Open Council

Council

Open Council

Council

October 5, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

P. Squire planning 3.3 of the 13th PEC - tenant of subject building

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

That, pursuant to section 6.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in the order of the Council Agenda BE APPROVED to provide for Stage 4, Council, In Closed Session, and Stage 9, Added Reports, to be considered after Stage 13, By-laws.

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, pursuant to section 6.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in the order of the Council Agenda BE APPROVED to provide for Stage 4, Council, In Closed Session, and Stage 9, Added Reports, to be considered after Stage 13, By-laws.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

5.   Confirmation and Signing of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting(s)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That the Minutes of the 12th Meeting, held on September 14, 2021, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the communications, as noted on the Added Agenda, BE RECEIVED and BE REFERRED as follows:

6.1     755 - 785 Wonderland Road (Westmount Mall) - refer to Item 6(3.3) of the 13th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee;

6.2     Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan - refer to Item 8(3.5) of the 13th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee;

6.3     2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West - refer to Item 5(4.1) of the 14th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee;

6.4     Property Standards Matters - refer to Item 11(2.4) of the 13th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee; and,

6.5     Consideration of Appointment to the London Transit Commission - refer to Item 3(4.1) of the 13th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   12th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2021-09-21 CWC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 12th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) Kensington Bridge - Environmental Assessment - Appointment of Consulting Engineer

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated September 21, 2021, related to an appointment of a Consulting Engineer to complete the Kensington Bridge Environmental Assessment Study:

a)       AECOM Canada Ltd. BE APPOINTED as the Consulting Engineer to complete the Environmental Assessment of the Kensington Bridge Renewal Project at an upset amount of $252,880.00, excluding HST, in accordance Section 15.2 (e) of the City of London Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

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

e)       the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents including agreements, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-E21/E05)

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Municipal Waste and Resource Materials Collection By-law Amendment (Relates to Bill No. 476)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the draft amending by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 21, 2021, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021, to amend the Municipal Waste and Resource Collection By-law (WM-12) to establish additional packaging requirements for curbside collection of ceramic toilets to enhance health and safety of the sanitation operators and the public. (2021-E07)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.4) Increase Contract Award: West London Dyke Norman Bradford (Oxford Street) Bridge Concrete Repairs

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated September 21, 2021, related to increasing the existing contract for Phase 7 West London Dyke project:

a)       the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority BE AUTHORIZED to carry out added works for Phase 7 of the West London Dyke reconstruction by increasing the City’s cost share by $176,526.62, including contingency, excluding HST;

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

c)       the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this work. (2021-T04)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.3) Sewage Overflows and Bypasses Into the Thames River - Sanitary Cross Connections

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated September 21, 2021 related to Sewage Overflows and Bypasses into the Thames River – Sanitary Cross Connections, BE RECEIVED for information. (2021-E03/E05)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at September 13, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2   13th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2021-10-05 Cncl Agenda 13th PEC Report Full

Motion made by P. Squire

That the 13th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding item 6 (3.3) and item 10 (4.1).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by P. Squire

That it BE NOTED that Councillor P. Squire disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 3.3 of this Report, having to do with the property located at 755-785 Wonderland Road South (Westmount Mall), by indicating that his law office is located in the Mall.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 7th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

Motion made by P. Squire

That it be noted that the 7th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, from its meeting held on September 1, 2021, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) 3700 Colonel Talbot Road (H-9387) (Relates to Bill No. 477)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by W-3 Lambeth Farms Inc., relating to the property located at 3700 Colonel Talbot Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM Holding Residential Special Provision R1 (hh-100R1-3(23)), Holding Residential Special Provision R1 (hh-84h-100R1-3(23)), Holding Residential Special Provision R1 (hh-100R1-4(36)), Holding Residential Special Provision R2 (hh-100R2-1(17)), Holding Residential Special Provision R4 (hh-100R4-6(12)), Holding Residential Special Provision R6 (hh-100R6-5(62)), Holding Residential Special Provision R8 (hh-100R8-4(49)), Holding Residential Special Provision R8 (hh-100R8-4(50)), Holding Residential Special Provision R8 (hh-100R8-4(51)), Holding Convenience Commercial Special Provision 6 (hh-100CC6(11)), Holding Convenience Commercial Special Provision 6 (hh-100CC6(12)), Holding Neighbourhood Facility Special Provision 1 (hh-100NF1(17)), and Open Space 1 (OS1) Zones TO Residential Special Provision R1 (R1-3(23)), Holding Residential Special Provision R1 (h-84R1-3(23)), Residential Special Provision R1 (R1-4(36)),  Residential Special Provision R2 (R2-1(17)), Residential Special Provision R4 (R4-6(12)), Residential Special Provision R6 (R6-5(62)), Residential Special Provision R8 (R8-4(49)), Residential Special Provision R8 (R8-4(50)), Residential Special Provision R8 (R8-4(51)), Convenience Commercial Special Provision 6 (CC6(11)), Convenience Commercial Special Provision 6 (CC6(12)), Neighbourhood Facility Special Provision 1 (NF1(17)), and Open Space 1 (OS1) Zones to remove the h and h-100 holding provisions.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (3.1) 900 King Street (Demolition Request on Heritage Listed Property)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, with respect to the demolition request for the Anne Eadie Park Stage on the heritage listed property at 900 King Street, the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the Anne Eadie Park Stage on the property; it being noted that the property located at 900 King Street should remain on the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources as it is believed to be of cultural heritage value or interest; it being further noted that clause 4.2 of the 9th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage with respect to this matter, was approved.

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter.  (2021-P1OD/RO1)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (3.2) 1154 Sunningdale Road East (Z-9368) (Relates to Bill No. 478)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning & Development, with respect to the application by Mary Dann, relating to the property located at 1154 Sunningdale Road East, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan), BY AMENDING the Urban Reserve Special Provision (UR1(1)) Zone to add an additional permitted use;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential designation; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates intensification of a site within the Built-Area Boundary.  (2021-DO9)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (3.4) 250-272 Springbank Drive (OZ-9310) (Relates to Bill No.’s 462, 466 and 479)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2355440 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 250-272 Springbank Drive:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan to AMEND a policy to Section 3.5 – Policies for Specific Residential Area West Coves that would modify the height from 14-storeys to 15-storeys on the subject lands located at 250-272 Springbank Drive;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend The London Plan to create a special policy area in the Urban Corridor Place Type at 250-272 Springbank Drive to add a site specific policy to align with the Specific Residential Policy in the 1989 Official Plan, and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policies Areas – of The London Plan;

c)    the proposed attached, revised, by-law (Appendix “C”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in parts a) and b) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a holding Residential R9 Bonus/Office Residential Special Provision (h.R9-7.H42.B-49/OR4(2)) Zone and an Open Space (OS4) Zone TO a holding Residential R9 Bonus (h.R9-7.H42.*B-  ) Zone and an Open Space (OS4) Zone;

it being noted that the Bonus Zone shall be enabled through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a high quality residential development, with a maximum height of 15-storeys (51 metres), 260 dwelling units and a maximum density of 306 units per hectare, which substantively implements the Site Plan and Elevations appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law in return for the following facilities, services and matters:

  1.    Exceptional Building Design

the building design shown in the various illustrations contained in Schedule “1” of the amending by-law is being bonused for features which serve to support the City’s objectives of promoting a high standard of design:

  •    enhanced building and site design features and a setback podium creating a pedestrian area linked to the public sidewalk;

  •    buildings oriented to Springbank Drive;

  •    energy efficient built form;

  •    garden suites adjacent to Springbank Drive with sidewalk access

  •    architectural design features on the towers that will enhance the skyline and break up the building mass;

  •    the inclusion of building step backs with a variety of building materials and building articulation to break up the massing of the building; and,

  •    purpose-designed amenity space on top of the parking structure.

  1.    Construction of 2 levels of underground parking;

  2.    Dedication of the Open Space Lands as a public link and to complement the adjacent Environmentally Sensitive Area along with the removal of the existing asphalt parking lot and substituting it with landscaping;

  3.    Provision of Affordable Housing consisting of:

  •    a total of 28 units (14 one-bedroom units and 14 two-bedroom units) allocated towards the purpose of affordable housing;

  •    a period of affordability for all identified affordable units be set at 50 years;

  •    that rent for the identified affordable units be set at 85% of Average Market Rents (as determined by CMHC) for the London Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) for the calendar year of 2021 as established for one-bedroom and two-bedroom units; 

  •    the identified units will be mixed throughout and not otherwise identifiable within the building;

  •    rents for the unis shall be inclusive of heat and water and shall only be increased once per 12-month period;

  •    that the identified affordable housing units be aligned with municipal priorities through a required Tenant Placement Agreement with the City of London; and

  •    all conditions be secured through an agreement registered on title with associated compliance requirements and remedies.

it being noted that the following Site Plan matters have been raised through the application review process to be addressed through the Site Plan Approval process:

i)    the final building design will consider incorporating bird-friendly design features; including, but not limited to, motion actuated lighting and window treatments up to the fourth floor of the proposed building;

ii)    incorporate an urban treatment between the built form and the City sidewalk. This can be achieved by landscaped tiered planters and staircases where changes in grades exist along the street. This should also include forms of public art along this street frontage, recognising the significant bonus zone that has been provided; 

iii)    avoid dark tinted vision glass in favour of clear vision glass to animate the street. 

iv)    enhanced provision of boundary fencing along boundaries that not only exceed the standards of the Site Plan Control By-law but also has screening/privacy qualities; 

v)    ensure an access from Springbank Drive along the Thames Valley Corridor to the lands to the south be considered; and,

vi)    address the existing sanitary capacity issues. The Brookdale pumping station needs to be upgraded to accommodate the proposed density of this development;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the staff presentation with respect to this matter;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendments meet the intent of the OMB Order to permit the development of a two tower residential development;

  •    the recommended amendments to modify the form of the development are considered appropriate and are consistent with the development framework currently approved;

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Urban Corridor Place Type and Key Directions;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-family, High Density Residential and Open Space designations;

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site at an important location in the Built Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of affordable housing units that will help in addressing the growing need for affordable housing in London. The recommended amendment is in alignment with the Housing Stability Action Plan 2019-2024 and Strategic Area of Focus 2: Create More Housing Stock.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (3.5) Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan (O-9299) (Relates to Bill No.’s 463, 464, 467, 469, and 470)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development and Interim Director, Economic Services and Supports, the following actions BE TAKEN with respect to the Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan (CIP):

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan to designate the Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan Project Area pursuant to Section 28 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 and as provided for under Section 14.2.2 of the 1989 Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to adopt the Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan;

c)    the proposed by-law amendment appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan by adding Section 14.2.2 ii) Dundas Street Corridor and Argyle Mall Area to the list of commercial areas eligible for community improvement under Section 14.2.2 ii), and adding the Dundas Street Corridor and Argyle Mall Area to Figure 14-1 to recognize the commercial areas eligible for community improvement;

d)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to establish eligibility for financial incentive programs in the Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Project Area; and,

e)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “E” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend the Official Plan, 2016, The London Plan Map 8 – Community Improvement Project Areas by ADDING the Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Project Area;

it being noted that funding for existing CIP incentive programs will expire no later than December 31, 2023, pending a Municipal Council review of the program results to be provided prior to the adoption of the 2024- 2027 Multi-Year Budget, therefore Staff is recommending that funding for any potential incentive programs or other financial requirements in the Argyle CIP be considered through the comprehensive review of funding levels for all CIPs prior to the next (2024-2027) Multi-Year Budget;

 

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received and reviewed the staff presentation with respect to these matters;

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

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

  •    based on the policy analysis demonstrated in this report, the Argyle Regeneration Study Recommendations and the community engagement over the past two years, community improvement in the Argyle Core Area is desirable because of age, dilapidation, unsuitability of buildings, deficiencies in infrastructure, as well as other environmental, social and community economic development reasons consistent with the Planning Act;

  •    the Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan combines the community’s vision for improvement with issues identified by staff into one comprehensive plan. Staff recommends that the Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan be adopted including the financial incentive guidelines, all pursuant to Section 28 of the Planning Act, Chapter 14 of the 1989 Official Plan and Our Tools Section of The London Plan. (2021-D19)

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (3.6) 1150 Fanshawe Park Road East (Site Plan Meeting) (SPA21-050)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning & Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Stackhouse Developments (London) Inc., relating to the property located at 1150 Fanshawe Park Road East:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application to facilitate the construction of the proposed residential development relating to the property located at 1150 Fanshawe Park Road East:

i)    lack of privacy with the apartments facing the backyards of the residences on Howlett Circle:

ii)    concern for the wildlife in the forested area of the subject property;

iii)    concern for the possible removal of mature Spruce trees, specifically trees 17 to 21, inclusive;

iv)    concern with the lighting from the proposed apartment building shining on neighbouring properties;

v)    concern with the storage of the garbage;

it being noted that the applicant addressed the concerns relating to the trees, lighting and garbage storage;

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports the Site Plan Application for the subject property;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the staff presentation with respect to these matters;

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

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (3.3) 755-785 Wonderland Road South (Westmount Mall) (Z-9356)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the application by McCOR Management Inc., relating to the property located at 755-785 Wonderland Road South (Westmount Mall) BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration for further consultation with the applicant with respect to the permitted uses in the zone and how the applicant’s request may be accommodated and to report back to a future public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee;

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

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication dated September 16, 2021, from P. Lombardi, Partner, Siskinds The Law Firm;

  •    a communication dated September 16, 2021, from S. Allen, Partner, MHBC Planning;

  •    a communication dated September 16, 2021, from B. Maly, Executive Director, Downtown London and A. McClenaghan, Chair, London Downtown Business Association;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

8.2.10   (4.1) 9th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

Motion made by P. Squire

That the 9th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, from its meeting held on September 8, 2021, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion made by P. Squire

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 9th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, from its meeting held on September 8, 2021:

a)    on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 8, 2021, related to a request for designation of the property located at 44 Bruce Street:

i)    notice BE GIVEN, under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property located at 44 Bruce Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix E of the above-noted staff report; and,

ii)    should no objections to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 44 Bruce Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix E of the above-noted staff report BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

it being noted that should an objection to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a subsequent staff report will be prepared;

it being further noted that should an appeal to the passage of the by-law be received, the City Clerk will refer the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal;

b)    on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the Anne Eadie Park Stage on the heritage listed property located at 900 King Street;

it being noted that the property located at 900 King Street should remain on the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources as it is believed to be of cultural heritage value or interest

c)    S. Wise, Senior Planner, BE ADVISED that, despite the changes that have been brought forward in the Notice of Planning Application, dated June 28, 2021, from S. Wise, Senior Planner, with respect to Revised Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, related to the properties located at 560 and 562 Wellington Street, the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, reiterates its comments from the meeting held on January 11, 2017 with respect to concerns about the following matters related to the compatibility of the proposed application with the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District Plan guidelines, Victoria Park and the adjacent properties:

i)    the height of the building;

ii)    the massing of the building;

iii)    the setbacks of the building;

iv)    the design of exterior facades; and,

v)    shadowing impacts onto adjacent heritage properties; and,

d)    clauses 1.1, 2.1 to 2.5, inclusive, 3.1, 4.4 and 5.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by P. Squire

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion as amended.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.3   14th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2021-09-27 PEC Report

Motion made by P. Squire

That the 14th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding item 5(4.1).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by P. Squire

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 995 Fanshawe Park Road West (Request for Extension of Draft Plan Approval) (39T-05512)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Landea Developments Inc., relating to the property located at 995 Fanshawe Park Road West, the Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to approve a three (3) year extension to Draft Plan Approval for the residential plan of subdivision File No. 39T-05512, SUBJECT TO the revised conditions contained in Schedule “A” 39T-05512 of the staff report dated September 27, 2021.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (3.1) 1235 Fanshawe Park Road West (39CD-21510)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Tyler Peers, on behalf of Calloway REIT (Fox Hollow) Inc., relating to the property located at 1235 Fanshawe Park Road West: 

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to the property located at 1235 Fanshawe Park Road West; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 1235 Fanshawe Park Road West;

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

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication dated September 15, 2021, from M. and R. Circelli; and,

  •    a communication from L. Mills, Chairperson, Fox Hollow Senior Apartments Tenants’ Association;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, there were no public submissions regarding these matters.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (3.2) 1938 and 1964 Commissioners Road East (39T-19501 / Z-9015) (Relates to Bill No.’s 465, 468 and 480)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Sifton Properties Limited relating to the properties located at 1938 and 1964 Commissioners Road East:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to lands located at 1938 and 1964 Commissioners Road East;

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of subdivision as submitted by Sifton Properties Limited, prepared by Archibald, Gray & McKay Ltd. (Plan No. 8-L-5276), certified by Jason Wilband O.L.S., dated November 25, 2020, as red-line amended, which shows a total of 12 single detached residential lots, 5 single detached residential blocks, 4 medium density residential blocks, 2 future development blocks, 7 park blocks, 1 open space block, 6 open space buffer blocks, 1 road widening block, and 1 reserve block, served by 2 new streets, SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in Appendix ‘A’ appended to the staff report dated September 27, 2021;

c)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 27, 2021 as Appendix ‘B’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend The London Plan by adding a Specific Policy for the Neighbourhood Place Type and to add a portion of the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas, of The London Plan;

d)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 27, 2021 as Appendix ‘C’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan for a portion of lands located at 1938 & 1964 Commissioners Road East by changing the designation on Schedule A – Land Use FROM Low Density Residential TO Multi-family, Medium Density Residential; and,

e)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 27, 2021 as Appendix ‘D’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in Parts c) and d) above), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM an Urban Reserve UR4, Open Space OS4, and holding Open Space (h-2-OS4) Zones TO a holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-h-100-R1-3(16)) Zone, a holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-h-100-R1-3()) Zone, a holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-R1-4(28)) Zone, a holding Residential R1/R4 Special Provision (h-h-100-R1-3(16)/R4-3()) Zone, a holding Residential R5/R6 Special Provision (h-h-54-h-71-h-100-R5-6(8)/R6-5(31)) Zone, a holding Residential R5/R6/R8 Special Provision (h-h-100-R5-5(  )/R6-5(  )/R8-3(  )) Zone, a holding Business District Commercial/ Office/Residential R8 Special Provision (h-h-54-h-100-h-128-BDC2(5)/OF5/R8-4(17)) Zone, an Open Space OS1 Zone, an Open Space OS1 Special Provision (OS1(3)) Zone, an Open Space OS5 Zone, and an Urban Reserve UR4 Special Provision (UR4(7) Zone;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the staff presentation with respect to these matters;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, there were no public submissions regarding these matters;

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

  •    the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, as it achieves objectives for efficient and resilient development and land use patterns. It represents development of low and medium density forms of housing, including single detached dwelling lots, townhouse and cluster forms of housing, and low-rise apartment buildings taking place within the City’s urban growth area and within an area for which an area plan has been approved to guide future community development. It also achieves objectives for promoting compact form, contributes to the neighbourhood mix of housing and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public service facilities, supports the use of public transit, and increases community connectivity;

  •    the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the in-force polices of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Our Strategy, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable London Plan policies;

  •    the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the policies of the (1989) Official Plan, including but not limited to the Low Density Residential, Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential, and Open Space designations; and,

  •    the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning represents Phase 6 of the Victoria on the River residential subdivision. In terms of use, form and intensity the proposed subdivision plan is considered appropriate and in keeping with The London Plan, 1989 Official Plan, and the the Old Victoria Area Plan polices and design guidelines.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (4.1) 2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West

Motion made by P. Squire

That, the following updated instructions be given to Civic Administration relating to the properties located at 2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West:

a)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to work with the Applicant to facilitate the necessary zoning by-law amendment(s) within the Kent Subdivision to allow for a new elementary school;

b)    notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, with respect to the application by Auburn Developments Inc., relating to the property located at 2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring back a proposed by-law to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM an Open Space designation TO a Low Density Residential and Environmental Review designation and to amend The London Plan to change the Place Type of the subject lands FROM a Green Space place type TO a Neighbourhoods place type and Environmental Review place type to be considered at a future public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee;

it being noted that the future development of the lands shall fully comply with the policies of the Neighbourhoods Place Type of The London Plan; and,

it being further noted that the costs of any temporary servicing required for these lands shall be at the full cost of the property owner;

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

  •    a communication dated September 8, 2021, from J. Pratt, Associate Director and Treasurer, Thames Valley District School Board;

  •    a communication dated September 20, 2021, from Deputy Mayor J. Morgan;

  •    a communication dated September 13, 2021, from J. Sousa, Brown Beattie O’Donovan;

  •    a communication dated September 23, 2021, from A. Clark, Co-Chair, Sir Arthur Currie Public School Council / President, Sir Arthur Currie Home & School;

  •    a communication from S. Trosow, by e-mail; and,

  •    a communication dated September 23, 2021 from A. DeActis, by e-mail.

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Turner

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the property located at 2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West:

a)    the request to rezone the property located at 2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration to work with the applicant, the Province and the Thames Valley District School Board to provide a detailed application, including location mapping, and to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee; and,

b)    the Thames Valley District School Board BE REQUESTED to attend the Planning and Environment Committee when the Civic Administration reports back on the above-noted matters.

Motion Failed (4 to 9)

Motion made by P. Squire

Motion to approve part a)

That, the following updated instructions be given to Civic Administration relating to the properties located at 2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West:

a)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to work with the Applicant to facilitate the necessary zoning by-law amendment(s) within the Kent Subdivision to allow for a new elementary school;

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by P. Squire

Motion to approve part b)

b)    notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, with respect to the application by Auburn Developments Inc., relating to the property located at 2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring back a proposed by-law to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM an Open Space designation TO a Low Density Residential and Environmental Review designation and to amend The London Plan to change the Place Type of the subject lands FROM a Green Space place type TO a Neighbourhoods place type and Environmental Review place type to be considered at a future public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee;

it being noted that the future development of the lands shall fully comply with the policies of the Neighbourhoods Place Type of The London Plan; and,

it being further noted that the costs of any temporary servicing required for these lands shall be at the full cost of the property owner;

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

  •    a communication dated September 8, 2021, from J. Pratt, Associate Director and Treasurer, Thames Valley District School Board;

  •    a communication dated September 20, 2021, from Deputy Mayor J. Morgan;

  •    a communication dated September 13, 2021, from J. Sousa, Brown Beattie O’Donovan;

  •    a communication dated September 23, 2021, from A. Clark, Co-Chair, Sir Arthur Currie Public School Council / President, Sir Arthur Currie Home & School;

  •    a communication from S. Trosow, by e-mail; and,

  •    a communication dated September 23, 2021 from A. DeActis, by e-mail.

Motion Passed (7 to 6)

8.4   13th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2021-09-21 CPSC Report

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 13th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding item 11(2.4) and 12(4.1).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Helmer

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 7th and 8th Reports of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 7th and 8th Reports of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, from the meetings held on August 5, 2021 and September 2, 2021, respectively, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) 7th Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 7th Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on August 26, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) 4th and 5th Reports of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 4th and 5th Reports of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee, from the meetings held on August 26, 2021 and September 13, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.5) Property Standards Related Demolition - 72 Wellington Street (Relates to Bill No. 456)

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the by-law, as appended to the staff report dated September 21, 2021, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021, to approve the demolition of an abandoned building at the municipal address of 72 Wellington Street, in the City of London; it being noted that property shall be cleared of all identified buildings, structures, debris and refuse and left in a graded and levelled condition in accordance with the City of London Property Standards By-law and Building Code Act. (2021-P10D)

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.6) mobilINSPECT By-law and Enforcement - A Mobile Application for Inspections by Partho Technologies Inc. (Relates to Bill No. 457)

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated September 21, 2021, with respect to mobilINSPECT By-law and Enforcement – A Mobile Application for Inspections by Partho Technologies Inc.:

a)    the price of $99,000 (HST extra), negotiated with Partho Technologies Inc., for the provision of mobiINSPECT By-law and Enforcement, BE ACCEPTED on a Single Source basis in accordance with sections 14.4 (d) and 14.4 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

c)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into a formal contract for this purchase;

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract, statement of work or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations; and,

e)    the by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021, to:

i)    approve the Statement of Work, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between The Corporation of the City of London and Partho Technologies Inc. for the purpose of using mobilINSPECT Enforce; and,

ii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development to execute the above-noted Statement of Work. (2021-P01)

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.7) Discrimination Experienced by Immigrants, Visible Minorities and Indigenous Peoples in London and Middlesex, An Empirical Study by the London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report, dated September 21, 2021, with respect to Discrimination Experienced by Immigrants, Visible Minorities and Indigenous Peoples in London and Middlesex, An Empirical Study by the London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership, BE RECEIVED. (2021-S15)

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (2.8) Update on London’s Newcomer Strategy: Choose London - Innovative, Vibrant and Global

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report dated September 21, 2021, with respect to an Update on London’s Newcomer Strategy: Choose London – Innovative, Vibrant and Global, BE RECEIVED. (2021-D01)

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (2.9) Housing Stability for All Plan - Mid-Year Update

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, and the Deputy City Manager Planning and Economic Development, the staff report dated September 21, 2021, with respect to a mid-year update on the Housing Stability for All Plan, BE RECEIVED. (2021-S11)

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (2.10) Single Source - Life Stabilization: Electronic Document Management (EDM) (Relates to Bill No. 458)

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated September 21, 2021, with respect to Electronic Document Management for Life Stabilization:

a)    a Change Order to the existing Single Source Master Services Agreement with Nimble Information Strategies Inc. (SS20-33) BE APPROVED as per Council Policy By-law No. A.-6151-17, Schedule C, Section 20.3, as amended, for a total funding amount of $342,930, plus applicable taxes, to digitize active Ontario Works files by December 31st, 2021;  

b)    proposed By-law, as appended to the staff report dated September 21, 2021, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021, to:

i)    approve the Change Order, as appended to the above-noted by-law, which amends the Master Services Agreement; and,

ii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, to execute the above noted Change Order;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to this matter. (2021-A10)

Motion Passed

8.4.13   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at September 13, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (2.4) Property Standards Matters (March 2021 Council Resolution)

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated September 21, 2021, related to Property Standards Matters (March 2021 Council Resolution):

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee on how a RentSafeLondon by-law enforcement program, modelled after the RentSafeTO program, could be implemented, including proposed fees for registration and building audits;

b)    the verbal delegations from S. Lawrence, D. Devine, J. Phoenix and N. Chiles, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED; and,

c)    the following items, as well as the above-noted staff report, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED:

  •    a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from S. Lawrence;

  •    a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from D. Devine;

  •    a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from J. Phoenix;

  •    a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from N. Chiles;

  •    a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from ACORN London; and,

  •    a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from J. Hoffer, Cohen Highley. (2021-P01)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by P. Squire

That part a) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee on an evaluation of a RentSafeLondon by-law enforcement program, modelled after the RentSafeTO program, including proposed fees for registration and building audits;

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by P. Squire

Seconded by M. Cassidy

Main motion as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Clause 2.4, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated September 21, 2021, related to Property Standards Matters (March 2021 Council Resolution):

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee on an evaluation of a RentSafeLondon by-law enforcement program, modelled after the RentSafeTO program, including proposed fees for registration and building audits;

b)    the verbal delegations from S. Lawrence, D. Devine, J. Phoenix and N. Chiles, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED; and,

c)    the following items, as well as the above-noted staff report, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED:

  •    a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from S. Lawrence;

  •    a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from D. Devine;

  •    a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from J. Phoenix;

  •    a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from N. Chiles;

  •    a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from ACORN London; and,

  •    a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from J. Hoffer, Cohen Highley. (2021-P01)

8.4.12   (4.1) Flyer Deliveries to Residential Properties

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated September 21, 2021, with respect to Flyer Deliveries to Residential Properties:

a)    the matter of flyer deliveries to residential properties BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee (CPSC) to provide an opportunity for further discussion of this matter; and,

b)    the delegation requests from A. Marchand, as appended to the Agenda, and D. Ronson, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE REFFERED to a future meeting of the CPSC;

it being noted that the following communications, with respect to this matter, were received:

  •    a communication, as appended to the Agenda, from A. Marchand;

  •    a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from D. Ronson;

  •    a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from the Viewer Discretion Legislation Coalition; and,

  •    a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from S. Trosow. (2021-S08/T07)

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by S. Lewis

That clause 4.1, BE AMENDED by adding the following new part c):

c)     that a public participation meeting BE HELD in conjunction with the above-noted report back;

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That clause 4.1, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Council recess at this time

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 6:38 PM, and reconvenes at 7:00 PM with all members in attendance excluding Councillors M. Salih and  A. Kayabaga.

8.5   15th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2021-09-20 CSC Report 15

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 15th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding item 11 (5.1).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.3) Proposed Amendment to Council Policy to Recognize National Day for Truth and Reconciliation (National Orange Shirt Day) - September 30th (Relates to Bill No.’s 459 and 460)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation (National Orange Shirt Day) – September 30th:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “A” being “A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-114-366, as amended, being “Flags at City Hall” Policy to provide for that on September 30th of each year the “Every Child Matters Flag” will be flown on the Community Flag Pole to recognize the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation (National Orange Shirt Day)”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021; and,

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “B” being “A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-127-379, as amended, being “Illumination of City of London Buildings and Amenities” Policy to provide for City of London buildings and amenities be lit orange on September 30th of each year to recognize National Day for Truth and Reconciliation (National Orange Shirt Day)”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.4) SS21-34 Single Source Corporate Technology (Relates to Bill No. 454)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Information Technology Services the following actions be taken, with respect to Corporate Technology Assets:

a)    approval hereby BE GIVEN to extend the existing Single Source contract, the Vendor of Record (VOR OSS-00466131), Province of Ontario Agreement (Schedule A) for a twelve (12) month term for Desktop Management Products and Services from CompuCom Canada Co., 1830 Matheson Boulevard, Unit, Mississauga, ON, Canada L4W 0B3 at a planned cost of $732,702.52 in 2022;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021:

i.    TO APPROVE the agreement with CompuCom Canada Co. (the “Supplier”) and The Corporation of the City of London (the “Buyer”) for the “Publicly Funded Organization Agreement” for Desktop Management Services and Products (DMSP-03); and

ii.    TO AUTHORIZE the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement;

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

d)    approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation negotiating the maintaining of satisfactory prices, terms and conditions with CompuCom Canada Co. to the satisfaction of both the City Treasurer and the Director, Information Technology Services; and,

e)    approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, agreement or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.5) Expropriation of Lands - Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road Improvements Project (Relates to Bill No. 471)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Transportation and Mobility, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, approval BE GIVEN to the expropriation of land as may be required for the Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road improvements project, and that the following actions be taken in connection therewith:

a)    application be made by The Corporation of the City of London as Expropriating Authority to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as approving authority for the approval to expropriate the land required for the Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road improvements project;

b)    The Corporation of the City of London serve and publish notice of the above application in accordance with the terms of the Expropriations Act;

c)    The Corporation of the City of London forward to the Chief Inquiry Officer any requests for a hearing that may be received and report such to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London for its information; and,

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Schedule “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to authorize the foregoing and direct the Civic Administration to carry out all necessary administrative actions.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.6) Appointments and Updates to the Joint Venture Management Committee for the 4-Pad Arena Complex and to the Western Fair Lease Oversight Committee (Relates to Bill No.’s 453 and 455)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to organizational structure changes:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to approve the appointment of the City’s representatives to the Joint Venture Management Committee for the 4-Pad Arena Complex located on Western Fair Association (WFA) lands; and,

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to approve the appointment of City of London representatives to the Lease Oversight Committee under the ground lease between The Corporation of the City of London and the Western Fair Association.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (2.7) Investment Holdings Notification

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the staff report dated September 20, 2021 regarding Investment Holdings Notification report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (2.1) 2021 Mid-Year Operating Budget Monitoring Report

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2021 Mid-Year Operating Budget Monitoring Report:

a)    the 2021 Operating Budget Mid-Year Monitoring Report for the Property Tax Supported Budget, Water Budget, and Wastewater and Treatment Budget BE RECEIVED for information: it being noted that the year-end positions could fluctuate based on factors beyond the control of the Civic Administration:

i)    Property Tax Supported Budget projected surplus of $11.2 million prior to the Reserve Fund contribution listed in part b), below;

ii)    Water Rate Supported Budget projected surplus of $3.3 million prior to the Reserve contribution listed in part c), below; and,

iii)    Wastewater and Treatment Rate Supported Budget projected surplus of $3.5 million prior to the Reserve contribution listed in part c), below;

b)    notwithstanding the Council approved Surplus/Deficit Policy, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to allocate up to $10 million of the Property Tax Supported Budget Surplus to the New Affordable Housing Reserve Fund to support future affordable housing initiatives, noting that any remaining surplus will be allocated in accordance with the Surplus/Deficit Policy;

c)    the contribution of year-end Water and Wastewater and Treatment Rate Supported Budget surplus to the applicable Contingency Reserve up to the respective contingency target in accordance with the Council approved Surplus/Deficit Policy BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the projected contributions to achieve each contingency target are as follows:

i)    $1.7 million to the Water Budget Contingency Reserve;

ii)    $2.3 million to the Wastewater and Treatment Budget Contingency Reserve;

d)    the remaining Water and Wastewater and Treatment Rate Supported Budget surplus BE ALLOCATED in accordance with the Surplus/Deficit Policy; and

e)    the presentation providing an overview of 2021 Mid-Year Budget Monitoring (as appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix C) BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated September 16, 2021 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (2.2) 2021 Mid-Year Capital Budget Monitoring Report

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2021 Mid-Year Capital Budget Monitoring Report:

a)    the 2021 Mid-Year Capital Budget Monitoring Report BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the life-to-date capital budget represents $2.36 billion with $1.48 billion committed and $0.89 billion uncommitted; it being further noted that the City Treasurer, or designate, will undertake the housekeeping budget adjustments identified in the Report, in accordance with the Multi-Year Budget Policy adopted by amending by-law No. CPOL.-45(b)-239;

b)    the status updates of active 2018 life-to-date capital budgets (2018 and prior) having no future budget requests, as appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “B”, BE RECEIVED for information;

c)    the following actions be taken with respect to the completed capital projects identified in Appendix “C”, as appended to the above-noted staff report, which have a total of $2.5 million of net surplus funding:

i)     the capital projects included in Appendix “C” BE CLOSED;

ii)    the following actions be taken with respect to the funding associated with the capital projects approved for closure in c) i), above:

Rate Supported

A)    pay-as-you-go funding of $247 thousand BE TRANSFERRED to capital receipts;

B)    authorized debt financing of $44 thousand BE RELEASED resulting in a reduction of authorized, but unissued debt;

C)    uncommitted reserve fund drawdowns of $1.4 million BE RELEASED back into the reserve funds which originally funded the projects;

Non-Rate Supported

D)    uncommitted reserve fund drawdowns of $832 thousand BE RELEASED back into the reserve funds which originally funded the projects.

Motion Passed

8.5.9   (4.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Economic Abuse Awareness Day

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That based on the application dated August 23, 2021 from Canadian Centre for Women’s Empowerment, November 26, 2021 BE PROCLAIMED as Economic Abuse Awareness Day.

Motion Passed

8.5.10   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Light the Night Day for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society of Canada

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That based on the application dated August 27, 2021 from the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society of Canada, October 23, 2021 BE PROCLAIMED as Light the Night Day for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society of Canada.

Motion Passed

8.5.11   (5.1) Members of Council Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Policy (Relates to Bill No. 461)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “A” being “A by-law to adopt “Members of Council Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Policy”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on October 5, 2021;

it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated September 16, 2021 from B. Gauld with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by M. van Holst

That the “Members of Council Proof of Vaccination” Policy BE REFFERED back to staff for renaming and removal of the requirements for proof of vaccination.

No seconder

8.6   16th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2021-09-27 CSC Report 16

That the 16th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

8.6.2   (2.1) Declaration of Vacancy - Office of Councillor, Ward 13

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That clause 1 BE APPROVED, and

2.     That the following actions be taken with respect to the Office of Councillor, Ward 13:

b)    the report dated September 27, 2021 entitled “Declaration of Vacancy – Office of Councillor, Ward 13” BE RECEIVED; 

it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated September 23, 2021 with respect to the resignation of Ward 13 Councillor, Arielle Kayabaga.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by E. Peloza

That in accordance with section 262 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, the Office of Ward 13 BE DECLARED vacant.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.7   13th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2021-09-28 SPPC Report 13

Motion made by J. Morgan

That items 1 and 2 (2.1) of the 13th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.7.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.7.2   (2.1) Appointment of Councillor E. Peloza to the Brescia University CollegeHousing and Gender-Based Violence Project 2021

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the communication dated August 16, 2021 from Councillor E. Peloza, with respect to her appointment to the Brescia University College Housing and Gender-Based Violence Project 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.7.4   (5.1) Deferral of Incentive Loan Repayments and Forgiving Interest-Free Loan to London Community Players

At 8:01 PM, his Worship the Mayor places Councillor P. Squire in the Chair.

At 8:04 PM, his Worship the Mayor resumes the Chair.

That the following actions be taken with respect to the deferral of incentive loan repayments and forgiving interest-free loan to the London Community Players:

a)  the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to further extend the deferral period, on Community Improvement Plan loan repayments, on an interest-free basis for a further period of 180 days, being October 2021 to March 2022, where the applicant has requested a further deferral in writing; it being noted that the April 2022 loan repayments will be cashed as planned; and,

b)  the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to forgive the remaining balance of the interest-free loan to the London Community Players, in the amount of $78,749.83.

Motion made by J. Morgan

Motion to approve part a)

That the following actions be taken with respect to the deferral of incentive loan repayments and forgiving interest-free loan to the London Community Players:

a)  the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to further extend the deferral period, on Community Improvement Plan loan repayments, on an interest-free basis for a further period of 180 days, being October 2021 to March 2022, where the applicant has requested a further deferral in writing; it being noted that the April 2022 loan repayments will be cashed as planned; and,

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Motion to approve part b)

b)  the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to forgive the remaining balance of the interest-free loan to the London Community Players, in the amount of $78,749.83.

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That part b) BE REFERRED to the 2023 Budget update budgetary process, when London Community Players can present a business case for forgiveness of the Interest Free Loan from the city.

withdrawn

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by M. van Holst

That consideration of part b) BE REFERRED to the 2022 Budget update, when London Community Players can present a business case for forgiveness of the Interest Free Loan from the city.

Motion Failed (6 to 7)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by S. Lehman

That consideration of part b) BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the appropriate standing committee for consideration.

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion Passed (10 to 3)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by J. Helmer

Motion to approve the referral, as amended.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That reconsideration of the amendment to the referral BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.8   3rd Report of the Audit Committee

2021-09-22 Audit Report 3

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 3rd Report of the Audit Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.8.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Helmer

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.8.2   (4.1) 2020 Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area Board of Management Audited Financial Statements

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the staff report dated September 22, 2021 along with Appendix ‘A’ Financial Statements of Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area Board of Management for the year ending December 31, 2020 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.8.3   (4.2) Observation Summary as at September 10, 2021

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the communication from Deloitte, regarding the Observation Summary as at September 10, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.8.4   (4.3) Internal Audit Dashboard as at September 10, 2021

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the communication from Deloitte, regarding the internal audit dashboard as at September 10, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.8.5   (4.4) Internal Audit Summary Update

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the communication dated September 22, 2021, from Deloitte, with respect to the internal audit summary update, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No’.s 452 to 480, excluding Bill No. 461, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Second Reading of Bill No’.s 452 to 480, excluding Bill No. 461, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No’.s 452 to 480, excluding Bill No. 461, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 461, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by S. Turner

That Second Reading of Bill No. 461, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 461, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Introduction and First Reading of the Added Bill No.’s 481 and 482, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Second Reading of the Bill No. Added Bill No.’s 481 and 482, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Turner

That Third Reading and Enactment of the Bill No. Added Bill No.’s 481 and 482, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 483, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 483, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 483, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

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

4.1    Personal Matters / Identifiable Individual

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2022 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.1/13/PEC)

4.2    Personal Matters / Identifiable Individual

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2022 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.2/13/PEC)

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

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to an appeal at the Local Planning Tribunal (“LPAT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.3/13/PEC)

4.4    Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, regarding flyer deliveries to residential properties. (6.1/13/CPSC)

4.5    Personal Matters / Identifiable Individuals

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2022 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List.  (6.2/13/CPSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the 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. (6.1/15/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the 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. (6.2/15/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the 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. (6.3/15/CSC)

4.9    Confidential Trade Secret or Scientific, Technical, Commercial, Financial or Labour Relations Information, Supplied to the City / Personal Matters/Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to the security of the property of the Corporation as it contains commercial and financial information supplied in confidence to the Corporation, the disclosure of which could be reasonably expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons or organization, result in similar information no longer being supplied to the Corporation where it in the public interest that similar information continue to be so supplied and result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee or financial institution or agency and matters related to the personal information about identifiable individuals, including municipal or local board employees related to the potential provision of internal audit services for the City of London, by an external organization. (6.1/3/AC)

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8:38 PM - 8:51 PM.

9.   Added Reports

9.1   13th Report of Council in Closed Session

Released in Public for 2021-10-05 Minutes

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Morgan

1    Amending Agreement to Option Agreement – Bosco and Roxy’s Inc. – Innovation Park, Phase III

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the recent industrial land sale to Bosco and Roxy’s, under the corporate name 2431712 Ontario Inc., which lands are legally described as Part of Block 2 Plan 33M-627, and further shown as Parts 1 and 3, Plan 33-21017 and whereas pursuant to the terms of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, a subsequent City Option Agreement (the “Option Agreement”) dated August 4, 2021 was registered on title (attached as Appendix “A”, and in accordance with the City’s Industrial Land Disposition Policy (the “Policy”) attached as Appendix “B”, the Option Agreement Amendment (the “Amending Option Agreement”) attached as Appendix “C”, submitted by 2431712 Ontario Inc. to amend terms of the original Option Agreement to satisfy 2431712 Ontario Inc.’s lender BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement.

  1.    Industrial Land Sale – Option Agreement Amendment – Arvin Sango Canada Inc. – Innovation Park, Phase III

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City owned industrial land located in Innovation Park, Phase III, containing an area of approximately 10.29 acres, more or less, more specifically described as the northerly 10.29 acres, more or less, of Part 1 of Plan 33R-18098, in the City of London, County of Middlesex Part 1, Plan 33R-18098, as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Option Agreement Amendment (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by Arvin Sango Canada Inc. (the “Purchaser”) to purchase 10.29 acres of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $723,000.00 reflecting a sale price of $70,000.00 per acre BE ACCEPTED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Squire

  1.    Property Acquisition – 259 Wellington Road – Wellington Gateway Project     

    

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 259 Wellington Road, further described as Part of Lot 64, Plan 452 (4th), designated as Parts 1 and 2, Plan 33R-4765, being all of PIN 08364-0091 (LT), containing an area of approximately 3,788.89 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by Michael Gregory Maguire (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $624,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and,

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

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Squire

Seconded by S. Turner

9:07 PM

Motion Passed

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 (4 hours, 59 minutes)

[5:33] Sarah, can we just do a sound check please? I’ll ask colleagues for screens on please. Colleagues and to the public, welcome to the 13th meeting of city council.

[9:29] This is a virtual meeting held during the COVID-19 emergency. We would invite watchers and viewers to check the city’s website for current details of COVID-19 service impacts. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425.

[10:06] Colleagues, I know there will be some disclosures at standing committee meetings, but I’ll look for any other disclosures between your interest. I see none and that will move us, if I might colleagues to recognitions and acknowledgments of which there are two, I’ll just ask you to bear with me as Councillor Squire and I take a walk together down memory lane. Colleagues and ladies and gentlemen, it is my delight on behalf of colleagues at city council and Londoners for all that matter to express our delight that we’re joined today by the co-owners of the London Majors, Scott Dart and Rube Chandradad.

[11:25] My apologies, their proper titles, as of last Friday night, are co-owners of the 2021 Inter-County Baseball League Champion, London Majors. We celebrate with and publicly recognize the entire team and as soon as everyone’s schedule allows, we will bring the team together, but given the historic and thrilling nature of what the Majors achieved, we thought it appropriate for council to recognize your achievement at the earliest opportunity. Scott, Rube, you two know better than anyone, how difficult it is to build a team capable of winning a championship.

[12:00] Some years you’re close, other years you’re even closer, but the bounces just don’t go your way. I was thinking bounces like basketball and all, but apparently bounces can apply to a variety of situations. But this year, this year was different. This year it all came together and it came together thanks to your leadership, your perseverance and your resiliency, your players and your coaching staff reflected that on the dime in each and every day. And even more importantly, that was reflected in our community. You gave us reason to cheer and reason to celebrate and reason to honor London.

[12:34] You also provided Londoners with much needed hope that our favorite past times and traditions were still possible. Starting with a return to live sporting events, when I attended back in early July to over 3000 fans celebrating a championship with you and the bats and London’s team at the world famous Lebat Park on Friday night. In fact, one of your biggest fans, a long time major seasons to get older, is our council colleague Phil Squire. I know would like to say a few words as well. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.

[13:08] Thank you for letting me speak today. It’s truly an honor to speak about the London majors today. The London majors have been around since 1925. They’ll be celebrating, I think, their 100th anniversary obviously in a few years. And they’ve had various names through the years. One of my favorite names, they were called the London Winery for a little while, which I thought was an interesting name for a baseball team. But I think it’s important, at least from the point of view, of Londoners to recognize how much this team is intertwined with our history and the way things happen in London.

[13:44] The London majors have been there through it all. They’ve been there through a world war. They’ve been there through our youth. And for some of us, they’ve been with us when we’ve had children. And I know that that means a lot to Londoners and it will continue to mean a lot as we move forward. You do this for the best of reasons. You do it because you love what you’re doing. I know it’s not for the money. I know the hours that you put in. Every time I go to a majors game, Scott is at the door, so to speak, welcoming people to London majors game.

[14:17] And of course, Rup is down on the field managing. For that, I think Londoners owe you a debt of gratitude. You’ve been there through the years. The streak with regard to Lebatt’s park is to a great extent in existence because of the London majors. So I thank you for that. And now to the championship itself, I was able to attend the championship game. What an electric atmosphere. My only complaint is that the beer line for the evening went right out of the stadium onto the road. And I’m sure you could have made even more money if we had another beer outlet.

[14:50] But I think the only time I felt the way I felt at that game was in 2005 when I was at the London Knights game and they won their championship their Memorial Cup. And on that occasion, I was sitting there with my son, nine years old at the time, and it was an experience I’ll never forget. And I just thank for so many Londoners who were there with their children last Friday night, including myself, who was then there with his 25-year-old son. It was an occasion to remember. And it was electric and it’s something we’ll never forget. So you’re part of the history of London, but you’re true Londoners.

[15:27] And for the players on your team and all of the volunteers, the players who come from far away to play on this team and provide us what they do in the summer, thank you and congratulations. Thank you, Phil. So now what we’d like to do is invite Scott Rupp forward. We’re going to present them with a certificate from the City of London. So please gentlemen, come forward to the center aisle here. And the certificate says that on behalf of the City of London, we extend sincere congratulations to the London majors in recognition of your resilience, perseverance, and the 2021 Inter-County Baseball League Championship.

[16:11] Did it October 5th, 2021 here at City Council. Congratulations to you, sir. Thank you. Scott. - Thank you. Congratulations, Bravo. So please take that. And I would certainly invite the members of Council who are in attendance here to come forward for a picture as well. Please join us. I’d like to call on Councillor Hummer, please.

[18:36] Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. On a more somber note, I want to acknowledge that we tragically lost the toddler here in Aldi’s village on Saturday. And I want to say to the family that your community is mourning with you. If the child’s taken far too soon, I want to say to the first responders, the paramedics who tried to save the child’s life, the police who responded, and are now investigating along with the coroner the circumstances of the death.

[19:15] Thank you so much for your service. It’s difficult work that you do and never more difficult in a situation like this. I think it’s appropriate colleagues if we just have a brief moment of silence just to recognize the loss and the tragedy that happened on Saturday. Thanks, thank you, Councillor Hummer.

[20:27] Colleagues, I have to take us back to number one. As much as some may disclose at a certain standing committee point in the agenda, what we normally do is ask for any disclosures currently of any pecuniary interest. And if so, would you please declare. Councillor Squar? Yes, I have a cuniary interest on a planning matter. I’ll just have to, it’s 755 to 785, Wonder Land Roads, South and the Vice Chair will deal with that matter when it comes up.

[21:06] And that’s on the 13th report of the Planning Environment Committee. I’m a tenant of the particular building in question, so I’m out of abundance of caution declaring a conflict. Thank you, any other declarations? I see none. Colleagues, there are no confidential matters to be considered in public. And as we do, I like to change the order of motion in item four, so that we move our closed session in 13th report of council to after stage 13 bylaws. If that’ll look for a mover, please. Councillor van Merberg and seconded by Councillor Lewis.

[21:38] We’ll call the vote. Oh, yeah, your worship clause in the vote. Motion carries 12 to two.

[22:30] Sorry, 12 to zero. So colleagues, we have two of our Councillors, missing Councillor Silly, Councillor Hillier, and as we know, Councillor Kabaga is now our member of Parliament Elect. If either Councillor Silly or Councillor Hillier come into the meeting, I will advise accordingly. I’ll turn your attention out. Item five, I’ll require motion to move the minutes from the September 14th meeting.

[23:05] Moved by Councillor Halmer, seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Close on the vote.

[23:52] Motion carries 12 to zero. Number of communications in front of you. In a moment, I will look for a motion to move them to the appropriate committees to which they belong. And in that regard, we have communications regarding 7.55, 7.85 Wonderland Road, the Argyle Corps Area Community Improvement Plan, 2631 Hyde Park Road, and 1521 Sunnydale Road West, property standards, matters, consideration appointment to the London Transit Commission.

[24:26] So for that, I will look for a motion to move them appropriately. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, we’ll call the vote. Close in the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. Motion is moved.

[25:00] So that moves us right into our reports. So for the 12th report of the Civic Works Committee, we’ll call on Councillor Palazzo, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I have not been given notice by any colleagues of anything they’d like to pull, unless you have. So let’s ask, does anyone wish to have any item voted separately? I see none, Councillor Palazzo. Thank you, Your Worship, as all votes were unanimous at committee. We did have a good discussion as there was some EA and water quality reports within this. The one that would be a change to residents is regards to the municipal waste and resource collection.

[25:41] The by-law tonight of Council approves it, would no longer allow toilets to be at the curb without a box. This is due to some safety concerns for staff that the by-law would now require residents to put them into a box, market, sharps and leave it at their curb. Or residents can now bring ceramics to the Enviro Depot for separate waste repurposing to help with the city’s 60% waste diversion action plan. So I will put all the items on the floor. Thank you. Thank you.

[26:12] Any comments or questions from colleagues? Councillor Turner. Thank you, Worship, through you. And thanks to the chair for identifying that piece on the toilet diversion. That actually was a pretty important piece and a discussion that we had fairly robustly at committee. I’d ask staff if we now have the capacity to recycle and we don’t want these in landfill, why are we continuing to pick them up on the curb and why wouldn’t we just move straight to a by-law that prohibits pick up at the curb?

[26:48] The answer was to provide us some opportunity to take a look at what the impacts of this program are, to see what its uptake is, to see what our markets are for the recycled product and to investigate further restrictions of bulk items at the curb. And I think that’s probably a pretty wise path. I can be a little impatient at times and I’d certainly like us to start diverting as much as we can from landfill as soon as we can. And this is no exception, but I think the answer was well considered. But when we get to the point in time, when we consider excluding these items from landfill, I really hope my colleagues will take that action.

[27:31] Toilets, especially ceramics are bulky, they’re heavy. They take up a significant amount of space in landfill and they can be recycled. So we should be doing everything we can to keep them out of landfill and we should do that as soon as we can. Thanks. Thank you. Any other comments? Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote.

[28:14] Motion carries 12 to zero. And thank you, Councillor Close, anything else? Yeah, no, thank you. That concludes the 12th report of the Civic Works Committee. Thanks very much. Now for the 13th report of the Planning Environment Committee Councillor Squire, please. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Item number six, 3.3 will have to be pulled ‘cause I have a conflict and we’ll have to recuse myself. I’ve not received information on any other matters to be pulled, but perhaps one of my colleagues do wish matters pulled. Bear with me a second. I see Councillor Squire.

[28:46] Item number 10, I understand, has to be pulled because there’s an amendment. Thank you. So noted, does anyone wish any other item to be voted separately? Councillor Squire. If I could just turn the chair over to Councillor Hopkins to deal with item six. Yes, she can, but we’re gonna deal with items firstly, one through five and I think seven through nine. I’ll put the rest of those items on the floor to move those, sorry, yeah. That’s it.

[29:18] Comments or questions about one through five, seven through nine, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I will be very brief. Item number eight is the Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan. It’s been a long time coming to develop a CIP for the Argyle area, but there’s lots of excitement. There’s been lots of engagement with both the Community Association and the Business Association as well as residents. So I’m very glad that we are at the final stage of passing this tonight.

[29:54] And then we will look forward to developing the budget plan in the months to come. Thank you. Any other comments? Councillor Turner. Thank you, Your Worship. I’d like to thank the committee for passing the amendment to item 3.4, which was 2.15 to 2.72 spring bank drive. It’s an apartment building that’ll be adjacent to the COVID so environmentally significant area on spring bank drive, the consideration in this. Ultimately, the committee didn’t have much latitude to make many decisions on this file. This was the one that came through the Ontario Municipal Board.

[30:28] And there were very, very minor changes being sought according to the decision from the OMB. And those were really not ones that Council should be too concerned about. However, the fact that this building is directly adjacent to the ESA and likely in the inflate path direction between the COVID’s ESA and the Thames River watershed, it’s important that bird friendly policies are adapted and employed in this construction. We had some delegations that identified what some of those mitigative measures could be.

[31:03] And those should be incorporated through the site plan process. So thanks again to the committee for putting those in there. I think it will make a big difference. And I look forward to staff completing the bird friendly policies for all buildings as we move forward from here. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m speaking on item number nine, which is 1150 Fanshawe Park Road East. Zoning for this or rezoning for this project was approved earlier. And this was a public site plan meeting. And there were a number of people at that meeting that lived nearby that had concerns about the development and of course increased traffic and things like that.

[31:43] So I have a question for staff. What, so this is right near the corner of Stackhouse Drive and Fanshawe Park Road. And Stackhouse Drive is, or Stackhouse Avenue has not been fully brought up to municipal standards yet for as a municipal road. So there are no sidewalks. There is very little if any street lighting on there. And also there are residents that have concerns about that intersection with Fanshawe. And the fact that there isn’t a traffic light yet. So when I spoke at the planning committee, I did mention to the residents that there is a lot of development that is planned in that area on the east side of Stackhouse Avenue.

[32:25] A big subdivision is planned in there. So it’s my understanding that some of these road improvements, if not all or most of these road improvements will take place once that subdivision is developed. But I wonder if I could ask through you to staff if any upgrades to Stackhouse Avenue will be completed as part of this development. Will there be sidewalks going in? Will there be street lighting? And will there be traffic signals installed at the intersection? And if staff could give me some idea of timelines on those things, thank you.

[32:59] Well, let’s ask Mr. Crossville’s junior team. I think I might have to ask some assistance with from a great bird on this one thing. Good, Mr. Red. Thank you. Through your worship, certainly through the site plan, we’re gonna address some of those matters. I can’t speak to the signalization, but the sidewalks, the frontage improvements associated with the site plan are generally part of the site plan considerations as this goes forward, but I can certainly pass those concerns on.

[33:35] But as I said, with respect to the signalization at the intersection that I wouldn’t be triggered. I don’t believe by this. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. Sorry, I muted myself instead of unmuting. Thank you, your worship’s for you. I wonder if perhaps Ms. Share might have any information on the traffic signals at that area, at that location. My sure. Thank you, Your Worship. I don’t have the exact plans as to when those would go in. They do go in as traffic volumes meet warrants. They currently at this point would not be warranted.

[34:08] They’re not as far as I am aware on this year, next year’s program will certainly reevaluate as the area builds out. But we don’t generally speaking with traffic. Sorry about that, Ian, in advance of the development but as one tremendous development. I think Oscar, the dog complies and agrees. Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. I appreciate that response. And I think Charlie is offended that you called him Oscar. So noted, sorry, Charlie. I have Councillor Hopkins next, please. Yes, thank you, Your Worship.

[34:44] And I just have a quick comment on number six, which is the, or number seven, which is the Spring Bank Drive application for development of these units going in. And I appreciate the word Councillor’s comments about the bird friendly need for doing more when we do these high rises, especially around these sensitive areas. I do want to just pass on to staff through you, Your Worship. My thanks to staff for getting back to us.

[35:21] There were a number of outstanding questions. This was a lengthy file. And I just want to pass on my thanks for getting the answers that were asked at committee. Thank you. Before we go to the vote then, I should advise colleagues, Councillor Hill, yours is return to the meeting. Welcome back. With that, any other comments with respect to one through five, seven through nine? I see none, we’ll call the vote. Close in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.

[36:17] Thank you. And I believe that Councillor Square, you’re turning item six over to Councillor Hopkins. That’s correct. Go ahead, please, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you Your Worship. I would like to put number six, which is 3.3, 755 to 785 Wonderland Road South. This is West Mount Mall. This was a recommendation for a refusal that came from staff regarding the increase in the business uses. And the committee had a long conversation and we have referred this back to civic administration for further consultation with the applicant with respect to the permitted uses, along with a public participation meeting coming back to us too.

[36:59] So with that, we’ll put that on the floor. Thank you. I appreciate that explanation. Comments or questions with respect to item six? Councillor Hummer. Thank you through Garret. I wonder if staff could give us a sense of where the application is in terms of the timeline for making a decision. We’re past that point already or getting close to it. Mr. Cotsfish, again, you and your team.

[37:34] We’ll get you the specific date. I believe Mr. Berke can look that up, but the applicant themselves asked the committee to refer this back to staff as well for a conversation. So it was a, I guess it was upon the request that we were looking at the referral back, but possibly Mr. Berke can give us the exact date for the appeal. Mr. Berke. Through your worship, I’m just looking looking for that date right now.

[38:12] Councillor Oliver, do you have a other question while they’re checking for that date? Sure, thank you. Is it the specific nature of the uses that’s going to be discussed if the referral goes through or is it the size of the proposed use? I just want to get a sense of what really is going to change the refusal explanation of the staff report was pretty clear to me, and I want to make sure that there’s a result prospect of something different coming back if we were to refer it.

[38:48] Mr. Berke, are you going to multitask both those points, the first and second questions? Your worship, I can answer the second one a lot easier than the answer the first, because I’ve not been able to find that date. So I’ll try to deal with the second question first, but I think as Mr. Cotsfish noted, this referrals at the request of the applicant. So, but I’m still searching for that date. With respect to discussions, I believe that the referral could result in some further action coming forward.

[39:22] There’s discussion around it’s a policy issue related to the difference between policy and zoning. The official plan policy is both the 89 plan and the London plan have very specific policies related to office development outside the core of the amount of office development. The issue in this particular application lies in definitions. So the requested use does not align with a zoning definition of an office use for the call center type use.

[39:55] That’s listed not as an office type use, but as a business service establishment. The policy review of this application indicated that in fact it was an office type use. And so that’s where the disconnect arose. Now withstanding that disconnect, the policies of both the London plan and the 1989 plan also speak though to appropriate adaptive reuse of these malls as they reposition themselves on the go forward.

[40:28] And it’s within that context that we’re looking forward to having the conversation with the applicant. There’s certainly other opportunities within that site that would be appropriate and other uses that could be considered. There’s a broad range of uses that are permitted under both the 89 plan and the London plan within these types of uses. And it’s that conversation that we’re hoping would bring some resolution forward for the consideration. Councillor Hummer. Thanks very much.

[41:00] And just even a general sense of where we are at the timeline would be great. It’s not to be super precise. Mr. Berwick can give us a broad sense. Sorry, looking for the mute button again. Sorry, through your worship. My sense is that this is probably pretty close to the end because there has been some discussion going back and forth. So my sense is we’re probably pretty close to the end of the opportunity to appeal for a lack of decision. But again, there has been a request made by the applicant to refer this matter for ongoing discussion.

[41:40] Councillor Hummer. Thank you. Thank you, any other comments? Oh, sorry, I’ve got, excuse me. I’ve got Councillor Hill here, please, go ahead. Yes, regarding your adapted uses. Do they have the same value as the proposed of the vendor? I’m just curious, what is the value with the, what you’re going to pose to them back? ‘Cause they know how much they’re going to get to this proposal going forth. Do you value this higher or lower? I’m mindful, I don’t normally interrupt a staff answer.

[42:15] I think that might be a function of the referral but Mr. Berwick, do you want to go ahead, please? Thank you, Chair Worship. The value is not part of the discussion. The discussion is part of, it will be around the uses and the appropriate uses that would be, that could be considered within that area as the property redevelops. Councillor Hill here. I’m, obviously, you know, I’m concerned. The value is what they’re concerned with most of all. So we’re, we’re putting two things different from center. They want one, we want something else.

[42:51] So we’re going to have to find a happy medium in here and save our downtown at the same time. I’m just don’t know how we do this. Again, I don’t want to presume staff but Mr. Berwick, that might well be part of the referral process as requested by the applicant, but do you wish to respond? No, Your Worship, I think you’ve got it. Thank you. Councillor, are there anything else there? Thank you. Councillor Vanholz, please. Yes, thank you, Your Worship and through you to staff. If we were to look at revisiting the policy about office spaces outside of the, of the downtown, what would that look like?

[43:30] I can see there’s certainly arguments from, you know, climate change perspective from a commuting perspective, from traffic congestion, being able to work close to where you live has advantages not only to the person who works and lives there but to the city at large. So I wonder if that could be revisited now that we’ve got lots of residences being built downtown and there’s gonna be a demand for places to work there as well.

[44:07] I’m mindful I’m trying to have this specific to the issues of 755, 785, but Mr. Berwick, do you want to give that a try? Thank you, Your Worship and that was the context that I was going to use in my response to the Councillor. This is specific to this property. An examination of the downtown and suburban office market is a much larger exercise and certainly well beyond the nature of the referral back on this application but it’s certainly something that we are mindful of. Thank you, Councillor Pietrangelo.

[44:40] Thank you, that’s fine for now. I see no other questions. Therefore on item six, we will call the question. Sir Helmer. The voting buttons are not coming up.

[45:25] See if I can fix that in the meantime. I vote no to the referral. As in the vote, motion carries 11 to one with one recuse. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Square. On item number 10, the report of the London Advisory Committee, we were asked through approved the entire report and we were not prepared to do that but I understand there are some items with regard to designation and must be approved by Council so I understand there’s a amendment to do that.

[46:03] So I assume we’ll have to move the amendment and then the motion. So is the amendment? We’ll look to the clerk to confirm if the amendment’s clerk. Councillor Hopkins, you’re seconding, I think. Yes, thank you. We have a mover and a seconder. Comments or questions on the amendment? And excuse me, and for the benefit of all that the amendment component is there and it is an e-scribe.

[46:43] I see no comments or questions. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.

[47:32] Councillor Square. And then I’m assuming we have to move the motion as amended and I’ll move that. Seconded by Councillor Hopkins, thank you. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. As we carry on out with the 14 to report planning environment, Councillor Square again, please.

[48:11] I know that item 5, 4.1 will be pulled. I’m not aware of any other matters, so I’m prepared to put the balance of matters on the floor. Is it? Someone wishes one pull. All right, thank you. Does anyone wish to have any of the other items one through four voted on separately? Councillor Square. Just call the vote on those matters. Comments or questions on one through four? Seeing none, we’ll call the question.

[49:19] Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Councillor Square. To move the committee decision, I was in the majority on item 4.1, which is 2631 Hyde Park Road. And 15, 21, San Diego Roadvast to get the matter on the floor. And then if there’s a second discussion, then take us. All right, I’ll put it on the floor then. Thank you, comments or questions? I have Councillor Hopkins first. Yes, thank you, Your Worship.

[49:54] This was a good conversation that we had at planning committee on an item that we received from the, a letter from the board along with Deputy Mayor Morgan’s direction, and I had a number of concerns. And I did propose a referral, given that there’s a lot of information that we have not received to make this decision. And I would like to propose a referral to civic administration to work with the applicant in the province and the school board to provide a detailed application as to their proposal before we make any changes to our official plan, as well as asking the board to attend that meeting when the report comes forward.

[50:48] For questions to the board reasons why we should be doing this. This is a referral, I’ll put it on the floor. Okay, good, yep. And you can speak to the referral, please, Councillor Hopkins, if you have a seconder. Councillor Turner, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Turner, seconding. Comments, questions? Councillor Hopkins, do you want to now? Sorry, I didn’t want to cut you off. I wanted to get your referral on the floor. Go ahead. I appreciate that. And yes, I would just like to make a few comments. We heard loud and clear, we received a number of letters from parents in this area, the concern and the need for a school.

[51:27] And I want to, I empathize with Deputy Mayor Morgan, the Councilor here because there is a need for a school obviously, but is this the right way to do it? I think we need more information. I have a number of concerns. If this is even fixing the problem, I’ve heard from a number of committee members at planning that we need to do this to speed up the timelines. And I am not even sure if this is going to speed up the timelines.

[52:02] And I appreciate staff, I spoke with staff and their concerns that there’s not enough room. I do have, we ended up the discussion around sewers and water. And as you know, we had this application come to us in May and it was, the recommendation was for refusal and through your worship, just to start the conversation and the importance of having information when we do changes to our official plan.

[52:36] And I know there’s a process down the road here, we’re making these changes right now with Council. So through you, your worship to staff, Ms. Shear, if they can respond to the sanitary and the water challenges that we heard in the report that came to us in May, but also following up on the temporary pumping station as well, I think those are some questions that still are outstanding.

[53:10] I’m not sure if you have comments. Thank you, Your Worship. Certainly anytime we’re putting in temporary servicing, it is challenging to ensure that that can be integrated into the longer term plan. The ultimate sanitary solution in this area is meant to be an oversized sewer that would go through the lands to the east, whether or not the applicant in terms of the residential development will be able to provide something that can transition to that in the longer term. It’s difficult to know because we don’t have that proposal at this point. So there’s always some risk that temporary servicing becomes permanent servicing.

[53:44] And then we have to design and manage around that or take you on in the future. I think I might ask Mr. Caucevis and his team to weigh in a little bit on what’s gone on with the development applications or sort of the discussion with the developer in detail. I that’s been largely led out of his service area. Mr. Caucevis, this is through you, Your Worship. So staff were asked to go back and work with the school board on this issue, if you recall, as part of the previous direction and we did. So we’ve talked to them.

[54:18] They came up with a potential proposal that would allow them to expedite their school in advance of the Mount Pleasant lands coming to fruition. So the plan would be that the school would relocate to the lands in the south, which is right now a townhouse block owned by Auburn. But the condition is, from our understanding, is that the Mount Pleasant lands in North would be permitted to advance.

[54:56] The servicing issues with the Mount Pleasant lands, I believe in Councillor Oregon’s motion or Deputy Mayor Morgan’s motion would be that any costs associated with any temporary services would be borne by Auburn. The atmosphere is absolutely correct. It is premature right now to understand exactly what those services would be. There are ultimate service requirements that may be funded through DCs, but again, that would be an ultimate solution and that would come forward as part of the subdivision to the north, the applications.

[55:38] With the referral, I probably could ask for some clarification with respect to the application that’s being sought. If the application that is being sought to come forward with the school is the lands to the south, which would be the townhouse block by Auburn, I don’t know, and Auburn isn’t here to speak to that. I don’t know if they would do so without some assurance that the Mount Pleasant lands come to fruition. It seems to be a package deal and that would be problematic, but maybe if we can clarify what the referral would be, that would be very helpful.

[56:20] Councillor Hopkins, you made the referral. So there’s a question from Mr. Cott’s fist with respect to some clarity around that. I wonder if you might help us out a little, please. Yeah, I’ll try to do my best. I find myself on the planning committee not having enough information to make these changes. And it’s really important that when we change, when we do planning on the fly, change our official plan and our policies. Mr. Chair, sorry, I’m gonna, no, no, I’m going to actually suggest you might consider a different wording than planning on the fly council, please.

[56:56] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. When we make changes to the official plan here at council, I think it’s imperative that we have the information in front of us exactly where is this pumping station going to go, the temporary, the cost is a problematic. The mapping, you need that information. Can we get that from the board? I think there’s a number of unanswered questions from the board that should appear in front of committee to answer the questions around timelines.

[57:30] If we’re gonna do this, if we’re gonna speed up the process, we need to understand how we are speeding up the process. I think there’s a lot of unanswered questions that remain in some sort of a referral back to have that discussion with more information coming to committee along with a representative from the board. I think it’s very important when we are changing our official plan. I will say, not on behalf of Mr. Cautzfist, but perhaps if you wanna jump in here, but I’m not sure that brings the clarity of all that you’re anticipating in terms of the referral.

[58:09] But let’s ask Mr. Cautzfist, is that sufficient clarity for your purpose? So through your worship, what is, my understanding of Councilor, Deputy Mayor Morgan’s direction is that we are not changing anything this evening. There will not be an official plan, Mayor Morazone about tonight. What is being directed of staff is, and I should probably defer to Councilor or Deputy Mayor Morgan, but is that staff would report back and through our normal public process, bring back proposed zoning, violent official plan amendments for the Mount Pleasant lands, and ultimately a rezoning application, again, through our normal public process for the lands to the to add the school usage onto that property.

[59:05] So as part of those public processes, we deal with a multitude of issues, including the servicing. And so some of those servicing questions, we will get probably some high level information to you as part and maybe even more detailed information to you for the Mount Pleasant lands. For sure, on the rezoning application, you will have all the servicing requirements for the Southern Auburn lands on the townhouse block. But I hope that provides a bit more clarity. Thank you very much, Councilor Oppins.

[59:40] Yeah, it does provide clarity, but I think we are giving direction to swap these lands with the direction that is in front of us. And to do that, I think it is imperative that we get more information, not only from what staff can provide us with conversations with the applicant, but also having the board appear in front of committee as well. Thank you very much. I now have Councilor Lewis, please.

[1:00:13] Thank you, Your Worship. My colleagues, I didn’t support a referral at committee and I won’t support it tonight. And I say this with all due respect to Councilor Oppins, but as staff have indicated, there will be additional steps in this process. And that’s when we will get the high level reports back on things like servicing. That’s when we will have a public participation meeting. That’s when the environmental review will take place, that we expect all of this information to be brought back to us at a future meeting before giving some direction tonight for staff to start working with the partners, the developer and the school board on this.

[1:00:52] Frankly to me is getting the card ahead of the horse. I’ve read the letter that came from the school board and I think it was very clear. They’ve answered my questions and I listened to staff at planning committee at the last session in the May application versus what’s before us tonight. Three of their four major concerns were responded to in what has come before us. So I’m not prepared to support the referral. I’m ready to vote on this. Send our staff with some direction. And in the next steps, we will continue the discussion as the public participation meeting happens, as the site plans come forward, as the applications are developed.

[1:01:27] But we can’t ask them to start developing an application until we tell them whether or not we’re willing to have the discussion with them on what that application should look like. Thank you, I now have Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. With respect, that’s what always happens. Applicants come to us with an application without knowledge in advance that the application is going to be accepted either by staff or recommended by staff or endorsed by council. That’s the planning process.

[1:02:01] And so this, I believe that the process that was considered and endorsed and is being recommended by the planning committee seems to me putting the cart before the horse. And so my question through you, Mr. Mayor, to staff is how did we get to where we are today? I understand the school board issues, a completely separate issue, and that came in as this added twist.

[1:02:35] But did this applicant ever come forward with us, with an actual application for a new subdivision in this spot? Did they have an application to rezone this meeting? Mr. Crossfist, or Mr. Berry? Well, you know what, I’ll defer to Mr. Berry. But yes, the short answer is that for the Mount Pleasant lands, they did. For the school property, they did not, but Mr. Berry could probably provide further clarification. Good, Mr. Berry.

[1:03:10] Thank you, Your Worship. Yes, that’s correct. There was an application for the lands north for the Mount Pleasant lands. And that was the application that staff had recommended the refusal on. But as a result of the discussion about the school needs in the Northwest, that matter was referred back, and it was referred back specifically for staff to have discussions with the developer and the school boards to seek opportunities for school site in the north. So there was an application, that’s what came forward. What’s in front of you this evening is not a decision on that application. It’s direction for us to actually bring that back to you at a future public meeting.

[1:03:46] So the decision you’re making tonight is essentially for one of a better term restart or to resubmit the matter that was previously before you on the Mount Pleasant lands, with the other matters that have been added in the deputy mayor’s recommendation to be addressed. So there’s no decision on whether or not those lands or what those lands will be. That’s what the application is that we would be considering to bring forward at that future public meeting with respect to the lands on the north side.

[1:04:23] The twist in this then is also then on the south side is that we would also then be working with the applicant in the school board on that application for those lands that are not yet currently zoned to permit the school use. So that would be the second application. And again, that also, as Mr. Kutz has indicated, that application will come forward and will be considered out of public meeting and all the matters related to the appropriateness of the school in that location will be addressed at that time. Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship.

[1:04:55] And so I do recall when this came forward last time and the original school site that was proposed in the application lands, staff didn’t feel like that was the best site for a school location. So now the applicant has come forward with an alternative site. And I wonder if staff have considered whether or not that site is actually the best site for a school in this area of the city. And I will support the referral because I agree with Councillor Hopkins that we need to hear from the school board.

[1:05:34] And I think what we’ve done here, and this was the direction that Council gave to staff, what is we have focused on how Auburn can provide a location for a school where it is needed. And I think the school board needs to focus and they can absolutely get assistance from city staff in this. But where is the best location for a school in this area? And I think because of the way this has come to us, it is complex and it is taking our vision, our site off of here and the actual application of whether it’s appropriate to rezone these lands for a subdivision and it’s making us go over here and talk about schools and the overcrowding in schools which exists throughout the city.

[1:06:20] I understand that this is a very severe problem at this school and I commend the Councillor for seeing to his ward and trying to advocate for his ward. But I do think we need to have a broader conversation with the school board, with the school board trustees to talk about what their needs are and how the city can assist in those needs. I’m not happy with this process and how it has rolled out. And I would support a referral because I really agree that we need more information.

[1:06:55] Thank you, Councillor Turner. Thank you, Your Worship. And thanks to Councillor Hopkins for putting forward the referral. I know there’s a lot of very strong debate that occurred. I recognize the advocacy of the deputy mayor to try and address an issue that UC’s Ms. Ward. The challenge is that we as Councillors have to address citywide concerns and this is something that has citywide implications. Our policies are important and they’re not just there just to fill paper and ink.

[1:07:33] They’re there because they help us determine where servicing goes, where neighborhoods are built, how the neighborhoods are built, when they’re built, how they evolve and how they’re done in a way that’s economically and environmentally sustainable. So when we turn our heads from those and say, just kind of arbitrary words on paper, then we start to lose our way a little bit. And we’ve done that a few times. I guess that’s the prerogative of Council, but it’s not great practice. But I have concerns with this and I attended the planning committee to raise some of those concerns.

[1:08:10] I’ve been vocal about it. I don’t think it’s appropriate that we’re working to cut little deals with one-offs, with developers. It’s not the way we should operate. It’s not transparent. It’s not in the best public interest. And it sets an expectation to all the others that this is the way we operate, and it shouldn’t be. But if I might through you, Your Worship, I have a few questions. I ask what the outstanding concern is and what the severity or the impact of that outstanding concern rests right now.

[1:08:49] And it was mentioned that a few of the outstanding concerns had been addressed through the proposed resolution, but there still are outstanding concerns from staff. Mr. Mayor, thank you, Your Worship. The concerns of staff, my sense, are going to be addressed as we review this application. The direction that’s been provided in the proposal this evening is that the issues of the servicing, any temporary servicing will be at the cost of the proponent.

[1:09:27] And with respect to the policy issues, it’s all consideration will be within the context of the neighborhood place type, the neighborhood place type policies. So with that, we have a sense, we’ve got a strong council direction and a policy direction that would look at the appropriate development for those lands on the north. Got you sure? Yeah, I’m sorry, I guess it had been mentioned that there were still outstanding concerns. So I haven’t heard those. I think it was mentioned in the last meeting, but if you can think of those, I’d appreciate that, but the other question is why do we not routinely, and I asked this at the committee, why don’t we allow self-financing of servicing?

[1:10:15] One of the reasons we have our growth management strategies, one of the reasons we do development charges and we do the gross management implementation strategy and why we sit down with developers to map out where servicing goes is to make sure that we balance our financing with the servicing needs. But I mean, if each developer could just say, let’s not involve ourselves with that scheme and just independently put servicing in place for to open up their lands, I could see that as being problematic in terms of being able to phase development appropriately and not have leapfrogging development.

[1:10:54] Why don’t we routinely allow self-financing of servicing and why is that being recommended here? Mr. Chair, policies of the plan do dissuade, I guess the use of temporary services interim services. They’re not the preferred method, but in this instance, they will be at the full cost and there will be consideration as to, as Ms. Chair indicated, we will be looking at how these lands would ultimately be serviced and that we would ensure that what goes in the ground only goes in the ground once, I guess, is one comment that was made by our engineering partners and that will be part of the assessment.

[1:11:48] With respect to the other matters, and I apologize that that would still be outstanding within the, and again, I go back to the neighborhoods, place type policies. The other matters that we talked about would be the relationship of these lands to adjacent lands, how a transportation system might work, the open space system, those kinds of things. Those are the larger issues that would be addressed as part of an area plan, but with the relatively limited area of this parcel, the natural heritage features that are nearby, but not fully on these lands, and given the road pattern that would have to be established to provide for the access, none of that would either pre-determine nor prejudice any future development in our preliminary view of the adjacent lands.

[1:12:44] So again, those other matters, I believe, can be addressed as we go through this process. Those were the types of outstanding issues that would be still looked at and would be part of the consideration for the lands on the North side. That’s for sure. Thank you, as Councillor Cassidy had mentioned, this is the part that puts the cart before the horse because the area plan comes before development, and yet we’re going to development before the area plan. So that’s exactly what the committee has recommended here. I’m intrigued, perhaps, through your worship.

[1:13:19] The original recommendation was a recommendation for refusal. The discussion and the paper that’s been brought forward by the deputy mayor discusses a couple times that notwithstanding the position of staff, we’d like to have a proposal brought forward that would allow for this to move forward notwithstanding the position of staff. So is it the position of staff that what’s here before us would then now be recommended?

[1:13:56] Or are we directing you to recommend something that you wouldn’t normally recommend as a matter of course? Mr. Mayor, thank you. We’re not changing our preferred approach, and that’s the reason why this is direction from Council asking us to bring this amendment forward. This is not uncommon. There have been times when Council, Committee and Council have disagreed with the position of staff, and when that happens, Council directs us to bring that application forward for their consideration, and that’s what this is in this instance. Our preferred approach is still a comprehensive secondary plan, but as I’ve indicated, two of the most significant concerns in this, which was the placement of a significant community facility north of Sunnydale in a standalone area that may or may not be part of a larger development area if and when there’s an urban growth boundary expansion, and the servicing were issues that would be addressed through an area review.

[1:14:55] Both of these issues would be essentially addressed by the recommendation or what’s accompanying the recommendations before you this evening. So those are two of the significant issues, but no, our preferred approach still is to a comprehensive secondary plan to look at this. But again, as was noted through conversations and was noted when we brought this forward is that we have no indication as to the timing if or even when additional lands adjacent to these lands would be brought into the urban growth boundary, and that would be part of a comprehensive review.

[1:15:31] And that comprehensive review is something that will still occur and these lands may or may not be adjacent to lands that are recommended for bringing to come into the urban growth boundary to a future expansion. But none of that work has been done yet and that work is intended to be done in time to move this particular application forward. So yes, it’s still an notwithstanding. It’s still our preferred approach for a comprehensive review of the larger area, but given the direction, given the discussions and given the direction from council for us to actually go forward and have these conversations to see if there was an opportunity to address the school issue.

[1:16:09] It’s back before you this evening with the direction or proposed direction for us to bring back those amendments to you. Pastor Turner. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Barrett. And I appreciate the challenging position this puts you in. This, you’ve been directed by staff or by council to come back with something. It’s not consistent, it’s not consistent with what our best policy positions are and what your best advice would be. I think it’s really important and it was represented a little bit differently at council or a committee that this was something that staff could support.

[1:16:47] I think what we see here is something that would do the least damage compared to what was proposed before and mitigates the concerns that staff have but the staff as concerns are still outstanding. Back to one of the key points in all of this is the board has not asked us to help. They’ve identified concerns and challenges they’ve had along the way. They say that in their letters, they say, and this is one of the solutions but they have the policy tools in place to be able to execute on land acquisitions should they require it.

[1:17:23] They’re choosing not to because of perhaps some time. So maybe we get this online a year earlier. 30 seconds, Councillor. And because of cost. But we don’t change our policies to save other agencies and people money. That’s not what we do, we’ve got, because the implications to our tax base in general are broader and higher. So my concern is that, and I think the referral’s important because I think it would be important for the board to come to us and ask and explain why they haven’t taken those measures and they have not done that to my satisfaction or to the publics.

[1:18:00] Thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan. Thank you, Your Worship. I appreciate the debate so far. I’m gonna speak against the referral because the intent of my communication to council was to take some information from both the school board and a letter from the developer’s lawyer and update our previous direction to staff. ‘Cause staff were going to come back because there is an application on file for the lands to the north.

[1:18:32] They’re gonna come back to that eventually. And this is our opportunity to update that direction. And when they bring back, whatever they bring back, we can provide the opportunity to move forward if it checks off all the proper boxes and it’s to the councils and planning committees and staff’s assessment. We can check off, we can update that direction, bring it all back and that’s what B does. I wanna talk just a bit about a couple of things that were said during this debate.

[1:19:08] There’s one, someone said we cut deals and was referring to us. No one has cut a deal here. The school board and a developer have found a path to get a school built quicker, which has some conditions, then involve some actions from the municipality. What I’m interested in doing is for us to go through the process of assessing whether or not we would move forward with satisfying those conditions to help them get the school built quicker. So what is it that we’re actually asking here? Mr. Barrett and our staff have been very clear.

[1:19:43] Nothing is going to skip a regular process, nothing is. Whether it’s the rezoning of the lands to the south or dealing with the application to the north that’s already in, they are still gonna go through every process that they’re supposed to go through. I know that there’s been a lot of questions over the last couple of weeks to Mr. Barrett and I’m glad that he’s taken the time to answer them. A lot of people are trying to find a way for Mr. Barrett to say, I don’t like something or this is a problem. I can tell you, I was very careful to work with our staff when I wrote the letter to provide the direction that covered off a number of the concerns.

[1:20:19] I took the time to listen to the concerns at previous meetings, to speak to our staff about their concerns and to try to mitigate as many of those concerns as possible. So that’s why you see the direction very specific with the neighborhood place type and environmental review designation and a proper process and order of things to ensure that many of those concerns are covered off. And Mr. Barrett has been very clear that a good number of those concerns have been covered off. That’s what I’m attempting to do here is to satisfy our proper processes, satisfy the concerns of our staff, but also try to meet the needs of a school community and children and parents who are facing a very challenging, very extenuating circumstance in their space.

[1:21:02] Now we’re on to the idea that the board has to come and ask us specifically for help. Well, given we’ve directed our staff to work with the board for months and the board has written now multiple pieces of communication to us trying to answer every question we’ve had, I’m not sure what the outstanding concerns are that we’re gonna ask the board. I think that the letters when you look at both of them that have come in over the last while are very clear. They make very clear that expropriation is a tool of glass resort, that it’s costly and lengthy and expensive. They make very clear when we were back to you is this going to help at Sir Arthur Curry, that the funding from the province is conditional upon satisfying and addressing both Arthur Curry, the challenges at Arthur Curry, as well as the holding zone challenges which are in the area as well.

[1:21:48] So I think I will give the school board credit. I think that they’ve been very forthcoming with trying to answer every question they’ve been asked. And if there are further outstanding questions, I’m sure they’d be happy to answer them. And Mr. Pratt’s communication and his phone number are right there in the letter and I would encourage anybody to talk to him or call him on this if you have questions. So what are we actually asking council to do today? Take the next step, provide some updated direction to our staff. We’ll still have a full debate. We’ll still have full public participation meetings. We can’t even control when A will happen.

[1:22:21] A is dependent upon the applicant bringing forward rezoning application on the lands to the south. So that is not a process that we create. The direction is for our staff to do what they do every time. And that’s work with anybody who’s bringing an application forward to make sure it complies with all the needs of the land. That is no different than happens a regular course. So all we’re doing is updating the direction here. So I see no need to refer this for more information. Given at every point, more information has been provided. Concerns have been satisfied.

[1:22:53] Questions have been answered. And I think it’s time that we move on to the next phase in the process, which still involves debate, public consultation, and decision making. And I, for one, don’t want to hold this up too much longer. I think we’re at the point where we can move it to the next stage, and I would encourage colleagues to vote against the referral. Thank you. Councillor Squire. Thank you very much. First, I want to speak, I think, as chair of the planning committee and a member of the planning committee. And I’m very uncomfortable with some of the language that has been used today in referring to decision making. We’ve heard planning on the fly.

[1:23:29] We’ve heard land swap. We’ve heard, very concerning to me, cutting deals with developers. And I think, quite frankly, we’re better than that, and we should be better than that. And I don’t think that’s appropriate language to be used in reference to decision making of city council. And beyond that, that reflects itself, I think, in our interplay with the public, because we’re hearing similar language from the public that we’re hearing in council chambers.

[1:24:03] Number of the public now believe, I think that this is some kind of nefarious deal. And I think that’s wrong that they believe that. And I personally, when people start saying cutting deals, a committee that I’m a member of, I’m very uncomfortable with that. I think I should have stood up, perhaps, and call the point of order then, but I didn’t. But I want to make that abundantly clear. We can have debates, and we can disagree. But when we start saying the kinds of things we’ve been saying today, I’m extremely uncomfortable with it. Let me be clear.

[1:24:37] I have enough information to make a decision. The school board has provided an abundant amount of information. It is not our role as a city council to try to step into the shoes of a school board to make their school location, school size determinations. I was a school board trustee. Yes, we needed the assistance of a city council with regard to planning matters and locations. And it is entirely appropriate that we look at this school and whether a school is a proper location on this land after the board makes an application.

[1:25:14] There is no requirement for the board to do anything beyond what it has done. And if I was a school board trustee on this board, I would be saying, what else am I to do? The one area that there is a difference of opinion between those of us who support this and staff is on the idea of a secondary plan. Is it a tough decision for me to say in this particular case, we will go ahead and accept these applications with a secondary plan?

[1:25:49] No, it isn’t when I’ve heard from staff. Staff has said our preferred option would be a secondary plan, but given what’s happened here, we understand this application. And by the way, it is the prerogative of this city council to occasionally disagree with staff. So there is not a monumental overriding of planning policies in this particular case. Thank you, next I have Councillor Ploeser. Thank you, Your Worship. I will start with a question.

[1:26:22] If it’s regarding Mr. Pratt’s letter, should the board counselor or staff have an answer to it, that within the letter, it states that they’re grateful to have received approval from the Ministry of Education to build the new 802 school in the area. Do we know if there’s any timelines or restraints associated with that funding that they’re claiming they have? Mr.att? Through Your Worship, I do not know.

[1:26:55] I believe there is some constraint. Mr. Cotsfist might actually recall the conversation around that. I know they did speak to the need to use the funding within a certain period of time, but I’m not familiar with the dates. Mr. Cotsfist, any insight? Yeah, that is my recollection as well. I know they were very anxious to get things moving fairly quickly, but I don’t know a specific date that they’re about. That’s your pleasure. Thank you for that. I think we’re back to the discussion then that we seem to have vague information that we’re basing.

[1:27:30] To me, a really important conversation off of, we’ve always talked about the importance of an urban growth boundary and what we wanna see. We talk about climate change and how we should be building. Some of my concerns within this letter is the Planning Environment Committee that says it should be noted that there are no alternative sites that exist to accommodate a school without displacement of housing stock scheduled for construction. So they’re recognizing that there are places to build, just they wanna build more houses elsewhere. My concern with some of the timeline is if council does move forward with the direction to tell staff to prepare a site and move things around, that based on the school board timelines, the school still might not have to be built and housing’s gonna be built in other places, depending on what the provincial guidelines and funding is for that.

[1:28:20] Further to that, my concerns from a school board trustee, as I’ve hopefully, early this figure, they reached out to many of us. You may already be aware that the Thames Valley District School Board is undergoing a London boundary area review. Thames Valley would be looking at all the boundaries for elementary and secondary schools within London, and that report’s to come back to the Board of Trustees in the fall of 2021. So I have not seen that final report. I was waiting to work with my school board trustees on needs and communities and what’s happening as I certainly have schools as well at capacity, over capacity schools that have been holding zones for 30 plus years.

[1:29:01] And I also have developers coming to me about the urban growth boundary in the south end, and ideas they have of how to accommodate more growth and where it should go. So very mindful of a full transparent process that everyone knows where we’re at and what we’re following. So that’s my major concerns today of just, you know, we talked about the cart before the horse, but at this point, I’m not so sure the horse is even in the stable getting ready for the cart. But we seem to be a little bit out of order on this one, and that’s my concern.

[1:29:34] I would support the deferral today. So the deferral fail, I will have to vote no due to the uncertainty of information before me and my concerns about land development leapfrogging and what we’re trying to service and piecemeal together. Recognizing the north and the city is really far from the south for us, but really concerned about the development and the tone that it sets for council decision-making so they’re gonna come to us in the future. Thank you. That’s right, I hope. Thank you, Your Worship.

[1:30:07] And it’s been an interesting debate so far. The, and it looks like we’ve got not the best approach, but certainly it’s a better approach than we have. So a possibility. I wanna note that I’m willing to change our policies in order to save other entities time and money. I think that we’re in a partnership with the development community and the school board and it’s not a hierarchy where we’re at the top necessarily. But I do want to ask a question about urban sprawl because we’ve gotten a lot of emails, or at least I have, of people complaining about that issue.

[1:30:58] And if it seems to be a concern, I might ask that it be addressed in the referral or in the regular process, but could I ask through you to staff, just give a comment on the idea of this being urban sprawl and somehow that development in the north and the future ones were contemplating as being undesirable in that way.

[1:31:33] As it relates to the referral of Mr. God’s house. So, and I’ll probably ask Mr. Barrett as well, but essentially this property is within the urban growth boundary, we’re not adjusting the boundary at all in this discussion, I just wanted to be clear on that. So there is development on the south side. This is just a development on the north. One of the key issues is we did not want the community center to be on the north that was identified by Mr. Barrett earlier.

[1:32:10] The lands to the south are fairly well developed. The school requires a fairly large parcel of land and this is I believe probably one of if not the only remnant parcels in the south that they could actually assemble to build a school lawn, but I will ask Mr. Barrett to weigh in on that as well. Go ahead, Mr. Barrett. Thank you, to your worship. The most important point Mr. Kostas made, which is these lands are within the urban growth boundary.

[1:32:46] They’re not designated right now for urban development and that’s what the purpose of the direction in the recommendation that’s before you this evening is is to bring them back to put them within urban designations. So they’re not in that now, but the lands are within the urban growth boundary. This is not an adjustment to the urban growth boundary. Councillor Pietrangelo. Yes, yes, thank you. And perhaps what I don’t understand yet is the impacts of the referral, how long would that be for and how long would that take in considering what the information that’s being asked for?

[1:33:33] Good, Mr. Barrett. Thank you. It’s our intent that we would be working with the line owner and the board to ensure that all of the questions that are being raised are addressed so that when the recommendation comes back before you to a future participation meeting, the issues and the concerns have been brought up this evening are addressed in that. I would anticipate that they would be looking to get that in front of the planning environment committee early in the new year.

[1:34:08] Councillor? Okay, thank you. And is there anything to stop them from having those questions answered when the application comes forth? Mr. Barrett, Mr. Barrett. Sorry, Chair, I didn’t hear that. We’ve got contractors in the house and there was just something going on behind me, I apologize. Well, here could have been Chester, but go ahead, Councillor and host, could you re-ask the question, please? Thank you, I’m happy to do that.

[1:34:41] The question was, is there anything to stop the developers in the school board from bringing forth that information when the application is made? Mr. Barrett, did you get the question? I believe I did that this information will be part of the application, an application needs to be made for the lands on the south to zone for the new school on the south. There, the direction is to bring forward an amendment now as well for the lands on the north.

[1:35:15] And so in bringing that amendment for the lands on the north and addressing the need to rezone lands on the south, we’d be bringing all that information together. And as I said, I would anticipate that’s gonna be early in the year. Councillor? Okay, thank you, I’m happy with those questions. I appreciate it, your worship. Thank you, Councillor Hummer. Thank you, my first, just a couple of questions. One’s really related to what Councillor Reynolds was just asking, and there seems to be two pathways that are being discussed right now in terms of the referral. One is the referral that’s on the floor.

[1:35:49] The other is the, Deputy Mayor Morgan described it as updating the direction. So just in terms of the timeline through the chair to Mr. Barrett, what is the difference in the timeline between those two pathways? Would it be coming back at the same time, regardless, or would one be sooner than the other? Mr. Barrett? Thank you, if you’re a worship, an application to rezone the lands south of San Diego would come forward much faster than the application on the lands to the north. There are significant issues.

[1:36:21] Again, that has been the base of a lot of the discussion that would still be part of that consideration for the lands on the north. The lands on the south is a zoning bylaw amendment that would permit the school. Go ahead, Councillor. I’m just gonna try and rephrase just speaking specifically to the referral. So if we were to refer, as it has been moved and seconded here, we’d be looking at a report back sometime in early 2022. If the referral was not to go ahead and instead what happened was the motion that was passed by planning committee was passed, when would we be seeing a report back in response to those directions?

[1:37:00] Mr. Barrett? Sorry, through your worship. Maybe I added to that confusion. The, I was speaking to not the referral, but to the matter that was front, which I would anticipate we would see early in the new year. Again, I’m still not completely clear with respect to what the referral is. So I’m still a little bit foggy as to what the response is on that. Generally on a referral, generally, we’re back a little bit sooner. The main motion is something as I said, it’s gonna require consideration to address a lot of the matters that have been discussed this evening.

[1:37:38] That would be early in the new year. Go ahead, Councillor. Thanks. So I’m just gonna comment on the referral. Depending what happens with that, I have comments on the motion that was recommended by planning committee. I’m not gonna support the referral. I didn’t support the referral originally back in May on this issue because I thought at that time, it was very clear why we should not allow the premature development of residential, low density residential on the lands north of Sunnydale. And nothing that I’ve heard so far tonight convinces me otherwise or seen in the report from May or the public comments about the issue, which is the land use issue, which is should the lands to the north of Sunnydale be developed sooner than what was recommended by staff.

[1:38:27] Because I do wanna emphasize this point. The staff recommendation back in May was to allow the lands to move into future community growth and urban reserve community growth in both the official plan designations 89 and the London plan. And to refuse moving it immediately to low density residential. Because that is not the normal process. To move something into low density residential, you need to go through the secondary planning process. You need to look at the overall area. And they were very clear in the staff report about why they were recommending refusal, not consistent with the provincial policy statement, not consistent with the in-force policies of the Illinois community non-official plan, very specifically listing them off, not consistent with the London plan key directions and secondary plan policies.

[1:39:15] And on and on, there’s lots of reasons in that staff report from May 2021. So I don’t, I don’t support the referral because I don’t think it’s gonna get us to a different place. And I think I know what I need to know about the issue about premature development in the north. So I would encourage people to vote against the referral. I understand where it’s coming from, but I don’t think it’s a good idea. On the more substantive issue, and I wanna weigh in on this because I think there’s a lot of agreement that people would like to see a school built in the northwest as soon as possible.

[1:39:49] And I wanna say that on the proposal that’s been made, I don’t think that’s the fastest way. Like I don’t think developing land in the north is a good idea, full stop. But I also don’t think that this is actually faster because there’s a lot of people in our community who don’t wanna see this kind of sprawl development to the north. And they’re not just gonna sit there and let the official plan amendments go through that are totally contrary to the visual plan. They’re gonna appeal them. And that process is very slow. It’s expensive. So, I mean, I think people are seeing this as though there’s a very smooth pathway that’s fast.

[1:40:25] And all we have to do is allow this sprawl development to the north. That’s a bad idea, but it’s also something that’s not gonna go quickly. And maybe it will go through and maybe it won’t if it goes to the tribunal. I don’t think it would because we’ve got very clear staff advice saying it’s bad and it’s against these key policies in both of our official plans and the potential policy statement. And I don’t think that the developer would fare well if they were taking it to an appeal. The faster option in my view is the school board should initiate a zoning amendment on the lands they want.

[1:40:59] And they should expropriate those lands from Auburn because it was very clear at the policy the planning committee meeting. But Auburn’s not willing to sell it to them unless they’re allowed to build earlier than what otherwise be allowed to the north. They’re not willing to just sell it voluntarily. And in that circumstance, this is the only parcel that’s really gonna work. You don’t have to be the owner of the land to initiate a zoning amendment. Initiate the zoning amendment. Start the appropriation process. It’s slow, it’s expensive. It’s probably faster than this alternative. Thank you.

[1:41:33] I have no other speakers on the list. We’ll call the question on the referral. What was in the vote?

[1:42:13] Motion is lost four to nine. Attention to the motion put forward by Councillor Squire. I know we have had extensive discussion which is interesting because I gave a firm out of latitude on what was the referral but really spoke to this issue. So does anyone wish to speak and perhaps add something new if that’s appropriate? I will not limit obviously council to speak to it but I will look to any fresh comments that might help in this consideration.

[1:42:47] Councillor Hopkins, please go ahead. Yeah, thank you, your worship. And I wanna thank council for a good debate in a conversation and my concerns still remain. There are still a number of concerns. And I appreciate the word Councillor’s comments about those concerns. And the opportunity of having information given to us by the board why we need to do this is very important to me.

[1:43:19] And not having that full conversation. It’s something that concerns me as we move forward is a problematic, the costs that we as a municipality may be incurring as we do put the card before the horse. I know Councillor Lewis may have a different opinion about that, but I do think and heard from staff this evening the importance of comprehensive policies and secondary plans that we rely on and that are important.

[1:43:55] And as we move forward now, I would, I have concerns about that. I would like to have information and be as transparent as I can to residents that reach out to me with their concerns why this is going forward, why we are having that sprawl, why we are building out. It is something that now I’m not sure how to explain this as we move direction in how we are going to develop the lands to the north.

[1:44:35] And like many of you had mentioned that there is an opportunity for the board if there’s a need for the lands, expropriation is a possibility. So I will not be supporting this direction. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, worship. And you know, hearing the discussion and the debate tonight and understanding where this vote is most likely going to end up, I would encourage the school board to continue looking at possible sites and continue looking at all of their options.

[1:45:11] If as we have heard tonight, there’s still going to be a lot of conversation around the rezoning of these north of Sunnydale lands for development. That means this is not going to happen overnight and it possibly won’t happen quickly. Staff still have concerns that will still be obviously a lot of negotiations and discussion with the developer about what staff would expect as far as temporary servicing goes. And so this is going to take some time. And I agree with Councillor Helmer that this is not the quickest way to get a site available for building a school.

[1:45:47] I would note as well that almost always when we zone a site for a school, it is displacing housing stock. That’s what happens when a subdivision comes along, there is almost always a block set aside for a school site. And when that school site is not used, then it’s reverse back to the developer and they build more housing stock on there. But if the school goes in, that’s a site that could have been used for residential development. So I would encourage the school board if they are going to continue down this route and continue talking with the developer, they should also look at what their other options are.

[1:46:24] And if that means designating other sites or coming forward with a rezoning application, I think they should do that because obviously there is a dire need in this area for another school. And this does not seem as Councillor Helmer said to me, this also does not seem like it’s going to happen very quickly. Thank you. I have no other speakers on the list I do have. I have Councillor Van Hulse, go ahead, please. And then I have Councillor Helmer and the Deputy Mayor Morgan, go ahead, please.

[1:47:00] Thank you and perhaps Councillor Helmer will say this, but I do hope that our developers take into account the suggestions that the Councillor Helmer made that this might be a longer process if it’s all low density. So my concern is of course housing, we have a lack of housing, whether it be affordable or not in the city. And I see there is some advantage to all of us if things move quicker in terms of that development.

[1:47:35] However, I don’t think this parcel has to be entirely single family residential. And so I hope that we see some efforts to put in some multi-residential dwellings as well and bump up the housing stock in our city. That’s my concern and then that’s why I’m supporting the development. This is kind of a strange situation, but I’d prefer us not wait until an entire plan for areas that we may or may not pull into the growth, urban growth boundary, be completed.

[1:48:23] So I’ll be supporting the motion for that reason, but happy to leave me at the floor now to Councillor Helmer. Thank you and it is Councillor Helmer. Please go ahead. Thank you. I want to say a couple more things about the substance of the expansion to the north of Sunnydale. I do support the rezoning of the land to the south and I think that’s a fine idea whether the applicant brings it forward or the school board brings it forward. I think that rezoning that to make the school happen as soon as possible is a good move.

[1:48:58] It’s the expansion to the north that I don’t agree with. And I want to say that I think it’s very clear in the staff report from May why this is a bad idea. We did a huge review of what kind of lands needed to be designated for residential when we dealt the London plan back in 2016. We approved that plan back in 2016 and these lands were not identified as being needed for residential any time between 2016 and 2036.

[1:49:34] So the developer, what they’re trying to accelerate here is the building of low density residential, not the building of a new school. That could be done in different ways. What is being accelerated is the building of low density residential. And it’s outside of the normal urban growth boundary review where you would look at the whole area and see what should come in. It’s even outside of the normal process around urban reserve community growth which is that sort of holding zone and holding designation for lands that could be residential in the future but aren’t expected to be residential anytime soon.

[1:50:09] And what the developer really wants is for these lands to be residential very soon. And I think that that’s sort of like pouring gas onto the fire. We have an area which is growing tremendously. Huge, even today I was out there, massive construction underway, lots of new things being built. We have a mismatch between the school capacity in the area and the residential growth that has happened. And the solution we’re talking about is adding more residential even sooner. How does that make sense?

[1:50:41] It doesn’t make sense, right? It only makes sense if what you want to do is build more low density residential. Then of course, yeah, the sooner you do that, the better. And I just think this is a very, very bad idea to allow the premature development north of Sunnydale. Doing what we can to speed up the construction of the school south of Sunnydale, very good idea, right? And I think that’s the tricky thing is people are seeing this as you have to do the sprawl to the north or you can’t do the thing to the south. And that’s not accurate.

[1:51:13] There are ways to get the school to go ahead quicker. I think none of them are quick enough for the parents who’ve got their kids in portables trying to learn. And that’s a very frustrating situation to be in. But I don’t think we should agree to this sprawl to the north because number one, I don’t think it’s a good idea. Number two, I don’t think it’s actually faster. And it’s gonna make this problem a problem we have 15 years from now too, instead of tapping the brakes on the residential road, saying we’re not gonna develop that area north of Sunnydale for the next little while.

[1:51:46] And what we’re gonna do is resolve the issues we’re having south of Sunnydale and not speed things up to the north because the problem we forgot is a problem of too much growth too fast and doing even more is gonna make it worse. Thank you. I’m Deputy Mayor Morgan now. Yes, first let me say I’m glad I went after Councilor Helmer because I think he’s been very consistent on this. So I appreciate his viewpoint and I think of all the members of Council. He wasn’t for having staff look and work with the school board over a number of months.

[1:52:20] And that’s very admirable because it’s very consistent. But what Council decided was that we wanted our staff to work with the school board. And over a series of engagements and over the time the school board had, it has come back with a proposal that it feels is ideal, maybe not ideal, but is workable. Mr. Pratt’s letter says that they’re certainly willing to use expropriation but it is a tool of last resort and that it’s a costly and lengthy process.

[1:52:55] He also says there are no available school blocks within the existing development areas of that part of the city. So it’s basically an agreement with a developer or expropriation. And so that is why there should be no surprise to colleagues that something like this has come before Council. Which is, I think, has come before us with the best of intentions. Over time, the developer and our staff and the school board have tried to come through a proposal that, and certainly I, in the way that I’ve drafted the direction, have tried to meet the school board’s needs, have tried to meet the concerns and mitigate the concerns of our staff from the May refusal of the application to today.

[1:53:43] You heard Mr. Barrett today speak about a number of things that were addressed. And it seems like there’s only one significant outstanding item and that is planning the whole area comprehensively without this. But he also said that if you are going to develop this area, the neighborhood place type and the environmental review place type is a way that minimizes some of those concerns. Certainly doesn’t exclude them and that is why I crafted it, notwithstanding the recommendation of our staff to respect their position and that, and we’ve done that lots of times on lots of different policy items.

[1:54:19] So I will say the thing that I know parents who are listening tonight are gonna be disheartened by is the idea that folks, perhaps in other parts of the city, are going to appeal the decision on the lands of the North and potentially hold up the school. Certainly I will admit that that is always a possibility with any sort of zoning or application that comes before planning. And there’s not much we can do to control that. People certainly have that right. It would be unfortunate in my opinion, but it is a right that individuals have. So I recognize that point, but I am willing to support the recommendation and move to the next phase in the process, a phase that would see us engage in public participation meetings in the lands to the North, would wait for a zoning application of the lands to the South and it would engage in the public participation process.

[1:55:14] And through those processes, perhaps we can address any further concerns that council or members of staff have about either outstanding servicing requirements or concerns of the city engineer or others through a process of dialogue and engagement at the next step in the process. So that is what is before us moving to the next step in the process, updating the direction to our staff to bring forward those items in part B, waiting for the applicant to bring forward rezoning as outlined in part A. And I’m willing to take that step and move to the next phase.

[1:55:49] And I will render judgment on those components after the public engagement and after I see the report from our staff on these items. So I encourage you to support the motion and I appreciate the debate today. That’s your turn. Thank you, Your Worship, and thanks to all again, I’ll reiterate, I totally recognize the objectives here. I recognize the need for the school lands. I think it would be appropriate to separate A and B for vote so that we can recognize that request and say, yeah, we’re ready to support that to the concept of zoning when that’s brought forward by the school board.

[1:56:32] There’s a few principal things in here. Of course, I might seem dogmatic about it sometimes, but I think they’re very important. I think that it’s really important for all of us to recognize that the official plan and the London plan are the laws and the governing structures of how our city develops. And my big concern is that when I think it’s fine for us to work with applicants to help them understand and help them navigate through city hall, but when we do that, we should be doing that with the framework that has been ratified by both this council, the last council and the minister and not proposing alterations to that or supporting them or helping them navigate through those things.

[1:57:20] That’s a big concern for me. It was, I think Councillor Squire, I think took exception with my phrase of cutting deals. A deal is when you exchange something and exchange for something else. And that’s what’s happening here, right? I’m not meaning to imply anything nefarious. I think it makes sense that Auburn would ask for this exchange of land in order to accomplish their objectives, but we don’t have to say yes. It’s all part of the process.

[1:57:54] And I fault nobody for this, but I’m very concerned with the way we’ve gotten here and where we’re going and what it means for the future and what it means for the integrity of our policies, which have been well considered, well thought out, well discussed by the public and the largest public participation process on an official plan ever in Canada. And we’re ready to shrug our shoulders and say, that’s not as important. I do have one quick question if I might through your worship, the parcel of land that’s contained in B, those North lands, what size is that relative to the parcel that’s being sought for re-designation for the school?

[1:58:40] ‘Cause I’d imagine it’s much larger. Yes, Mayor. Thank you, Chair Worship. Yes, it is much larger. I’m just going back to the May application, just if I can find the actual lot area. It is a number of hectares. Sorry, I’ll see if I can find that for you quickly. And thank you. And while you’re doing that to the point, perhaps I could understand if Auburn was looking to recover some of the lands that were developable, that are no longer developable for housing because now the school is on it.

[1:59:19] But the size of land that they’re looking for instead is significantly larger. And Mr. Barrett may find that answer before I stop speaking, but I think that’s something worth keeping in mind as well. So the board has those tools, as I’ve mentioned before. I think when we’re looking at doing departures from our planning process, that it’s important that we have that discussion board to board or council to council or administration in a clear and an open request.

[1:59:54] I think we also need to be able to ask clearly, did you do this? Did you do this? Did you do this to allow us to get to this point? Because I’ve read the correspondence. They’ve identified that they don’t want to do that, but they haven’t said that they can’t do that. Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Worship, and thank you, Councillor, 20.5 had Darcy. Councillor. Yeah, thank you.

[2:00:27] Quite larger than a school person. Thank you. I see no other speakers on the list. This is on the motion put forward by the committee. I will call the question. And your worship to separate A and B as well? Separating A and B. We’ll go with A to begin. Councillor Ploza, Councillor Van Mereberg, closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.

[2:01:52] Colleagues, I’ll turn your attention to B. Councillor Van Mereberg, and carries seven to six.

[2:03:00] That is the end of matters for me. Thank you, that was two committee reports. You stood a long time. Thank you. Colleagues, before we move to the community and protective services committee, I don’t want to make, I’d like to offer caution. I noted in the last debate, there was certain references and terms that were used and even some certain inferences of intent. I just want to caution all of us.

[2:03:33] This is a group that we’ve been together three years and I think by and large, this council has worked exceptionally fairly and reasonably together. But I just want to make the comment, just please, there’s a country singer that had a song and I recall Councillor Helmer when he was deputy mayor at one point said, be kind. And I think that we can disagree. But let’s do it agreeably. Let’s challenge, but let’s do it respectfully.

[2:04:08] And by the way, be it amongst council members, be it with staff. And as we continue the rest of this discussion, I just want us to continue to show the respect and regard that I have seen through most of my experience in this role. So I thank you for that and look forward to spirited but thoughtful dialogue. And with that, I will turn this to the 13th report of community protective services, Councillor Helmer. I will put the whole report on the floor. I haven’t heard of anything that has to be pulled, but I will give people an opportunity to let me know if there is something that they’d like to deal with separately.

[2:04:48] Does anyone wish to have an item voted on separately? Councillor Squire. Item 11, 2.4. Any other issues that people wish to vote on separately? Couldn’t even comment on any and all. Councillor Turner. 4.1. That’s item 12, 4.1. Any other items? Councillor Helmer. Thank you, okay. I’ll put the remaining items on the floor. I will say we had a number of very important reports in terms of updates and new information.

[2:05:23] I would draw everyone’s attention, especially to the discrimination research report that came forward. I think that’s really helpful and to inform our work in terms of making sure everyone in the workforce is reaching their full capacity, reducing the barriers that people are facing, trying to access employment. I think it’s a really useful report and also the housing stability update, which is a mid-year update, the kind of progress that has been made in that area to amend the staff for their work there. Thank you.

[2:05:54] Other comments with respect to items one through 10 or 13? I see none. We’ll call the question. Close in the vote.

[2:06:26] Motion carries 13 to zero. Councillor Helmer. Yeah, that brings us to item 11, 2.4, the property standards matters. The initial report from staff was about two things in terms of reference for the task force on landlord tenant issues. We had some discussion about that committee and generally that was supported and received the terms of reference. We had some discussion as well about the full licensing of residential units that are not currently under the rental licensing bylaw. Staff had recommended against doing that and essentially for us to take no action after some discussion at committee, the committee supported a recommendation to have staff report back at a future meeting about what it would look like to implement something similar to what Toronto’s rent safe program is.

[2:07:15] Doesn’t apply to exactly the same universal buildings as the full rental licensing that was proposed earlier. Is it more of a specific thing? And to come back with some sense of what the cost would be both for the per unit fees and also the building audits, which is part of the Toronto approach. So that was the recommendation from the committee. Thanks very much. Any comments or questions with respect to this Councillor Squire, please? I won’t be supporting this element of the recommendation. My concern is this that we’re looking at putting something in a new program or process and I haven’t seen anything to indicate its effectiveness in Toronto or anywhere else.

[2:08:05] I haven’t seen anything about the cost of it. All I’ve seen is a report from our staff that made a specific recommendation about more licensing and a bit of a warning about the number of staff that would be involved in doing that. I think that certainly the community representing landlords is concerned about what this recommendation means. Does it mean that they’re gonna come back and tell us what such a program would be like? And then we’re gonna be voting on it. It doesn’t say explicitly in the motion that we will be getting information on costs.

[2:08:39] Councillor Palmer mentioned that. I’m glad to hear that there is some understanding. So I’d like to ask staff, first of all, what report do you perceive as going to be coming back? Is it a report that’s going to say you’ve told us you’d like to implement this? Here it is. Or is it, again, recommendations as to the plus and minuses of a particular program? So perhaps staff could answer that question for me. I’m wondering if I’m not sure. Do I direct that to you Mr. Crossfist? Yes. - Mr. Kottolik.

[2:09:11] Go ahead, please. Through you, worship. So my understanding of reading the direction that was provided by committee is that we have a report back on the overall program and how it could be implemented in London, which would impact obviously costs, any staffing resources. Pretty much it would be a comprehensive report on that rent safe program itself and how it may or may not be implemented in London, but it would ultimately be council’s decision at that time whether or not the program would proceed based on that information.

[2:09:49] Councillor Square? Yeah, that’s very helpful. So that provides me with some, even if this is approved, that there will be another decision point for council. My position is that the benefits of a program are far away by the cost. I don’t see this as being, a Toronto solution is being ideal for London. So with that being said, I’m just gonna vote against it now. Thank you, other comments for questions? Councillor Nn, Rivergan. You’re muted, you sounded very good.

[2:10:25] I’m sure to yourself Councillor Nn, Rivergan, but we’d like to hear it as well, please. Yeah, I tried the spacebar, but it didn’t quite work, okay. Yeah, part A, it strikes me as just a little too prescriptive. I mean, this is a major step here to go in this direction. So I’d like to propose an amendment to part A, basically going with an evaluation report back from staff as opposed to the more prescriptive could be implemented.

[2:11:06] So if I could, I’d like to give some wording and hopefully there’s some support for an amendment. And go ahead. So basically I would just change it to the Civic Administration, be directed to report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee on an evaluation of a rent safe London by-law enforcement program modeled after the Rent Safe TEO program, including proposed fees for registration and building audits.

[2:11:49] So in other words, the key word change is evaluation versus could be implemented. Thank you. Do you have a seconder for that? I see Councillor Squire seconding. Do you wish to carry on with anything else or Councillor Nn, Rivergan? It’s on the phone. I’ll put that on right now and just leave it at that. Does anyone have any comments or questions? Councillor Rentalz.

[2:12:27] Thank you, Your Worship. So I did take a brief look at the Toronto program and maybe I could ask through you if someone and staff is sufficiently familiar with it to make a few comments on that program. Could I ask you to be a bit different from what we might do here in London? I’m not sure if that’s early times. I’m not trying to presuppose staff response. I wonder if you might have a specific question or if you felt that was specific enough, Councillor.

[2:13:06] Okay, well, perhaps I just want to find out how much we know about that program since it was, is that something we looked at prior to making the recommendation or is this some new information that came up at the committee meeting? Thank you, Mr. Councillor. Through you, Your Worship, it did come up at the committee. It wasn’t part of the original scope for the report that was provided by staff. I think, okay, go ahead. Thank you, Councillor Unholst. Okay, that was helpful, but that question, thank you.

[2:13:42] The, I guess I recently heard a saying that says if you want to avoid getting thorns in your feet, you can either carpet the whole world or you can put on shoes. And so my concern with some of these programs is that we’re spending money where there really isn’t a problem. And so that’s where I think the cost goes way up and the inconvenience. And we kind of lose out on some of the opportunities that we might otherwise be able to take advantage of if we had something that was a little more focused than something like this.

[2:14:26] However, I see how people could definitely want a quicker response. So in that program, there is a limit for how quickly a landlord. And by the way, people have to first approach their landlord and say, hey, I’ve got some leaking plumbing. And then there should be a response in such amount of time. I think for plumbing, it’s 24 hours. And then for other issues, it’s a longer time. So it certainly seems attractive to people.

[2:15:03] It might have a negative impact on our rental housing stock bill. So that’s another concern. I think all of these solutions are a bit of a two-edged sword. So I guess I would support this as just an analysis that would be fine for me. But I’ll leave it at that, your worship, and say I’ll support this. I might not support the other recommendation. Thank you very much.

[2:15:37] I’ll remind colleagues we’re talking to the amendment. I have Councillor Lewis next, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll just rise briefly on the amendment. I’ll support this. I can understand the councilor’s desire to see an evaluation and why the language could be implemented might seem to some to be predetermined that we’re going to do that. So I think it’s a reasonable ask. I, too, have taken a look and a brief look. I have to learn more about the rent safety or program myself, but having staff evaluate that and come back to us, I think, is fine.

[2:16:19] And I understand where the concern is coming from. I don’t think language matters. I think this is a very small change. And we’ll see what comes back from staff, ultimately, either way. Thank you. Definitely my mind. Yes, I have a question for staff and then some comments. To Mr. Cotspis, through the chair, does the change in language, is it going to change your approach to reporting back on this item in any sort of way? Mr. Cotspis. Through Your Worship, in all likelihood, not, but, and why I say that is because we will investigate the program, we will come back to you with all the information that we find.

[2:17:02] I guess through an evaluation process, we may provide potentially some metrics that might maybe enhance the findings, but I can’t say that for sure at this point in time. But our approach would be very similar in either regard. Dr. Chairman, okay, given it would be very similar. I also support the change in language. I don’t think it fundamentally changes the work that the staff is going to do. And if it’s going to get more members of council to support an item, then I’ll support the change in language.

[2:17:38] Thank you, any other comments on the amendment? I see none, we will call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to one.

[2:18:22] Thank you, and now on the motion as amended, can I look back to Councillor Squire and seconded Councillor Cassidy, thank you very much. Any other comments or discussion? Councillor Squire, go ahead. I indicated that first I was going to vote against this, but I actually think the wording’s really important. I think the wording is an entirely different approach, which is to evaluate something. And I’m expecting that when it comes back evaluated, then I’ll be able to state my position more fully. So I’m going to go ahead.

[2:18:55] I moved it, so I’m obviously going to support this change. Thank you, any other comments or questions? Mr. Almer? Just on the motion as amended. Very interesting thing has just happened. I voted against the amendment. Some people seem to think it was inconsequential. At least one member of council think it totally changes the meaning, and yet it was an order. I just thought it was important to point that out. We’ve had some other cases where that has gone the other way.

[2:19:33] Many recommendation was to come back with how it could be implemented. And I think it’s really not that big of a difference. We’ve probably got more information in the first direction. We’ll still get some information about what the pros and cons might be, what the costs and benefits are going to be. I may not lay out a roadmap about how we could implement it, which would be unfortunate. I think if we decide to go ahead, we won’t have that and we’ll be into more delays. So that’s why I didn’t support the amendment. I will support the amended motion, though, because I think tenants are looking for a way to improve their living conditions.

[2:20:09] And many, many tenants are running into problems over and over again. I think the rent-safe approach, which is more focused on buildings and registering buildings and auditing buildings rather than units, is a more efficient cost-effective, focused approach to try and get those outcomes that the tenants are looking for. And I’m not surprised that landlords, generally, are turning out and saying, we’d prefer you don’t regulate us like this. They usually say that. I’m more interested in the problems that tenants are experiencing how we can actually meet those needs and improve their living conditions.

[2:20:49] And the costs are not a significant. The cost for Toronto is $11.24 per unit, so it’s less than a dollar per month to be registered. Now, of course, there’s a lot of units, so it’s a lot of money when you add it all up, but for an individual tenant, pay a dollar a month to have your building registered. Pretty reasonable cost if there’s some significant upside for them, but it’s a great return on that money. And obviously the cost would be shared between the tenants and the landlords. It’s not as though the tenants pay the whole cost. The burden is not entirely on them.

[2:21:23] And then the audits are something like $1,900 a building, which for the larger buildings is a very small cost in the grand scheme of things. And that’s only for buildings that are recommended for audits. So I think it’s a much more cost-effective approach compared to what was being talked about before. I look forward to this report coming forward because we really need to do something to help to solve these problems that are recurrent. It’s not like they just happen every once in a while. They’re happening regularly. And it’s clear to me that there’s gaps in our existing approach and we need to do better. Thank you.

[2:21:56] I have no other speakers on the, I do so. Councillor Ranlow, let’s go ahead. Yes, thank you. Just on the wording, I think this improves the situation. There’s always the chance that we’ll look at a program that takes place in another municipality and be able to realize quickly that it’s not, it’s not gonna be a made in London solution. And then we save the time of trying to stick a square peg and around hole and come back with something that could be implemented, but it’s very awkward.

[2:22:33] So I trust staff to look at it that way. And if they see an avenue to come forward then with an implementable plan, then they could do that. They’ll let us know about that and be able to do it probably in fairly quick order. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Cashley. Thank you, your worship. And I supported the amendment because I heard from what Mr. Costa has said that he doesn’t expect any great changes in how staff would have approached this.

[2:23:06] And I agree with Councillor Helmer at the end of the day, we have to have something in place. We hear from people every single day who are precariously housed and they’re precariously housed in many cases because the living conditions in the place where they are paying rent are not ideal. And in some cases they’re very, very bad. So we have to provide options for people. We have to have something in place where we are looking after these people. And when we have seen the people on our list waiting for housing in the city of London, it’s doubled since COVID started.

[2:23:42] This is another big part of the problem. How many people are on the list because the homes they are living in are barely habitable. So this is a tool that we definitely need to bring in some fashion to London. And I’m really relying on staff to bring this back to us as quickly as possible and have something that will help the people of London and the situations that they’re facing in their rental units. Thanks very much.

[2:24:16] We have no other speakers, we will call the question. In a vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Thank you colleagues, Councillor Hummer. Put item 12, 4.1, a flyer deliveries to residential properties on the floor.

[2:24:54] There was a recommendation from staff to committee, which is to go ahead with a by-law which took a kind of voluntary compliance approach. We had a pretty good discussion at committee. We had a number of delegation requests made and the committee decided rather than make a clear recommendation to council at this meeting to forward this matter for further discussion at Corvary services, sorry, community and protective services committee and to hear the delegations at that time. I don’t know that committee members were on board with the recommended approach from staff.

[2:25:30] I think there was a bit of uncertainty about how exactly to effectively respond to this problem of people distributing these very graphic flyers to people who do not want them and are suffering when they open them up with their kids open them up and they see what’s on them. So, it’s a very difficult problem. We had a good discussion about a committee. We are ultimately recommending that we have another discussion at committee. There’s been some discussion about having a public participation meeting at that time and that’s not what’s being recommended by the committee but I do think that’s something as a council that we should consider whether we wanna have a PPM.

[2:26:04] We do do that with a number of bylaws and that might be something that happens down the road even later than this next meeting. So, I’m happy to put that on the floor. I think it’s the right approach. I think we need to be thoughtful about how we intervene in this particular situation. I think we have to have another meeting to discuss it at the very least. It is on the floor. Any other comments, questions? That’s their turner. I think it’s your worship. I asked for this one to be pulled.

[2:26:37] You might recall last time when we discussed this, I voted against this as well. I just wanna be consistent here. I wanna be clear, really crystal clear. I find the tactics of these groups abhorrent, disgusting and I don’t think anybody should be subjected to the materials that arrive on their doorstep. But I also, I think it’s rather clear from our reports here and from our discussions in the past, there really isn’t a clear municipal resolution to this. I wish there was.

[2:27:10] I wish it was, but I think we’ve had discussions about what level of government can do what. We’re not the one that can address this, unfortunately. And so this does take significant amounts of staff time and we’ll bring it back. We’ll have another discussion about it. I don’t see a lot of harm in the recommendation here, but I just don’t think it’s the best course. So that’s why I’ll be voting against it. But please, please don’t mistake that for me supporting the actions of this group, which I think are discussed. Thank you, customer. Thank you, your worship.

[2:27:43] I just have a question for you to staff. And I did not attend the meeting. So if this was addressed then, I’m just wondering how long it will be before we hear back from staff on this. You know, I tend to go back to Mr. Kotsfis or Mr. Kotala on this. So can I refer it over to you to staff for some response? Mr. Kotsfis.

[2:28:24] Mr. Mayor, I believe Mr. Kotsfis is having internet problems, so perhaps we can get that answer in a moment. Great, then, thank you. Then I’ll ask Mr. Kotsfis to carry on and perhaps we’ll be able to get Mr. Kotsfis back in. Drew, your worship, I wonder, and not to put him on the spot. I wonder if the committee chair might know if that was discussed at committee? Take that back to the committee chair. You’ll notice that the committee recommendation was not prescriptive about which meeting. And I like to provide staff with some flexibility, but when they come forward, given the other competing demands on their time, I think it’s best to be here from Mr. Kotsfis or someone else in that area about the most likely timeline.

[2:29:08] Mr. Kotsfis. Thank you, Your Worship, through you to the committee chair. I just hope it comes back rather quickly. This has been going on for a while. I’ve heard from residents in ward five, notwithstanding Councilor Turner’s objections and our role in this. I think that we can play a role. I think many community members have come forward with some possible solutions based on what other municipalities are doing.

[2:29:41] I think an opaque envelope as one possible solution is something we could consider. And so that’s where I see Council playing a role. And this allows people to have their right to free speech, but it also protects small children or people that have had past trauma around childbirth issues. It allows them some protection and they can choose not to see those images. So I think that is something that could be considered. And I hope that staff will come back as quickly as possible with this.

[2:30:15] Thank you, Your Worship. Thank you. I think we have Mr. Kotsfis back online. You might be able to respond to some of that, Mr. Kotsfis. I’m not sure if you heard the question in terms of timing to report back. I didn’t, and my apologies for my internet seems to have stopped working, but I hope you can hear me. Yes, we can. Okay, so we’re looking at, we can report back later this year. We would have to do a PPM and we’d advertise for a PPM, particularly if there is, if we’re looking at amending apps or implementing apps for this.

[2:30:53] Are we good, Councillor Kashi? Thanks so much. Then I’m Councillor Hopkins, please. Yeah, thank you. And just further clarification through your Your Worship to Mr. Kotsfis. I know the referral is to a future CAP meeting and to receive the delegation. Are we going to be looking at a further meeting with a PPM? I just need to understand the process moving forward now if this is approved tonight.

[2:31:26] I think Mr. Kotsfis indicated a PPM, but go ahead, Mr. Kotsfis, you wanna clarify? Through Your Worship, we could do it all at one time. We could do an advertised PPM. We could include in that advertisement that we would be looking at also implementing an apps program as part of that meeting as well. So we would cover that space and hear all the delegation as well as any other member of public if that is Council’s wish and direction. Councillor Hopkins.

[2:31:58] Yeah, thank you. Because the direction that we’re undertaking is to receive the delegation up to people. But there is confusion out in the community as to is there gonna be a PPM and where we go with this? So I’m supportive of the committee recommendation. Obviously a PPM is important to have too if we can bring them together. Just not sure if this is the direction that we’re undertaking tonight, but I appreciate Mr. Kotsfis comments knowing that. And I just wanna thank the committee for continuing this conversation.

[2:32:37] I hear loud and clear Councillor Turner’s concerns about the municipality having the authority and how much we can do here. But it is important to the community to see if we can look at other ways of doing this. And I wanna give my thanks for the committee to keeping having that open mind and keeping the conversation going. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. And picking up where Councillor Hopkins was. I too understand where Councillor Turner’s coming from in terms of what level of government does what.

[2:33:17] And I would actually agree that some senior level of government intervention on this would be very helpful. It’d be nice to have something that was consistent from municipality to municipality. But in lieu of that, I think that there are some things that we could do. And I expressed that committee, certainly my dissatisfaction with the recommendation that was brought forward because it was voluntary and there was no financial penalty for violation of that voluntary compliance. It’s been my experience that you can ask nicely all you want if there’s no pinch on the wallet for a violation asking nicely tends to not get you very far with some folks.

[2:33:59] And we’ve had many people ask these folks nicely last week. I was out doing a little fall canvas in the ward. And I noticed on one of the doors before I knocked that there was actually a sticker put up that said, you know, those particular flyers are not welcome here. People should have the option to refuse those. That is not being respected right now. And I think that as a municipality, we should be looking at what we can do to help support those who are asking to be exempt from these deliveries.

[2:34:37] So as I said, I’d love to see senior levels of government take some action on this. But I think in the interim, we may have some tools available to us that were included in the draft that had come back to committee that we need to investigate further. So I’m supportive of this recommendation and I definitely support there being a public participation meeting as part of that engagement. I think it’s very, very important that we hear from the community on this issue because they’re the ones who are impacted on their doorstep. And I raised this in committee and I’ll share it with folks tonight.

[2:35:12] I think the freedom of speech is important, but I think the people’s mailbox is on their front porch, private property. I don’t think in my personal opinion, your freedom of speech stops when you’re trying to insert it into somebody else’s private home. And I think that’s what we see here. And so I don’t know how we deal with that entirely yet, but I don’t think we can ignore the pleas from the community to take some action. Thank you, Councillor Hocht. Thank you, Your Worship.

[2:35:46] And I’d like to move that we do have a public participation meeting. It seems to be there’s some question there. I do think that the community may have some valuable insight for us. So I don’t like it when we make all the decisions and in the end allow them to have some input. So sooner for me to hear them is better. I’m also a little concerned that recently we’re not allowing a delegations.

[2:36:20] So that’s happened quite a bit. I remember last term during the BRT, we had a public participation meeting where we were all in the middle of a stage in the Budweiser Gardens with, I don’t know, was it a thousand people who may not have been happy with us, but we were very, very willing to hear people. And I think the needs that we need to guarantee that that’s going to happen this time.

[2:36:53] So. Councillor, I hate to interrupt, but I’m just going to come back to Mr. Kotsfos. You can carry on in a moment here, but I thought I heard that commitment from PPM. Mr. Kotsfos, do you just want to clarify for the Councillor’s benefit and then if that needs something in addition, we can deal with that as well, but failing that if we can have an undertaking, can we get something from you, please? Through you, worship, we can certainly have a public participation meeting, we can advertise for that meeting. The, if you want it to be abundantly clear, you could put it in the direction to staff.

[2:37:32] I’m obviously at the pleasure of council, but it sounds like there is an undertaking from staff to proceed with that, but Councillor Van Halst, do you still have the floor? Yes, you’re worshiping down. Worship, sorry. Sorry, I think I’ve got a point of order. You just have a point of order, you worship, and I’m sorry to interrupt Councillor Van Halst, but I do take exception to the comments that were made about denying delegation status. I think it’s, first of all, it’s always a committee’s prerogative whether or not to hear a delegation. But as is listed here, and as has happened at other committees, referring a delegation to a future meeting when the item will actually be coming back is not refusing it.

[2:38:14] It is putting the delegation at the same committee meeting as a report coming back. So I’d respectfully ask that the Councillor rephrase his comments about denying delegation status. Well, I don’t think that was a point of order, but I will leave it to the Councillor if he wishes to rephrase his wording. I did not take offense to that, but Councillor Van Halst, you have the floor. Okay, Your Worship, I do stand corrected. It was a referral to a future meeting. My concern is that, again, without saying that we’re gonna have a public participation meeting, people will write in, ask for delegations again, and then still have that uncertainty that they’re taking time onto their day to, and then they may not be able to be heard.

[2:38:59] So, but again, I’m sorry if so quickly I wasn’t as kind in my words as you had requested us to be. But at this point, I realized that staff had said that they could and they can have a PPM. So what I would like to do is just make it absolutely clear that there will be a public participation meeting when this comes back.

[2:39:32] So that’s my hope is that we’ll put that as part of the motion and I don’t know if that could be a friendly amendment, but I’ll look perhaps for a seconder that we include a PPM in this as well. Let’s, we’ve gotten undertaking from staff, but let’s go back to the mover, which happens to be the chair of the committee. If that’s deemed to be friendly and if not, we will call it as a, that’s their privilege. I am told that by the clerk who knows all things that that has to be done through a formal process of moving and seconding.

[2:40:08] So I have Councilor Van Holst moving that a PPM be established for this issue. Do you have a seconder? I see Councilor Lewis. Any commentary on this? I’m not sure that this requires a lot of commentary and I’m not trying to guide Council overly, but it’s been moved and seconded any comments that would be helpful. Moved and seconded, let’s call the question.

[2:41:04] Close in the vote. Motion carries 11 to two. So we now have an amended motion on the floor. So it will require a mover and a seconder of the amended motion. Is there a mover? Councilor Lewis, is there a seconder? The amended motion. I see Councilor Palosa. Thank you.

[2:41:37] Comments or questions on the motion is amended. Councilor Van Holst, do you still have the floor? You’re welcome to comment. Oh, thank you. And I’m happy that we’re gonna see this. I hope that’s very helpful to the community. The, I do tend to agree with Councilor Turner in terms of this. My other comment is that, you know, this is one of those difficult motions or difficult issues because we’ve got, it’s very polarized and we’ve got, you know, a clear thesis and antithesis.

[2:42:12] And I don’t know if this kind of action brings us towards a synthesis. You know, I would like to see that there would, there would be some way to create a ceasefire. I do like that people are putting signs up with specific about those. And Councilor Lewis said he encountered one of those. And my real hope is that when those were seen by anyone and I guess in this case, it’s particular groups dropping off flyers that those would be respected.

[2:42:50] And if that’s the case, that would be, of course, the best, the best of all solutions. But thank you, those are my comments. Thank you. Any other comments on the amended motion? I see none. We’ll call the question. Councilor Hopkins.

[2:43:38] I’m still waiting for the vote to come in. But I vote yes. Was in the vote, motion carries 11 to two. Colleagues, the time is now 638. I’m gonna be proposing a small break so that for those who need to get some refreshment or take a biological break, they can do so. And it’s been my experience when we’ve broken for dinner in the old old days, for those who remember when we had such an arrangement that the meeting seemed always good just a little quicker.

[2:44:17] I’m not sure how that’s gonna go now, but why don’t we take a break? I’m gonna propose it’s all now 20 to seven. We come back at seven o’clock. I’d like to move her for that. Please, I see, Councilor Hopkins, seconded by Councilor Palosa. Thank you. Let’s do a hand vote if you’re in favor of that. Show us. Motion to turn it in. I see all of a sudden. Thank you and for the benefit of the public, we will be back at seven o’clock. And I ask for screens on, please.

[3:10:16] All right, thank you, colleagues. Welcome back. Councilor Hummer, we’re done, are we? Are we done with you? So to speak. The time being, see you out on the committee. I’ll look forward to that, thank you. For the 15th report of the Corporate Services Committee, Councilor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. I will pull item 11, which is 5.1 from the committee report because there was a dissenting vote on that one.

[3:10:56] Other than that, I have not heard about anything else. And I would put the remainder of the report on the floor. colleagues, does anyone wish to have any of the other items voted on separately? Seeing none, Councilor Cassidy. I submit the report, Your Worship. Comments or questions? The exception then of item 11, 5.1, we’ll call the question. Councilor Hummer has his hand up, Your Worship.

[3:11:29] Sorry, I thought we were done with you. Councilor, I apologize, I missed you. Go ahead, please. Thank you. I just wanted to say the committee recommendation and the staff recommendation to allocate to 10 million of the surplus into the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund. I think that’s a really good move, very smart. And I support that committee recommendation very strongly. We need to find more capital to put into affordable housing. And this is a great way to do it and really good use of that money. So happy to see that.

[3:12:04] Thanks very much and I apologize for missing you there on the screen, Councilor. Any other comments or questions? Councilor Lewis, please go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. I say this only as a comment because I do see the need for the money to go towards the housing reserve. I’m always a little cautious when we’re quick to put all of our eggs in one basket and we’re only at the update point at this period in time, but I do absolutely know that this Council has made housing a priority. We’re using every opportunity to leverage every dollar we can from senior levels of government to help.

[3:12:38] So I can see why this is the direction the committee took. I only raised it as a caution for the future that sometimes we might want to leave ourselves a little bit more wiggle room to be flexible. But knowing that this is one of our top priorities, I’m certainly supportive of it at this time. Thank you, Councilor Unholz. Thank you, Your Worship. My comment on this committee was that I was pleased that there was still some amount that was allocated to our regular Council policy. And then I would perhaps if it comes back with a different amount of surplus insists that that that still be the case to some extent.

[3:13:17] And I do think like Councilor Lewis, I might prefer to have that surplus unallocated until we get to that budget. However, the affordable housing initiative is not something where we are going to regret putting money into, so I’m okay with it now too. Thanks very much, I have Councilor Filosa, please. Thank you, Your Worship. And just as the city’s budget chair for clarification, the policy before us tonight for Council’s decision is that up to $10 million will be allocated to the new affordable housing reserve fund with noting that we are anticipating it actually to be higher than that.

[3:14:06] We’re hoping for 11.2, but obviously things are, we’re still in the pandemic and things are still fluctuating that any remainder over and above that amount would be allocated in accordance with the city’s surplus and deficit policy that’s already established to make sure that there is some room for Council decisions should be above the $10 million surplus. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other comments or questions on all items for the exception of 5.1? See none, we’ll call the question.

[3:14:53] Close in the vote motion carries 13. 5.1 as I said, there was a dissenting vote. It is the item related to the members of Council proof of COVID vaccination policy relates to bill number 461 and I will put that on the floor. Thank you, comments or questions. Councilor Van Holst. Thank you, Your Worship. So first thing I should say, I appreciate that staff has created a policy which has allowance for exemptions.

[3:15:26] I think that’s gonna serve our city well. And my first question, because this is a pretty emotional issue out there, if I should take advantage of an exemption, just a confirmation that I’ll still, I can still expect the benefits of the respectful workplace policy. I might refer that to Mr. Card, I’m not sure. I’d be pleased to answer that, Your Worship.

[3:15:59] Go ahead, please. I, through Your Worship, I believe that the policies can apply. With equal force and I do not see any reason why one would tend to neutralize the other. Thank you, Councilor Van Holst. Thank you very much, Colleen. So I see the policy is having two parts to it. There’s the ones that clearly are keeping people healthy. And then there’s the part that are alleged to violations of a protected rights and the charter.

[3:16:40] And I think that in the end, these policies are gonna be challenged up to the Supreme Court. And I wanted to look and see what happened in some other jurisdictions who are maybe ahead of us in that process. And on Sunday, I did a little review of the Fair Work Commission ruling from Australia. And I wanted to send that as a communication to Council and I guess sometimes happens when you send something with a file attached, it may not go through.

[3:17:16] So that was, that’s what happened. I’m sorry if that wasn’t there. But I do want to describe the ruling that they have. And I will say that it uses some language that’s stronger than I would use with this committee. But the final comments read in this way. And I’m kind of skimming through some highlights. But mandating vaccinations for everyone, regardless of the actual risk, fails the tests of proportionality, necessity, and reasonableness and cannot be justified on health grounds.

[3:17:52] It’s a lazy and fundamentally flawed approach to risk management and should be soundly rejected by courts when challenged. Now that risk, they talk about the, they talk some about COVID itself. And they say before turning to a consideration of these reasons, it’s important to set the context with some information that’s publicly available and should be uncontroversial. COVID vaccinations are not designed to stop COVID. They reduce symptoms of the virus. COVID is less serious for those who are young and otherwise healthy.

[3:18:28] Around 87% of those who have died with COVID in Australia are over 80 years old and had other pre-consisting illnesses listed on their deaf certificates. People diagnosed with COVID mostly will recover without the need for medical treatment. The vaccines are still part of a clinical trial. There are side effects to the COVID vaccines that are now known. The long-term effects of the COVID vaccines are unknown. And then they go on in their final comments. They make, they say that statements by politicians that those who are not vaccinated are a threat to public health are not about public health and are not justified because they do not address the actual risk of COVID.

[3:19:14] There’s no basis for locking out people who do not have COVID, which is easily established by a rapid antigen test. And this is interesting because that’s where they seem to be recommending a remedy that is the policy that our staff has already established. So I’m grateful for that. Finally, the only reason that our policy, it would be permitted under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if it can be shown to be reasonable and free in a democratic society. And this was their comment about that, allowing some people to work and others not to.

[3:19:51] It is an abhorrent concept. It is morally and ethically wrong and is the antithesis of our democratic way of life and everything we value. So I don’t know how much weight that would have in the courts in Canada, but I would suspect that a similar thought process is in similar data would be looked at. And what I would like to do is for us to refer our policy back to staff and keep those parts that screen people daily for potential COVID illnesses, require them to avoid contact with others while they fail the screenings, accept a negative test as an exemption, as an exception to the failed screening, but remove the part that demands proof of vaccination because it says they say not reasonable or proportional.

[3:20:49] And I think then we’ll end up with the policy that would be able to stand any challenge. And so if that’s fine with you, your worship, I would make a motion that the members of council proof of vaccination policy be referred back to staff for renaming a removal of the requirements for proof of vaccination. Thank you, Councillor. You’re actually exactly at your five minutes. That’s perfect timing.

[3:21:22] I see that that is in the communication that you forwarded through, which I have, do you have a seconder for that motion? There is no seconder. Any other comments or questions with respect to 5.1? Dean Nunn will call the question. Present the vote.

[3:22:10] Motion carries 12 to one. Thank you very much. Councillor Cassidy is headed for you for that report. That is it for that report. And I’m ready to move the next one. 16th report of the corporate services committee. Thank you, thank you, worship. So the committee voted to refer the action item on that report to this council. So I will actually move the report and also I will move the staff recommendation that was in the report, which was that in accordance with section 262, one of the municipal act, the office of ward 13 be declared vacant.

[3:22:54] So noted. Thank you very much. Comments or questions, colleagues? All the questions. Sorry, I apologize, colleagues. Before we vote, we had a mover, but because it was not a recommendation from committee, it will require a seconder.

[3:23:30] Thank you, Councillor, close the second. Dean, is that correct? Thank you very much. So with apologies. And we did not have any other comments or questions. So now we can follow the vote. Thank you, Councillor. Sorry, worship, just a quick point of order, if I might. Sure, go ahead. Perhaps we need to receive the resignation letter from Councillor Karyabaga before we declare the seat vacant. I have no issue with, I have no issue with combining the two receiving Councillor Karyabaga’s letter of resignation and declaring the seat vacant.

[3:24:03] I’m comfortable with them being combined, but I’m at the pleasure of the chair. I’m fine with that. I thought that might be included in the report. I thought we had received her letter at the committee, but the clerk can clarify that. Let’s go with the clerk then. That’s correct. It was noted that the corporate services committee received a communication date. It’s September 23rd, 2021, with respect to the resignation of ward 13 Councillor Karyabaga, Councillor Karyabaga.

[3:24:45] Thank you, I appreciate that. So that was dealt with at the committee. And so now we’re here and there’s a separate motion that’s separate from what was at the committee. So these are kind of two separate motions, which is why I think in terms of stepwise, we accept the resignation. We declare the vacancy as kind of a one, two, just to make sure that we’re not doing it out of order ‘cause the seat isn’t vacant until she’s actually made a resignation and we’ve accepted that. I think the resident, to be fair, I think, listen, I don’t wanna prolong this colleagues and we can debate whether or not the resignation is affected, we have her letter.

[3:25:20] So I’m not going to debate it. But in the interest of that chair, if you’d like to split it, then be definitive, please. And we’ll do it, please, to get that, please. Absolutely, your worship. I’ll move the report from committee and then I will move, deeming the seat vacant next. All right, so for that, that was already passed. That does not need a seconder in terms of receiving the wealth receiving the report. But I will tell you, the clerk is quite correct in terms of the issue of the vacancy.

[3:25:58] But we’ll deal with this in two steps, colleagues. Let’s please get this done. So what we will do is we will first accept Councillor Karygiannis’ letter of resignation that has been moved. Any comments or questions? Let’s get on with it then, please. On the advice of the clerk who knows all things under 2.1B that we received the communication with respect to the resignation, and then we received the report from entitled Declaration of the Vacancy.

[3:27:03] And I know that’s what you meant to move first, Councillor Cassidy. And so with that, I will call the question. This is on B. Councillor Ploza.

[3:28:26] I had submitted yes, did it come through? We’ll accept here, yes, as a yes. Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 13-0. And Councillor Cassie, I think now. Yes, your worship, and I believe I have a second hearing, Councillor Ploza. Yes, we do have that. Thank you very much, comments, questions, colleagues. Call the question. Close the vote.

[3:29:27] Motion carries 13-0. You colleagues made some very genuine efforts to acknowledge MPLF-Kalbaga in the SPPC meeting, which is coming up very shortly. So with that, anything else for you, Councillor Cassidy? That’s my report, Mr. Mayor, thank you. Thanks very much, 13th report of the SPPC committee, Deputy Mayor Morgan, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m going to put just items one and two on the floor and deal with three and four separately.

[3:30:00] So the first is to be hearing interest. And the second is the appointment of Councillor Ploza to the Brushrie University gender-based violence project for 2021. I’ll put those on the floor together. Thanks very much. Any comments on one and two, Councillor Cassie? Just again, happy to see Councillor Ploza step up and take this position. It is a priority item in the city. It has been made worse through the COVID pandemic. It’s been recognized by the Middlesex London Health Unit as a serious issue.

[3:30:36] And I’m really happy to support Councillor Ploza in this role. Thanks very much. Other comments or questions? Nine of us, one and two, please let’s call the question. It carries 13 to zero. Congratulations, Councillor Ploza, and thank you. Deputy Mayor. Item three is the consideration of appointment to the London Transit Commission.

[3:31:11] I wanted to, I spoke with the clerks about how to handle the additional communication. So I want to outline for colleagues what our options are. Committee went through process and made a recommendation. So we really have two options, except the recommendation is or to feed the recommendation. If we defeat the recommendation and we want to engage in another process and include the additional candidate in it, we would have decided as a council to exclude previous winning candidate from the process and could not be included in the new process.

[3:31:46] The other option is to refer the whole matter back to SPPC for an entire new process, which would be the option to include everyone. So I am going to put the committee recommendation on the floor, knowing that those are the options before us for colleagues. And if you have questions, certainly the clerk can respond to them about why we’re restricted in the way we are. Comments or questions colleagues? I see none.

[3:32:17] Oh, excuse me, we do have one. Councillor Halmer, so I’ll get the end there. I just wanted to say I appreciate Councillor Morgan laying out what the options would be a bit of a tricky position to be in. I think we actually had quite a lot of great candidates for this one vacancy and for myself anyway, I don’t think Mr. Foster being a candidate would change my voting. I think he’d be very good on the long transition, but we had a number of people and I don’t think he’d be ahead of Cedric Richards who I ranked as my choice throughout the voting.

[3:32:51] So I think unless there’s a lot of people who have really changed their mind, that we should vote on the recommendation that’s been made by SPPC, even though we’ve got an additional candidate come forward at this point. If there are a lot of people who might change their mind then the referral I think is a good approach. Comments or other comments or questions? There is a recommendation on the floor of Councillor Van Halst? Yes, thank you. Just through you to our staff, how did we come to get an extra, this extra candidate, was it late?

[3:33:28] Was he, he somehow left off of the list to help me understand the circumstances? Let’s ask the clerk. Your worship, it was submitted after the deadline, however, it was a communication which has occurred in previous meetings. Councillor Van Halst, does that answer your question? That’s, it does your worship. Thanks very much. Any other comments or questions? Councillor Plaza. Thank you, Your Worship. And I actually spoke to Mr. Dan Foster who wrote this as he obviously has a great passion for transit and serving the city of London and its residents.

[3:34:08] So I thank him for his application and absolutely he’d be qualified. Just wanna make sure through you to the clerks that his application would now be kept on file with the rest of them. Should another vacancy emerge during this term of council that he would be contacted if directed to, as would other applications that are currently already on file? Over to the clerk, we would keep that application on file. Councillor Plaza. Thank you.

[3:34:40] And just a question from the community that had come in as well that the applications would all need to be resubmitted in the next term of council. If people are still interested or do we keep them on file for that duration? I’ll go to the clerk, but I may add something after. Go ahead, clerk. With a new term of council, it’d be a resubmission process. Perfect. Thank you. And I appreciate all the public for their interest and their questions in serving and further insights that they provide us with. Thank you.

[3:35:14] Well, thanks very much. The clerk answered the question that I was going to comment on. Any other comments? We have a recommendation from the deputy mayor from that was voted on at SPPC. With that, we’ll call the question. What is in the vote?

[3:36:00] Motion carries. Yes, the final item, 5.1 deferral of incentive loan repayments and forgiving an interest free loan for the lending community players is that item. There is a part A and a part B. I was asked to pull this separately. I’ll just remind colleagues that part A is the further extension of the deferral period for all community improvement plan loan repayments. Part B was the forgiveness of the remaining interest free loan to the lending community players.

[3:36:36] So those items are on the floor, comments for questions. How’s your end host? Thank you, Your Worship. Regarding the forgiveness of the loan, although I had voted against referring this matter previously, I think I would like to see that referred again and perhaps not to this coming budget update, perhaps the next one, I think the midterm budget that happens in the summer.

[3:37:14] And I think there’s, I see there’s some issues with the community and I’d like those to be addressed with the palace so that we can move forward with this kind of thing having the confidence of all the community. So I guess that would be my motion. Can you be specific Councilor with respect to the timing just so it’s clear to all? Okay, if I can ask our staff, when the next one, the interim budget update, it is it’s sometime during the summer at the end of the summer.

[3:37:56] Is that right? When would that be? Ms. Barbont? Through the chair, I believe the Councilor is referring to the final annual year end update as opposed to the budget itself update. I just, some clarity would be helpful. Councilor, can you bring clarity to your question? Okay, so we’ve got a budget update coming in in December. And I think that’s where the perhaps another Councilor had hoped to refer this matter.

[3:38:33] I would hope to refer it further than that. Could staff provide me an option? Oh, it’s through. Go ahead, Ms. Barbont. Thank you. Colleagues, sometimes it is helpful to ask staff in advance to be able to bring clarity to these kinds of issues. Ms. Barbont, if you could help us, please. Thank you through the chair. So the next budget update, which is the 2022 budget update, will be tabled in November and deliberations will occur before the end of December. So that’s certainly one option if you wanted to go through the annual budget update.

[3:39:07] The 2023, which is the next budget update following would not occur until after the new Council is worn in, which would occur probably in January of 2023. So if you wanted to refer it to a budget process, those are your two options. Otherwise, Council could refer it to a future, I guess, committee discussion where a business case could be brought forward and the organization could be requested to do so if you were looking to refer. So certainly up to Council decide how you wish to handle.

[3:39:41] Where do you want to take this Council? I believe that the 2023 budget update would be the place to go. So that would be next year in November. So could you give the clerk the wording of what that would be? I’m going to ask the, I’m going to ask the Deputy Mayor some comment on this. Perhaps this may help in assist, go ahead. Yes, my intention is to help and assist colleagues. There were two items as I mentioned in this.

[3:40:16] Item A passed 14 to zero. Item B was a divided vote. The Council is talking about item B to speed this along. What I’d like to do is I’m going to put item A on the floor only right now. That way the Council can work on whatever is languages for B and we can take care of that. Then I’ll put B on the floor after A is dealt with. So I’m just putting 5.1 item A, which is the authorization to further extend the deferral period for the community improvement plan loan repayment program. That was clear and I think that was well received by not to presume from SPPC.

[3:40:51] Are there any questions with respect to item 5.1 A? Let’s call that vote then please. Your worship all vote, yay.

[3:41:29] Thank you. Opposed in the vote motion carries 13 to zero. Over to you again, Deputy Mayor, please. Yes, and now I will put 5.1 from the committee report. Item B, which is forgiveness of the remaining balance of the interest free loan to the London community players on the floor. And I’m now going to return the floor back to Councillor Van Halst if he’s brought some clarity to his motion please or to his amendment.

[3:42:07] Councillor Van Halst? Yes, thank you. So perhaps I was thinking about the year in budget money report, which is done about April, you know, your worship, I’m sorry. So I would put this off until not this coming budget but to the next one in 2023. If that’s if that’s clear enough, that would be my referral. I’m sorry that I wasn’t as helpful as I could be by clearing that up previously.

[3:42:47] Mike, so I’ve got that. And my comment about that for all colleagues is it just assist the clerk but helps all of us in terms of where we’re trying to move this to a certain place. Is there a seconder for that to move this to the 2023 new council for consideration? Councillor Lehman, are you seconding then? I’ve got a question for you, Chair. On this specifically, correct. All right, well, let’s see if there’s a seconder for this first and then we can come back to it.

[3:43:19] Is there a seconder for Councillor Van Halst? I see Councillor Van Merberg and a seconding? Councillor Lehman, you had a question. So I had prepared a similar motion, but it differs. So we have this motion that is now on the floor. Which has to be done, yes. So maybe what I can do is speak to that and maybe get a friendly amendment. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you. I wanna say first and foremost, I support Hal’s theater.

[3:43:53] I think they’re an integral part of the arts community, the East End, the business and community out there and also to London to our core. They have been here for many, many, many years and I wanna do what I can to see them continue. As with all entertainment and theatrical organizations, they’ve had their share of the financial hardship during COVID.

[3:44:28] However, I referred this, I tried to get a motion to refer this at committee because I believe we do have a fiduciary responsibility when we look at forgiving alone. In this case, this loan comes with a lien against their major asset, which is their building. But since the committee meeting and now we’ve received communication from a number of folks expressing some concerns and bring forth some information. And I’ve done some due diligence that I’ve spoken to folks to affirm there is basis for factual of the factual evidence that was contained in those communications.

[3:45:11] I think what I’d like to see is back to which Councilor Van Hollis touches on, that this be given due diligence in the proper context, which is in the budgetary talks. I would like to see the organization present a business case and where we can ask them directly about concerns we might have before losing that lien against the building. However, that being said, I do believe sooner, better than later, it is important for their planning going forward.

[3:45:48] So I would ask the Councilor, if he would accept a friendly amendment to have them present a business case in the upcoming budget discussions, which would be in the next month or so. It’s not friendly, it may sound friendly, Councilor Lehman, but it is not, it’s a formal amendment. So I’m really in a way to deal with this issue as it is. So can I make an amendment then to his referral? And if I get a seconder, then can we vote on the amendment?

[3:46:22] Yes, you can. Well, hold on a second. I need to hear that from Councilor Lehman. Then please go ahead, can you be specific? I would formally like to put an amendment on the floor then to Councilor Van Hollis referral to move the date to the next, to the current business or budget discussions upcoming where we would be presented with the business case. And do you have a seconder for that? Councilor Van Hollis, are you seconding that?

[3:46:57] Yes, yes, and I’m actually happy to, if it’s more convenient, withdraw my motion. And second, Councilor Lehman seems to have a good approach as well. So what we have is Councilor Van Hollis withdrawing his motion and I’ve got now a motion from Councilor Lehman, seconded by Councilor Van Hollis that be dealt with in the next budget cycle.

[3:47:35] So what, yes, correct. Comments or questions? Councilor Halmer, go ahead. Councilor, you’re unmuted, sorry. Sorry, my mouse is losing power, so it’s actually slowed down. That’s a good thing or a bad thing. I just want to clarify through the chair to Councilor Lehman, precisely what he means. You mean the budget update, we’re going to start in a month.

[3:48:12] Councilor Lehman? That’s correct. He said yes. Okay, so first just on the referral, I want to apologize to the Palis Theater for the master making of what I think should have been a very straightforward thing. And I was on Council when we used to have the Community Grants come to Council. And unfortunately what I’m seeing here is a lot of the same negative dynamics that happened when we had the Community Grants coming to Council instead of having a program that was administered by a volunteer panel who could look at the merits of the grant allocations and decide who should get the money.

[3:48:53] The process of having grants of the size we’re talking about, $78,000, $50,000, coming through Council for individual discussion. Even we’re talking now a business case, a business case for $78,000 to forgive to an organization that is financially on the ropes. And it’s just an awful process to put organizations through where they come, come show us how desperate you are for the money and that you have no other options. And maybe we’ll give it to you and maybe we won’t.

[3:49:29] And we’ll have people weigh in about what they think the organization is deserving or not to serving in the public participation meetings. We moved away from that process and I think it has been a big improvement. And unfortunately in trying to provide some relief for the palace after they’re getting now to the reopening stage to come through the pandemic basically told me shut down, run my volunteers, try them with a little bit of relief that will help them over the next few years. I’ve now triggered a whole discussion around the same lines, just focus on one organization, not even a whole bunch of granting applications. And I think it’s really unfortunate.

[3:50:04] These are people that are just trying to do their best run on our same cultural organization. It was my idea to bring it up right now and it was a bad idea because we’re just, we’re trying to make it perfect. We’re over-complicating it. We’re adding all this administrative overhead on something that is pretty straightforward. They’ve been shut for almost two years. They don’t have a lot of money to pay us back. This would really help them. That’s the business case. It’s not gonna change in a month. I don’t want people to put a huge amount of work into it.

[3:50:38] I don’t support the referral. I’d rather vote on it now. Either you think this is a good idea or you don’t. Vote on it now and if it fails, then we may deal with it next year. In the meantime, people maybe come around and they think, “Hey, I’ve got more information,” or whatever it is people need to know. What I’m proposing we do is pay for the loan forgiveness with the current operating surplus that we’re gonna have this year. Not out in future years, but with the surplus that we have now, just take care of it now. And dragging this out for longer, I just think is a bad way to handle it.

[3:51:13] So I understand where people are coming from with the referral, but I don’t think it’s the right process for an organization to go through. And I think it’s gonna end up badly. Thank you. I next have Councillor Lish. Thank you, Your Worship. So I will not be supporting the referral at this point. I also won’t be supporting the forgiveness as I did not support it at committee either. We’ve seen through our communications, and in fact, one from a former board member, Mr. James, that was sent to all of us.

[3:51:50] This is an organization that’s been in receipt of over $220,000 in grants in the last year. And from the London Arts Council, the Ontario Arts Council, the Ontario Trillium Foundation. So to be honest, in lieu of a business case, knowing that that amount of money has flown in from other sources, I don’t think that I can justify to Londoners more forgiveness, more help here.

[3:52:22] If this was simply an ask to defer the payments similar to what we’ve just done in Part A, as I indicated before, I’d be supportive of that. Whether it’s 50,000 or 80,000, it’s still the public’s money at the end of the day. The fact that I’ve had a chance to review the agreement briefly, admittedly, but review the agreement that is in place with the palace, it’s been amended a couple of times. And yes, if it’s defeated this time or if it’s referred to the budget process and it’s defeated there, they could certainly come back in a year and ask again.

[3:52:59] But with what I’m seeing from the questions from the community and the cash flow that has come in from grants from another now former member of the boards, I have a lot of questions about why we would continue here with this operating surplus without having all the facts. So I’m not prepared to support the referral or the grant forgiveness at this time. Thank you, Councillor Caster. Thank you, Your Worship. You know, I remember when we approved this and it was a kind of a new thing.

[3:53:34] And I believe it’s might even have been something that Councillor Vanholst had suggested at the time. And my apologies if I’m wrong on that one, but I do remember when this came to us because it’s a beautiful heritage building. They had just renovated this building and then the roof leaked something that was completely unexpected and all of the renovations or many of the renovations caused a lot of damage to the building. So Council responded to that. And we thought at the time we were being, we had come up with a creative solution.

[3:54:12] Let’s do a loan, let’s be physically responsible. After the fact, we were told by city staff that the administration of this loan was extremely onerous to city staff. Because city hall is not a bank. We don’t do this and we don’t have things in place to administer loans and take in the repayments and do all of that. And I would submit that continuing with this process is, is costing the taxpayers probably at the best, we’re probably revenue neutral.

[3:54:50] We’re not refilling city coffers. We’re paying city staff to administer a loan because we are not a bank and we’re not designed to do this. It is a small amount, it is taxpayer money, but $78,000 when you translate that into staff time and staff and all of the banking and administration that goes along with that, it is something that city staff don’t ever want us to do again if we can avoid doing these kinds of loans. And in fact, having spoken to staff at the time, they would have preferred that we would have just done a grant.

[3:55:31] So we’re not being fiscally responsible necessarily by continuing with this process that is costing us money to administer. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I’m not even sure where to start here. I was around when we gave this unique loan to the Palace Theatre to save their building.

[3:56:06] And at the time, we were told, this is very unusual situation. We’ve become, we’ve got to lean on their property. There’s a mortgage there and we are responsible for the administration, which definitely is a burden. And here we are today with a referral to extend it to our budget process, which is in a month asking the Palace Theatre to provide a business case.

[3:56:47] Not sure what business case is other than what’s in front of us. And I’m at a loss how we as a council are supporting businesses going through extreme hardships. And I don’t know if I’m starting to lose it at this hour, but I am embarrassed that we would even have this conversation and with this referral, given the support.

[3:57:22] I have a point of order, Councillor Square. That’s to say that the conduct of other Councillors in raising issues is embarrassing. Is that where we’ve arrived at? That people having a debate and the fact that they want a debate is an embarrassment to another Councillor? I mean, that should be withdrawn. That’s, you can disagree all you want. But to say that people expressing in a democratic forum are embarrassing to you. I agree with the order.

[3:57:54] Sorry, no, hold on a second. I’m gonna deal with one point of order at a time. Firstly, that is not a point of order. The Councillor did not say that she was embarrassed by others. She said that she was firstly embarrassed. It is not a point of order. Thank you very much. Sorry, Councillor Cassidy. Did you have something to add? I was about to say that that was not a point of order, Your Worship. Okay, thank you very much. Go ahead, Councillor Hopkins, please. Thank you, Your Worship. And I will repeat myself.

[3:58:26] I am embarrassed that we are even having this discussion referring this over. I will not be supporting it and happy to make comments as hopefully this will not go through. So noted, thank you very much. I have now next Councillor Squire. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So I didn’t support this in the beginning. And I’m gonna just try to stick with what I think is factually important and important for me. So I didn’t support it before because I didn’t think it was proper to be considering one matter and one in debt and this over another, whatever those other in debt and this could be.

[3:59:06] Today I’m in an even worse position from my point of view and that Councillors have been provided information, which whether it’s true or not, and it may be true, it may not be true, presents me with a challenge as to my fiduciary responsibility as a city Councillor with regard to the protection of public money. So a certain amount of public money has been expended to an organization and there are suggestions that there are personal monies outstanding, that other monies were provided all may be untrue.

[3:59:45] But in my submission, I have to get some answers to some of those things before I can just forgive any loan and it wouldn’t matter who the loan is to. It wouldn’t matter if it was a business organization or anyone coming forward. These are not accusations or suggestions out of the normal course. They’re from people who have information who served on the board and they are raising issues about this particular forgiveness. Now, again, I have a right to question that and I don’t understand I guess how this is comparable to the community grants, the process we change, where we give grants to people.

[4:00:25] I don’t see how anybody is vilifying an organization. I just, I don’t do that, I don’t see that. But I think we have to do our job and I have to do my job as a counselor. So I’m gonna be consistent. I’m not gonna support referrals. If the organization wants to come back in the future and present information, which I think isn’t coming up on them at this point, to provide information that will allow me to forgive this loan. It doesn’t mean that if I had been provided with information, I wouldn’t have.

[4:00:58] So again, I think it’s an emotional issue and I’m starting to see that. But I’m gonna stick to what I think is a proper course for a city counselor, which is to treat organizations the same, bring my own fiduciary obligations to bear on every decision I make. These are not personal decisions. I go to the Palace Theater. I’ve been there. I support the Palace Theater. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to change my decision for reasons that existed at the time the loan was granted. I was also one who said it should be a grant at the time.

[4:01:35] I get that. But where I am right now, we’re talking about forgiving a loan, where there are issues that have been presented to us. And I have to abide by them. Thanks very much, Councilor Halston. Thank you, Your Worship. And kind of some clarification now that we passed A at what point would the Palace Theater have to begin paying the loan back again? So they got a year’s grace of non-payment because of the previous direction.

[4:02:15] I don’t think that is the case necessarily, but Ms. Barboon, do you want to respond? Thank you, Your Worship. The similar to the part A, the original deferrals for all, both the loans for the Palace Theater as well as the CIP loans were deferred until this period in time. So they would be expiring in the next week or so. So the next payment would be due at the end of October. Should it not be granted some additional deferral similar to the deferral that was granted in Part A? So just to be clear, Ms. Barboon, tight-ended Council Member Holst question.

[4:02:53] The CIP loan repayments have been deferred, but not at this stage the Palace Theater Commandments. Is that correct? Yes, that’s correct Your Worship. Thank you, Council Member Holst. Okay, thank you. I was only the impression that it had been voted that the Palace would also be extended a grace and then this was an additional measure. Any other comments or questions as Council Member Holst?

[4:03:29] Very not. All right, thanks very much. Any other comments or questions with respect to the referral? Deputy Mayor Morgan. Thank you, Your Worship. I’d like to weigh in on this. First off, I think that this debate has gotten a little bit heated and needlessly so. I think Councilor Helmer spoke well when he said this has kind of gone in a direction that I don’t think any of us expected or I know he apologized to the London community players for this in thinking about this.

[4:04:08] This seems to me like a bit of a cooling off period on this is likely more appropriate. As much as I completely understand Councilor Layman’s approach to this, I think my approach would be to defeat the referral, to defeat the committee recommendation, which I did support, which was the forgiveness of the loan, which would then make a decided matter of Council for 12 months. But I would also support a similar action as was made in part A to leave the loan payments alone for a period of a year, which would be the same period that we wouldn’t be able to reconsider this without a majority of Council.

[4:04:51] So I don’t think I’m gonna support the referral this time. The reason why I do that is within the loan agreement, the treasurer will have access to the annual audited statements. I’m not sure that Council needs to review those. That’s a regular course of due diligence for the loan process. And Council and the corporation have some leverage over the building should the organization get into trouble. It is an important heritage asset and that is, I think, an important protection within the loan agreement that I think I would like to see stick around for a little longer.

[4:05:23] But I certainly don’t want to create an additional financial burden on the monthly payment side of things. So that’s hence my approach. And I think we could all deal with this at that time with cooler heads without putting it on a necessary burden on the London community players. Any other comments the colleagues have? Council President Holst, I know your hand doesn’t really mean to be up, so I’ll let you take it down. Any other comments or questions? Sorry, Councilor, how many of you have spoken on this? Unless there was a point of order. No, just a point of clarification.

[4:05:55] I just want to allow Councilor Morgan to just raise that. I just want to make sure we all understand implications. Yeah, tightly, go ahead. So just through you to the staff, a year from now, we’ll be in the caretaker mode council, some kind of people call it lame duck, potentially. And if that is the situation, would be able to contemplate any unbudgeted expenditures, something like this, like for getting along, ‘cause I think actually might be problematic. Ms. Barbara, I’ll let you answer that question. And then I’m going to be speaking to this issue as well.

[4:06:29] Go ahead, Ms. Barbara, please. Certainly through the chair. Certainly from our perspective, this obviously could be dealt with. And I don’t believe it needs to go through the budget. It is a one-time expenditure that if Council was going to presumably be through a lame duck period and this needed to be dealt with sooner and Council wish to consider it sooner. I believe because it is a one-time source that we could identify a one-time source and it could be considered earlier than that, or it could be waited until the budget if that certainly couldn’t be dealt with through the lame duck period because it is an unbudgeted expenditure.

[4:07:07] Thanks very much. I’ll turn the chair over to the deputy mayor who kind of has the chair. I’ll give it to the end of Councilor Squire. Go ahead, please. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, thanks very much. I’m supporting your full colleagues only because it is for this upcoming budget cycle I don’t agree respectfully with the deputy mayor about pushing it forward that much further again, necessarily, which I know kind of is what we talked about initially. And then there’s been some bouncing back and forth.

[4:07:40] If the referral is defeated, I’m actually going to support tonight supporting the Palace Theater. But the reason I’m not supporting it initially is because I think we have to be particularly mindful of a single one-off request that come outside of the budget cycle. We can argue it’s not necessarily a large amount. That’s a subjective reference, I suppose. And I’ve, like all of us here that have attended the Palace Theater, I think it’s fair to say that we have deep respect for them.

[4:08:15] But it’s not that as the issue. The issue is, I think, rather than requests coming in, this is one, but there well may be others that come through over the next period of time, it’s just not the way to do our business, I don’t believe. And it was my hope that with the referral is suggested by Councillor Layman, that what that would do is that would give us the appropriate place to deal with this. It’s not the amount, but it’s, pardon me, excuse me, please. It’s not the amount and we can determine whether or not it’s a genuine process to forgive loans and the like.

[4:08:50] It’s not a CIP community improvement program. I think we have a really good sense of what it is, but it’s just that delivered off-cycle doesn’t make a lot of sense to me and that one of the things that we can do is we can defer any interest payments so that the Palace is not penalized in the same way that we just dealt with the CIP loans. And I just think there’s a way to do that thoughtfully and in an organized fashion. But when they come in like this, as well intended as I know they are, I just think that causes, I think, disruption that frankly, one it may not be the issue, but then a second, third, fourth, fifth, which are the other ones that will come in in the next meeting.

[4:09:33] I just don’t think that’s the best way to run the business of the city. So I will support the referral. And as I say, if the referral fails, then I will likely be in, ironically, in the position of supporting if it comes up to support the dealing with the Palace Theatre tonight. So. Thanks very much. Mr. Square. I’ll turn the chair back over to you, Mr. Mayor. Thanks very much. I don’t see anybody else on the list. This is for the referral. Let’s call the question.

[4:10:32] Those in the vote, motion fails six to seven. Back over to Deputy Mayor Morgan. Well, I guess what’s still on the floor is the committee recommendation, which is the forgiveness of the loan balance. Any other new comments that would be helpful to this discussion? Councillor Hummer. So, Mayor Holder, you convinced me that referral was a good idea. And so I never let it be said that I can’t have my mind changed.

[4:11:07] I’m going to move that we refer this part B to a future SPPC. So not to the budget process, but some later SPPC meeting or maybe a better standing committee with the Corporate Services Committee, I’m not sure. Seems like we don’t really have a great forward here. And I don’t want to make a HAC decision that’s going to mean we can’t really do anything for a long period of time. So rather than just see it fail altogether, perhaps we can have it just referred and we can think about it some more and talk about it around the same time as the budget, but perhaps maybe after the end-of-year monitoring report is done or something like that, we could have this come back where I can bring it back at one of those meetings.

[4:11:50] So I’m going to suggest that we refer it to a future standing committee, the appropriate standing committee, I guess, because SPPC is there because it’s COVID related, I think. I’m not sure that the emphasis really always will be. Councillor Hummer, the clerk has suggested SPPC. I’ll look for a seconder for that, please. I see Councillor Layman’s seconding. Comments or questions on the referral? Deputy Mayor. Yes, given the timeframe of the referral, I still stand by what I said and given our actions in A that I would prefer to add that no principal payments be made until such time that council deals with this matter.

[4:12:29] So I suppose that would need to be a formal amendment with the referral. So I’ll make that amendment as well. There’ll still be a formal amendment. So there’s amendment to the referral. Looks like Councillor Van Halft is seconding. Comments, questions on that? This is on the forgiveness of, or pardon me, the deferral of interest payments.

[4:13:04] Councillor Van Halft, do you have a brief comment? Thank you. So I think this is a good approach and somewhat what I was hoping to do is push this a little further in the future. So there’s a little more time for the palace. And I do appreciate Councillor Morgan providing that relief in his motion as well. And I also think it’s important that the city do hold onto that lean because that may help us save a heritage building under some potential circumstances.

[4:13:48] So I’m not exactly sure when this referral would be is that sometime in the new year, is that what’s anticipated? My question through you to Councillor Helmer. Before I ask Councillor Helmer to respond to that, colleagues, I misspoke. I made reference to interest payments. We’re talking about principal payments being deferred and that was the intention of the amendment. Councillor Helmer, do you have any comments about timing of the SPPC meeting? I just think leaving it open ended as a future meeting is probably the best thing to do at this point.

[4:14:24] Thanks very much. Anything else? Councillor Van Halft, are we good? Yes, I’m in agreement with that, thank you. I see no other speakers related to the amendment. So let’s take the vote, please. Is there somebody coming into that? Oh, pardon me, Councillor Palazzo, go ahead. Just Councillor Hill, your message, the meeting picked him out and he’s just logging back in now through the vote. Okay, we’ll just give him a moment to thank you very much for that. He’s coming back in. I need to vote 10 seconds.

[4:14:57] All right. Are you in Councillor? Councillor Hill, are you in? I can talk, sing to make sure you can hear it. Can you hear it? You do not want Councillor Van Hal’s singing, it would just be bad. Okay, so with that, we have got the amendment on the floor. I see no other questions, comments. Let’s call the question, please. Councillor Halmer, closing the vote.

[4:15:57] Motion carries, N to three. Now we’re going to deal with the referral as amended, so any final comments or questions? See, oh, Councillor Halmer, go ahead, please. I’m not gonna talk about the substance of the issue. This is more of a point of order. We’ll say when the motions are being written on the fly and it’s really helpful to see them before we actually vote when we still have a chance to talk about them, because that language in the motion actually says, you know, to make principal repayments until we talk about it at another meeting, which is actually a very short, potentially a very short time period.

[4:16:45] And I had sent language to the clerk about extending the repayments on the same timeframe as all the CIP loans, which would be 180 days, which could potentially be much, much longer. And I don’t know really know what Councillor Morgan deck and where Morgan’s intention was, if he wanted to be a really short timeframe, but that language is a bit ambiguous. And I didn’t have a chance to see it until we were voting and then the votes is over. So I voted against it, but if we could just see the language before, confirm that it’s okay. And then go ahead.

[4:17:19] That is, that’s a reasonable position. And by the way, colleagues, if for any reason you cannot see as well, I presume that the clerks act with the speed of light, but you also have to read that accordingly. And if you need appropriate time to reflect on what that is, please, please, just bring that to my attention, Councillor Cassidy. I will just say that until the vote came up, I had been trying to refresh my screen for, since the last vote and I was still just stuck on the LTC item and my screen wouldn’t refresh.

[4:17:52] BC to be fair, the clerks would not know that necessarily. So part of the challenge is unless you declare that, and I certainly respect the need for colleagues to know what they’re voting on. So should that happen for any of us, please just let us know and we can, we can deal with those things as they are. We’re not trying to rush through things, we’re trying to do this correctly and appropriately and thoughtfully. So, Deputy Mayor, did you have anything you wanted to add to what we’re dealing with here? Well, I think Councillor Hummer makes an excellent point.

[4:18:26] I understand the clerks wrote down what I said. It would have been ideal to have some discussion on it because I would have certainly supported the longer timeframe. That’s not what we passed. So I would support a further extension at their appropriate time, but I don’t have a solution to the current situation. We’re in, I think it’s an astute point to say, we might need a little more time with the language of the motions on the screen. Just get some thoughts from the clerk as to how we want to deal with that because I think the spirit of what we’re talking about here is that we want to tie this into a timeframe that’s probably as comparable to CIP.

[4:19:13] So appreciate it if that’s the fact. And again, colleagues, please, if for any reason, it’s we’re going too fast, or your system isn’t going too fast enough, please let us know. We’ll do this thought for them appropriately. So I’m going to go to the clerk and see if we can work our way through this a little bit. Clerk. Your worship, I would suggest there’s two options. One is a reconsideration, which of course requires a two-thirds vote. The other option is to deal with it when it returns to SPPC. So I’m going to take it over to the deputy mayor with his motion.

[4:19:48] Do you have a preference there? Or is there a preference from Councillor? I’d rather clean it up right now. So I’m happy to move reconsideration of the amendment since I was on the winning side of the vote. I know it requires 10. I would encourage colleagues to let us clean this up now so that we can match the timeframe. That was my intention and I’m sorry, I didn’t make it clear. I see if Councillor Hopkins is supporting that as well. Thank you very much. You have a seconder. This will require two-thirds vote for support. We’ll call the question. Sorry, any questions about what we’re doing now?

[4:20:22] Colleagues, all right, this will require two-thirds support. We will call the question on reconsideration. I know the clerks are being very mindful of the wording and making sure that it’s very clear.

[4:21:53] Councillor Lewis. I vote yes for reconsideration. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13-0. So now I want to amend for all to include a period of principal free payments that aligns with the, what we did in A, which is a period of a further 180 days. The seconder for that, I’ve got Councillor Lehman.

[4:22:36] Thank you. Comments or questions as the clerk writes that up. So the clerk has just advised their drafting that up and put that up on the screen in just a moment.

[4:23:13] So just to be clear colleagues. So just take a breath. You’re welcome to take a 60 second. It’ll probably take that. If you just want to take a 60 second pause, you’re welcome. I’ll invite colleagues to open up their screens to look at the motion.

[4:28:36] Colleagues, before we call the question, is there any comment or question about what is in front of you? Just Councillor Hummer. The language of the motion is not a permit screen. So maybe give me the motion number that I should be looking for, ‘cause I don’t see it. For your worship, if you refresh the scribe, it should come up and it should be underneath motion number six. You’ll see two amendments.

[4:29:14] You’re looking for the second of those amendments. Thank you, I see it now, thanks. So now that you’ve seen a colleague’s any comments or questions with respect to the amendment, see a number of folks.

[4:29:48] Yes, please go ahead, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you for asking. I’m still refreshing my screen and it’s taking a while. Your worship, I just wanna ensure that this works for the treasurer who oversees the loan because the language is important to be executed by our staff. So could I ask a question of the treasurer, is this, have everything in it to meet what council is intending to do here? Ms. Pueblo. Through your worship, we can’t actually see the motion. So if the clerk could read it, that would be very useful.

[4:30:22] It’s fairly brief, I’m sure the clerk can do that. If the referral be amended to add that no payments be applied to the outstanding loan amount for a further period of 180 days. Hopefully that also works for you, Councillor Hopkins. It does. So let’s check with Ms. Pueblo as well. I’ll go ahead, please. Thank you, it would be really helpful for staff to have the dates in it, such as we did for the CIP loan so that we know what month that’s referring to. And just if we could add being October 2021 to March 2022, so we have a timeframe to work with, please.

[4:31:02] That is the mover. That sounds reasonable and you’ve got the mover supporting that. And the seconder, Councillor Hopkins? Yes, the seconder is also in support of that. Sorry, I lied, that was Councillor Lehman as well. Thank you. Well, we’ve never, colleagues had so much effort for precision as it relates to certain items, but it does speak to the challenges sometimes of, and it will give me an opportunity to say to you, tonight being an exception in this case, that please, please, if there are motions or amendments or ideas that you have, anything that we can always advance to the clerk, I know this is a unique situation.

[4:31:56] It’s so helpful to what we’re trying to do. We’re still in conference. It is up for voting. What is open, colleagues? Councillor Hill here, closing the vote.

[4:33:08] Motion carries 11 to one. And now we have to deal with it. So with the referral as amended, I’ll look from mover, please. Moved by Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor Hummer. Thank you very much.

[4:33:41] Let’s call the question, please. Councillor Lewis, closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero.

[4:34:19] Thanks very much, Deputy Mayor, anything else on your report? Then let’s turn our attention, please, colleagues to the Audit Committee or review Deputy Mayor. Yeah, I’m actually going to have that Councillor Hummer present the audit report because I participated remotely in he chaired the meeting. Go ahead, Councillor Hummer, please. I’m hoping that this report goes a little smoother than the last item. I will put all the items from the committee report on the floor.

[4:34:53] I’m not aware that anybody wants to pull any of them for discussion, I will say we had a good discussion about the Hamilton Road BIA financial statements. Quite detailed, I would say, and they were a little bit delayed from the usual consolidated financial statements and now we’re caught up and they’re being recommended. And then there was a discussion about the internal— Sorry, Councillor Hummer, just before we get you into that detail, it is fair to ask, though, if anyone wants to have any of these items first voted on separately or dealt with that way, if not, I’ll ask you then to finish with the rest of your commentary.

[4:35:25] Does anyone wish to have anything on the Audit Committee report dealt with separately? Thanks, Councillor Hummer. Thank you. The other reports about the internal audit, I’m done. Plain with me. Comments or questions that you’d like to add with regard to the Audit Committee? Appropriately put on the floor, we’ll call the question. Close in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero.

[4:36:12] Anything else for you, Councillor Hummer on that? The mayor could be a succinct. Well done, thank you very much, colleagues. We have, that concludes the committee reports. We have no deferred matters, no inquiries, nor emergent motions of which I’ve been made aware. But we have a number of bylaws to deal with and I’m going to exclude one from items 452 through 480 and that is bylaw 461, which is the COVID bill and I’m going to make an assumption that you wish that dealt with separately, Councillor, Councillor Van Halst, would you try to be mindful of that or would you like it all as one?

[4:36:54] Could you take it off me, please? Councillor Van Halst, I couldn’t, we couldn’t hear you. Okay, I’m sorry, yes, if you would kindly allow me to vote on that separately. Okay, thank you very much, colleagues. For first reading of the bill 452 through 480, exclusive of bill 461. This is introduction of first reading. I will look for a mover and a seconder. Moved by Councillor Van Mirberg and seconded by Councillor Cassidy, thank you very much. Let’s call the vote. Councillor Hopkins, thank you, and Councillor Halmer.

[4:37:49] Close in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero. Colleagues, I’m looking for a mover in 452 through 480, exclusive of bill 461. Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Palosa. Thank you, any comments, discussion? Call the question, thank you. Close in the vote, motion carries.

[4:38:32] We’ll be looking for mover and seconder for third reading and enactment. Bill 452 through 480, exclusive of bill 461. Could I get a mover, please? Moved by Councillor Palosa, seconded by Councillor Layman. We’ll call the vote. Close in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero.

[4:39:13] Colleagues, bill 461 is the member of members of council proof of COVID-19 vaccination policy. For first reading, I’ll look for a mover and seconder for introduction in first view of bill 461. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor van Mirberg, and thank you, let’s call the vote. Close in the vote, motion carries.

[4:39:57] Colleagues, I look for mover and seconder for second reading of bill 461. That’ll be moved by Councillor Halmer, seconded by Councillor Turner. Any discussion? Call the question. I’m sorry, Your Worship. Councillor van Holst, I know we pulled this specifically. Do you have a brief comment? Yes, thank you. So I do understand why everybody is supporting this, but for me, it’s a fact on what I believe the Constitution is telling us in some of the other rights, makes this a sad thing for me to be facing.

[4:40:44] So that’s why I’m gonna be voting against it, thank you. Thanks very much. Any other discussion? Councillor Cassidy. I think it’s an appropriate time to point out that our community is is verging on 90% vaccination rate for first dose for our middle sex and London community. I think that is something that our community should be very proud of. We know that these vaccines are safe and effective and we know that we are taking them to keep others safe, others who are vulnerable, others who cannot protect themselves who may not be able to take this vaccine.

[4:41:20] And I think the progress we’ve made locally, all of us should be very proud of. Thank you, Your Worship. Thank you. I see no other speakers. Call the vote. Call the vote. Motion carries 11 to one. Dean and I can look for a movinger.

[4:41:57] Seconder, please move by. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Palosa. We’ll call the question. Call the vote. Motion carries 11 to one. Thank you, colleagues. Now we’re going to go into closed session. So for the benefit of our viewing public work just to make an overall brief reference of what we are going to be dealing with in closed session at a broad level.

[4:42:40] And then we invite viewers to come back or to stay tuned when we return. And we will report out of our closed session. So I’ll first go to the clerk for the benefit of, of our viewing public to let them know what we will be dealing with in closed session. Worship, the matters to be dealt within closed session are nine matters that are outlined in the public council agenda. They include several personal matters and matters related to litigation and potential litigation, solicitor client privilege, land acquisitions and commercial and financial information supplied in confidence to the corporation planned external organization.

[4:43:20] Thank you. So with that, I’ll look for a motion to go into closed session. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Thank you. We’ll call the question. Councillor van Holst, close in the vote.

[4:44:02] Motion carries 12 to zero. Colleagues suggest the room to move into closed session. Thank you. So just be a moment.

[4:47:46] I invite colleagues to have screens on place. That’s the clerk to confirm for. It’s been confirmed, colleagues. For the 13th report of council in closed session, I’m going to ask Councillor Lewis to report out for us, please.

[4:48:20] Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you, Your Worship. Your council in closed session reports. One, the amending agreement to option agreement, Bosco and Roxy’s Inc. Innovation Park phase three. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports on the advice of the director of realty services with respect to the recent industrial land sale to Bosco and Roxy’s under the corporate name 2431712 Ontario Inc. Which lands are legally described as part of block two plan 33M dash 627 and further shown as parts one and three plan three three dash two one zero one seven and whereas pursuant to the terms of the agreement of purchase sale, a subsequent city option agreement, the option agreement dated August 4th, 2021, was registered on title and in accordance with the city’s industrial land disposition policy attached as appendix B, the option agreement amendment as appendix C submitted by 2431712 Ontario Inc.

[4:49:24] to amend the terms of the original option agreement to satisfy 2431712 Ontario Inc’s lender be accepted subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement. Two, industrial land sale, option agreement amendment, urban single Canada Inc, innovation park phase three. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports on the advice of the director of realty services with respect to the city owned industrial land located in innovation park phase three containing an area of approximately 10.29 acres more or less more specifically described as the northerly 10.29 acres more or less of part one of plan 33R dash 18098 in the city of London County of Middlesex, part one, plan 33R dash 18098 as outlined on the sketch here in two referred as appendix A, the option agreement amendment attached as appendix B submitted by urban single Canada Inc to purchase 10.29 acres of the subject property from the city at a purchase price of $723,000 reflecting a sale price of $70,000 per acre be accepted.

[4:50:36] And three, property acquisition, 259 Wellington Road, the Wellington Gateway Project. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the director construction and infrastructure services on the advice of the director of realty services with respect to the property located at 259 Wellington Road further described as part of lot 64 plan 452 fourth designated as parts one and two plan 33R dash 4765 being all of pin 08364 dash 0091 LT contains an area of approximately 3,788.89 square feet as shown on the map attached as appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken.

[4:51:21] A, the offer submitted by Michael Gregory Maguire, the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of $624,000 be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement attached as appendix C and B, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here to attached as appendix A. Thank you, Councillor Lewis, is there a seconder? Sorry, Your Worship, I’ll just read the motion that pursuant to section 15.4 of the council procedure by-law leave be given for discussion and debate and the making of the substantive motion with respect to clauses one through three inclusive of the 13th report of council and closed session.

[4:52:02] That’s why there wasn’t a rush to a seconder because we had to finish that off. Thank you very much. So let’s have a seconder now if there is one. Councillor Deputy Mayor Morgan, thank you very much, comments or questions. Councillor and Mayor Bergen. Thank you, Mayor. If you could call three separately. That was my intention, thank you and I shall. Yep, thank you. We will do that right now. We are, I’ll put that forward and Councillor Lewis, please go ahead.

[4:52:35] Certainly, I’ll separate that motion to read parts one and two inclusive and then a part B with three. All right, so on parts one and two, this is appropriately moved and seconded. So with that, we will, any discussion? Let’s call the question. Close in the vote.

[4:53:29] Motion carries 12 to zero. Councillor Lewis. And I will put the third. That’s the property, nine Wellington Road, Wellington Gateway project on the floor now. Seconded by Councillor Squire. Thank you. Any discussion? Call the question. Close in the vote.

[4:54:12] Motion carries 11 to one. I’ll let you sound. Now we deal with the final bill 41 and 42, separate from 483 and to let the public know 43 deals with 259 Wellington Road. So that has been separated. So with the first reading, I’ll look for a mover and seconder of introduction to first reading of bills 41 and 42. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Van Mirbergen. Let’s call the question. Close in the vote.

[4:55:01] Motion carries 12 to zero. We’re in seconded for second reading of added bills 41 moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Lehman. Thank you very much. Any discussion? Call the question. Vote.

[4:55:35] Motion carries 12 to zero. And finally, for third reading and enactment of added bills 41 and 42, please move by. Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Turner. Thank you very much. We’ll call the vote. Close in the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. Please, we’re going to deal with added bill 483.

[4:56:10] As I indicated, that’s 259 Wellington Road. I’ll look for a mover and seconder for introduction to first reading of said bill. Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Thank you very much. We’ll call the question. Close in the vote. Motion carries. Second reading of added bill 483. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder.

[4:56:43] Please move by Councillor Palosa. Thank you, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Close in the vote. Motion carries. For third reading and an acumen of added bill 483. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Lewis. Thank you very much.

[4:57:18] It’s called the vote. Close in the vote. Motion carries 11 to one. Look to adjourn. It’s been an interesting evening, several hours. And we discussed a number of important issues. It’s my sense, as we have gone through this, we’ve always had very high expectations of our staff.

[4:57:55] And I would tell you time and again, our staff have come through. We heard that tonight in a number of chairs and reports and appreciation from various Council colleagues about the kind of support they get from staff in various levels. And I certainly can attest to that myself. You know, we ask for reports and those commitments are made. And frankly, for all the reports we ask, there’s a significant and tremendous amount of work that goes into that. And our staff are responsive and they’re great. And they truly are. And for the benefit of the public, I’m here to tell you they’re great.

[4:58:27] I would also add, as Livingston, if you could share that with all of our staff, we continue to hear from our colleagues around Council of Horseshoe, both a great report, support they receive. And again, from all of us, we just want to say thanks. So if you’ll pass it on to them. And with that, I will wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving. That feels kind of weird to be this early, but it’s never too early. And for that, I’ll look for a motion to adjourn. Councilor Squire, we can always depend on you.

[4:59:00] Councilor Turner, often second for that. With that, let’s do a show of hands, screens on, as we vote those in favor. Motion carries. We didn’t even get to the opposed part. Thanks very much, colleagues, media adjourned.