committee with potential actions for the Municipal Council to consider, including but not limited to, amendments to the Flags at City Hall Policy.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.4   Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Orange Shirt Day/National Day for Truth and Reconciliation

2021-08-30 Submission - Proclamation-Orange Shirt Day

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by J. Morgan

That based on the application dated August 6, 2021 from Community Diversity and Inclusion Strategy (CDIS) Implementation Body, September 30, 2021 BE PROCLAIMED as Orange Shirt Day/National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.5   Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Dyslexia Awareness Month

2021-08-30 Submission - Proclamation-Dyslexia Awareness Month

Moved by M. van Holst

Seconded by E. Peloza

That based on the application dated August 11, 2021 from Dyslexia Canada, October 1, 2021 BE PROCLAIMED as Dyslexia Awareness Month.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Administrative Policy

2021-08-30 Staff Report - Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Administrative Policy

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the “Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Administrative Policy:

a) the staff report, dated August 30, 2021, with respect to this matter BE RECEIVED; and,

b) the civic administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward to the next meeting of the Corporate Services Committee a similar COVID-19 Vaccination Council Policy, specifically applicable to the Members of Council, for consideration.

Motion Passed

Voting Record:

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to approve part a)

That the following actions be taken with respect to the “Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Administrative Policy:

a) the staff report, dated August 30, 2021, with respect to this matter BE RECEIVED; and,

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to approve part b)

b) the civic administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward to the next meeting of the Corporate Services Committee a similar COVID-19 Vaccination Council Policy, specifically applicable to the Members of Council, for consideration.

Motion Passed (3 to 1)

5.2   (ADDED) Recommendation for Appointment to the London Hydro Inc. Board of Directors

Moved by M. van Holst

Seconded by J. Morgan

That on the recommendation of the Corporate Services Committee, the applicant, Tania Goodine, BE FORWARDED to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, as the Shareholder, for appointment to the London Hydro Inc. Board of Directors.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Voting Record

Appointment recommendation to the London Hydro Inc. Board of Directors

Majority Winner: No majority

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members only.)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. van Holst

That the Corporate Services Committee convene, In Closed Session, in order to consider the following:

6.1 Personal Matters/Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to personal matters about an identifiable individual, including communications necessary for that purpose, as it relates to interviews for the nomination to the London Hydro Inc. Board.

6.2 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.

6.3 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.

6.4 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.

6.5 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.

6.6 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.

6.7 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.

6.8 Litigation/Potential Litigation / Matters Before Administrative Tribunals / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation with respect to the partial expropriation of property located at 920, 924, 928 and 930 Western Road including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board, Board of Negotiation file number BN 21-22; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, in connection with the expropriation of property located at 920, 924, 938 and 930 Western Road; and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality regarding settlement negotiations and conduct of litigation or potential litigation in connection with the expropriation of a property located at 920, 924, 928 and 930 Western Road.

6.9 Labour Relations / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to reports, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation concerning labour relations regarding the Corporation’s associations and 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.

6.10 (ADDED) Litigation/Potential Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to employment-related matters; litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation, including communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

The Corporate Services Committee convenes, In Closed Session, from 1:26 PM to 4:06 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 4:34 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, 3 minutes)

Good afternoon everyone, it’s 12.01. I will call the 14th meeting of the Corporate Services Committee to order. And I will begin by advising that this is a virtual meeting due to COVID-19 and meetings can be, all meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. And also please check the city website for current details of COVID-19 service impact.

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 upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact csc@london.ca. With that, I will look to committee members for disclosures of pecuniary interest.

And I only see one committee member on screen there we go. So some great, there are no disclosures who will move on to consent. We have six items on the consent agenda. And I will look to committee members to see if anybody would like to pull an item or two or three deputy Mayor Morgan.

Yes, I have some comments questions on 2.1 and 2.4. And I guess I have a question on, do we have to do anything with 2.6 to support the councilors leave or not? If so, I guess that would have to be pulled too. So although I have comments and questions, maybe best just to pull 2.1 and 2.4 for sure.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I’ll look to the clerk to see if there is any action that we need to take on 2.6. Thank you through the chair, no, there is not. Perfect, we can leave it in there then, unless someone wants to pull it.

We’ll pull 2.1 and 2.4, anything else? Ding dong, I need a motion to move the remainder of the consent items, which is all items except for 2.1 and 2.4. Moved by Councillor Palosa, seconded by Councillor Van Holst. Any discussion on those items?

Seeing none, I will just say good job on 2.5, the Strategic Plan Variance Report. I have one quick question to staff about, sorry, let me get to that page. It is about the world global, the global treaty, sorry, global every woman treaty. So my question to staff is, so it’s clause two of the variance explanations under the report, which is the Strategic Plan Variance.

So just wondering, I see that there is work going on with community partners in this area. And I’m wondering if you have an idea of how we, as a municipality, can contribute to this treaty or how we can help to fulfill Canadian obligations to this treaty. I suspect that maybe for Ms. Livingston, but I’m not sure.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to actually refer it to Ms. Wilcox, who is the leader in this area. Through the Chair, so thank you for the question.

We’ve been working with the sector for Violence Against Women and in particular the London Coordinating Committee to end woman abuse on this item. So we’ve completed some preliminary research and scoping of what is involved for that. Right now, it is still in a phase where they are, I believe, primarily looking for a lead country in terms of the treaty. And so we are looking at ways in terms of how a municipality might support that.

COVID has had some impacts too in terms of impacts to the advocacy strategies in this area. And so we continue to work with the sector as well to find other opportunities. And it is specifically named within the advocacy framework for that was brought forward to council earlier this year. So it’s a work in progress.

So we’re continuing to work with them to see what the opportunities might be at this point in time. Thank you for that Ms. Wilcox. I would note as a board member and chair of the Middlesex London Health Unit Board of Health that as other agencies have reported, we’ve seen a sharp uptake or increase in domestic violence due to the pandemic.

It’s one of the fall outs of the pandemic and everything that’s been going on there. And I would also note that it may be beneficial to reach out in your work to the Middlesex London Health Unit staff. The Board of Health on recommendation of that staff did prioritize amongst some of the health issues that have been exacerbated by the pandemic. Domestic violence was one of them and priority was given to that issue as well as direct funding to programming around dealing with the domestic violence in Middlesex London area.

So just wanted to throw that out there. And again, thank you for this report. And I look to committees if there are one last chance for comments or questions on these consent items and seeing none, then I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed four to zero.

We’re 2.1 City of London’s credit rating and I’ll go to you, Deputy Mayor. Yes, thank you. And so first off, I want to congratulate our finance team as well as council and previous councils for adhering to a fiscal plan and a fiscal framework that has led to the 45th consecutive year of a AAA credit rating for the city of London. That being said, there are a couple of items that I wanted to specifically highlight in the report and then I have a question for the treasurer.

And I do want to read directly from Moody’s assessment in one area because I think this sums it up. And it says governance is considered quite important and London provides for strong governance characteristics resulting in low risk. The city utilizes prudent financial planning, including the establishment of a four year budget plan, makes use of forward looking assumptions, which provides the city with the ability to identify potential pressures and allows for sufficient time to adjust plans according to and to mitigate any credit implications. The city provides transparent, timely financial reports and adheres to strict policies on debt and investment management.

I think that paragraph sums up the position of the city quite well and obviously as a leading contributor to our AAA credit rating on the issues of transparency, timely financial reports. I do know that there is another agency that which does not have much impact on neither our investments nor the costs to taxpayers who continues to criticize some municipalities for the way that they produce financial reports based on transparency. And I wonder if the treasurer could comment on the differences between these two organizations, both Moody’s and CDHow and which one is more relevant to the city of London. It seems to me that the one that impacts our credit rating and thus the cost of borrowing says we’re being very transparent in producing reports in a timely manner.

And another one says that we’re not very transparent because we don’t do things a certain way. So I wanted the treasurer the opportunity to comment on that because certainly we comment on the other one when it comes up and it’s important to comment on our processes when our credit rating comes up as well. Okay, I’ll go to you, Ms. Barbone.

It’s Mr. Murray here. I’m happy to take that question on behalf of Ms. Barbone who is not with us today.

So thanks for the question, Deputy Mayor. I would suggest that Moody’s takes quite a wholesome approach to reviewing overall financial results and financial position. They have a number of different factors that they review, whether it’s as you noted, our debt situation, our liquidity situation, our budget plan, a number of different factors that go into their overall assessment of the city of London’s financial position and overall credit rating. You referenced CDHA as well.

I would suggest that CDHA, their review is very focused on a limited number of specific indicator and specific assessments of certain pieces of our financial reporting. So in terms of the fulsomeness of the review, I would suggest that the Moody’s review is certainly far more all encompassing of the city’s financial situation and financial position. That being said, CDHA does point to specific things that they would like to see improved and enhanced going forward. And we are constantly looking at opportunities to enhance the transparency and the disclosures that we provide in not only our budgets, but our financial reporting as well.

Deputy Mayor. And my apologies, Mr. Murray, I forgot them as we’re going was on vacation. Yes, thank you, Chair.

And thank you, Mr. Murray, I really appreciate it. And again, I will draw attention to the fact that this is very good news for the city of London, low, our AAA credit rating leads to low borrowing rates. When we put out debentures to build community facilities and when we take on debt, that low interest rate saves taxpayers millions and millions of dollars over the course of that borrowing time frame.

So once again, congratulations to you and the treasurer and your team on adhering to a strong fiscal plan and earning a 45th consecutive AAA credit rating. Thank you. So Deputy Mayor, would you be moving the report? Yes, for sure.

Sorry, and if you nodded, I wasn’t looking at the time. And I see Councilor Van Halst his seconding and are there any other comments or questions on this report? Councilor Van Halst, go ahead. Thanks, Madam Chair.

And I would extend my congratulations too. And thanks for the deputy mayor for his comments. I would say that as we, if we start to approach 50 years, maybe I’ll move that we commission a credit rating song be written in to commemorate, but great work from our staff. Happy to second this, thank you.

Thank you, Councilor. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, I will call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed four to zero.

And that brings us to 2.4, the Industrial Land Development Strategy annual model report. And I will go to you again, Deputy Mayor. Yes, a couple of comments on this report as well. And a question for probably I’ll start with Mr.

Warner or whoever you wanna refer to, Chair. But my comment is, I really appreciate the end, this updated report on our land strategy, including the assessment of pricing and monitoring. As you know, we’ve been selling a lot of industrial land over the last little while and it’s always top of mind to me, whether we are selling for the right price and getting a good return on investment. And as the market has changed over time, it was important for us to consider adjustments to the pricing that we set.

And so this report, I think is very timely, a very appropriate and right on where my mind was turning to on our industrial land pricing. I’ll comment first and I’ll ask the question. First author, there’s a line in the report that I’m very happy to see. And that is related to the London Transit Commission’s pilot initiative to bring transit to industrial areas which would be in support of our industrial land strategy.

It does say that London Transit will be undertaking a review of alternate service deliveries to provide service to industrial areas in London in the coming months. I know that it is just a section of this report, but I do know that this is something that has been worked on very hard by members of the Transit Commission, as well as their staff and something that a many Councillors feel is very important. So I’m glad to see that. And I’m excited about the term in the coming months because I think that this has been long overdue.

I certainly recognize that it requires study, but I think this will be a move that will only bolster our industrial land development strategy, which gets to my other question. And that is about the price. Obviously, this is a large increase in the cost of industrial land in our different areas. I think the report does a good job about lining the rationale for the market conditions that justify this.

And also the ability for us to adjust that price moving forward if we don’t hit the right mark. And I wonder if Mr. Warner or a member of his team can just highlight the rationale for the price increase so that it is clearly understood by the public. Sorry, Mr.

Warner, go ahead. Thank you and through the chair. So we’ve done a comparison scan of what is happening in the market throughout the region, throughout other municipalities. We’ve also been tracking the private industrial land sales activity, including recent acquisitions of large blocks of land that are now being processed through zoning and subdivision planning.

And we’re seeing that the private sector asking prices are approaching up into the three to 400,000 acre range. That’s asking price. We’ve also recognized or acknowledged that under this strategy, it’s important to acknowledge that there are conditions and restrictive covenants that are in place in order to protect the strategy in order to enforce the principles of creating employment and protecting the investment that the municipality is undertaking for the lands. So on page 114 of the report and on page 115, we’ve outlined the rationale to justify the pricing.

We want to maintain a competitiveness not only within the local market in comparison to the private, but also in comparison to other municipalities who we are in fact competing for the recruitment and sale of industrial land for employment purposes. In many instances, we’re competing with like very comparable municipalities within proximity of London. And so we are tracking what’s happening there to be competitive. We’re also looking at being fair and consistent with equitable pricing.

We’ve been obviously negotiating the prices to maintain them at the Council approved pricing. We’ve been monitoring economic data through various forums to see how the economy is performing as well as the industrial landscape. And we’re seeing that the absorption of industrial space is very high and there’s strong demand for that space. So there’s a number of factors.

We also have independent appraisals that we’ve undertaken of the city owned lands and other lands that are of comparison. So for all of these different reasons, we feel that now is a very good time to reset the pricing. It has been, well, since 2018 when we had a very moderate or minor adjustment to the pricing. And now we’re thinking that it’s such a good time with the economy, with the strong demand.

And also because of our inventory at the stage, because of the success of the program and the strong demand, the inventory has reduced very much so in the last couple of years with great sales performance. And there’s a number of properties that are under contract and pending offers. And so the supply of land at this stage is also another strong compelling reason to support the pricing increase that we’re undertaking. Hopefully that will help with some of the questions.

Deputy Mayor. Well, that’s excellent. And I appreciate that many of your points were mentioned in the report, but I think this is obviously going to be the piece that people touch on. I appreciate that you were able to reiterate the rationale for the pricing and the ability for us to adjust pricing next year if the market warrants it in either direction, of course.

So I appreciate the flexibility of our plan. I think your team has done an excellent job over the years on executing the industrial land development strategy and I’m supportive of your recommended changes today. So thank you, Chair. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Any other questions on this report? Councillor Van Halst. Yeah, Madam Chair and through you to our staff. We see around London, I think a fair bit of speculation on land happening because of the prices.

And I just wanted our staff to describe how our policy prevents that from happening to buy people who we sell this land to. Thank you, Councillor. Mr. Warner.

Thank you for the question and through Madam Chair. Yes, so the city’s policies does prevent speculation in that there are conditions with respect to the sale of the land. For instance, one of the conditions is that construction must commence within one year of the actual completion of the transaction. So once the transfer has been registered on title, then the builder or the client is obligated to start commencement of construction.

There is within the policies some flexibility that if there’s a demonstrated reason why a further one year extension is required, then the policy does provide that from my level of position, I can provide at least one more year if that can be justified. So what we’ve found, for instance, in the recent economic circumstances have been great for many companies, but some have had some challenges with the pandemic and also the supply of labor and materials has also been very strong demand and challenging for some of the clients. So we have had to extend for a period of months or up to a year so that the policy does provide a prevention of that. The policy and the strategy is towards targeted industries.

So we have had many, many inquiries from GTA investors who are looking to buy land on speculation for distribution and warehouse purposes, but this strategy of this council is targeted towards advanced manufacturing and food processing and aerial defense and those types of targeted industries. So we have steered them, those who are interested towards the private sector. So there are lands available for those purposes. And so we have tried to guide them in that way, as well as preventing speculation through the policies and the conditions of the sale.

Thank you. Councilor? Thank you very much. I think that’s a great response.

I appreciate it to just describe so our policies are robust in important ways. Excellent, great. Thank you. Any other comments or questions?

Okay, I have a couple of questions. Just jumping off of where Deputy Mayor Morgan left off and the pricing review, how often have we typically been reviewing the pricing of our industrial land? To you Madam Chair, we review it on an annual basis. And so we are obligated by a policy to report back to council as we are today on this annual monitoring and pricing report.

We want, we are obligated to report out what is the level of supply that we have municipally, as well as what we understand is in the market. We’re obligated to outline as we have some of the important attributes of the strategy, as well as what are pricing levels at? So the last time the price increase was recommended for an increase or a change was in 2018, but 2019, we didn’t recommend, and of course, 2020, we weren’t sure because of the pandemic, but now we feel very confident that these recommendations for the price increase are justified and fair. I would agree with that, Mr.

Warner. So thank you for that. I wonder if 2020, we did have, it seemed like a bumper year in land sales. Maybe it’s just me and my perception.

But if that was, so if we did have a really good year in 2020, do you think it goes back to where our prices were set and that they were, since we had not increased the price because of the uncertainty, do you think it made our land much more attractive compared to perhaps private sector land? Yes, to your question, Madam Chair. Yes, I do believe that the pricing that this council has set over the last several years has been very competitive in comparison to not only the private sector, but the other municipalities, but the private sector hasn’t seen until recently as much activity, and part of that was due in, we believe due to the pricing, their pricing, the private sector pricing was much higher than traditionally, the city’s pricing has been. So again, part of the reason for the city’s pricing being lower than the private sector is because we do have the restrictive covenants and conditions with respect, as I explained earlier, to protect the strategy and to stimulate targeted industry and to ensure that land is being productively used so that we do want to see that clients in industry are actually performing and building within the one year of the transfer of the property.

Unlike in the private sector, if there’s a sale of land, an investor or a speculator made by the land may or may not actually build on them. Thank you. Excellent, thank you. I appreciate all of that.

I have a question, and I know it’s in the report, but unfortunately I didn’t underline it, and now I can’t find it. It talks about the annual property taxes that we have been collecting on these lands once they are sold and developed into a manufacturing facility in most cases. So can you remind me what the annual property taxes? I believe it was in the, I’m not even going to speculate, go ahead, Mr.

Warner. Thank you, Madam Chair, I haven’t got that highlighted in my notes either, so I need a minute or perhaps if one of the team members. We do have Adam Ostrowski and my team who’s very important to us in helping put together the data as well, if it’s possible, if you can pull that out of the report to assist me. I appreciate it, but— That would be great if he could do that.

I know it’s in there, and I wish I had underlined it. I underlined a bunch of things, but not that one. So hopefully somebody on the team will pull it together. I know it was a great number, and it speaks to the strategy itself.

The strategy for the city is not about being a land speculator ourselves. It’s not about purchasing this land and then flipping it. It is about encouraging investment and especially investment in these targeted sectors in the city, which then creates jobs and also generates property tax revenue. So it’s a long-term win for the city rather than a land holder who might just want to make money off the land itself.

And I wanted to highlight the property taxes that have been paid during the years over these lands as another evidence to the public about the value of this strategy. Also, now I want to flip over to the incentives for targeted use versus non-targeted. And it was City Council a few years ago that made that change to highlight the majority of the financial incentives to the targeted uses. I’m looking at the non-targeted use, which is basically the distribution centers.

And there still is an incentive there, 50% of the development charges up to a maximum of, I believe, $250,000. And so I know Amazon has been reported in the news that they’re coming to the St. Thomas area. Of course, we know gains in the region are gains for every municipality in the region.

So that is definitely not a loss to London, especially when we have this land that’s serviced, that is geared towards advanced manufacturing. And that is where the higher rate of jobs would be created, things like that. But we’re also seeing or hearing about in the media a lot of activity with these distribution centers. A lot of them are looking at London.

As you said, you are steering them towards the private land owners and they will be purchasing their land from them in some cases. So it makes me wonder if the incentive is still necessary for those non-targeted uses. So knowing that our finances are limited at the city, they’re not infinite. Knowing that we really want to attract the kind of investment that’s going to create jobs here in the city.

And looking also where we compare in our land prices to other cities, we see a huge difference between us and say Cambridge or Hamilton. And then a very big difference between a smaller municipality in the other direction, like Strathroy and London. So I would say as the center of southwestern Ontario, as the one that’s really with this prime location between the US border and Toronto, we want to target ourselves as competing against the larger municipalities, like Waterloo Region, things like that, rather than the smaller, more rural municipalities. So just a very long way to ask you, Mr.

Warner, is there a time perhaps in the not too distant future where we may phase out that non-targeted sector incentive? An incentive is supposed to generate activity, and there seems to be quite a lot of activity in that non-targeted sector. So just seeking your opinion on that, Mr. Warner.

Thank you, Madam Chair, one good question. So I’ll just answer you to first question with respect to the amount of taxes annually. We’re reporting out in 2020, 10.4 million per year in taxes towards these lands. As far as the second point, there was definitely some concern with some of the private sector and the industrial sector in London when the D.C.

By-law was modified with respect to the grant for D.C.’s and the change that we were both implemented. And so we’re trying to balance that. We’re definitely seeing a strong demand for the targeted industries, and that is the focus of the strategy. But we’re also trying to create a bit of an equal playing field in comparison to the private sector as well, and ensuring that there’s still some incentive for a mixed use type of development.

And sometimes you see a mixed use with an industrial developer, where there may be an interpretation of what’s targeted versus non-targeted. And so we’re trying to carefully balance that to provide still a bit of an incentive, but recognizing that we definitely have had to push back to the non-targeted clients and investors to emphasize why we’re not providing the full incentives because of the amount of the investment that the municipality’s putting into the lands. The amount of funding that is provided and not with the provincial or federal assistance as it was many years ago. And so again, it’s a balance.

And we do hear from some of the local industrial developers who are not entirely happy with that policy with respect to the D.C. grants. But we think we’ve got a bit of a balance at this stage, and we’re monitoring it. And I guess there’s an opportunity each year to revisit this as well.

Okay, so two more quick questions. And one, you might not have the answer to. So I’ll ask it quickly. And if someone can get that information, they can reply later.

But it talks about 30% of London’s employment is on these industrial lands. I wonder if you know how much of that is in distribution centers or warehousing as opposed to manufacturing. And also the level of servicing that we invest in these lands, do distribution centers require that kind of servicing on the land? We know that manufacturing does, but does a non-manufacturing facility require that level of servicing that we are putting into the land?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m gonna answer your second question first with regards to the level of servicing. And I’m gonna see if Mr. LaCoche, if the LEDC can help me with the employment breakdown question.

Yeah, I think it’s important to acknowledge and recognize that the servicing that the city does is top notch, it’s AAA. We have prime water supply, and we ensure that we plan, design and plan our subdivisions to provide excellent servicing. And what we find with targeted industries, like food processing and some of the manufacturing, that they are high water users. And so when you look at them in comparison to distribution and warehouses, they’re not necessarily requiring the same level and quantity of servicing.

So we think that the amount of investment into the city on lands, it’s more important to target those industries that are gonna require that level and quality and quantity of the type of services that we’re providing versus the distribution and warehousing types of developments. And so on that basis, if Mr. LaCoche has a breakdown, if you could help us on that one, I’m not sure I have that available here. Go ahead, Mr.

LaCoche. Thank you, Madam Chair. Statistics Canada does not break down distribution and warehousing as a separate category, but what I can tell you is manufacturing is certainly a very important component of this entire strategy. There are close to 30,000 jobs in the London census metropolitan area that are within the manufacturing sector.

Distribution, some of it is part of that manufacturing supply chain, but it also shows up in other areas of the economy as well. In terms of that 30% of all employment across the region, that number would be bigger than just manufacturing and that’s well over 70,000 jobs sustained through the industrial areas all around London and the region. Just a small caveat on that number, this is not just for the city of London. Stats can break us down for our region, which includes the St.

Thomas as well. Thank you. Thank you, thank you for that information. So I have no more questions.

I would say that perhaps, you know, not now, but perhaps at the time of the next review, I might be ready to talk about lowering again, the incentive for the non-targeted use, just knowing the investment we’re putting in with that triple A servicing, and I would hate to see that kind of investment not being used to its full potential. And again, if this activity continues in the region around distribution centers that they are coming, and they’re going to areas where they don’t have the same kind of, so Woodstock as example, they don’t have the same kind of incentives that we have here in London, and yet they are still setting up there in Woodstock and other areas. So just to look down the road and foresee into the future, I might want to revisit this in a year’s time. So with that, I’ll look to see if there are any other comments or questions on this report.

Seeing none, I need a mover and a seconder for the staff recommendation, which I believe is just to receive the report. Moved by Councillor Palosa, thank you. And seconded by the deputy mayor, wow. Okay, and I’ll call the question on that.

It is a bylaw as well, that the proposed bylaw be introduced and that the report be received. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed for zero. Okay, that takes us to items for direction. And the first one is a submission from a committee member and Councillor Palosa and also Councillor Lewis.

So I’ll go to you first, Councillor Palosa. And then I will go to you, Councillor Lewis, if you had anything more to add. Thank you, ma’am chair. And I will be moving, I don’t know what technology issues I’m having, but I will be moving my motion.

And what’s before you is, Londoners must come together to beat housing challenges. They experienced difficulty keeping up with rising rental rates. And as we’ve learned to our detriment, sometimes can’t find any place to live at all. Those are the words of Glenn Pearson in the most recent Londoner.

What we do know for sure is the city’s list waiting for housing support is thousands of names long. Thousands of Londoners are looking for help. And we know supportive housing ranked year to income and building houses period takes a lot of time. But it’s something we can do right now to address the issue.

We know there’s two solutions to housing costs, increasing housing supply and reducing housing demand. We have currently at least a hundred houses sitting vacant in the city of London, whether this be property speculators, just buying, hang on to it. How do we push them into renting them, occupying them, and making it more lucrative to make those decisions and actually house Londoners? Councillor Lewis and I are looking for your support in getting a report back from civic administration on how to implement a vacancy residential property tax on residential properties.

That’s going to come back to council. These homes are already built. They’re ready to be occupied and we have Londoners desperate to live in them. So as this conversation continues, it is a report back asking for your support on this as this is not obviously the entire solution to London’s housing issue, but a small piece of it that is already in place and could be implemented quickly giving Londoners a place to find home, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councillor. I’ll go to you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for recognizing me and giving me the opportunity to follow Councillor Close’s lead on this motion that we’re bringing forward and asking for your support on.

For me, this is both targeting two types of problems that we have in the city. One is the speculative property ownership that Councillor Close have mentioned, where people are buying up properties with no intention of ever occupying them or ever obtaining a rental license to rent them out. They simply sit on them, sometimes resulting in demolition by neglect, but they sit on them to speculate on the market and when they’ve made enough of a profit, then they put them up for sale. The other type of property is, of course, the properties that are already vacant and suffering demolition by neglect because somebody has simply either walked away from them or decided that they don’t want to put the money in to bring them up to code so that people can live on them in them.

And I think that by imposing a financial penalty, we are pushing those individuals to look at a cost effective way forward. Either I’m going to have to pay extra tax or I’m going to have to fix up my property and rent it out or I’m going to have to sell it. One of those three options. And I hope that by doing this, we’re going to see some housing come back on the market.

Councillor Close alluded to, we’ve heard of community and protective services many times. There are over 100 homes on bylaws list right now that they’re actively monitoring us vacant properties. But I suspect that that’s the tip of the iceberg. I know that there are several in my ward that have been vacant for many, many months this year.

And I’ve said publicly, I recognize as well that in a university and college town, we’re going to have to have some consideration for the student rentals that are sometimes vacant from the middle of April till the middle of August. We need to consider the snowbirds who maybe spend some of their time in warmer climates. But I think that there are ways to do this and we’ve seen other municipalities move ahead. Vancouver’s had this in place for years.

In fact, they just raised their presidential property tax rate to further decrease speculation. This is not a silver bullet. It’s one tool in our toolbox. And we know our toolbox is limited.

We know that without municipal or without provincial and federal help, we can’t solve this on our own. But this is one thing we can look at doing. So I hope that colleagues will support asking staff to come back to us with some options around how this could be implemented in our city and do what we can from a council level to hopefully get some more housing units back on the market instead of sitting empty and unused at a time when thousands of people could be calling that place home. Thank you, Councilor.

I’ll go to you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you. So first off, I want to thank the Councilors for bringing forward what is an issue. I think a number of residents have on their mind, especially if they’ve seen a property that looks vacant and with housing prices and affordability, what it is and the direction it’s going.

I understand the rationale for the approach. And I’ll say I can be supportive of the motion too. And if Councilor Close needs a seconder, I would do that. And I want to outline why.

Because in reading the motion, what the Councilors are asking is to take a look at this, including but not limited to gathering what other municipalities are doing on this and getting some best practices on how to approach the issue. But also because part of the staff direction is to determine the scope and feasibility of developing and implementing a solution to this. So scope is important to me because I do not understand, nor do I have information on how widespread a problem this actually is. And feasibility is important to me because I certainly do not want to put us in a situation where the costs of implementing such a regime outweighs the benefits of actually doing it if it’s not going to have the impact that is intended.

And so I think the Councilors have hidden a very responsible approach to addressing the issue, to get some information back on these key components. And because of that, I’m supportive of looking into this, but I will be certainly looking to the answers, to the questions that the Councilors have outlined in their motion about what are other cities doing? What is the scope and feasibility of actually pursuing this? I need to understand what is the problem, how widespread it is and what are the costs associated with the solution?

And most importantly, is it going to have the intended impact? But I’m certainly appreciative and supportive of looking into this matter, for sure. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Councilor Van Holst.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And also again, thanks to our colleagues for coming up with a potential solution. So I’m pleased about that. I don’t have any objections to this approach, although I would like to ask a few questions to just try and see if setting our staff to making up another report and doing an investigation is going to be fruitful.

So perhaps I can, through you to one of the movers, well, can they describe the kinds of benefits that have been seen in the other communities that have done it? I’ll go to you first, Councilor Filosa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll let Councilor Lewis follow up with anything that I’ve missed.

Other communities are noting increases in these units going back on the market when such policies are implemented. Other cities have started to note that these, the implementation of this policy would be revenue neutral or generating as city’s budget chair. That’s a big thing to me of making sure that this is not going to add another burden onto taxpayers that this program will have the desired effects. Small steps to start with this people implement into it.

And as we move forward, also as Councilors, I’m sure many of us get the untidy uncapped property complaints coming in through by-law. And sometimes you find that these homes are the longstanding vacant ones in neighborhoods. So hoping that will help alleviate some costs and response time to those neighborhoods as well and increase the quality of living in the residents who live by some of these properties that are uncapped. Councillor Lewis, through you, Madam Chair.

Do you have anything to add, Councillor, go ahead. Thank you, and thank you, Councilor Filosa. You covered most of it. Certainly the one that I looked at most closely through you, Madam Chair, Councilor Van Coover because it’s been in place for a couple of years there.

In Ontario, it’s a process that’s just getting going, but Van Coover has definitely seen a positive result in terms of units going back on the market and becoming occupied, whether by renters or owner occupied. So that’s a positive thing. And I will also echo and just reinforce what Councilor Filosa was saying. These vacant properties often have a very negative impact on the fabric of the neighborhood.

And there is a benefit to us in that manner too, in getting these addressed so that neighboring residents are not feeling the negative impacts of the uncapped property. Often the pests and vermin that those attract as well as sometimes the safety issues, people breaking into strip wiring and plumbing and things and creating fire hazards and those kind of issues as well. So I think there’s both a benefit to returning housing inventory to the market, but I think there’s also a benefit to the fabric of the neighborhood that is being realized as well where we see these policies being implemented. Thank you.

Any follow up Councilor Van Halz, go ahead. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. So it looks like there’s two challenges. One is on speculation holding onto a property for a long time.

And the other one is the dereliction that we talk about. However, we are very fairly recently implemented a strategy to deal with that by adding some administrative monetary penalties to these derelict properties, I think we’ve got more options there. And I want to, through you, to ask our staff if someone’s able to answer how, what an impact that is having so far. It’s our scotolic here.

We have a number of properties on the list 103 to be exact. And all the properties have been issued orders and approximately 40% have complied with the orders. And at this point, there have been no amps issued to these properties. Okay, thank you.

And are we anticipating any demolitions from these properties? Yes, through the chair, we are anticipating demolitions. We had a report a few months ago on demolitions. And you may remember one of the properties that was slated for demolition.

There was a fire, a major fire at that property, and which resulted in the demolition. We have two other properties that the city will be demolishing. And we are always looking at additional properties. Demolition is the last resort.

And we will be bringing forward reports in the future on any further properties, which we will be recommending to pollution. Councilor? Okay, well, thank you very much. I’m glad that demolition is the last resort, although I do have to say, when you look at some of them, it is the first thing that pops into mind.

I don’t know that I’ve got any further questions here. It seems like this is a good way to go. These other municipalities that are tackling it, Ottawa, and Hamilton, do we know how far along in the process they are? And I guess I’m asking, are we going to be reinventing the wheel by doing this, or research, or are we able to piggyback on some of the work that’s been done already?

Well, Councilor, I think that’s in the motion, is that they want to gather the information from other Ontario municipalities advancing this option. And I’m not sure if the Councillors know how far other cities have gone yet, and I’m not sure if staff do, but if staff or the Councillors do know how far other municipalities have gone, go ahead, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you, I can let colleagues know, Hamilton is not that much further ahead of us. They have put forward a motion to have staff work on a framework for them, and that work is ongoing.

Ottawa is further ahead. They’ve got a framework sort of in place, and they’re looking at an implementation rollout for the end of, I believe it’s 2023, because they do have some pieces to put together before they’re able to administer, and aren’t likely to have those in place for the start of 2022, but I will also confess that that update is probably about three weeks old, so I don’t know if anything has changed in the Ottawa situation at this point in time with their rollout date, but that’s what it was when I last checked. Okay, Councillor, you’re way good. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate my colleagues and staff for giving me a pretty good sense of where we are with this, and where it stands.

I’m happy to support this motion. Thank you for bringing forth a creative and idea that’s kind of on the cutting edge of Ontario thought. I have a question for the outlook to actually go to you. Councillor Hopkins, I knew you’re visiting our committee, but do you have any comments or questions on this before I ask a question?

No, Madam Chair, but thank you for recognizing me. Okay, thanks. So to the Councillors, and I’m not sure if this is a case, but I’m wondering if, so you speak specifically about residential properties, does that only limited in your view since this is your motion? Is it only limited to single family homes, or is it possible there are buildings that are zoned, mixed use, even that may be underutilized, not having a lot of vacant units or units that could be used as residential and are currently sitting vacant, formerly used as retail or commercial.

So again, I’m not sure that the scope of this, will this go further than just a residential neighborhood with single family homes? Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councillor Loose is welcome to add any thoughts as always.

At this point, we were strictly interested in the residential property types to keep it focused, recognizing some mixed use buildings and commercial spaces have really had trouble during COVID and wanted to make it sure that what we need that’s already in the plan and zoning isn’t gonna be affected that this is a small starting step, give chance to staff to look at other municipalities, specifically for residential units, bring that report back and this council later can build upon it if we decide to move forward or the next council, but that the program and the implementation is in place and we can build out from there. Go ahead, Councillor Loose. Yeah, I would just like to add and follow up to Councillor Palosa’s comments. We did have a discussion with both Ms.

Barbone and Mr. Kost for this before we brought this forward. And the powers that the province has given us on this speak very specifically to the residential zoning properties. So I’m not sure if staff might want to try them in as well on mixed use buildings, but I think that for now we wanted as Councillor Palosa said, we wanted to kind of apply the kiss principle and bring something forward.

That was relatively easy for everybody to get behind and then we can always look at some changes further down the road. Excellent, thank you. I appreciate that. And I don’t think either one of you is looking at this as the cure all and we have asked staff to bring back a number of reports around housing and around finding ways to increase the supply.

So this is just one more possible tool in the toolbox. So excellent, I think this is great work. I have one final question for, I guess for Mr. Murray, Councillor Lewis, you brought up Montreal and I knew, I remembered quite a few years ago reading and again in this idea of not letting properties go to waste and so now it’s even more of a need because there is such a shortage.

So in Montreal a few years ago, I read that they had implemented something where they were starting to tax vacant buildings and vacant land at their highest and best use. So if something was sitting empty as a parking lot or something sitting empty as a single family home where the potential for development could have been a high rise, then the property owner was put on notice that their property taxes would be increased to the highest and best use of that property. And I’m wondering just because this has got me thinking about that, do we have that ability here or is that all in the province of Ontario in the City of London or is that only specific to either the City of Montreal or to the province of Quebec? Madam Chair, I’ll maybe let Mr.

Collins take a stab at that one. Through the chair to committee, not sure of the answer at this moment. However, as part of our report back to committee on the viability and the feasibility of the vacant residential home tax, we will certainly report out on if there’s an opportunity to look at assessing and taxing properties at the highest best use classes you’ve identified, which you’ve provided as an example being a case in Montreal. Thank you.

Excellent, I really appreciate that answer. Go ahead, Councillor Van Halst. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess the last question or request I would have of staff, I think we’re going in a great direction here in coming up with the scope when the report comes back.

I think I’d also like to know if it’s worth it for us to simply begin working on our own policy or we’re better off letting one of the other municipalities work it through, implement it and work through the bugs and then just pick it up at a later time. So that’s a piece of advice I would be looking from for staff when that report comes back. Thank you. Thank you, noted Councillor.

Councillor Hummer, did you want to jump in? Go ahead. I think it’s a good idea. Thank you, Councillor Gloza and Councillor Lewis for bringing it forward.

And the changes that were made to the Municipal Act mean it applies to the residential property class. So it’s not really a function of zoning, but it’s a function of the assessment class. And you can have situations where you’ve got some commercial assessment and some residential assessment. And so the residential class covers, you know, the standard single detached dwelling that you would think but also multi-unit buildings up to six units.

So it’s only once you get seven or more so contained units that you’re into multi-unit residential. So there could be lots of situations where you have a couple of units above a commercial and if you’re keeping them empty, you know, they would probably count as residential units under this kind of approach. The city of Toronto is basically done to just speak to Councillor Reynolds pointing with their consultation, development of their plan. And they’re looking at it levying a 1% tax on all vacant homes in the city, which is going to generate something like $65 million a year in property tax revenue, which I think they’re going to use for affordable housing.

So fund affordable housing through the tax on vacant properties, which seems like a great idea to me. Great, thank you for those comments, Councillor. There are no other comments. It’s been moved by Councillor Palosa.

Do I have a seconder? I’ll be happy to second it. Sorry, okay, I’ll let you get in there, Councillor Vanholst, I thought I was going to be the one, but no, that’s great. No other comments or questions?

I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed forward to zero. Right. Thank you, Councillor Vanholst, I’ll go to you, Councillor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So when COVID hit us a year ago or a year and a half ago, collective, we thought we could protect people by locking down while the pharmaceutical industry attempted to come up with a vaccine that would end COVID like some of the other diseases that only affect the humans. I see that attempt as a failure, but I don’t want, what I don’t want to be a failure is our protection of human rights. And also I see that there’s some risks to the city if we implement some mandated policies, especially the section 15 of the charter of treating people equally and section seven.

And because I think there’s a potential of challenge, I wanted to ask some questions about that. There’s a few questions in my communication. And so I guess the first thing I should ask is that if staff is comfortable answering some of these things in public session or it should be in camera. So I’m not sure I guess I’ll go to Mr.

Carr to see if you’re comfortable with answering the Councillor’s questions. I suppose you will let us know on a question by question basis if you’re comfortable answering in public, but I will go to you, Mr. Carr. Madam Chair, I would not be comfortable answering these questions in public session.

I believe that they all have to do with the likelihood of litigation, basically. And that’s an excellent reason not to discuss them in public session. So Councillor, the questions you have listed in your submission, the city solicitor is not comfortable answering in public session. Do you have other comments or questions?

Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. Will there be an opportunity to have those questions answered in the confidential sessions sometimes soon? We have an added item on our agenda. Okay, well then perhaps I could ask those at that time.

Sorry, Councillor, I was just confirming something. So we’ve an added item on our confidential agenda to receive legal advice. You may have an opportunity to ask questions there. Okay, Madam Chair, thank you very much.

I’ll take the opportunity to ask my questions at that time. So we will need some kind of motion to deal with this submission. Does a committee member have a motion? Councillor Vanholst, I saw your hand first and then I’ll go to you, Councillor Palazzar.

Sure, I’ll just move receipt of the communication. Okay, Councillor Palazzar. I’m happy to second that and then the Councillor will have an opportunity to ask his questions in closed session. Okay, there are no other comments.

I will call the question on that. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed four to zero. I have another Councillor submission, 4.3, and that is coming from Councillor Hopkins. And knowing that Councillor Hopkins is not on the committee, I would be prepared to move the motion that the Councillor is asking for in this thing.

So I would ask the Vice Chair, Vanholst, to take the chair for me. And then before I yield the chair, I will go to Councillor Hopkins first, and then I yield the chair to you, Councillor Vanholst. Thank you, Madam Chair, for moving the motion that I’m bringing forward to committee. And as we all know, the September 30th is a statutory, a holiday, national day of truth and reconciliation.

And in the spirit and recognition of the friendship agreement that we have with the NAMRAD Center, I wanna thank staff for arranging to fly the Every Child Matters flag on our community poll on September the 30th. So thank you for that. I do wanna bring forward to use some comments and suggestions from Amo at our last board meeting that we had just before we had the conference, which was beginning of August. We had a very fulsome conversation at the board on how municipalities can get support as we deal with truth and reconciliation.

And I’m hoping that the committee will support the motion to bring this information and pass it on to civic administration for their information, as well as directing civic administration to sort of review the flags at City Hall and what our policy is there. This information and the suggestion to have the Every Child Matters flag raised is just for this year, September the 30th. And I’m hoping that the committee will support the information. Like I said, it was a robust conversation that we had at the board about municipalities and the need for municipalities to get support as we deal with truth and reconciliation and how we engage with the community, how we listen is going to be an important conversation as we go forward.

So with that, Madam Chair or Presigning Chair, I will be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. As the Presigning Officer, I turn the floor over to you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Presigning Officer.

And I raised a hand here, but I think I don’t know where it is. It’s over there somewhere, sorry. So I just wanna thank the Councillor. And we’ve had quite a few conversations about this.

And I’m really pleased to see the road that AMO is going down. We’ve done quite a bit of work here in London and that’s the one thing that I would ask staff when they come back with their report is to improve what AMO has listed here in their report because it’s far more extensive than what they have listed here. For example, as a direction from Council and the work that our Council did between 2014 and 2018, there were a number of gatherings with Councillors, with city staff and with members of the three first nations that are closest to us. One of the things that we did locally here is developed a cultural sensitivity training program locally.

You with help and input and collaboration with local indigenous Londoners and with community members from Chippewa of the Thames First Nation, from the Oneida Nation and from the Muncie Delaware Nation. So it was important in some of the engagement events that we held together. It was very important that this training be developed locally because our local history is different from say, Sudbury’s history and things like that. So, and also the fact that we show the flags of the nations that are also co-signatories on the London Township Treaty with the city of London and that we recognize the London Township Treaty every year in September on the anniversary date.

I think that it really, it’s quite a long list and I would love to see AMO updated on all the things that have happened in London. It doesn’t mean that we don’t have a long, long way to go. Still, and I think reconciliation is never, is never really a finished project. I think it is an ongoing thing.

You’re always working towards reconciliation and building relationships. So I’m very pleased to move this for Councillor Hopkins and that’s all I have to say. Thank you very much. And I’ll go to Councillor Palosa.

Thank you, Mr. Presenting Officer and thank you Councillor Hopkins for not only this, but all your work that you do at AMO. It has a huge impact in the city of London and municipalities throughout Ontario. And I do recognize the many hours you put in there, especially considering we just came out of the AMO conference.

My hand was up to second this. I think it’s wonderful and much needed and it is an ongoing conversation. This is just one step. It’s certainly far, far from a one and done.

There’s much work to be done. So thank you for this and I look forward to continuing this conversation as we move forward. Thank you. So I’ll look to any more comments from our committee members or visiting Councillors.

Seeing none, then let’s call the question on the motion. That’s been moved and seconded. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed four to zero. I’d like to return the chair to you.

Thank you, Councillor. That takes us to a proclamation request and it is coming from Mr. Brian Hill on behalf of the community diversity and inclusion strategy implementation body. And it is to proclaim orange shirt day slash national day for truth and reconciliation.

Councillor Palosa. I wish to move at Madam Chair. Wonderful. Do I have a second?

Seconded by Deputy Mayor Morgan. Thank you. Any comments or questions on this? Seeing none, I’ll call the question.

Closing the vote, the motion’s passed four to zero. To another proclamation or request and this is from Dyslexia, Canada. Proclamation date would be October 1st for Dyslexia Awareness Month and I would look for a mover and seconder for that. Moved by Councillor Van Holst.

Seconded by Councillor Palosa. Thank you. No comments, questions? I will call the question.

Closing the vote to zero. Okay, I’m sorry, people. I’m just conferring with the clerk. I know that the Deputy Mayor has a commitment at two o’clock.

As acting Mayor, he’s participating in the media briefing with, is it Dr. Mackey or Dr. Summers today? So it’s Dr.

Mackey at the media briefing regarding the current status of the COVID-19 pandemic and the response here in Middlesex, London. So we will just keep trucking along. We’ll see what happens at two o’clock. We do have some things happening as well in camera.

So without delaying it any further, we have an added item on the public agenda and it is the vaccination or proof of vaccination policy report coming from our city manager, Ms. Livingston. So I’ll go to you first, Ms. Livingston.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We submitted the policy for the added agenda. The purpose of this policy, it’s an administrative policy, is to establish a temporary policy with respect to proof of vaccination. There are a number of components that we considered in the development of the policy that the report articulates, but I’d like to highlight a few of these.

The policy is grounded in our obligation under the health and safety legislation to do every measure that is reasonable and possible to ensure the health and wellbeing of our staff and of the people that we serve. We have also, since the beginning of COVID, undertaken to abide by a number of principles. And one of those principles is to ensure an enterprise-wide approach to how we deliver service, all the health and safety precautions we put in place across our organization. And that also applied here.

There’s a lot to consider in terms of developing a policy like this, including other pieces of legislation as well as our collective agreements and our commitment to our employees and to the community. So what you have in front of you is what we believe to be a strong and balanced approach to continuing to take all steps to ensure the health and safety of our employees. The policy has a number of components to it, including a date by which we would ask all employees to share their proof of vaccination. If they are unable to do that, then an attestation for a medical reason or an Ontario Human Rights Code reason, and then move into a regular interval of testing.

If they are unable to do that, participate in an education session and move into a regular interval of testing. Again, the objective is to ensure that we are not in a place where there is a transmission of COVID throughout our workplace, through vaccination or through testing. So we have undertaken these steps and we look to implement this policy on September 15th. I’d be pleased to answer any questions that you might have about it.

So keep in mind that the staff recommendation on this report is that this report be received for information. So, and again, knowing that if we have legal questions, we will be going in camera, but are there any questions for this public report? Councillor van Holst. Thank you Madam Chair.

So I appreciate that a policy is very much like we needed. The, is this one that would have been subject to input from the staff, like many of the others that are created? I’ll go to the city manager, although it does mention some of the work that was done with city staff, but I’ll go to the city manager for answering that. Through you Madam Chair, and thank you for the question.

We developed this policy in discussion with union leadership, but I will also recognize that this policy was developed very quickly, as is occurring across many municipalities in Ontario and many other workplaces, as we all take important steps to try and limit the impact of COVID in our organizations. So it was not sent out across the organization for consultation, but we did have discussions. We also reviewed a number of emerging policies from other municipalities and other workplaces, and we had some discussions with our local public health officials. So those are some of the engagements that we undertook in the development of the policy over the last week.

Councillor van Holst. Thank you. Now, the city manager described event, there was consultation with the health unit. Have we actually received advice from them?

Is there written advice that we would have received from the health unit? Ms. Livingston. Through you Madam Chair, yes, I have written advice from the health unit on the need for such a workplace policy.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Morgan, and then I’ll go to Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair.

Just, I want to understand your order of operations here is the intent for us to ask all the public questions, go into camera before even receiving the report, to receive other information as Councillor van Holst was looking for before. Are we looking to kind of do that at the end? I just want to understand the order of operations that you intend. So I just opened it up to see if there are any comments or questions that people wanted to get off their chest right now.

There’s always a possibility to go in camera, listen to advice, come back out, and people may have more public questions, but really it was just this is, we just received this report, we received Ms. Livingston’s introduction. Yes, and the reason why I say so is as I’ve circulated to colleagues, I have an intent to request that, to staff that they develop a second vaccination policy modeled on this one to apply to elected officials, one group that Ms. Livingston’s administrative policy doesn’t apply to, he is elected officials, and it’s my personal belief that from a health and safety perspective, the rules should be the same for people entering the building, whether they’re an employee like Ms.

Livingston or an elected official who functions like an employee for the most part, like us. I wanted to make that clear in case colleagues have any questions from Mr. Cart about that approach, although my request is that a policy be brought forward at the next meeting, so I just wanted to let colleagues know if you haven’t read your email that it is my intent to move that motion to receive Ms. Livingston’s report and then ask civic administration to bring forward at the next meeting of CSC, a similar COVID-19 vaccination policy, specifically applicable to members of council for our consideration and debate, in case there are other questions that colleagues might have for Mr.

Cart about that. So I’ll put that out there now, that’s my intent, and I’ll let the debate continue. And I will say, Councillor, that once we go in camera, we will deal with some timed business that we are late for, and then we’ll deal with all the other in-camera items, and if I know you will be gone between two and two 30, I really want you there for that first part of the in-camera stuff. If we have to take a recess until two 30 at some point, I will ensure that we don’t reconvene in public until you are able to join us as well, knowing that you have that motion ready as well, okay?

And I’ll go to you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll try and be as brief as possible in respect to Councillor Harbins’ timing as well. The first a comment that I’ll share with all committee members and colleagues who are trying to committee, I will be the first to say, I would like to see an even stronger policy.

I agree with the deputy mayor. I’d like to see a policy that applies to us as well, and I’ll certainly support him on that when it comes to council. I think it’s leadership by example. I would like to see us be even stronger, but I also understand civic administration needs to proceed with caution, and there’s negotiations with our union partners, and so all of that has to be considered and weighed, and my personal thoughts aside, I have nothing but a thanks to Ms.

Livingston for the work that’s gone into getting us to this point already. I do have two questions or thoughts that I could share through you that perhaps staff could respond to. The first of those is in regard to the testing of those who choose to seek an exemption from having their vaccine. How do we anticipate?

I’ve certainly heard from the public that some of them who don’t want to be paying for this out of pocket, they feel those employees who want the exemption should be getting that testing at their own cost, but I know that that’s the policy right now is that testing would be through us. So what impact would that have on our operations budget? Is it something that can be absorbed within the existing budget that we have? And the other piece that I am hearing from the public is what about people who are coming to City Hall or in-person service on things, knowing that we have a lot of services that are available through our online portals.

And again, knowing that this is an evolving situation, is any thought being given to the potential for requiring vaccination proof from the public to access in-person services in City Hall? Okay, Ms. Livingston. As through you, Madam Chair, we anticipate that the cost of the few number of employees that will fall under either the second or third component of the policy would be approximately $2,000 to $3,000 per week.

And we could readily manage that with our current budgets. I want to emphasize that our approach is to ensure we have consistency across the entire organization. And this is the model that Deerness is operating under, which was established by Provincial Directive. So we are following exactly the same process there.

And we’ll follow the same approach around the testing. In terms of the question about whether there is any intention to consider making it mandatory for the public to access our services, the answer is no. We are not considering that. We are a public entity and we provide public service.

We do, however, put every health and safety precaution that has been advised by the public health authorities into place so that we can assure the safety of the public access who wish to access our services in person. Thank you for that. Thank you, Councillor Lewis, Councillor Vanholst. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I just wanted to ask for one point of clarity. The written advice from the health unit, is that available publicly or not? But I just want to make sure that if I get into camera and want to refer to it, we’re not bounced back out. Because those questions should be dealt with in public or seeing that.

Ms. Livingston? My preference is that question is asked in camera. Okay, thank you.

And so I’ll also ask the deputy mayor as well. Did he want to approach the health unit? I guess on behalf of our committee, did you receive some written advice? Deputy Mayor?

Yeah, so first off, I didn’t approach anyone on behalf of the committee. But as an individual Councillor looking to make a motion and I had a verbal conversation with Mr. Summers about the intent of my motion, but I do not have something in writing. Okay, thank you.

Okay, with that, I will look for a motion to go in camera. Move by Councillor, hold on a second. We don’t need any kind of motion or anything like that. But just with the understanding of committee that we will go in camera and deal with all of the other business first, knowing that Deputy Mayor Morgan, he has a commitment that he has to handle.

And so I’m looking to committee, is everyone okay if we defer discussion on this particular item to the end? Okay, and then so we don’t need a motion to table or anything like that. We’ll just set this aside. We will go in camera, deal with all of the business, especially the time to item right at the beginning.

And so I had, we have a mover and a seconder to go in camera, so let’s vote on that motion now. Closing the vote and the motion’s carried four to zero, and this is to approve going into closed session for all of the 10 matters that are included on the public added agenda. So we’ll just set things up. Just to members of the public, the unfortunately will not come back on when we come back into public session, but the eScribe, which is accessed through the city website, will be, will be streamed again once we come back into public session.

Okay, we’re good and we are back in public session. Looking for people to light up their screen. So I know who’s here, and there we are, we have quorum. And I see Councilor Vanholz is still here, just not on screen.

So we will, I’ll first go to the Vice Chair, Councilor Vanholz to report out from our in-camera session. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I’d like to report progress on the 10 items that we went into, into camera for. Thank you so much.

That will take us right back to where we left off when we went in camera. And that’s 5.1, the added item on our public agenda, which is the vaccination or the proof of vaccination, administrative policy that was brought to us by our city manager. Go straight back to any members of the committee who would like to go ahead, Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yes.

I think where we left off was we were asking some questions of Ms. Livingston, and I have one. The policy outlines basically moving towards full vaccination, two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. I do know that there are some countries that are moving towards a third dose or a booster shot in some way.

How would that be handled if Health Canada and local officials decided that that was something that it was included in full vaccination? And would you have to adjust the policy or bring it back or just wondering what would happen if that were the case here, given it’s something being discussed elsewhere? Ms. Livingston.

Madam Chair, we would update the policy accordingly. We would do that in consultation with public health officials. But the policy I consider to be a live document as we are moving through the pandemic and things are changing. So we would update it accordingly to kind of keep step with what the strongest and best advice is to ensure the greatest protection of our workforce.

Deputy Mayor? Yes, and I realize our committee is running long, although I think this is an important topic. Maybe to speed things along, if you want, I would be happy to put a motion on the floor if there’s a seconder at this time, which would be A, the staff report dated August 30th, 2021 with respect to this matter be received. And B, that civic administration be directed to bring forward to the next meeting of corporate services committee, a similar COVID-19 vaccination council policy specifically applicable to members of council for consideration.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Is there a seconder for that? Seconded by Councillor Pelosa. Any discussion on that?

Councillor Vanhols. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I guess I’ve got a few things. One, it’s interesting there was say an article in CBC that talked about the councils being vaccinated.

And there was 14 that have said they’ve been double vaccinated. One, Councillor refused to disclose that. So it seems that we’re making up a policy for one identifiable individual. Is there any, do we see any challenges with that?

Maybe asking through you to staff. Living Senate and then I saw your hand, Deputy Mayor, but I’ll see if staff have anything to respond to that. My preference would be to see if Mr. Card wanted to provide a response.

Mr. Card, is that something you can respond to in public? No, Madam Chair, I feel that, you know, the advisability of that policy should be discussed when it comes forward. And I will have an opportunity to provide additional comments at that time.

At this moment, I don’t think it’s either necessary or appropriate for that advice to be provided. Thank you, Mr. Card. Deputy Mayor, did you wanna add something?

Yes, just to my intent. So first off, I would say I can consider a media article by a city news agency definitive proof of someone’s vaccination or not, nor do I think that that’s what Ms. Livingston intends in her policy. And so I’m not sure how relevant that is.

And certainly my intent to bring forward a council policy has nothing to do with any individual whatsoever. It has to do with parity between what is being asked of our employees and the provisions of a safe workplace and just ensuring that because administration cannot bring forward a policy that applies to council, there’s only a weekend that we would mirror that for all of the same reasons. Just like Ms. Livingston’s policy is not about any specific individuals, I’m not trying to do the same thing as well.

I would also say that the earlier question to what would happen if there was a third dose of a vaccine required strikes me as meaning that all of us, everybody, no one’s got a third dose yet that I’m aware of unless you’re in one of those very specific groups. And then our policy would also adapt to cover off that and it would be nice to have a framework in place to allow us to adjust as we move forward as well. So, but I wanna be very clear, my intent is not related to any individual in any sort of way. Thank you, any further discussion on the motion that’s on the floor?

Councillor Van Halst. Thank you. And let me say that I was quite certain that Councillor Morgan’s intent was simply parity and even maybe a sense of solidarity, which I think are both commendable. I can certainly see how that it was.

Of course, sometimes the intent of a motion is one thing where the effect of it could be something else that we don’t initially see at the offset. I’m not a question of perhaps it’s hypothetical, but it’s one of those ones where we can talk about a policy being adapted for the future. I mentioned it maybe a year ago in a document or a communication. It was the idea of pathogenic priming.

Sometimes when you get a vaccine, you actually become more susceptible to another strain of virus. If, and I see that this policy is based strongly on the premise that the people who are unvaccinated and who may have natural immunity are still considered less, or we’re considered more contagious than the ones who are double vaccinated. So there is the possibility that that situation could be reversed in the event of another strain or in the event of a booster shot, for instance. So my question is if that happened, would we change the testing regime to deal with the people that were vaccinated in this case?

Ms. Livingston. Drew, you Madam Chair, we developed this policy in consultation with public health officials and a number of other folks. And we would continue to do that.

We have always followed the guidance of the province and public health in our response. So in terms of a question about a future scenario, I would continue to follow those steps. And we would create the policies or alter them accordingly. I can’t really comment on the specifics.

I can just share with you what my process would be. We have a motion on the floor. It’s been moved and seconded. I have the Chair of Planning Environment Committee.

Ayeing, my chair, he would like to sit here and I would like to yield the chair to him. So is there further discussion? Do you have a comment, Councillor Hummer? Go ahead.

I do. I wanted to commend the administration for bringing forward the administrative policy. I think it’s the right thing to do given the evidence that we have about the effectiveness of vaccines and reducing us severe outcomes. That evidence has been collected by Public Health Ontario about reduced viral load among people who have been vaccinated.

Looking at the evidence that’s emerging around the world in terms of our load and secondary infections, I think it’s all very positive it’s heading in the right direction. They published some modeling showing the difference between what would have happened if we hadn’t had the vaccine program and what has happened with the vaccine program in terms of severe outcomes like hospitalizations and deaths just among people who are 70 years of age and older. We’re talking of thousands of cases that had not led to severe outcomes like hospitalizations or deaths just since the vaccination program started in Ontario. So earlier in the meeting, I think Councillor Renholz described the overall response to COVID-19, the lockdowns that wait for vaccination as a failure.

And I’d say it’s actually the opposite, especially normalization of the vaccine on a global scale to meet the need to vaccinate people and to reduce the spread of the disease worldwide has been a tremendous success. And it’s been done very rapidly. In a very safe way. So I’d encourage everyone, they haven’t got your full vaccinations to do so.

I think having the same policy for city staff as we have for elected officials is the right thing to do. So thank you, Councillor Morgan, for bringing forward that suggestion as well. I look forward to discussing it further. Any other comments or questions?

So I would just go ahead Councillor Vanholz. Thank you very much. And I appreciate all the work people have done into this situation. I see that everything people have taken this on in a very sincere way.

I do think that the problem itself may not be as sincere. And I do, as I’ve said, see that our perceptions of this situation may have been influenced by an industry that just announced recently, I think the sea over Pfizer is thinks that there may need to be a booster every four months or so. So that’s a concern to me is that we’re moving into a situation where we’re relying and creating policy to rely on an industry. When in the end, it’s our own immune systems that create the immunity.

Whether you catch a virus and create a natural immunity or you’re given an injection, it’s your body’s response to that that produces the immunity. But I’m really concerned about us again, taking a policy approach where we’re relying on an industry for the immunity and I think we’ll have to wait to find out how that to see the science that’s gonna show how that actually turned out. So modeling is one thing, measurable results is another thing. I also point out that 100% vaccination is that’s never gonna happen.

There’s members in my own family whose specialists have said do not get a vaccine for reasons obvious I won’t disclose, but we can expect that to happen. I’m also concerned that by moving in that direction, we’re gonna lose what’s a very important thing is a control group of people that are not vaccinated and then we can see how the longer term effects of these things have played themselves out on the citizens. So there’s some of my concerns. I think that COVID for what it is is there, but on top of that I see there’s a patine of hysteria about it, maybe a patine of fanaticism.

So those two little things make it a little dangerous in that we can go too far. And I’m concerned that we might be going farther than we need to in this situation. I’m not sure that the policy isn’t a little arbitrary because of this reason. And I mean, the technical reason of arbitrariness is where if people can still catch COVID and transmit COVID because they’re vaccinated versus someone who’s unvaccinated, then treating them differently.

There’s a chance that we can be challenged for that reason. So I still see the possibility of being challenged here, although I do appreciate that we’ve looked for a policy where that’s been minimized. I may vote against it, certainly the policy for counselors, but I think I’ll leave my comments there, thank you. Okay, and that’s your prerogative counselor to vote against or in favor of anything.

I wanna remind all of us that we have, our voices as counselors are amplified beyond what a normal citizen or resident of London’s voice. And it carries a lot of weight. I’m really concerned when I hear words like hysteria used in how we have responded to the COVID-19 epidemic. I’m really alarmed when I hear about building immunity to a novel coronavirus that never existed before.

And so our body does not contain any natural immunity to that, tens of thousands of people have died in Canada. 600,000 people died in the U.S. that did not have to die. And the vaccines have been proven to reduce greatly, like almost 100% your risk of dying.

And our responsibility as community members is to keep those members of our society who cannot be vaccinated, to keep them safe. And we can do that by getting vaccinated. We will never reach herd immunity until we hit that high threshold that will keep the vulnerable people who absolutely cannot be vaccinated, keep them safer. There is a young hockey team, a group of under 10-year-old boys.

There is an outbreak last weekend on that hockey team because they are not eligible for the vaccine yet. And hopefully that will change soon. But the industry moved quickly, pharmaceutical industry, scientific community around the world rallied together because they were pushed to do this. They did not create a problem.

They were asked by governments. They were given funding to use the technology that already existed and develop it to help us to save people’s lives. And we see with these latest coming into 2021, the dramatic reduction in deaths, especially in residents of long-term care homes, you cannot overlook that we have basically halted the deaths of those vulnerable people in our long-term care facilities. So we must be very mindful of the weight that our voices have in this position on council.

And we have to be extremely responsible in how we use those voices. And we have to do everything in our power to make sure that people know that these vaccines are safe. These vaccines have stopped people from dying. And we have a motion on the floor that’s been moved and seconded.

And I would like to call the question on that motion. Councilor, you’ve had ample time to speak. You’ve spoken more— - I’m in a personal privilege, Madam Chair. Go ahead, Councillor.

Thank you. And I appreciate your comments. And I do wanna say that I referred to a poutine of hysteria, a poutine of fanaticism. It’s a small thing, but it does capture as well the minds of people out there.

And so that’s where I suggest that we need to always move a little slower, a little more methodically. I think that’s been done. I did say that everyone has taken this on in a very serious way. I commend our staff for how they’ve gone forward.

So I won’t be misrepresented in that, but I appreciate your passion about saving lives. And I’m concerned about that too. Realizing that even the COs of the pharmaceutical companies do themselves have said there are risks to the vaccines. So largely safe, very safe, but let’s not forget that as well.

Because remember, when we talk about informed consent, which is everyone’s right, those risks have to be expressed. That people need to be informed about those things. They should know those. And I think that’s another important thing that we need to do as leaders in communicating, being responsible.

So at that point, I’m happy to vote. Perhaps we could split the two motions for receipt. And for the… Yes, Councillor, we will do that.

So we’ll vote first on receipt. Motion to approve part A is carried four to one. So we’ll move, excuse me, four to zero. Okay, that brings us to part B, which is the part that was proposed by Deputy Mayor Morgan, seconded by Councillor Palose as well.

Closing the vote, the motion to approve part B is carried three to one. Okay, that brings us to the other added item which is 5.2, the recommendation for appointment to the London Hydro Inc Board of Directors. Councillor Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yes, if the committee’s in agreement, I would propose that now that we’ve conducted interviews, we have three excellent candidates that we use the selection tool within eScribe to see if we have some sort of consensus as a committee.

I think that would be the quickest way given our timeframe. I’d be happy to hear thoughts from other Councillors, but I also think there’s good reasons to pick each of the candidates. So I’m ready to proceed to seeing where the preference is. Supportive of that, Councillor Van Halston.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I support the Deputy Mayor’s suggestion and also want to say that, well, I want to thank you. Thank the candidates for having applied. I think any of the one of them would be a very fine representative on our board and I’m always thrilled to see the level of the dedication and skill and confidence that come to us when we try to have these interviews.

Thank you. So it looks like we have consensus. We’ll just go straight to the in-system voting. Councillor Van Halston posing the vote and the candidate Panya Gudain received 50% of the votes.

Okay, so we need a motion to put that name forward. Is that, are you moving that Councillor Van Halston? Yes, I’m delighted to move that. Seconder, thank you, Deputy Mayor.

And that vote will come up in a second. Closing the vote and that motion is passed four to zero. That brings us to the end of our agenda and to adjourn a seconder by Councillor. Sorry, Councillor, oh, I forgot.

Sorry, Deputy Mayor, you had some added business. Go ahead. Yes, and I will be exceptionally quick and I apologize to Councillor Squire if it delays this meeting for one second more. But as Acting Mayor, I know that Mayor Holder would be disappointed if I didn’t do this.

Today is City Manager Lynn Livingston’s birthday. So I have prepared a certificate for you from the Mayor’s office and I’ll deliver that to you. I just wanted to say, I thank you again for everything you do for our city and I’m sure this has been the best birthday ever so far and hopefully the rest of it is even more great. So happy birthday to Ms.

Livingston. Thank you very much and it was a pleasure to spend all this time with all of you. Great, so I did take that as Deputy Mayor Morgan moved adjournment and seconded by Councillor Palosa and we’ll do a show of hands, all those in favor. And I’m gonna say that motion carries.