October 26, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor J. Morgan discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 8 of the 14th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with appointments to Western University’s Board of Governors, by indicating that he is employed by Western University.  Councillor J. Morgan further discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 4 of the 17th Report of the Corporate Services Committee, having to do with appointments to the Council Compensation Review Task Force, by indicating that one of the appointees is his supervisor at his employment.

Councillor J. Helmer discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 8 of the 14th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with appointments to Western University’s Board of Governors, by indicating that he is employed by Western University. Councillor J. Helmer further discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 4 of the 17th Report of the Corporate Services Committee, having to do with appointments to the Council Compensation Review Task Force, by indicating that one of the appointees is his supervisor at his employment.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

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 (13 to 0)

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

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Minutes of the 13th Meeting held on October 5, 2021, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

6.1     Filling of Vacancies on Municipal Council - refer to Item 5 (4.1) of the 17th Report of the Corporate Services Committee;

6.2     Council Vacancy - Ward 6 - refer to Item 6 (5.1) of the 17th Report of the Corporate Services Committee;

6.3     Masonville (Final) Secondary Plan (O-8991) - refer to Item 13(3.5) of the 15th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   17th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2021-10-12 CSC Report 17-Complete

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That Items 1 to 3 of the 17th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That it BE NOTED that Councillor J. Morgan disclosed a pecuniary interest in item 2.1, having to do with the Council Compensation Review Task Force, by indicated that one of candidates is his direct supervisor at his place of employment, Western University.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.2) Various By-law Amendments to Implement Organizational Structure Change (Relates to Bill No.’s 488 to 492)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

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

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 12, 2021 as Appendix “A”, being “A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7922-3, entitled “A by-law to approve a Neighbourhood, Children and Fire Services Funding Agreement Template; and to authorize the Managing Director, Neighbourhood, Children and Fire Services, or in their absence the Manager IV Neighbourhood, Children and Fire Services, to approve and execute agreements using the Neighbourhood, Children and Fire Services Agreement Template” to reflect the current organizational structure”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021;

b)    the proposed by-law  as appended to the staff report dated October 12, 2021 as Appendix “B”, being “A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6945-139, being “A by-law to establish the Child Care and Early Childhood Development Reserve Fund” to reflect the current organizational structure”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021;

c)    the proposed by-law  as appended to the staff report dated October 12, 2021 as Appendix “C”, being “A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7100-150, as amended, being “A by-law to approve Service Contracts/Agreements, Schedules, and Amendments with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario with respect to Social Services; and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute these Contracts/Agreements” to reflect the current organizational structure”, BE INTRODUCED as the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021; 

d)    the proposed by-law  as appended to the staff report dated October 12, 2021 as Appendix “D”, being “A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7551-146, being “A By-law to approve the Contribution Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Federal Minister of Health through the Public Health Agency of Canada; and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement” to reflect the current organizational structure”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021; and,

e)    the proposed by-law  as appended to the staff report dated October 12, 2021 as Appendix “E”, being “A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7253-138, being “A by-law to approve and adopt the standard form Children’s Services Wage Enhancement Grant Agreement and to delegate authority to the Managing Director, Neighbourhood Children and Fire Services as Administrator, Day Nurseries Act to insert information, amend the Schedules and execute agreements which employ this form” to reflect the current organizational structure, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.3) Report on 2021 Association of Municipalities of Ontario Annual Conference

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the communication dated September 20, 2021 from Councillor A. Hopkins regarding the Report on 2021 Association of Municipalities of Ontario Annual Conference virtual meeting held on August 15 - 18, 2021 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.1) 2021 Council Compensation Review Task Force

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the appointment of following individuals to the 2021 Council Compensation Review Task Force BE RATIFIED:

a)    Dan Ross

b)    Joe Lyons

c)    Christene Scrimgeour

d)    Jeff Tudhope

e)    Don Bryant

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

8.1.5   (4.1) Filling of Vacancies on Municipal Council (Relates to Bill No. 485)

At 4:28 PM, His Worship the Mayor places Councillor J. Morgan in the Chair.

At 4:30 PM, His Worship the Mayor resumes the Chair.

Motion made by M. van Holst

That the following actions be taken with respect to filling the vacancy of the Office of Ward 13:

a)    John Fyfe-Millar BE APPOINTED to the Office of Ward 13 for the term commencing October 26, 2021 and ending November 15, 2022 , pursuant to section 263(1)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001;

b)    the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to confirm the consent of John Fyfe-Millar to be appointed to the Office of Ward 13 and to confirm the individual’s eligibility to hold the Office of Ward 13, as set out in the Municipal Act, 2001;

c)    subject to the confirmation of the matters set out in b) above, the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to prepare the necessary by-law to appoint John-Fyfe Millar to the Office of Ward 13, in accordance with term set out in a) above, to be introduced at the Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021; and,

d)    the report dated October 12, 2021, entitled “Filling Vacancies on Municipal Council”, BE RECEIVED; 

it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received communications from the following individuals with respect to this matter:

a communication dated September 22, 2021 from P. Cullimore

a communication dated September 23, 2021 from H. D. Chapman

a communication from A. Parekh, Co-Founder and CEO and A. Power, Co-Founder and CMO, Frontline Medical Technologies Inc.

a communication dated October 4, 2021 from B. Lowe

a communication dated October 4, 2021 from S. Holland

a communication dated October 5, 2021 from J. Hall

a communication dated October 4, 2021 from G. Edwards

a communication dated October 5, 2021 from J. Fontana

a communication from G. Avola, President, Signature Graphics (London) Inc.

a communication dated October 5, 2021 from C. Miller

a communication dated October 5, 2021 from J. Pease

a communication dated October 5, 2021 from J. Winston

a communication dated October 5, 2021 from D. Brown

a communication dated October 6, 2021 from C. Dejaegher and J. Smeltzer, Owner/Operator, Kosmos Eatery and Catering

a communication dated October 6, 2021 from C. Lyons, Owner, Chris’ Country Cuts, Covent Garden Market

a communication dated October 6, 2021 from P. Van Geffen

a communication dated October 6, 2021 from F. Haller

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from J. Duby, Owner, gNosh Restaurant

a communication dated October 6, 2021 from N. Niro

a communication dated October 6, 2021 from C. Hopper, President, London’s Source for Sports

a communication dated October 6, 2021 from S. Thomas, Pastor, Founder and CEO, W.E.A.N Community Centre

a communication dated October 6, 2021 from B. McArthur

a communication dated October 6, 2021 from T. de Langley

a communication dated October 6, 2021 from M. Smith, Toboggan Brewing, Fellini Koolini’s, The Runt Club, Joe Kool’s

a communication dated October 8, 2021 from M. Walker

a communication dated October 6, 2021 from K and D. Bice

a communication dated October 6, 2021 from D. Lewis and A. Dodge

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from D. Gilmore

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from P. Sandor, President, London Downtown Community Association

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from C. Wilton

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from N. N. Sproule

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from L. Lowe

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from W. Flintoff

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from B. Whitlock

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from S. Laidlaw, To Wheels Bicycles

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from M. Fitzgerald

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from S. Sproule

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from M. Schmidt

a communication dated October 5, 2021 from M. M. Lerner, Lerner Lawyers

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from S. D. rooks and W. J. Smith

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from P. Fedkowicz

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from T. Butt

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from C. Rice

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from C. Hunter

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from J. F. Macoun, President and Chief Operating Officer, Canada Life

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from D. Schmidt

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from P. Cuddy, TVDSB Trustee

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from P. Crawford

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from W. Dunn

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from C. Kelsey and J. Broeze

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from J. Rother

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from B. Lansink, Lansink Appraisals and Consulting 

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from C. Seguin

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from D. Imeson and T. Bitz

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from A. Richardson

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from B. Lucier, President, Provincial Glass and Mirror Ltd

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from L. Taylor

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from G. Danner

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from N. and F. Stevens

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from J. Pribil, Marienbad Restaurant and Chaucer’s Pub

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from J. Wilcox, Owner, Jill’s Table

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from J. McCall

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from B. C. Gibson

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from C. Talbot

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from K. Smith

a communication dated October 7, 2021 from M. Perzia.

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Item 4.1 of the 17th Report of the Corporate Services Committee related to the filling of the vacancy of the Office of Ward 13 BE REFERRED to a special Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting for further discussion.

Motion Failed (6 to 7)

Motion made by M. van Holst

The motion to approve parts a), b) and c) IS PUT.

That the following actions be taken with respect to filling the vacancy of the Office of Ward 13:

a)    John Fyfe-Millar BE APPOINTED to the Office of Ward 13 for the term commencing October 26, 2021 and ending November 15, 2022 , pursuant to section 263(1)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001;

b)    the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to confirm the consent of John Fyfe-Millar to be appointed to the Office of Ward 13 and to confirm the individual’s eligibility to hold the Office of Ward 13, as set out in the Municipal Act, 2001;

c)    subject to the confirmation of the matters set out in b) above, the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to prepare the necessary by-law to appoint John-Fyfe Millar to the Office of Ward 13, in accordance with term set out in a) above, to be introduced at the Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021; and,

Motion Passed (7 to 6)

Motion made by M. van Holst

The motion to approve part d) IS PUT.

d)    the report dated October 12, 2021, entitled “Filling Vacancies on Municipal Council”, BE RECEIVED;

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.1.6   (5.1) Council Vacancy - Ward 6

At 5:29 PM, His Worship the Mayor places Councillor J. Morgan in the Chair.

At 5:31 PM, His Worship the Mayor resumes the Chair.

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the office of the Ward 6 Councillor:

a)    the Office of Councillor Ward 6 BE DECLARED vacant; based on the information provided from P. Squire, with respect to his ineligibility to hold municipal office; and

b)    the matter of determining the means to fill the vacancy of the Ward 6 Council seat, BE REFERRED to Council for consideration at the meeting to be held on October 26, 2021; 

it being noted that the attached report from the City Clerk, was received by the Corporate Services Committee.

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That part b) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

b)    the vacancy of the Office of Ward 6 BE FILLED through an application process in keeping with the proposed application process as outlined in Appendix “A”, as appended to the staff report dated October 12, 2021, subject to the following additional requirements being set out in the process: 

i)    a brief written statement (no more than 250 words) on why they would like to serve for the remainder of the term as the Ward 6 Councillor;

ii)    a brief written statement (no more than 250 words) on their experience and qualifications;

iii)    a brief answer to the question: “Do you intend to seek election to the same council seat in the 2022 election?”; it being noted that Municipal Council cannot prevent a person who is eligible from seeking election to Municipal Council, regardless of the statement provided; and,

iv)    other such information the City Clerk or designate considers necessary;

c)     filling the Ward 6 vacancy BE CONSIDERED at Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee;

it being noted that it will be necessary to expedite the process due to the associated requirements of the Municipal Act.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the main motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Clause 5.1, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the office of the Ward 6 Councillor:

a)    the Office of Councillor Ward 6 BE DECLARED vacant; based on the information provided from P. Squire, with respect to his ineligibility to hold municipal office; and

b)    the vacancy of the Office of Ward 6 BE FILLED through an application process in keeping with the proposed application process as outlined in Appendix “A”, as appended to the staff report dated October 12, 2021, subject to the following additional requirements being set out in the process:

i)    a brief written statement (no more than 250 words) on why they would like to serve for the remainder of the term as the Ward 6 Councillor;

ii)    a brief written statement (no more than 250 words) on their experience and qualifications;

iii)    a brief answer to the question: “Do you intend to seek election to the same council seat in the 2022 election?”; it being noted that Municipal Council cannot prevent a person who is eligible from seeking election to Municipal Council, regardless of the statement provided; and,

iv)    other such information the City Clerk or designate considers necessary;

c)     filling the Ward 6 vacancy BE CONSIDERED at Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee; it being noted that it will be necessary to expedite the process due to the associated requirements of the Municipal Act;

it being noted that the attached report from the City Clerk, was received by the Corporate Services Committee.

8.2   13th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2021-10-13 CWC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 13th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Item 6(4.1).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 8th Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 8th Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on September 15, 2021:

a)       J. Roberts, Chair, BE REQUESTED to prepare a report to compile the comments of the Cycling Advisory Committee (CAC) related to the Dundas Place Traffic Diversion;

b)       J. Roberts, Chair, BE REQUESTED to submit the above-noted report, on behalf of the CAC, to Civic Administration for their consideration; and,

c)    clauses 1.1, 2.1 to 2.4, and 4.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) 8th Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 8th Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on September 28, 2021:

a)        the Advisory Committee Pilots - Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) Comparison Document BE REFERRED to the Sub-Committee for finalization and a report back to the next meeting of the Transportation Advisory Committee; and,

b)        clauses 1.1 and 2.1 to 2.4 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law (Relates to Bill No. 505)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 13, 2021, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021, to amend By-law PS-113 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London”. (2021-T02/T08)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.4) Non-Repayable Contribution Agreement with Canada for Installation of Fleet Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (Relates to Bill No. 486)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated October 13, 2021, related to the Non-Repayable Contribution Agreement with Canada for the installation of fleet electric vehicle charging stations:

a)        the information on Natural Resources Canada’s (NRCan) Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Program (ZEVIP) BE RECEIVED for information;

b)        the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021, to approve the Contribution Agreement with Canada for the purpose of installing Electric Vehicle charging infrastructure owned by The Corporation of the City of London for use for Fleet vehicles and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to act on behalf the City of London and execute the Agreement; and,

c)        the Director of Fleet and Facilities and the Director of Climate Change, Environment and Solid Waste BE DELEGATED as the Duly Authorized Officers to approve reimbursement claims to be submitted to Natural Resources Canada to receive approved funding as identified in Schedule “C” of the agreement as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2021-F11)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at October 4, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (4.1) 100 Stanley Street

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to 100 Stanley Street:

a)        the communication from J. O’Neill and B. McQuaid and the presentation from K. McKeating, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED; and,

b)        the above-noted communication and presentation BE FORWARDED to Civic Administration for consideration. (2021-R01)

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

8.3   15th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2021-10-26 PEC Rpt for Cncl Agenda - Complete

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 15th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

8.3.2   (2.1) 6th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 6th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on September 23, 2021, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) 7th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 7th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on September 22, 2021:

a)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to make the Urban Forest Strategy and Tree Plating Strategy documents publicly available on the City of London website instead of being available by request, for transparency and to facilitate better public understanding; it being noted that the document as appended to the agenda, with respect to Plant More: Tree Planting Strategy 2017-2021, was received; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 3.2, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) 8th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 8th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, from its meeting held on October 6, 2021, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) 600 Sunningdale Road West (H-9394) (Relates to Bill No. 513)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Corlon Properties Inc., relating to the property located at 600 Sunningdale Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 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-18R1-9) Zone TO Residential Special Provision R1 (R1-9) Zone to remove the h and h-18 holding provisions. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.7) 1478 Westdel Bourne - Wagner Subdivision Phase 1 - Special Provisions (39T-20503)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Townline Orchard Property Limited, for the subdivision of land over Con BF Pt Lot 50, situated on the east side of Westdel Bourne, at the midway point south of Oxford Street West and north of Byron Baseline Road, municipally known as 1478 Westdel Bourne:

a)    the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Townline Orchard Property Limited, for the Wagner Subdivision, Phase 1 (39T-20503) appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED;

b)    the Applicant BE ADVISED that Development Finance has summarized the claims and revenues appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “B”;

c)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “C”; and,

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

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (2.5) Environmental Management Guidelines Update

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the Environmental Management Guidelines (2021) appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix ‘D’, BE CIRCULATED for public review and comment in advance of a Public Participation Meeting to be held at a future date; it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a staff presentation with respect to these matters. (2021-D03)

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (2.6) Housekeeping Amendment to Secondary Plans (O-9346)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the housekeeping amendment to Council-approved Secondary Plans, the draft changes appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE RECEIVED for information and BE CIRCULATED to stakeholders and the general public for comments; it being noted that an Official Plan Amendment to amend the Secondary Plans will be considered at a future public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. (2021-D08)

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (3.1) 415 Oxford Street West (O-9335) (Relates to Bill No. 498)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by Edmar Land Ltd., relating to the property located at 415 Oxford Street West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 to amend The London Plan by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies of the Neighbourhoods Place Type that would permit building heights up to 8 storeys (12 with bonus) within 150 m of Oxford Street West and buildings up to 4 storeys beyond 150 m from Oxford Street West and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of The London Plan; it being noted that The London Plan amendments will come into full force and effect concurrently with Map 7 of The London Plan;

 

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated October 14, 2021, from A.M. Valastro, by email, 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:

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, that encourages higher density residential development within transit supportive areas. 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 Key Directions, the Green Space Place Type, the Rapid Transit Corridor, and the Specific Policy Areas criteria of the Our Tools Section; and,

  •    the recommended amendment conforms with the 1989 Official Plan, including permitting higher density development along transit corridors, encouraging diverse housing types, and the criteria for special area policies. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (3.2) 1 Commissioners Road East (O-9339/Z-9340) (Relates to Bill No.’s 494 and 510)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning & Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of One Commissioners Road Inc., relating to the property located at 1 Commissioners Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London (1989) to ADD a policy to Section 10.1.3 – “Policies for Specific Areas” to permit two, 8-storey mixed-use buildings with a total of 157 residential units and 826m2 of commercial space resulting in a maximum density of 233 uph on site to align the 1989 Official Plan policies with the Urban Corridor Place Type policies of The London Plan;

b)    the proposed attached, revised, by-law as Appendix “B BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Office Special Provision (OF5(2)) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision Bonus (BDC(  )*B-(  )) Zone;

it being noted that the Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of two high quality mixed-use commercial/ residential buildings with a maximum density of 233 units per hectare and a maximum height of 30.5 metres (8-storeys) which substantially implements the Site Plan and Elevations attached 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;

i)    the inclusion of a height element at the corner of Commissioners Road W and Wharncliffe Road S, along with providing a well-defined built edge at street level along both Commissioners Road W and Wharncliffe Road South;

ii)    well-defined principal entrances to all of the commercial and residential units along Commissioners Road West; 

iii)    a variety of building materials and articulation break up the massing of the buildings; and,

iv)    purpose-designed amenity space on top of the roof of the structured/covered parking entrance approximately 112.0m2(1,200 sq. ft.);

  1.    Underground parking

  2.    Provision of Affordable Housing

the provision of 7 affordable housing units which will include 4, one-bedroom units and 3, two bedroom units all within the first 8-storey mixed-use building to be constructed.  The affordable housing units shall be established by agreement at 80% of average market rent for a period of 50 years.  An agreement shall be entered into with The Corporation of The City of London, to secure those units for this 50 year term and the term of the contribution agreement will begin upon the initial occupancy of the last subject bonused affordable unit on the subject site. The Proponent shall be required to enter into a Tenant Placement Agreement with the City of London;

c)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended zoning implements the same range of uses for which public notification has been given albeit at a lower intensity;

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

  •    the revised recommendation and by-law;

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication dated October 14, 2021 from C. Linton, Norquay Highland Ridge Properties Ltd.;

  •    a communication dated October 14, 2021 from . Homes, CEO, Larlyn Property Management Ltd.; and,

  •    a communication dated October 15, 2021from C. Johnson, Managing Partner, AutoPoint Group;

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 PPS, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns 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 is consistent with the in-force policies of The London Plan including, but not limited to, the Urban Corridor Place Type policies. It also conforms with the in-force policies but not limited to the Key Directions, Homelessness Prevention and Housing policies, and City Design policies;

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized property and encourages an appropriate form of development;

  •    the proposal for a mixed-use development with 826m2 of commercial and 157 residential units is consistent with the planned function of the Urban Corridor Place Type;

  •    the recommended amendment meets the criteria for specific area policies in the 1989 Official Plan;

  •    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; and,

  •    the recommended bonus zone for the subject site will provide public benefits that include affordable housing units, barrier-free and accessible design, transit supportive development, underground parking and a quality design standard to be implemented through a subsequent site plan application. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (3.3) 14 Gideon Drive and 2012 Oxford Street West (39T-21501/OZ-9295) (Relates to Bill No.’s 495 and 511)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2515060 & 2539427 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 14 Gideon Drive and 2012 Oxford Street West:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021, to amend the 1989 Official Plan to change the designation on Schedule “A” - Land Use FROM “Low Density Residential” TO “Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential” for Block 37 on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Urban Reserve UR1 Zone TO  a Holding Residential (hh-65h-100R1-2) Zone, a Holding Residential Special Provision (hh-65h-100R6-5(  )/R8-4(  )) Zone, Open Space (OS1) and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Subdivision of 2515060 & 2539427 Ontario Inc. relating to the property located at 14 Gideon Drive and 2012 Oxford Street West:

i)    potential impacts on the quality of residents’ well water;

ii)    negative impacts to the water table;

iii)    loss of privacy;

iv)    lack of a buffer such as a fence or a privacy wall;

v)    increase in traffic;

vi)    increase in accidents and only one entrance for residents and emergency services;

vii)    noise impacts;

viii)    lack of public transit;

ix)    no consideration given to a new police and fire station; and,

x)    loss of habitat for wildlife;

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision, submitted by 2515060 & 2539427 Ontario Inc., (File No. 39T-21501), prepared by Stantec, Project No. 161413678, dated November 8, 2019, which shows 36 single detached lots (Lots 1-36); one (1) medium density residential block (Block 37); one (1) walkway block (Block 38); one (1) open space block (Block 39); two (2) road widening blocks (Blocks 40 and 41); three (3) reserve blocks (Blocks 42, 43 and 44); and two (2) new local streets (Street A and Street B), SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “C”;

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:

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 which promotes a compact form of development in strategic locations to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, provide for and accommodate an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of housing type and densities to meet the projected requirements of current and future residents;

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments conform to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to Our Strategy, Our City and the Key Directions, as well as conforming to the policies of the Neighbourhoods and Environmental Review Place Type;

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments conform to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Low-Density Residential designation, the Multi-Family Medium Density Residential designation, and the Environmental Review designation;

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments conform to the policies of the Riverbend Area Plan;

  •    the proposed and recommended zoning amendments will facilitate an appropriate form of low and medium density residential development that conforms to The London Plan, the 1989 Official Plan, and the Riverbend Area Plan; and,

  •    the recommended draft plan supports a broad range of low and medium density residential development opportunities within the site including more intensive, mid-rise apartments along the Oxford Street West corridor.  The Draft Plan has been designed to support these uses and to achieve a visually pleasing development that is pedestrian friendly, transit supportive and accessible to the surrounding community. (2021-D12)

Motion Passed

8.3.12   (3.4) 584 Commissioners Road West (Z-9357) (Relates to Bill No. 512)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by Foxwood Developments (London) Inc., relating to the property located at 584 Commissioners Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone, TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone; it being noted that the following site plan matters were raised during the application review process:

a)    the relocation of the private outdoor amenity space to a centralized and pedestrian friendly location;

b)    the provision of sufficient space between the parking lot and the east property boundary to accommodate enhanced landscaping; and

c)    configuration of the parking area to allow retention of the Black Maple, denoted as Tree 386 of the Arborist Report (Stantec, February 23, 2021);

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 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 Key Directions and the Neighbourhoods Place Type; 

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by Foxwood Developments (London) Inc., relating to the property located at 584 Commissioners Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone, TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone; it being noted that the following site plan matters were raised during the application review process:

a)    the relocation of the private outdoor amenity space to a centralized and pedestrian friendly location;

b)    the provision of sufficient space between the parking lot and the east property boundary to accommodate enhanced landscaping; and

c)    configuration of the parking area to allow retention of the Black Maple, denoted as Tree 386 of the Arborist Report (Stantec, February 23, 2021);

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 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 Key Directions and the Neighbourhoods Place Type; 

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development. (2021-F11A/D19)

Motion Passed

8.3.13   (3.5) Masonville (Final) Secondary Plan (O-8991) Relates to Bill No.’s 496, 497, 499, 500 and 501)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the draft Masonville Secondary Plan:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 to amend the Official Plan, 2016, The London Plan TO ADOPT the Masonville Secondary Plan, appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “A”, Schedule “1”;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 to amend the Official Plan, 2016, The London Plan, TO ADD the Masonville Secondary Plan to Policy 1565, the list of adopted Secondary Plans;

c)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at a future Municipal Council meeting to amend the Official Plan, 2016, The London Plan at such time as Map 7 is in full force and effect by ADDING the Masonville Secondary Plan to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas and DELETING specific policy areas 9, and 10;

d)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 TO ADOPT the Masonville Secondary Plan, appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “D”, Schedule “1” and TO AMEND the Official Plan (1989), as follows:

i)    AMEND Section 20.2 TO ADD the Masonville Secondary Plan to the list of adopted Secondary Plans;

ii)    ADD Section 20.10 as the Masonville Secondary Plan;

iii)    ADD the naming and delineation of the Masonville Secondary Plan, appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “D”, Schedule “2” to Schedule “D” – Planning Areas;

e)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “E” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 TO AMEND The London Plan by DELETING policies 821, 822, 823, 824, and 825;

f)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021as Appendix “F” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 TO AMEND the Official Plan (1989) by DELETING sections 3.5.25 and 3.5.26.

g)    The Masonville Secondary Plan BE REVISED, as per Council direction on September 14, 2021 as follows:

i)    any future redevelopment of 109 Fanshawe Park Road East should provide enhanced buffering, screening and landscaping along the eastern boundary of the site at Fawn Court;

it being noted that the direction provided by Municipal Council on September 14, 2021 in g) i) contained an error in the location specified and a revision to the plan will correct the error and provide better clarification that enhanced buffering, screening and landscaping should be provided along the eastern boundary of the site as opposed to the western boundary;

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 October 12, 2021, from R. MacFarlane, Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Rock Developments; 

  •    a communication dated October 13, 2021, from R. MacFarlane, Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of 1635 Richmond (London) Corp.; 

  •    a communication dated October 14, 2021, from R. MacFarlane, Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Copia Developments;

  •    a communication dated October 14, 2021, from R. MacFarlane, Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Choice Properties REIT; and,

  •    a communication dated October 14, 2021, from L. Kirkness, Principal Planner, Strik Baldinelli Moniz, on behalf of Westdell Development Corporation;

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:

i)    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which:

  •    promotes opportunities for transit-supportive development, accommodating a significant supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment, taking into account existing building stock or areas;

  •    promotes a land use pattern, density and mix of uses that minimize the length and number of vehicle trips and support current and future use of transit and active transportation;

  •    promotes healthy, active communities by planning public streets, spaces and facilities to be safe, meet the needs of the public, foster social interaction and facilitate active transportation and community connectivity; and,

  •    supports long-term economic prosperity by maintaining and where possible enhancing the vitality and viability of downtowns and mainstreets, encouraging a sense of place by promoting well-designed built form and cultural planning, and by conserving features that help define character, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes; and,

ii)    the recommended amendment is consistent with the policies of the Official Plan (1989) and The London Plan that provide direction to prepare a Secondary Plan where a more detailed and coordinated planning policy framework is required for redevelopment and intensification. (2021-D08)

Motion Passed

8.3.14   (4.1) 250-272 Springbank Drive (Application for Brownfield CIP Incentives)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

a)    a total expenditure of up to a maximum of $2,895,020 in municipal brownfield financial incentives BE APPROVED AND ALLOCATED at the Municipal Council meeting on October 26, 2021, under the following two programs in the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) for Brownfield Incentives:

i)    provide a rebate equivalent to up to 50% of the Development Charges that are required to be paid by 2355440 Ontario Inc. on the project, as follows:

A)    if development charges are paid in one lump sum amount, the Development Charges Rebate will be issued in three equal annual instalments; and,

B)    if development charges are paid annually over six years, the Development Charges Rebate will be issued in six equal annual instalments, noting that any interest charged by the City of London for deferred development charge payments is not included in the rebate;

ii)    provide tax increment equivalent grants on the municipal component of property taxes for up to three years post development;

b)    the applicant BE REQUIRED to enter into an agreement with the City of London outlining the relevant terms and conditions for the incentives that have been approved by Municipal Council under the Brownfield CIP;

it being noted that no grants will be provided until the remediation work is finished, a Record of Site Condition is filed with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, and receipts are obtained showing the actual cost of the eligible remediation work; it being further noted that the agreement between the City of London and 2355440 Ontario Inc. will be transferable and binding on any subsequent property owner(s);

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated September 28, 2021, from R. Knutson, Knutson Development Consultants Inc., with respect to these matters;

it being further pointed out that the request for delegation status for Ric Knutson, Knutson Development Consultants Inc., Bo Chiu and Scott Aziz, EXP, with respect to the properties located at 250-272 Springbank Drive was withdrawn;

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

  •    the development represents a significant investment on Springbank Drive and near the downtown including the construction of 260 new residential units on a fully serviced and remediated site;

  •    the development includes the creation of 28 of affordable housing units that will help in addressing the growing need for affordable housing in London. The development is in alignment with the Housing Stability Action Plan 2019-2024 and its Strategic Area of Focus 2: Create More Housing Stock;

  •    the development will eventually generate significant tax revenues over and above the grants that are provided. At full project build out, the municipal portion of the taxes are roughly estimated at $865,000 per year; and,

  •    brownfield incentive applications satisfy the Growing our Economy and the Building a Sustainable City Strategic Areas of Focus in the Strategic Plan for the City of London 2019 – 2023.  This includes directing growth and intensification to strategic locations and increasing public and private investment in strategic locations. (2021-F11A/D19)

Motion Passed

8.3.15   (5.1) June, 2021 Building Division Monthly Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the Building Division Monthly Report for June, 2021 BE RECEIVED for information.  (2021-A23)

Motion Passed

8.3.16   (5.2) July, 2021 Building Division Monthly Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the Building Division Monthly Report for July, 2021 BE RECEIVED for information. (2021-A23)

Motion Passed

8.4   14th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2021-10-20 CPSC Report

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 14th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

8.4.2   (2.1) 8th Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 8th Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on September 23, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) 7th Report of the London Housing Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 7th Report of the London Housing Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on September 28, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) Introduction to London’s Coordinated Access (CA)

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report dated October 13, 2021, with respect to an Introduction to London’s Coordinated Access (CA), BE RECEIVED. (2021-S11)

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at October 4, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5   14th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2021-10-19 SPPC Report 14

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 14th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Item 8(4.1).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that the following pecuniary interests were disclosed:

a)   Councillor J. Morgan discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 4.1 having to do with an appointment to the University of Western Ontario (UWO) Board of Governors, by indicating that UWO is his employer;

b)   Councillor J. Helmer discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 4.1 having to do with an appointment to the University of Western Ontario (UWO) Board of Governors, by indicating that he is employed by UWO.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) Master Accommodation Plan Update for Alternate Work Strategies

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports with the concurrence of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to the Master Accommodation Plan Update for Alternative Work Strategies:

a)    the report dated October 19, 2021, titled “Master Accommodation Plan Update for Alternative Work Strategies” which reviews the potential for alternative work strategies including the update report from Mayhew Inc. BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the integration of Alternative Work Strategies BE ADOPTED as part of the implementation of the Master Accommodation Plan guiding overall space needs; and,

it being noted that the Civic Administration will proceed with a competitive procurement process that incorporates the update of the Master Accommodation Plan (MAP) for Alternative Work Strategies (AWS) and will report back to the Municipal Council on next steps.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) 2021 Service Review Initiatives Update

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the City Manager, the report dated October 19, 2021 regarding the 2021 Service Review Initiatives Update BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.3) London Community Recovery Framework

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to the London Community Recovery Framework:

a)    the London Community Recovery Framework, as outlined in the staff report dated October 19, 2021, BE ENDORSED;

b)    the London Community Recovery Network members, as identified in Appendix A of the above-noted report, BE THANKED for their time and effort in developing the London Community Recovery Framework; and,

c)    the Mayor BE DIRECTED to share the London Community Recovery Framework with local Members of Parliament, Members of Provincial Parliament to inform the development of federal and provincial pandemic recovery plans and strategies;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received additional letters of support with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.4) 6th and 7th Reports of the Diversity Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 6th and 7th Reports of the Diversity Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee, from its meetings held on September 24, 2021 and October 1, 2021, respectively, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (2.5) Confirmation of Appointment to the Argyle Business Improvement Association

Motion made by J. Morgan

That Robert Aiken BE APPOINTED to the Argyle Business Improvement Association for the term ending November 15, 2022;

it being noted the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated October 4, 2021 from R. Sidhu, Executive Director, Argyle Business Improvement Association with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (3.1) Amendments to the Various Fees and Charges By-law (Relates to Bill No.’s 493, 502, 503, 504)

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to proposed amendments to the Various Fees and Charges By-law:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 19, 2021 as Appendix “A” being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges and to repeal By-law A-56, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges” to add and adjust certain fees and charges for services or activities provided by the City of London”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021; 

b)    subject to the approval of a) above, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 19, 2021 as Appendix “B” being “A by-law to amend By-law No. PH-3, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for the Regulation, Restriction and Prohibition of the Keeping of Animals in the City of London” to remove all references to fees and charges related to services provided for in the by-law”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021;

c)    subject to the approval of a) above, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 19, 2021 as Appendix “C” being “A by-law to amend By-law No. PH-4, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for the Regulation, Restriction and Prohibition of the Keeping and the Running at Large of Dogs in the City of London” to remove all references to fees and charges related to services provided for in the by-law”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021; and,

d)    subject to the approval of a) above, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 19, 2021 as Appendix “D” being “A by-law to amend By-law No. PH-5, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for the Appointment of a Poundkeeper and to Regulate the Public Pound to remove all references to fees and charges related to services provided for in the by-law”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021;

it being noted that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions regarding these matters:

M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute

Motion Passed

8.5.9   (4.2) Vacancy on the Covent Garden Market Board

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Covent Garden Market Board vacancy notification:

a) the communication dated October 7, 2021 from S. Hillier, Board Chair, Covent Garden Market Corp. BE RECEIVED;

b) the resignation of Councillor S. Hillier from the Covent Garden Market Board BE ACCEPTED;

c) the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to:

i)  contact current applications on file, to confirm that those individuals remain interested in consideration for appointment;

ii) seek additional applications to fill the vacancy on the Board;

iii) bring forward applications, noted in parts i) and ii), above for consideration at a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee; and

iv) bring forward Councillor’s names interested in appointment to the Covent Garden Market Board.

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (4.1) University of Western Ontario Board of Governors

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Michael Lerner’s term BE EXTENDED to June 30, 2022 and future appointments by the City of London to the University of Western Ontario be made effective as of July 1, rather than December 1.

Motion Passed (10 to 1)

8.6   4th Report of the Audit Committee

2021-10-20 Audit Report 4-Complete

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 4th Report of the Audit Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.6.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.6.2   (5.1) Request for Proposal 21-26 Internal Audit Services (Relates to Bill No. 487)

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of an outsourced internal auditor for Request for Proposal (RFP) 21-26 Internal Audit Services for the City of London:

a)    the firm of MNP LLP BE APPOINTED as the preferred firm for the provision of internal audit services for a period of three years beginning January 1, 2022 plus the option to renew for two (2) additional one (1) year terms;

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

c)    approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports relating to the subject matter of this approval; and,

d)    the attached proposed by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED to delegate the approval of the Internal Audit Services Agreement to the City Treasurer and to provide the Mayor and City Clerk authority to execute the Agreement.

Motion Passed

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No’.s 481 to 513, including the revised Bill No. 510, and excluding Bill No. 485, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. van Holst

That Second Reading of Bill No’.s 481 to 513, including the revised Bill No. 510, and excluding Bill No. 485, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No’.s 481 to 513, including the revised Bill No. 510, and excluding Bill No. 485, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 485, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (7 to 6)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by M. van Holst

That Second Reading of Bill No. 485, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (7 to 6)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 485, BE APPROVED.

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

Bill No. 484

By-law No. A.-8175-339 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 26th day of October, 2021. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 485

By-law No. A.-8176-340 - A by-law to appoint a Councillor for Ward 13 for the City of London. (4.1a/17/CSC)

Bill No. 486

By-law No. A.-8177-341 - A by-law to approve the Contribution Agreement with Canada for the purpose of installing Electric Vehicle charging infrastructure owned by The Corporation of the City of London for use for Fleet vehicles; and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to act on behalf the City of London and execute the Agreement. (2.4c/13/CWC)

Bill No. 487

By-law No. A.-8178-342 - A by-law to authorize the City Treasurer to approve the Internal Audit Services Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and MNP LLP and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (5.1d/4/AC)

Bill No. 488

By-law No. A.-7922(a)-343 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7922-3, being “A by-law to approve a Neighbourhood, Children and Fire Services Funding Agreement Template; and to authorize the Managing Director, Neighbourhood, Children and Fire Services, or in their absence the Manager IV Neighbourhood, Children and Fire Services, to approve and execute agreements using the Neighbourhood, Children and Fire Services Agreement Template” to reflect the current organizational structure. (2.2a/17/CSC)

Bill No. 489

By-law No. A.-6945(a)-344 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6945-139, being “A by-law to establish the Child Care and Early Childhood Development Reserve Fund” to reflect the current organizational structure. (2.2b/17/CSC)

Bill No. 490

By-law No. A.-7100(b)-345 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7100-150, as amended, being “A by-law to approve Service Contracts/Agreements, Schedules, and Amendments with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario with respect to Social Services; and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute these Contracts/Agreements” to reflect the current organizational structure. (2.2c/17/CSC)

Bill No.491

By-law No. A.-7551(a)-346 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7551-146, being “A By-law to approve the Contribution Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Federal Minister of Health through the Public Health Agency of Canada; and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement” to reflect the current organizational structure. (2.3d/17/CSC)

Bill No. 492

By-law No. A.-7253(a)-347 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7253-138, being “A by-law to approve and adopt the standard form Children’s Services Wage Enhancement Grant Agreement and to delegate authority to the Managing Director, Neighbourhood Children and Fire Services as Administrator, Day Nurseries Act to insert information, amend the Schedules and execute agreements which employ this form” to reflect the current organizational structure. (2.3e/17/CSC)

Bill No. 493

By-law No. A-57 - A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges and to repeal By-law A-56, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges”. (3.1a/14/SPPC)

Bill No. 494

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wh)-348 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 1 Commissioners Road E. (3.2a/15/PEC)

Bill No. 495

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wi)-349 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 14 Gideon Drive and 2012 Oxford Street West. (3.3a/15/PEC)

Bill No. 496

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wj)-350 - A by-law to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to the Masonville Secondary Plan area. (3.5d/15/PEC)

Bill No. 497

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wk)-351 - A by-law to amend Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to the Masonville Secondary Plan area. (3.5f/15/PEC)

Bill No. 498

By-law No. C.P.-1512(aq)-352 - A by-law to amend The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 415 Oxford Street West. (3.1/15/PEC)

Bill No. 499

By-law No. C.P.-1512(ar)-353 - A by-law to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to the Masonville Secondary Plan area. (3.5a/15/PEC)

Bill No. 500

By-law No. C.P.-1512(as)-354 - A by-law to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to the Masonville Secondary Plan area. (3.5b/15/PEC)

Bill No. 501

By-law No. C.P.-1512(at)-355 - A by-law to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to the Masonville Secondary Plan area. (3.5e/15/PEC)

Bill No. 502

By-law No. PH-3-21018 - A by-law to amend By-law No. PH-3, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for the Regulation, Restriction and Prohibition of the Keeping of Animals in the City of London” to remove all references to fees and charges related to services provided for in the by-law. (3.1b/14/SPPC)

Bill No. 503

By-law No. PH-4-21031 - A by-law to amend By-law No. PH-4, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for the Regulation, Restriction and Prohibition of the Keeping and the Running at Large of Dogs in the City of London” to remove all references to fees and charges related to services provided for in the by-law. (3.1c/14/SPPC)

Bill No. 504

By-law No. PH-5-21008 - A by-law to amend By-law No. PH-5, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for the Appointment of a Poundkeeper and to Regulate the Public Pound” to remove all references to fees and charges related to services provided for in the by-law. (3.1d/14/SPPC)

Bill No. 505

By-law No. PS-113-21076 - A by-law to amend By-law PS-113 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London. (2.3/13/CWC)

Bill No. 506

By-law No. S.-6142-356 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Bradley Avenue and Wharncliffe Road South)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes registered as ER1386249, pursuant to SPA20-073 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 507

By-law No. S.-6143-357 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Sorrel Road north of Perth Avenue)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes, registered at ER1392283, pursuant to B.010/21 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 508

By-law No. S.-6144-358 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway (as widening to Creston Avenue and Verulam Street)  (Chief Surveyor - for road widening purposes registered as ER1356809 pursuant to B.017/19 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 509

By-law No. S.-6145-359 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Deveron Crescent)  (Chief Surveyor – plan of subdivision requires 0.3m reserve on abutting plan for unobstructed legal access through subdivision)

Bill No. 510

By-law No. Z.-1-212965 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1 Commissioners Road East. (3.2b/15/PEC)

Bill No. 511

By-law No. Z.-1-212966 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 14 Gideon Drive and 2012 Oxford Street West. (3.3b/15/PEC)

Bill No. 512

By-law No. Z.-1-212967 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 584 Commissioners Road West. (3.4a/15/PEC)

Bill No. 513

By-law No. Z.-1-212968 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provision from the zoning for lands located at 600 Sunningdale Road West. (2.4/15/PEC)

Bill No. 514

By-law No. A.-8179-360 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and 2847012 Ontario Inc, for the acquisition of the property located at 1350 Wharncliffe Road South, in the City of London, for the Bradley Avenue Project Phase 2 and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.1/17/CSC)

Bill No. 515

By-law No. A.-8180-361 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and The Incorporated Synod of The Diocese of Huron, for the partial acquisition of the property located at 190 Queens Avenue and 472 Richmond Street, in the City of London, for the Downtown Loop Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.2/17/CSC)

Motion Passed (7 to 6)

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

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

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/17/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/17/CSC)

4.3    Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.  (6.1/14/CPSC)

4.4    Personal Matter / Identifiable Individual

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2022 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.2/14/CPSC)

4.5    Personal Matter / Identifiable Individual

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2022 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.3/14/CPSC)

4.6    Personal Matter / Identifiable Individual

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2022 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.4/14/CPSC)

4.7    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. (6.1/4/AC)

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

The Council convenes, In Closed Session, from 5:51 PM to 6:16 PM.

At 6:05 PM Councillor M. Salih leaves the meeting.

At 6:17 PM Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

9.   Added Reports

9.1   14th Report of Council in Closed Session

Released in Public - To attach to October 26 Council Minutes

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by M. Cassidy

  1.    Partial Property Acquisition – 1350 Wharncliffe Road South – Bradley Avenue Extension Project Phase 2 – Wharncliffe Road South to Jalna Boulevard

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Transportation and Mobility, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 1350 Wharncliffe Road South, further described as Part Lot 34, Concession 2, designated as Part 1, Plan 33R-20205, and Part 1, Plan 33R-20821, being all of PIN 08209-0055 (LT), containing an area of approximately 33,530 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Bradley Avenue Project Phase 2, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by 2847012 Ontario Inc (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $473,600.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”;

b)    the City agreeing to pay a further sum of $7,400.00 for a Grant of Temporary Easement and Consent to Enter Agreement wherein additional compensation and additional terms have been agreed     to between the Parties, being the “Related Transaction”; and

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

  1.    Partial Property Acquisition – 190 Queens Avenue and 472 Richmond Street – Downtown Loop and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements

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 190 Queens Avenue and 472 Richmond Street, further described as Part of Queens Avenue (formerly North Street) closed by an Act of Parliament (Province of Canada) October 16, 1863 (Chapter 40), designated as Part 1, Plan 33R-21003, being Part of PIN 08264-0102 (LT), containing an area of approximately 1,739.0 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Downtown Loop Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by The Incorporated Synod of The Diocese of Huron (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $374,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the following conditions:

i)    the City agreeing to pay the Vendor a further sum of $10,500.00 for disturbance, upon completion of the transaction, pursuant to Section 18 of the Expropriations Act;

ii)    the City agreeing to pay the Vendor a further sum of $80,000.00 in consideration of a Grant of Temporary Easement and Consent to Enter Agreement, with the right to renew the easement for an additional term of one year for the sum of $40,000.00;

iii)    the City agreeing to pay the Vendor’s reasonable legal and appraisal costs, including fees, disbursements and applicable taxes, to complete this transaction, subject to assessment, if necessary, as set out in Section 32 of the Expropriations Act; 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 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Introduction and First Reading of the Added Bill No.’s 514 and 515, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Second Reading of the Bill No. Added Bill No.’s 514 and 515, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Third Reading and Enactment of the Bill No. Added Bill No.’s 514 and 515, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by S. Turner

Seconded by J. Helmer

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 6:26 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 12 minutes)

Good afternoon colleagues. I’ll ask you please to turn your computers on. I guess I meant the visuals. I see Councillor Hill your smiling.

I wish you wouldn’t. There you go. Sorry, I’m watching Councillor Halmer’s daughter running around. It’s very cute.

There you go. The Councillor Halmer can’t see those of us in chamber smiling, but we’re all smiling. Just incredibly so. I’ll just ask the clerk to confirm Quorum, please.

You do have Quorum, Quorum, Your Worship. Thank you very much. I think some will be joining us if they’re not here now, but I’m not aware of anyone that’s formally reached out and said they are not in attendance. So with that, I will welcome the public and colleagues to the 14th meeting of city council, virtual meeting that’s held during our COVID-19 emergency.

We’d invite the public 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 516-661-249 extension 2425.

First, colleagues, I’ll look for any disclosures of your interest. I have Deputy Mayor Morgan, please. Yes, from the 14th report of the strategic priorities and policy committee, item eight, which is 4.1 from the committee agenda, which is an appointment. The University of Western Ontario Board of Governors, I’ll declare an interest on that as the University of Western Ontario is my employer.

Thanks very much. Any other conflicts to be declared? I see Councillor Hommer, please. Just on the same item for the same reason, I’ll declare on that as well.

So noted, thank you very much. Any other declarations? I see none. So with that colleagues, we have four recognitions.

Normally we don’t have this many, but I think that as you know, for those who are not sharing in them, you will understand why they are so important. I’ll start with the Deputy Mayor, please. Thank you, Your Worship. More than three months ago, after their incredible gold-winning performances at the Tokyo Olympics, Londoners Maggie McNeil and Damian Warner continue to put our city on the map.

Most recently on Sunday, Maggie McNeil was named the best female athlete of the Tokyo 2020 by the Association of National Olympic Committees in Greece. Just a few days earlier, late last week, Damian Warner, who set an Olympic record while winning gold in the decathlon, was named by the World Athletics Organization as a nominee for its annual Male Athlete of the Year Award. These nominees were selected by an international panel of athletic journalists, council representatives from the World Athletics Association. The winners will be announced, the winner will be announced in December, December at the World Athletic Awards.

Both of these recognitions for Maggie and Damian, respectively, remind us yet again how remarkable and truly unforgettable each of their performances were at the Tokyo Olympics. Londoners of all ages should feel proud to have a pair of individuals, such as Maggie and Damian, consistently and repeatedly representing our city on the world stage and here in our community. Congratulations to them both. Thank you very much.

I’ll now call on Councillor Redholz, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m sure you’re aware of the passing of Canadian theater legend Martha Henry. I wanted to acknowledge how fortunate London was to have had her serve for eight years as the artistic director for our own grand theater.

Countless people have benefited from the ongoing impacts of her influence. How wonderful that such an extraordinarily, extraordinary talent who won three Gemini’s, five Genes, the Governor General’s Lifetime Achievement Award was a recipient in a companion of the Order of Canada. How wonderful that she chose our city from 1988 to 1995 to be the place where she would nurture talent and pass on her experience. Much has been said already about this great light, but I believe she deserved our mention and gratitude here tonight.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Van Halst, colleagues. I have the third recognition and that is to recognize my old friend Bill Paul, also known as London’s town crier. I’ve known Bill for some almost 40 years and I was so saddened to learn of his passing because he truly was our beloved town crier.

For those who may not know his name, they almost certainly recognized his beaming face and booming voice. Over the years, Bill, selflessly and enthusiastically brought joy and laughter to countless number of Londoners. It’s to be said that Bill Paul was one of a kind. There’s never been another like him in our city and sadly, they do not believe there ever will be.

That’s not to say each of us cannot try, however. That in my view is the best way to honor his memory by spreading laughter and joy ourselves, the way Bill did for decades to friends, family and strangers alike. May Bill Paul’s legacy live on always through acts of kindness, goodwill and friendship. And colleagues, as I ask you to pause briefly to honor Bill’s memory, I will say this in his honor, we will answer the bell in his memory and to honor him.

Colleagues, I look now, thank you. I’d like to turn this over to Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you, Your Worship. Colleagues, I rise today to draw to your attention and to the attention of all Londoners that with the presentation of the first poppy this Thursday to his worship, Mayor Holder, the annual poppy campaign for the Royal Canadian Legion will begin once again.

This is a particularly important year as our legions struggle to provide support for our veterans with the lack of opportunities they’ve had for fundraising during COVID. It’s also important because this year marks the 100th anniversary of the poppy as our symbol of remembrance. So as you see myself and other volunteers from the Royal Canadian Legion out and about over the course of the next couple of weeks, I encourage you to give generously donating to the poppy boxes and take a poppy in remembrance of Canada’s fallen. Thank you, Councillor Lewis.

Colleagues, there are no confidential matters to be considered in public. And as we typically deal with our issues in council and closed session, I’ll look for a change in order so that we can move item four including the 10th Report of Council in the closed session to after stage 13 by-laws. So with that, I’ll look for a mover, please. Councillor Van Hal seconded by Councillor Van Merberg and thank you, let’s call the vote on that.

Motion carries 13 to zero. Thanks very much. Colleagues, the motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held on October 5th, 2021 requires a mover, could I please? Councillor those seconded by Councillor Hillier.

Any comments, any discussion? Seeing none, we will call the question. Was in the vote, motion carries 13. Thank you very much.

I have six communications and petitions. It’s my intention to deal with this all in one motion, but 6.1 involves the filling of vacancies on municipal council and we have received a significant number of communications in that regard. And you will see under item six to the vacancy specific to ward six, again, a number of communications. And we’re asking that these be referred to the appropriate committee’s sections as we review them.

Six three deals with the items related to the Masonville secondary plan and we’re suggesting those two communications be referred to plan environment committee appropriately. So for all of those references, as we typically do, I’ll ask for a mover and a seconder. Is there a mover, please? Councillor, please.

Seconded by Councillor Hopkins. We’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero.

Thank you. There are no motions which notice has been given, which now turns our attention colleagues to the several reports we have starting with the 17th report of corporate services committee. I’ll call Officer Cassidy, please, to present the report. Thank you, Your Worship.

I will put the report on the floor with the exception of from the council agenda items four, five and six from the report. It’s items 2.1, 4.1 and 5.1. So that means I’m putting one, two and three on the floor. Is time unless somebody would like those pulled.

Does anyone wish any of the items voted on or dealt with specifically separately? I see Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yes, my apologies to colleagues and I know Councillor Cassidy is dealing with this one separately, but I do require number four, which is the council compensation review task force to be pulled from separately. I’ll be declaring a conflict on that one as well because one of the individuals considered for the task force is my direct supervisor at the University of Western Ontario, which is my employer.

Any other items that the colleagues wish to have voted on separately? Mr. Cassidy. So right now I’m putting items one, two and three on the floor.

That’s one is the Pecanier interest disclosure and two is 2.2 from the committee report and three is 2.3 from the committee report. So those three items are on the floor right now. Any comments or questions? I’ll stop it.

Thank you, Your Worship. I would like to just make a brief comment on 2.3, which is number three, which is the report on the 2021 conference, AMO conference that was held in August. Can’t believe it was that long ago, but London was the host. It was a virtual conference and it was something that I felt that we as a London team did a great job.

We met with a number of ministers housing, economic development, health, mental, health education and environment. And as a team, we went in showcasing the unique London solutions as well as speaking to the community needs and opportunities that still need to continue with the province of Ontario. I want to thank staff and the counselors that attended the conference and also the community members that were part of this virtual conference. So RBC Place and Tourism London.

We did put a good show on for representing London. And one of my moments that I recall at the conference was when the president of AMO called me and said he was enjoying the music of London as he was dealing with his emails. And I’m looking forward to hopefully have the AMO conference in person in 2023. So once again, thank you to everyone that contributed to the success.

Thank you and thank you for your leadership in that regard, Councillor Hopkins. I’m only slightly disappointed that with the guitar that I have in my office, I would have certainly been prepared to provide live entertainment. If you needed to show to end early, you’ll let me know next time and I’ll be happy to support that. Any other comments with respect to one, two and three?

I see none, let’s call that question please. Close in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Thank you very much, Councillor Cassidy. Before on the council agenda, it’s 2.1 from the committee report as Councillor or Deputy Mayor Morgan pointed out, he had a conflict.

There’s another conflict, I believe on this item. And also it was not unanimous vote at committee. So I will put that on the floor now. Thank you, with that now being on the floor, I’ll ask for any comments or questions.

Councillor Halmer, please. Thank you. I also neglected to declare a beginning just on this one, Mr. Lyons, who’s part of the group being recommended for the task force, my supervisor at Western.

We knew you’d get it in there though, that’s great. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Seeing this, that, oh, excuse me, Councillor Pietrangelo, please go ahead.

Thank you, Your Worship. So I had voted against this at the committee. My concern was that there was to be some discussions with governance about how things will go next term in council. And then that might have had some impact on the research we would have asked this committee to do.

So I understand that those meetings are gonna go forward and that we’ll be able to have those discussions and there’ll be some opportunity to inject that information into what’s happening here, or at least deal with it at a later time. So at that, I’ll support it at this juncture. So noted, thank you. Any other comments or questions?

We’ll see none then. We will call the question, please. Was in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero with one recue. I’m sorry, I think there’s just bear with this council deputy mayor.

I wasn’t fast enough to change my vote to abstain on that, I’m sorry. I meant to click the button over there. So I don’t know if we can fix that for me or not. Let’s go to the clerk.

Closed it in e-scribe or just consulting. We have not closed it in e-scribe. I’m just going to see if we can fix that. Just bear with us as we make a slight correction to that college.

That can be corrected. Motion carries 11 to zero with two recues. Thanks very much, Councillor Cassidy. Okay, your worship up next is 4.1 from the committee report.

And I voted against the committee recommendation. So I would ask the vice chair to put this one on the floor. Councillor Van Halst. Your worship will put the item 4.1 on the floor.

Thanks very much. Do you have a seconder? I see Councillor Lewis, comments, questions. I see Councillor Helmer.

Thank you. Hopefully colleagues have all had a chance to read the communication that came from Councillor Cassidy and myself. We are hoping that Council will decide to refer the recommendation is made by Corbett Services Committee, which is a 3-2 vote on appointing John Pfeiff Miller to fill the vacancy to a special meeting of SPPC. So we can deal with both these vacancies, the one in 13 and the one in six at the same time in the same way and quickly enough that well the vacancies filled pretty soon.

I will say, you know, I’m going into this meeting, number of residents said don’t even bother trying to convince people. It’s obvious what’s going to happen. And I said, I’m going to give it one more try. We can take our time and do this the same way for both these positions.

Or we could rush ahead and just kind of put our head down and be very stubborn about it. And I think that would be the most unfortunate way. Sorry, I’m going to just suggest that the word stubborn not be part of that vocabulary. Colleagues say I’m just trying to be really respectful for all of us, but go ahead.

Sorry, what’s the objection? Mine was the word stubborn. It’s implying motive to colleagues and I’m not sure that’s appropriate, just my opinion. So go ahead, please.

So I’m hoping that we’ll refer this decision so that we can deal with them at an SPPC meeting rather than deal with it tonight. If we don’t refer it, you know, we’re going to have to debate the actual appointments for 13 tonight and then six at some future point probably. And I just don’t think that’s the right way to handle it. So I mean, I’m hopeful that even if people have very strong opinions about who they think should be appointed in 13, that they can see the value in taking a bit of a breath and dealing with that at an SPPC meeting and making the final decision and mid-November, I think that’s a reasonable, practical, fair way of handling it.

And I hope that’s all we do tonight. So I hope you’ll support the referral, even if for example, you might have supported the committee recommendation to appoint Mr. Feichmiller back when that debate happened. I don’t wish to presume, but Councillor Cassie, are you seconding that?

Yes. - Thank you very much. Thanks very much, comments, questions. I see start those who wish to speak to the referral.

Councillor Lewis, please go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. At this time, I’ll keep my comments just to the referral. I will not be supporting it.

And I encourage colleagues to move ahead with the decision on the vacancy on ward 13 tonight. Councillor Halmer and I will disagree on this respectfully. These seats were vacated at different times. They are on different clocks to fill and they are the result of two different situations.

So the submission that suggests we need to deal with them both at the same time and in the same way, for me is not one that’s valid. I realize the colleagues may feel differently, but for me, the clock is ticking on 13, different than it is ticking on six. And I’m prepared to move ahead with the debate on 13 this evening. Thank you.

Other comments or questions specifically on the referral? Councillor Cassidy, please. So thank you, Your Worship. And I agree with Councillor Halmer, obviously, because I co-signed the letter with him.

I do believe that we need to take a very brief pause on this. I also believe we do need to move as quickly as we can. I believe the referral gives us that pause. I think we might not have been here if we had decided on a process at the Corporate Services Committee meeting.

This is what the report from clerks had recommended to the committee that we decide on a process. And what could have happened then, if we had decided on a process at the committee, then we would have had a process in place that could have served for both wards. And unfortunately, we didn’t even discuss the process at that time. So I’m supportive of the referral.

I think it’s important for us to take our time on this without taking too much time. So the proposal is that we go as quickly as possible, possibly to a special meeting of SPPC. And if we do it right, then we can have both of these vacancies filled in the same way at the same time, hopefully, but filled nonetheless in mid-November. Thank you.

Next to Councillor Turner. Thank you, worship and thanks to my colleagues for raising this. I absolutely agree with Councillor Halmer and Councillor Cassidy. I think this is of critical importance for one, for public confidence in our decision-making process and our democracy.

And two, to make sure that we’re consistent in the way that we apply our decisions. The risk of moving ahead right now is that we end up with two completely separate processes that are divorced from each other. And that’s not the situation we’re in. I recognize there’s a sense of some urgency for filling in 4.13.

I wonder if that’s actual or if that’s perceived. I do know there are a lot of issues that are being encountered in Ward 13, not that different than any other ward in the city. I think that each ward has its unique flavor and characteristics. But that said, I think we say in paramedicine often, walk, don’t run.

When you walk, it allows you to think, it allows you to map out your process, to make sure you have consistency, and to make sure that you make the right decisions without being forced into a decision on the basis of time. And I think this very short pause, to be able to have one cohesive discussion about how we fill the vacancies is the appropriate one and it hurts my colleagues to consider supporting the motion that’s on the floor. Thank you. Thank you very much.

I’d like to have Councilor Van Holst. Thank you, Your Worship. I won’t support the referral for a number of reasons. One, in this case, if we make them an appointment tonight, we’re done and we have an accomplishment as opposed to just more debate on the way.

Number two, Ward 13 constituents will have a representative sooner and longer if we appoint today. Number three, I don’t believe that we would have someone who’s gonna do a substantially better job in the shorter period of time that they have to work with. Certainly because the candidate is a close runner up. We have as close as we can get to a democratically chosen representative without an election, which I would also support.

I don’t have faith in the application process that might be suggested. And then funny, I think the referrals being moved ‘cause a couple of people don’t think that the committee’s decision was good enough and no decision is gonna be perfect. And make everybody happy. So to look at this as a high level, I think is this a 75% good decision?

Are we in the top quartile of things that we could do in this situation? And the answer is certainly yes. So the things that I would support are choosing a second place candidate, appointing our previous counselor and going to a by-election. But I do think that we can move forward quickly and I’m happy to have votes on those options tonight.

Thanks very much. Other comments or questions, colleagues? I would ask the Deputy Mayor to take the chair. I just had the chair and I’ll go to the mayor.

Well, thanks very much, colleagues. You’ll note that I was the one who made the, who put forward the name of John Feithmiller in the appointment for ward 13. And I just wanna give you some quick rationale and with deep respect to the issue of a referral, I will say in the spirit of openness and transparency and it’s important that you have a feeling why I stand the way that you do on the issue. I won’t be supporting the referral simply because in the absence of a by-election, the committee’s recommendation is one that provides a process that I think best respects the principles of democracy and accountability while also respecting the most recent electoral feedback from ward 13 voters by virtue of the rank ballot results that we’re aware of.

You see, a referral brings the whole process in-house. It becomes a decision made exclusively by council and completely removes the most substantive piece of public input we have to us. Not only does it disregard what voters told us in 2018, it would explicitly prevent constituents from passing judgment on the appointed candidate in next year’s election. Under the circumstance, there’s no perfect solution, but surely we should strive to utilize as many public inputs as possible when making determinations on behalf of constituents.

Simply put, the committee’s recommendation allows us to avail ourselves of the best remaining source of constituent input we have, namely those rank ballot results from the most recent election. We appoint that candidate to serve and we allow that individual to serve if the person wishes to seek reelection in the next year. I mean, to face the voters and be judged on the basis of performance to me is the ultimate form of accountability. But where I agree with the referral is the desire to do this at the same time and in the same way as such.

If the referral is defeated and the committee’s recommendation is supported, I will support Mike Bloxham tonight for consideration award six to be consistent with the approach that is being considered. And I do that largely for the same reasons as I put forward the name of John Fife Miller to serve in award 13. Thank you. Back to you Deputy Mayor.

Yes, I’ll hand the chair back to you Mayor. Any other comments or questions? I see Councillor Hopkins, please. Thank you Your Worship for recognizing me.

I don’t have the hands up button on this computer so I will be raising my hand. Yeah, all good. So thank you for recognizing me. I definitely do support the application process that is outlined in Appendix A and the referral and refer this decision.

I think it’s extremely important that we just take a pause here. If we don’t for me moving forward, it will be fundamentally wrong in my decision to support someone that is in second place. And that is my value, my decision. And I’m just expressing it here and now because it is very important that we not politicize the next municipal election.

To me, it’s that simple. That we not sway the municipal election. We should be able to give opportunities to all candidates that are running in these wards a fair chance. And that is nothing to say anything against the second place candidates that won in these two wards.

In fact, one of them is a good friend of mine. I still do not believe that we should set a precedent that we now as a council will decide that we are going to have second place candidates filling in council seats when terms aren’t completed. We’re setting that precedent here and now. I think we just need a moment to rethink what we are doing here before moving forward.

So I am going to be supporting the application process. Think to me, it’s the most transparent way. It would be great if we could have a by-election without a doubt. I think we all probably agree that is the best way forward, but we do not have the time that it would take to go forward with that.

So this to me is the application process that we’ve done in the past. This is not new. And for me, these constituents and these two wards, it is important the experience part of the candidates be addressed. ‘Cause they need to start right away, be accessible to their constituents.

And the only way that can happen is having that experience. And again, I would urge everyone to support this. Don’t think it’s going to be such a bad thing if we just pause a bit and be consistent. Thank you.

Oh, I’m sorry. I apologize. I’m good. Thanks very much.

I thought I was done. I didn’t mean to be rude. Any other comments or questions, colleagues? With that, we are voting to refer and that will be on your screen in just a moment.

Close in the vote, six to seven. Thanks very much. I’ll turn it back over to you, Councilor Vanholst. Sorry, what we now have then is the motion back on the floor, which is removed and seconded.

Comments or questions? I see. I’ve got Councilor Helmer and then the Deputy Mayor, please. I think it is a tremendous mistake to consider only one person to fill this vacancy.

We had an election three years ago where people decided who their preferences were. They voted and Ariel Kyabaga was elected. She has resigned. A lot of time has passed.

I do not think it is appropriate to just appoint the second place person out of habit. Like, well, we had an election and they came second and say that’s the reason where we should put somebody into fill a vacancy, especially when we have no sense of whether this person wants to run again in 2022, in which case they would be carrying an unearned incumbent advantage, which we would be giving them by appointing them right now. We had a Council, like not that long ago, that behaved like a political party and tried to get its buddies to do everything it wanted and blocked out people they didn’t agree with. And that was bad for the city of London.

We got a lot of the same tactics and some of the same people pushing for this person to be pointed to fill the vacancy. I am saying in the strongest possible terms, this is the wrong way for Mr. Fife Miller to come on to the Council. He wants to get elected to the Council.

He can run again in 2022. Pointing him is a mistake that people are going to regret. It’s not the right way to do it, especially what I’m going to do, a seven, six vote to appoint this guy who came second. I could see this coming a mile away.

It’s so disappointing. We had to vote on filling the LTC vacancy. Mr. Fife Miller was one of the options, right?

Nobody voted for him. Everyone went for Stephanie, Marin, Ted Di, Batista, or a couple of other people. And I could see it coming from them. And people told me that I don’t even make arguments.

No one is listening. I’ve never been so disappointed, honestly. I said when I left the Deputy Mayor’s Chair, I think the best is yet to come for a Council. I was wrong.

This is a bad decision. Thank you. I now have Deputy Mayor Morgan. Thank you, Worship.

I’m going to comment on the motion for us, which is a multi-part motion. And I haven’t really commented on the candidate yet. So I’m going to do that today. And I wanted to say a couple of things.

First is, as I said, a committee. I think there’s a lot of different ways that we can approach the appointment process. I think that there are lots of opinions. And I think that they are all valid.

We don’t have a specific process to do this. We don’t have a specific way that we’re required to do it. And I think each situation is going to be different, whether it was when Russ Monteith was appointed or the time before that that’s happened at the school board a few times. These things happen in different ways.

There’s always differences of opinion. And I think I certainly have listened to my colleagues over the past little while about some of the concerns that they’ve raised. There are a couple of things that have come up in the discussion that I have some questions about as I was listening. There is a concern that we would be appointing second place candidates.

Certainly for me, I have no intention of just expressly appointing second place candidates from elections, but I recognize that the election does provide a certain amount of data and information on the intentions of electors at a point in time. With that, there’s also the idea that someone should not run because there is an incumbency advantage. There’s also the point of view that we should appoint previous incumbents, which I think is incumbency advantage in its clearest way. The only people we could possibly consider are previous incumbents.

My point being, there is many, many ways to look at this. And there are many, many ways to make this a very difficult decision. So what I did was I listened to what my colleagues said. I did my own looking at the election results.

And I, of course, looked beyond that because I wasn’t going to make the decision solely based on who performed that way in the election. But I will say when I did look at the election results, it is clear that in the ward 13 was a very close election. And there were two candidates who were very close. And there is some connections between the two of them.

They’re both broadly supported across the ward. With Mr. Fife Miller, and Councillor Hopkins said this, that we need someone who is experienced and accessible. Mr.

Fife Miller is not only someone who ran in the previous election, but someone who has served on our boards and commissions. He currently serves on the downtown BIA. He serves on our committee of adjustments. He is experienced, and he is accessible.

And just the other day, I learned that, well, we are contemplating how to make these appointments. He was out on a downtown BIA walkabout talking with businesses who have been set back by COVID and other circumstances. He was at a bookstore talking about a rock that was thrown in a window. He was at a restaurant who had a member of their staff assaulted in a parking lot, trying to convince them to stay downtown.

To me, there are many things to point to this individual as not just someone who did have a close election result, but someone who is actually ready to go. And it genuinely cares about downtown. And I think for me, on this one, I’m very prepared to make an appointment of Mr. Fife Miller.

I think we would be lucky to have him on council, given he is a strong advocate for downtown. He’s out there doing the job now. He’s out trying to make things better in the downtown. From everything I can see, this guy cares very much about our city.

And for me, it’s a very comfortable vote to say, yeah, let’s take this guy on for a year. Whether or not he runs in the next election, that’s completely up to him, in my opinion. We can’t force someone to run or not run. And I think colleagues can ask that question and decide for themselves on whether that is a positive or a negative.

But there is nothing that prohibits someone for running. And I know even Mr. Monteith, when he was appointed, contemplated running again, even though he decided not to. So I know this is a difficult decision.

I heard what Councillor Helmer said. I think there’s going to be a decision on ward 13. There’s going to be a decision on ward six. And it is my hope that when we have new colleagues on this council, we spend the time to find where our common ground is across all members of council, including the new folks.

We focus that effort and we get a whole bunch of things done in the year that remains. There are things that we see eye to eye on across the board on this council, housing being a very clear one. There’s a lot of things we can accomplish with the time we have left. 30 seconds.

And I’m hoping that whatever the debate is tonight, whatever the matrix is that colleagues are making decisions with, whatever the feelings are, whether they’re passionate or not, that when this is all done, we come together as a group. We figure out how we’re going to move issues for the city. And we do that as a council of 15. Thank you.

Other comments or questions? I see Councillor Cassidy. I believe Councillor Plaza had her hand up before me or Rachel. I’m sorry, who did?

I apologize. Councillor Palosa. Yeah, I thought I’d seen your hand up before and then it was down, now it’s up. So let’s go with Councillor Palosa, please.

Thank you, Worship. I have no desire to fight it up with Councillor Cassidy, but thank you. I did not support the committee, the process to be clear, the process. I have concerns of the lack of transparency at committee.

We could have also moved the same process for the second place candidate and word six, but that was not done, though it could have been. For those who reference rank ballots, the concept of rank ballot is for more candidates have a chance to run that could have a similar platform, like more voices, more choice, that you’re not worried about vote splitting, who’s gonna come up the middle, a more transparent election with more conversations, you know, how many opportunities would you go to a house that had an election sign up and say, could I be your second choice? I see you prefer my competitor to really change how residents have an opportunity to engage with their politicians. To me like that, that was the point of rank ballots, of opening things up, that you didn’t have those kitchen conversation with friends and potential opponents, of who’s gonna have a chance to run this time, ‘cause we don’t wanna split the vote and, you know, we’re kind of comparable, that that was the point of rank ballots, not to be referred back and pick the second person off of it.

If you look at finances and how they went and campaign volunteers, there’s normally a person on different ends, the political spectrum that will rise to the top and most words, that seems to have been what happened. Committee and my choice and my concerns were not about the chance, but really about the process. I don’t wanna twist the numbers to fit a narrative in what I want. So you can look at how close the vote spread was, how many different electorates came out in each area.

If you wanna get into it, who had the one of the highest costs per vote? I think people would be interested to look at word 13 and who spent the most overall and who had the highest, one of the highest costs per votes, but that’s not what I want to get into. I just wanted a transparent process that we followed for both boards that people can feel that they were heard. This debate tonight to me is sounding more like a public campaign for a selected person, public of endorsements.

It really does feel like an election to me. That’s obviously in advance of 2022. Wonderful things have been said about Mr. John Fife Miller.

No doubt he does allow a working community. Same with Mr. Mike Bloxham. I’m not questioning the willingness to serve with the people that are before us or it came second.

I’ve only ever worked with the people who came first. That was who the electric chose. I don’t like the process. I’m not comfortable with the conversation before us.

I’ll be voting no tonight based on the process we’re following by no means is it about the person? And to me, I don’t think it’s a great way you’d want to start on council that you come into a position potentially with a six, seven vote. You’d be here, but it’s, I don’t like it. I know it’s not the fancy of words, but very clearly, I am not comfortable with the process, the transparency or the way this conversation is gone.

Thank you. Thank you. I do note that Councillor Turner’s name’s ahead of yours, but I’m going to go with Councillor Cassidy first if I might, Councillor Turner. And then we’ll, and I’ve got a speaker’s list still.

Thank you, Rosha. I agree with everything that Councillor Halmer and Councillor Palosa just said. I am completely upset and disturbed by how this has gone. It really is a lack of process that we haven’t decided on a process.

This is one name that’s been brought forward. And for transparency sake, I understand that there have been comments made in the media. I understand the media have gone to certain people and asked them, are they interested? But before that name came forward, I had no idea that this person was interested in this position.

I had no comment directly from this individual. Other people have written letters to Council publicly for the public record indicating their interest in serving on this Council for the remainder of this term. I’ve never heard directly from the individual whose name was put forward at committee. We received 70-something letters.

Many of those people are not constituents of the ward. Do not live in the ward. So we have not heard from ward 13 voters en masse. To say that this is clearly the decision we should make based on the information we learned through the ranked ballot, through the ranked choice voting system.

That was our first year using ranked choice voting. Many, many people did not use the ranked choice voting and they only voted for their number one. So I would say that that was our first step towards ranked choice. And if you looked across the board in every single ward and the mayor’s campaign, everyone who was in the lead on the first ballot was the one who eventually won the election.

So nothing was different than if it would have been a first pass the post election. We did not learn anything new from this first attempt at ranked choice voting. Then we would have learned through first pass the post. This is a red herring to say that the ranked choice voting gives us this opportunity in this option.

By appointing this individual who fully, I understand, intends to run in 2022, we are endorsing as a Council, the candidacy of that person. And that is not something that is normally done by a sitting Council. Councilor, I just struggled with that last comment. I don’t know that we are endorsing an incumbency.

So I just would ask you to be mindful of the words. Okay. Mr. Mayor, I would— Go ahead, there’s a point of order from, I’m sorry, I didn’t see who it was from.

Was it Councilor Turner, was that you? Councilor Turner. Councilor Turner. Yeah.

Yeah, if I made your worship, it’s not for cross debate to allow Councilor Cassidy to continue her comments. Our normal procedure doesn’t allow for a, for a few of the points in mid debate. I think for the purpose of, and I’m mindful, and you haven’t lost any time saying no, Councilor Cassidy, I’m gonna withdraw the point of order. But again, I’m gonna caution all colleagues in terms of the words used.

But by all means, so Councilor Cassidy, please proceed, I’ve withdrawn that point of order. So Mr. Mayor, my point is that for appearances to the public, there’s an appearance that some people might gather if we continue down this path. And my final point is this, to dispute the idea that picking the second place is somehow the most democratic if we are not going to have a by-law.

I mean, a by-election. There was a very close vote in ward five. And as Councilor Paloza said at the committee meeting, a thousand days, more than a thousand days have passed since the last election. Many things have changed.

And we have learned much more information across the board about the state of our city and things that have happened. Would the people that voted second for this, for any of the candidates, would they still have picked that person as their second choice? Or would they still pick that person as their first choice? We don’t know, but much time has passed.

And we believe, we have every reason to believe that people would have changed their minds. In ward five, there was a close election. The second place candidate has since that election been charged by the Ontario Provincial Police for violating the Municipal Elections Act in the last election. Would this council therefore endorse that second place finisher to sit in ward five if I had to vacate the seat for some reason?

I sincerely do not believe that that would be the case. And I am very concerned about going down this path. Thank you. I now have Councilor Turner, please.

And thank you, Your Worship. So this is a bit of a mess. It’s a lot of a mess. This is as much about the process as it is about the person.

And with full respect to the mayor, I find the kind of the usurping of any process to determine who should fill the spot. Rather offensive, come straight out of the gates and just put one name forward and not even allow us to have the discussion about how we might even consider to fill the spot is not respectful of this council, of our process of decision making and our need to have the discussion. So here we sit, having a discussion where we just refuse to referral to have a more purposeful discussion about how we do this. And we’re going to have a pretty heated argument about who to put in the chair for ward 13.

As I listened to some of the arguments, some of them really seem like people are contorting themselves in pretzels to make the logic fit to why this makes any sense to move forward with just one name. Yeah, Mr. Five Miller was the second place finisher. But as I said, you had the corporate services committee meeting, if we were to appoint the second place finisher in a provincial or federal election, that would be an absurd proposal.

The conservative one, the seats vacated, so we’re going to appoint the NDP. That’s what this is. The rank ballots were a process for us to be able to allow for people close on the spectrum or apart from the spectrum, to be able to run against each other without having to worry about eroding votes from each other. That’s not quite the way it played out in the election.

It did in some places, but in most cases, we had traditional candidacies of places along the spectrum. Mr. Five Miller is pretty much the opposite of which Ms. Kayabaga was in many ways.

When we take a look at gender and diversity, we are not well represented on this council. And so now we’re just going to exacerbate that without any thought or consideration of that. And that should have been a part of the discussion as we take a look at how we might fill a council seat, but it never came up. I’ve made no secret of my position on this.

I think a by-election is the only democratic way to fill a vacancy in an elected representative seat at any level of government. The fact that the Municipal Elect allows us to either appoint or do a by-election creates this grenade that’s landed in our court and we haven’t diffused it, we’re just all staring at it. And Councilor Helmer is quite right. This is going to blow up and you will have done nothing to put that fuse out, put the pin back in the grenade and allow us to have a purposeful conversation about how we fill vacancies in this council.

This is really concerning to me. And this is not within any value judgments on Mr. Five Miller, but more the fact that we have not had any discussion about alternatives at all. Now we’ve got this mess of your own creation, our own creation, because we need to take a look at this plethora of letters that we’ve had and say, hey, support this person, support this person.

I’m available too, over here, right? Honestly, all because we haven’t created a process at all. We haven’t communicated that to the public. We’re in a lot of trouble here.

So I really hope that you guys take, that we all take a collective breath, take a look at what the impacts of your actions today will be and what they will do in terms of public confidence in this institution for the rest of this term. I urge you to defeat the motion and we can reconsider as we move forward from there. Thank you, Councillor Layman. Thank you, Your Worship.

So, you know, this is a very interesting debate. Some comments that have been made tonight have disturbed me, talk of buddies and talk of second place finishers with charged by police. I don’t know what that insinuation means. You know, this is a big choice for us.

I think everyone would have preferred a by-election. There’s, I’m with Councillor Turner. If there was any opportunity for a by-election here, I’d take it, but as a clerk has examined, we wouldn’t be through that process to February, a few months away from going into another election here in London, too long a time for Ward 13 to be without representation. What have other cities have done in this circumstance?

Well, you’ve had some cities that have appointed second place finishers and you’ve had other cities that have gone another route with other appointments outside of results in elections. For me, it’s very important. That’s why I alluded to the need for a by-election is to read the tea leaves of what the Ward 13 voters would want in the circumstance. We do not know today what that choice would be ‘cause we don’t have a by-election.

So I have to go to the next best thing. I have to go to the last election and to see how that turned out. And it was a very close election. And it was in the time of rank balance with many candidates running.

So I think it was very clear that a good proportion of the Ward would have liked to see, Mr. Fife Miller in this role. So that weighs heavily on my vote today. Then I look at the candidates character and experience.

Mr. Fife Miller is a very strong character. I’ve had the experience of working with him on the board of the LDBA for many years. I don’t know of someone who’s more passionate about the downtown and who’s a person who is not rushed to decisions.

He’s a very deliberate person and considers all sides before making the best decision that he thinks is for his constituency. Mr. Fife Miller has also participated in the Committee of Adjustments for many years. So he’s experienced with the workings of City Hall.

He’s not an ex-counseler, but I think he can get up the learning curve rather quickly here. So I will support this candidate because I think he will do a good job of representing the constituents of Ward 13. And I think the voters of Ward 13 expressed their confidence in him in the last election, which happened to be a ranked ballot. So I think for all the things I hear about ranked ballots it was so good.

Now I’m hearing the opposite. Ranked ballots did its purpose. It brought people together of all different stripes of who were first and second choices would be. And Mr.

Fife Miller finished a close second. So I think, I do think that carries a lot of weight. So I will support Mr. Fife Miller for a position of Council of Ward 13.

Thank you. Next time, Councillor Luz. Thank you, Your Worship. I think it’s important as listening to the debate here tonight that make a couple of comments on some of the language we’ve heard.

‘Cause I will say that I’ve been concerned that some of the language I’ve heard tonight has been rather inflammatory. And I don’t think that it’s helpful when we’re dealing with a decision that is difficult. And I will echo what Councillor Layman just said. If the timing allowed, I would definitely be in agreement with Councillor Turner about a by-election.

And I think the majority of us would be. But we’ve heard from our clerks that the timing really is not a viable option for that route today. But we’ve heard a lot of comment about we shouldn’t automatically default to the second place candidate and how we’re setting a precedent. While respectfully, we’re not setting a precedent.

There’s flexibility in the Ontario Municipal Elections Act for a reason to allow Council some flexibility to make different decisions in different circumstances, in my opinion. We’ve heard, you know, if we were doing this in a federal or a provincial election, we wouldn’t automatically default to the second place candidate. Well, no, we wouldn’t. But there’s a party system there.

And in the provincial and federal elections, and in most municipal elections, London being the only outlier on this, we wouldn’t have any indication of people’s second place choices. But we are in a unique position to look at the ranked ballot data. And I know it was three years ago. So are the votes for all of us.

So the logic of those don’t count anymore. By that logic, none of us have a right to sit at this horseshoe either. When we think about that data point in time, though, not only was it close, but 26% of Councilor Caiabaga’s voters also ranked Mr. Fife Miller on their ballot.

So I think it’s rather presumptuous to assume that Mr. Fife Miller is going to vote opposite to how Councilor Caiabaga would have voted on every issue that comes before us. But the people who will be able to make that decision if he chooses to run again will be the people of Ward 13. And after three terms of Councilors in Ward 13 seeking to leave for higher office, the voters in that ward might just want an opportunity to return somebody who wants to stick around and continue to do the job.

So for me, the idea that it could only be somewhat appointed who agrees not to run again. That’s just not something that would be a consideration for me. If a candidate chooses to run again in either Ward 6 or in Ward 13, they should do that and the voters will decide on how good a job they’ve done in the brief period of time. Now here we’re giving an unfair incumbent advantage, but six of the 15 Councillors who said at this horseshoe today had to be an incumbent originally to win their seat.

Incomment advantage is not invincibility. You do a good job or you do a poor job and the voters will decide. And I’d argue that actually six months or so have incumbent advantage before a general election is actually the least preferable form of incumbent advantage because you haven’t had a full term to produce a winning record for your constituents to feel that you’re worthy of returning to office. I think it’s also important for us to reflect in the fact that there will be a provincial election next spring.

There are parties who are saying they would return the ranked ballot privilege to municipalities and of course the party in government right now has removed it. But I’ll guarantee you this. If we just want to throw out the results of a ranked ballot from 2018, we want to discount them completely. It won’t matter which party forms the next provincial government.

You’re going to have a very, very difficult time convincing a lot of Londoners who used ranked ballot, who ranked their candidates, that we should consider going back to that system. In fact, I think a lot of Londoners who supported it will say, well, you had the opportunity to look at the data when you were filling vacancies and you didn’t. So why would we go back now? And I agree, by the way, with Councillor Ploza’s points about the values of ranked ballots.

Everything she said in terms of not having candidates remove their names so that there’s not vote splitting, all of that is absolutely true. But the other thing we got from ranked ballots and respectfully, Councillor Cassidy, I would disagree with the comment that we learned nothing new. We did learn something new. 30 seconds.

We learned who people’s second choices were. Now, this is not my only reason for supporting this motion today. I’ll be very quick in saying that I also know the character of the individual and whose name has come forward. And it’s not just the work he’s done on the L.D.B.A., the work in the Black Friars Community Association, the work on the Committee of Adjustment, the Chamber of Commerce Business Achievement Awards.

This is an individual who’s deeply rooted in his ward and who I’m confident is going to do a good job. So we’re not setting a precedent, but we are making a decision that I think the voters of ward 13 will ultimately have a say on in the next election. Thank you. Do I have anyone else wishing to speak on this issue?

I see Councillor Hopkins, please. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I’m feeling very uncomfortable. I know you’ve allowed it, but when some of my colleagues start to lobby this candidate, it makes me feel very uncomfortable.

And I’m just making that comment as a personal comment and how I’m feeling as part of this council at the moment. I may end up saying a few things I’ve already said, but this is, again, fundamentally wrong coming up with appointing the second place candidate. And it has not been a difficult decision for me to make strangely enough. Usually I try to look at both sides and go through all that turmoil to figure out what’s the best way.

But this decision has been quite easy for me. We’ve not even had the conversation of the process. That is wrong. That’s simple.

I have had difficulty though, deciding if I’m going to protest my vote or not. But given that it’s seven, six, I’m kind of caught. That is how I have been thinking. It is wrong what we are doing here.

And I’m going to say that this has nothing to do with the character of the second place candidate. Like I said, when we speak to the next war that we’re going to be speaking to, that candidate’s a very good friend of mine. I would like to think he’s a good friend. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to automatically just say yes, you’re in.

We have to be as transparent as possible to the public. I ran on that a number of years ago and I hold on to that transparency that I want to be able to get to the public when I make decisions. That is very fundamental to my decision making here. I know there was a comment about, you need someone that is experienced that I made comments about, ready to start immediately and be accessible to the residents.

We have received a number of names that have been brought forward to this council. Do we just automatically just ignore all that? That’s what we’re going to be doing if we support this motion. I do, regardless, I don’t want to go into that debate about slaying the next municipal election, but I think that’s what we are doing here if we go forward with the notion that’s before us.

It is important as we talk about having opportunities for candidates running in our next municipal election. And we talk about it in other groups that I belong to and trying to get the vote out and having those opportunities that we give those same opportunities to anyone that is running in the next election. That is so important. And by coming forward with a second name candidate, we are skewing that.

And I am, it is wrong what we are doing here tonight. Thank you very much, Councillor Unholst. Thank you, Your Worship, I don’t think it’s wrong. So I also, when again, stress, as people said, I don’t think we’re setting a precedent.

I’m just because we do one thing in one situation doesn’t mean we have to do it in another situation. That’s the difference between, you know, a council and a bureaucrat where there’s policies and they have to be followed at every point. We just try to make the best decisions we can in this situation. In this situation, certainly a second place candidate is a place to look.

And if there, Mr. Five Miller had been the 10th place candidate, I certainly wouldn’t have supported him in this because that doesn’t show that there’s enough of the electorate behind him. But certainly in this case, they’re at that election, there was. And I think that that group of people will be happy with the appointment and the people that chose him second may well be happy with the appointment as well.

And really what our job now is to fill this post so that somebody capable is doing the job of representing the ward 13 constituents and I think this person will be able to do the job. And I don’t think there’s anything untransparent about it. As has been said, there’s a number of reasons to believe that he would do it. Now, I would be happy if we were pointing a previous counselor and I see that there’s two people that have two previous income counselors have put their names forward to help us in this situation.

I would support those two. A process where we’re looking at people that have never run or have never been in council is not something that I’m comfortable with because it’s as far from democracy as we can get. And then of course, I would have been happy to move ahead with the by-election as well and wonder if that might be a better solution, but that wasn’t brought up in the motion. There was a referral to some other process that I’m comfortable with that I think would be less transparent than what’s happening now.

So those are my comments. I’ll support this if not this, then an incumbent and if not that, then I would say, well, we’ve got no choice, but to go with a by-election or just leave it open was another possibility. So there’s many possibilities. We need to choose one as it stands.

I’ll continue with my vote in favor of this candidate as I did in the committee. Thank you very much. Anyone else who has not spoken wish to speak to this? Colleagues, we’re dealing with item 4.1, the filling in of vacancies on municipal council and the items there.

If there are no other questions, then we’ll call the. As far as there was a point of order you have? I’d just like it to be divided and B separate from, sorry, A, B and C separate from D. So just to be, and that’s absolutely so and that’s all within our rights so as colleagues.

So you’re looking to have A, B and C as one item and then D separately. Just wanted to be clear to Councilor. Yup. Okay, any comments as to what we’ve been asked to do there by our colleague?

All right, so A, B and C are specific to the John Fife Miller D so you know is called filling in vacancies on municipal council that that report be received. So with that, we will start with A, B and C, 4.1, A, B and C. We will call the question. Councillor Sully, close in to six.

Six now, four point the filling vacancies on municipal council report to be received. We’ll call the question. Councillor Hopkins, close in to vote. Motion carries 13 to zero.

Councillor Cassidy. I’ll put number six, which is 5.1 from the committee report. This was referred to council with no recommendation. I wonder for the purpose of this though, Councillor Cassidy, can we put A on the table that the seat be declared vacant and then I think appropriate consideration can be given to the second portion of that.

Are you comfortable with that? I can do that. Thanks very much. Any comments or questions about A, that ward six be declared vacant?

Councillor Halmer. Thank you. I’m gonna move an amendment to the recommendation from committee, which is that we refer the filling of the vacancy to an SBBC meeting. It’s very similar to the language that we pass around in the letter, which of course is related to doing both of them at the same time.

And now that we’ve dealt with one, I still think it’s a good idea to refer this to an SBBC meeting. We can have people know that there’s an opportunity to apply to fill the vacancy. And we can fairly consider all those people and make the best choice we can about filling the vacancy. Thank you for that, Councillor.

I think that really talks to the issue of the means to fill the vacancy. I think what you’ve heard that we would deal with separately was a recommendation from a committee that ward six be declared vacant. And so I just wanna be clear that we’re talking about that, not the process by which we go to the second step. Councillor Caster, are you still comfortable with putting that forward?

Well, your worship in the letter that Councillor Halmer and I wrote to deal with 4.1, it does include a part of that referral to declare the seat vacant in ward six. So I’m comfortable going either way. And it’s Councillor Halmer that is looking to refer to SBBC. So I think you should check with him to see if he also wants to add that vacancy declaration as part of the referral.

No, I definitely do not. I’m just amending it by adding the other parts. Okay, so I’m happy to put A on the floor and then part B, could Councillor Halmer could make his referral? So I am going to reference back, if I can, because I just want this to be clear.

It would have been very simple, frankly, to do A and declare the seat vacant and then go to means and process by which we would like to have that seat be considered. However, what you’ll see in the letter signed by both Councillor Halmer and Councillor Casky is an A and a B, which goes through very specific reference points of process. So can I ask you Councillor Halmer, beyond what you have in item 5.1 of your October 20 letter, can you just be super clear so that I understand what is your looking to add, please? I’m just pulling out the letter that we circulated as part of the package and I’ll read it out so that everybody understands what I am trying to suggest.

I hope that by circulating in advance, people would have a chance of reading it. The first part is the part that we have basically in front of us already about declaring the seat vacant. The second part is that it’d be filled through an application process and keeping with the proposed application process that was outlined in Appendix A as appended the staff report dated October 12. This is what the clerks recommend in the first place with the following additional requirements being set out in the process.

There’s three of those. One, a brief written statement, no more than 250 words on why they would like to serve through the remainder of the term as the word six counts or something. I think we should know. Why do you want to do this?

Number two, a brief written statement, no more than 250 words on their experience and qualifications. So considering multiple people to fill the vacancy, we want to get a sense of by their qualified or experienced. And then a brief answer to the question, do you intend to seek election to the same council seat in the 2022 election? There’s a note there that says it being noted that municipal council cannot prevent a person who is eligible from seeking election to a municipal council regardless of the statement provided.

The first two are there. I think they’re very straightforward. The third one is something I’m particularly interested in because I think it’s unfair to give people incumbent advantage without having them be elected to the council that might not be important to other people. I just want to know the answer so I can just make my decisions with that information in hand.

I will note colleagues that B has one, two, three and four and four as items C and then there are items C and D. And then the referral is like sending it to SPPC essentially is saying do this at SPPC and not corporate services committee where we have a smaller group of counselors considering the issue of committee. And then we part D I guess is totally useless since we already appointed one person and didn’t consider anyone else for the first one. You can just drop D not relevant.

So noted. Dan, are you comfortable with that? Councillor Cassidy in excluding D. Your worship.

All right colleagues, that’s the emotion it’s been moved and seconded on the floor comments or questions. I see none. I will ask the clerk, oh, I do have a comment. Councillor, please go ahead.

Sorry, worship. I was leaving but you were looking the other way. I just want to rise on the referral and say I appreciate Councillor Halmer since he would like the information answered on whether or not they run again. As I’ve indicated for me, that’s not a matter that weighs in my consideration but I appreciate that he wants to know that.

So I can support that being included. I did want to say that I will support this referral because the council seat in ward six has been vacant a very short period of time. I myself have not had a full opportunity to consider how to move forward on this. I’ve had a lot more varied.

I will say correspondence and communication from people who live in ward six. The consensus is not there the way I heard it from the people that I heard from in ward 13. So I’m more open to a referral on this one because I think that again, as I said earlier in the first referral, these are ticking on different clocks in terms of the 60 days that we have to fill the vacancy and we have more time on this one. So I’m willing to entertain the referral on this one.

That being said, I will emphasize again that if the second place candidate in ward six does apply, I will certainly be giving the ranked ballot results heavy, heavy consideration in regard to his ability to fill this seat. Thanks very much, Councillor Alphost. Well, thank you, Your Worship. And one of the reasons that I referred or voted to refer this to council was that I didn’t know whether or not the second place candidate was interested in running again.

During the meeting, I texted him, but didn’t receive a response back. And so I didn’t think it was appropriate for us to pick a method at that point. I’m okay with going forward with this suggestion as it is. And again, it will give us a little time to consider whereas previously we had had a little or no time to grapple with that.

I would also point out that this one I think requires a little, this is not quite as straightforward. And although I might have considered a similar process for this one, I believe that the letter from Ms. Marie Bloch throws a bit of a wrinkle into this. And so the process this being recommended, I think should work well in this situation.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? They’ll call the question.

Oh, I’m sorry, Council Palosa, I apologize. I just saw you come in there. Yeah, thanks, Your Worship. I’ll be supporting this just as I was willing to support it for ward 13 concerns with comments and conversations that’s been had both in chambers and outside of it including social media.

That one process is fine for one ward, not fine for the other, that now they’re happy to consider other applicants, comments that we didn’t know at committee if Mr. Blochson would be interested in the same process as filling as what we were looking at filling for ward 13. The question wasn’t asked. I’d also touch the Mr.

Blochson and did have an answer that he would be willing to let his name stand. And we didn’t have a communication from Mr. John V. Miller at committee in writing saying he’d be interested in the appointment or not, but that didn’t seem to be part of the process or the consideration or matter really.

So just really, I think another Council could be referred to it before as mental gymnastics of what suits preferences. I was delighted to see so many applications and letters from the public of people who are willing to serve the community, including those who have run, those who have served before as elected. Grateful for that, as it is a big job and much to be done. As people are wondering that the clock is ticking and now there’s more time.

It depends what you feel the clock is ticking for. If you’re talking about budget discussions and considerations as budget chair, those conversations aren’t waiting, they’re coming to the residents of, I guess ward 13 is taking care of now, but for the residents of ward six, several Councilors are having budget town halls, including myself and those residents are welcome at all of them in addition to the Council PPM coming up in November. So once again, grateful for the opportunity to actually have a conversation about how we’re going to do this, but still really concerned about where we’re at and comments from colleagues. Thank you.

Thank you. I’d like to ask the Deputy Mayor take the chair from one, please. Yes, I have the chair, I’ll go to the mayor. I want to be clear if I could colleagues.

What I indicated, I want to be very specific. I said if the referral is defeated and the committee’s recommendation is supported, I will happily put forward the name of Mr. Biloxim tonight for consideration as ward six Councilor for largely the same reasons as I put forward the name of Mr. John five Miller.

And I would say to you as I indicated in my earlier comments, I felt that what this did, this election process that we had back in 2018 gave us the strongest sense of voter indication of support for candidates than we would otherwise have in an appointment process. And I made that clear before. I’m not going to address the issue whether incumbency has its advantages or not. I would tell you that Councillor Lewis, I think made it clear because I don’t think incumbency equals invincibility.

And what I would say here though, is that if this referral fails, which is I’m more than pleased to put forward Mr. Biloxim as the Councillor for board six. Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Chair.

I’ll return the chair to the mayor. I see no other speakers. So with that, let’s call the question. I’m sorry, Mr.

Councillor Lane, when you just got in. Thank you, Your Worship. I find these two processes different. As I said, when I spoke to the earlier motion, what weighed heavily with me was the wishes of the voters in the ward.

I find in ward six, this is not as clear-cut as it was in ward 13. First of all, it wasn’t really a ranked ballot ‘cause there was only two candidates. It was essentially first passed the post. And the margin was a lot greater between the first place and second place candidate than it was in 13.

Also, this gives me a time to consider, again, voters’ wishes on how that might come to that conclusion and the people being considered for this post. So it’s a very similar process. I find that we went through with the pass candidate. Next to the exception being is that, again, it was not as clear-cut in the past election.

As it was in 13 with this particular ward. Thanks very much. Any other comments or questions? Mr.

Hopkins, please. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I just want to thank Councillor Helmer and Councillor Cassidy for taking the time to think this through and come up with a process. I really do appreciate that.

That’s what we’re doing here with this referral. Unfortunately, we did not have a process with the last decision that we made. So I am very supportive of this going forward. And again, I’m pleased to see the number of applicants that would like to submit their names forward to be part of that process.

So thank you again. Thank you, other comments? Then let’s call the question. Sir Turner?

Yeah, a bit more time. Thank you, about it. I was in a vote. Motion passes 12 to one.

That’s my report, Your Worship. It says that we now have to, we look for a mover and seconder for this motion as amended. Moved by Councillor Cassidy, seconded by I.C. Councillor Lewis, thank you.

Any discussion? Let’s call the question. Motion carries 13 to zero. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy.

Now, for the 13th report of Civic Works, I’ll call Councillor Palazzo, please. Thank you, Your Worship. All votes at committee were given notice to have everything pulled separate unless you have. I have not, but I will ask if anyone wishes to have any of these items voted separately.

Councillor Van Merbergen? Yes, thank you, Mayor. I’d like to vote on 4.1, number six, 100 Stanley Street. Separately, I did vote against this at committee.

So it could pull out, that’d be great. Thank you. Thanks for much. Anyone have any other item they wish to have voted on separately?

Back to you, Councillor Palazzo. Thank you, Your Worship. In regards to item 2.1 through to 2.4, I’ll put them all on the floor, noting the traffic and parking bylaws were just routine ones. And item 2.4 was for electric vehicle charging stations because the city wasn’t accessible in obtaining $100,000 in money.

So this is the transfer agreement and thanking staff for their effort on that to bring 100,000 back to London. Thank you, I’ll presume you were including item 5, the deferred matters list as well. Yeah, which has also been updated by staff. So noted, thank you.

Comments or questions, but all items accept item 4.1. I see none, let’s call the question. Was in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Councillor Ploughton.

One on the floor, this is regards to 100 Stanley Street. We had a request for delegation status. They did provide their slide deck, which is within the package. We received the delegation and staff have told us that on November 2nd, an actual report from staff in regards to 100 Stanley Street will be coming forward.

So that’s next election committee cycle. Thank you, comments or questions? I see none, we’ll call the question. Close in the vote, motion carries 12 to one.

Councillor Ploughton. It includes the words. Thank you very much. For the 15th report to play an environmental turnover, Councillor Hopkins, please.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’d like to put the 15th report of the planning and environment committee on the floor. I have not heard from anyone wanting an item to be removed. Does anyone wish to have any item voted on separately?

Back to you, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you. So I will put all items on the floor. It was a busy night at planning.

There were a number of public participation meetings. Five, in fact, one of them being the approval of the Masonville secondary plan. And also a good presentation from staff on environmental management guidelines, updates, a presentation on that, and that is going out for circulation. And I just wanted to bring two councils attention, the housekeeping amendments to the secondary plans as well, which are going out for circulation.

And with that, I move. Thank you so much. Any comments, other comments or questions with respect to the planned environment committee report? Councillor Ploughton.

Thank you, Your Worship. And thank you to committee as I did have something for Ward 12 at the PAC that was at PPM. And I just wanted to welcome Councillor Hopkins to the chair of PAC recognizing she’s taken over. Thank you.

Ditto on that. Thank you very much, Councillor Palosa. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, we will, pardon me, college.

We will call the vote. Was in the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. We’re good.

Thanks very much. The 14th note, now the 14th and the 14th report of community protective services. I’ll call on Councillor Halmer, please. Put the entire report on the floor.

There were no divided votes or anything like that. Committee was a very brief meeting. We did have a great presentation from the staff just very brief about the coordinated access program here in London. Does anyone wish to have any of the items voted on separately?

Tina, we’re back to putting it on the floor. Councillor Halmer? Vote. Let’s do that.

We’ll call the question. Was in the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. Thank you, Councillor Halmer.

Now for the 14th report. Yes, put the 14th report of SPPC on the floor. I cannot do number eight though, because I’ve declared a conflict on that. So I’m happy to put the rest of it on the floor unless colleagues would like something dealt with separately.

Well, acknowledging eight, let’s first ask if there are any items that, again, please, the colleagues would like to vote it on separately. Then back to Deputy Mayor. Okay, so that means items one through seven and nine. I’m happy to put on the floor.

Comments or questions? I see none. We’ll call the question. Was in the vote.

Motion carries 13 to zero. I’ll now call on Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. From PPC, I will put item eight on the floor.

The University of Western Ontario Board of Governors. Okay, I note that there were two colleagues who declared conflicts, but any comments or questions with respect to that item? So you know, we’ll call the question. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 10 to two’s. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Yes, for the fourth report of the audit committee, there is one item from the special committee meeting. It is the request for proposal 21-26 for internal audit services.

The colleagues will see that after a lengthy process through the RFP process, the committee is recommending the appointment of an internal auditor. You can see the details in the report. I’m happy to put both items from the committee report on the floor. Thanks very much.

Comments or questions with regard to the audit committee? I see none. Therefore, we will call the question. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 13 to zero. Thanks. Thank you, Deputy Mayor, colleagues, there are no deferred matters. There are no inquiries and I’m not aware of any emergent motions, but we will have some bylaws that to deal with.

I know that we’ve been asked to pull Bill 485 relating to the word 13 appointment, and I’m just confirmed with the clerk if there’s another item to be dealt with separately. colleagues who are just clarifying. So colleagues who are going to be dealing with items 44 through 5-13 inclusive, and we will deal with Bill 45 relating to the word 13 appointment separately. Colleagues, I’m just gonna bring to your attention that Bill 510 has been revised slightly in that there was a map that was separately included since then.

So we’re dealing with those bills with the exception of 45. And I’m gonna be looking for a mover and seconder for introduction of first reading of those bills. Do I have a mover, please? I see Councillor van Mereberg and seconder of a Councillor Hellier.

Let’s call the vote, please. Councillor Helmer, closing the vote, motion carries 13-0. Colleagues, now for Bill 44 through 5-13 exclusive of Bill 485, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder. Moved by Councillor Palazzo, seconder by Councillor van Holst, any comments or questions?

Dean Don will call the question. closing the vote, motion carries 13-0. For mover and seconder third reading an act of Bill 44 through 5-13, exempting Bill 485. Do I have a mover, please?

Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Thank you very much, we’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13-0. Colleagues, now for a mover and a seconder, please.

Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman, we will call the vote. You’re worth it. Yes, please. Councillor Hopkins.

What by law is this? Oh, this is the one we exempted. We indicated we exempted from the first series. This relates to the word 13 appointment, Councillor.

Thank you. Thank you. Opposed in the vote, motion carries seven to six. Colleagues, now I’ll look for mover and seconder for second reading of Bill 485.

Do I have a mover, please? Councillor van Mirberg and seconded by Councillor Van Halst, comments or questions? Councillor Hummer. They’re too late to do the right thing.

Somebody switch their vote. Thank you very much, any other comments or questions? Call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries seven to six.

Colleagues, final third reading and enactment of Bill 485. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder, mover, Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Lehman, we will call the question. Close in the vote, motion carries. So to the public, we’re about to go into several items and I’ll be asking the clerk and the one with just to clarify for your purpose what we’re going to be dealing with and I’ll just ask the patients of colleagues to, as we just set up to go into a closed session, I’ll look to the clerk then just to confirm what we will be dealing with in closed session.

Worship, the matters to be dealt with in closed session are seven matters that are outlined in the public council agenda. They include several matters related to land acquisition, personal matters regarding identifiable individuals with respect to the 2022 Mayor’s New Year’s Honors list, matters regarding solicitor client privilege and a matter related to commercial and financial information supplied in confidence to the corporation by an external organization. Thank you, so with that, I’ll look for a motion to go into closed session. Mr.

Hill, you’re seconded by Councillor Lewis, thank you very much, we’ll call the question. Councillor Van Halst, Councillor Van Halst, closing the vote, motion carries 12 to zero. I’ll see you in just a few moments. Thank you, colleagues, Mayor Screens on.

Thanks very much, I’ll look to Deputy Mayor to put the 14th of Council on closed session on the floor. Thanks, Your Worship, I’m happy your report on the 14th report of Council on closed session, your Council on closed session reports number one, partial property acquisition at 1350 Warren Cliff Road South, Brady Avenue extension project phase two, Warren Cliff Road South to Jallen and Boulevard. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the Director of Transportation Mobility on the device of the Director of Realty Services with respect to the property located at 1350 Warren Cliff Road South, further described as part lot 34 concession two, designated as part one, plan 33R 2025. Part one, plan 33R 2821, being part of pin 08209-0055LT, containing an approximate area of 33,530 square feet, as shown on location map in Appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Bradley Avenue project phase two, the following actions be taken.

A, the offer submitted by 2847012 Ontario Ink the vendor to sell the subject property of the city for a sum of $473,600 be accepted subject to the terms and conditions outlined in the agreement as Appendix C. B, the city agreed to pay a further sum of $7,400 for a grant of temporary easement and consent to enter into an agreement whereby additional compensation and other additional terms have been agreed to by the parties in the related transaction. And C, the financing for this acquisition be approved to set out in the source of financing report here to attach this appendix. A, item two, partial property acquisition 190 queens have 472 Richmond Street, downtown loop, municipal infrastructure improvements.

That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the director of construction and infrastructure services and on the advice of the director of real estate services with respect to the property located at 190 Queens Ave and 472 Richmond Street, further described as part of Queens Ave, formerly North Street, closed by an active parliament, province of Canada, what it says, October 16th, 1863, chapter 40, designated as part one, plan 33R21003, being part of pin 08264-0102LT, containing an approximate area of 1,739 square feet, as shown on the location map, appendix B, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the downtown loop project following actions be taken. A, the offer submitted by the incorporated synod of the diocese of Huron, the vendor, sell the subject property to the city for a sum of $374,000, be accepted, subject to the following terms and conditions. One, the city agreeing to pay the vendor a further sum of $10,500 for disturbance upon completion of the transaction pursuant to section 18 of the expropriations act. Two, the city agreed to pay the vendor a further sum of $80,000 in consideration of a grant of temporary easement and consent to enter agreement with the right to renew the easement for an additional one year for the sum of $40,000.

Three, the city agreed to pay the vendor’s reasonable legal and appraisal costs, including fees, disbursements, and applicable taxes to complete the transaction, subject to the assessment, and if necessary, S, set out in section 32 of the expropriations act. And B, financing for this acquisition to be approved, as set out in the source of financing report, here to as appendix A. Thanks very much. Two of the seconder for that report.

I see Councillor Cassidy. Thanks very much for any discussion. Do you know what we’ll call the question? Was it in the vote?

Thanks very much. The, that we’ve just been dealing with bills 514 and 515 will require a mover and seconder as we move to introduction and first reading. Do I have a mover, please? Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hilliard.

Thanks very much. We’ll call the question. Was it in the vote? Motion carries.

For a mover and seconder, second reading of added bills 514 and 515. Mover moved by Councillor Vanholst. Seconded by Councillor Palosa. Thank you.

Any discussion? I see none. We’ll call the vote. Was it in the vote?

Motion carries. 11 to zero. And five, an act. When I’ve added bills 514 and 515, I’ll look for a mover, please.

Councillor Lehman seconded by Councillor Palosa. Thank you very much. We’ll call the question. Was it in the vote?

Motion carries 11 to zero. We adjourned, it never gets tired for me to say thank you on behalf of all of council, to our staff, our internal, our external staff for all the great work that you do. It really does matter. And sometimes that gets a little bit lost in translation, but not by us.

So Ms. Livingston, again, I’ll ask you to pass on to all of our staff, our deepest and sincerest appreciation for the great work that they do and heartfelt thanks. So with that, I’ll look for a mover to adjourn the meeting. Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Halmer.

Can we do a show of hands, Clerk? Is that okay? Apparently it’s okay. So by a show of hands, those in favor of adjourning our meeting.

Motion’s carried. Thanks very much, colleagues. We need adjourned since our appreciation.