Open Council

Council

Open Council

Council

December 21, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:02 PM; it being noted that all members, except Mayor E. Holder, were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor M. Salih discloses a pecuniary interest in item 4, clause 2.2 of the 1st Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with an Agreement for London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, by indicating that he is an employee of the Federal Government.

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest in items 10, 11 and 12, of the 1st Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, specific to clauses 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10, with respect to any direct connection(s) to the London Public Library (LPL), by indicating that his wife is an LPL employee.

Councillor J. Helmer discloses a pecuniary interest specific to items 10 and 11, of the 1st Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, specific to clauses 4.8 and 4.9 with respect to any direct connection(s) to the municipal golf system by indicating that his father employed by golf course owners association of which the City of London is a member.

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen discloses a pecuniary interest in the 1st Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, specific to budget items related to childcare by indicated that his wife owns/operates a childcare business.

Councillor M. Hamou discloses a pecuniary interest with respect to item 6.1, having to do with a communication from York Development, and items 22 (3.9) and 25 (4.3) of the Planning Environment Committee, having to do with York Development, by indicating that a relative is involved with the project.  Councillor M. Hamou further discloses a pecuniary interest in item 19 (3.6) of the 1st Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, having to do with an application at 978 Gainsborough Road, by indicating that she has worked on the project.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lewis

That pursuant to section 6.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in 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 (15 to 0)

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

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. Hamou

That the Minutes of the 1st Meeting held on December 7, 2021, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the following communications BE RECEIVED and BE FORWARDED as noted on the Added Agenda:

6.1     Environmental Management Guidelines

1.     York Developments

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That the following communications BE RECEIVED and BE FORWARDED as noted on the Added Agenda:

6.2     Public Notice Policy Amendment

  1.     B. Benedict and AM. Valastro

  2.     AM. Valastro

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   1st Report of the Civic Works Committee

2021-12-14 CWC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 1st Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   (1.1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (1.2) Election of Vice-Chair for the term ending November 14, 2022

Motion made by E. Peloza

That Councillor J. Fyfe-Millar BE ELECTED Vice-Chair of the Civic Works Committee for the term ending November 14, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.1) 10th Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 10th Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November 30, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Highbury Avenue South Rehabilitation Project

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated December 14, 2021, related to the appointment of a Consulting Engineering for the Highbury Avenue South Rehabilitation Project from the Wenige Expressway Bridge to Highway 401:

a)        Parsons Inc. BE APPOINTED Consulting Engineers to update and complete the detailed design, and provide assistance with the tendering for the rehabilitation of Highbury Avenue South (Wenige Expressway Bridge to Highway 401) in the amount of $284,178.00, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.2) Supply and Delivery of Transit Signal Priority and Emergency Vehicle Preemption System

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated December 14, 2021, related to RFP21-08 Transit Signal Priority and Emergency Vehicle Preemption System:

a)        Applied Information Inc. BE AWARDED the contract to supply and deliver intersection detection systems in the amount of $1,791,375.50, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 12.2 (b) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

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

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-P16/F05A)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.4) Unwanted Water: Quantifying Inflow and Infiltration in London’s Wastewater Sewer System

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated December 14, 2021, with respect to the impacts of the City’s unwanted water issues BE RECEIVED for information. (2021-E03)

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (4.1) A Conceptual Framework for Regional Transportation in London

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated December 14, 2021, related to regional transportation in Southwestern Ontario:

a)        the conceptual framework for regional transportation as presented in the above-noted staff report BE ENDORSED; and,

b)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to use the conceptual framework as a basis for discussions with the Province of Ontario and municipalities to advance provincial participation in regional transportation in Southwestern Ontario;

it being noted that the staff presentation and a communication from R. Chambers, SCOR EDC, with respect to this matter, were received. (2021-T10)

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at December 6, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2   1st Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2021-12-13 PEC Report - Full

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 1st Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 19 (3.6),  22 (3.9) and 25 (4.3).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   (1.1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (1.2) Election of Vice Chair for the Term ending November 14, 2022

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That Councillor S. Lehman BE ELECTED as Vice-Chair for the term ending November 14, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.1) 355 Middleton Avenue (H-9363) (Relates to Bill No. 52)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Sifton Properties Ltd., relating to the property located at 355 Middleton Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 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 Holding Residential Special Provision R5 (hh-100h-198R5-4(23)) and a Holding Residential Special Provision R6 (hh-100h-198R6-5(51)) Zone TO a Residential Special Provision R5 (R5-4(23)) and a Residential Special Provision R6 (R6-5(51)) to remove the h, h-100 and h-198 holding provisions.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.2) 890 Upperpoint Avenue (H-9392) (Relates to Bill No. 53)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Sifton Properties Ltd., relating to the property located at 890 Upperpoint Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 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 Holding Residential R1 (h*R1-4) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.3) 890 Upperpoint Avenue (P-9358)

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 Sifton Properties Ltd., to exempt Block 141, Plan 33M-754 and Block 42, Plan 33M-810 from Part-Lot Control:

a)    pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting, to exempt Block 141, Plan 33M-754 and Block 42, Plan 33M-810 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act; it being noted that these lands are subject to registered subdivision agreements and are zoned Holding Residential R1 (h*R1-4) in Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, which permits single detached dwellings;

b)    the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Block 141, Plan 33M-754 and Block 42, Plan 33M-810 as noted in clause a) above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xii)    that on notice from the applicant that a reference plan has been registered on a Block, and that Part Lot Control be re-established by the repeal of the bylaw affecting the Lots/Block in question.   (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.4) 1478 Westdel Bourne (H-9411) (Relates to Bill No. 54)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Stantec Consulting c/o Amelia Sloan, relating to lands located at 1478 Westdel Bourne, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan,) to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R6/R8 Special Provision (h-54-h-209-R6-5(77)/R8-4(64)) Zone TO a Residential R6/R8 Special Provision (R6-5(77)/R8-4(64)) Zone to remove the holding (h-54 and h-209) provisions.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.5) 1235 Fanshawe Park Road West (H-9287) (Relates to Bill No. 55)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Calloway REIT (Fox Hollow) Inc., relating to lands located at 1235 Fanshawe Park Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision (h-147-R8-4(39)) Zone and a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision/Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (h-147-R8-4(40)/ASA3(10)/ ASA6(4)/ASA8(5)) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(39)) Zone and a Residential R8 Special Provision/ Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (R8-4(40)/ASA3(10)/ASA6(4)/ASA8(5)) Zone to remove the holding (h-147) provision.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (2.7) 1225 Hyde Park Road (H-9419) (Relates to Bill No. 56)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, based on the application by Motivity Land Incorporated, relating to the property located at 1225 Hyde Park Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 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 Holding Restricted Service Commercial RSC1, RSC3, and RSC5 (h-17*RSC1/RSC3/RSC5) Zone TO a Restricted Service Commercial RSC1, RSC3, and RSC5 (RSC1/RSC3/RSC5) Zone.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (2.8) 1150 Byron Baseline Road (H-9424) (Relates to Bill No. 57)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, based on the application by 2186121 Ontario Incorporated, relating to the property located at 1150 Byron Baseline Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 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 Holding Residential R5-7 Special Provision (h-5h-183R5-7(12)) Zone TO a Residential R5-7 Special Provision (R5-7(12)) Zone.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.10   (2.9) 613 Superior Drive (33M-680)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, 2047790 Ontario Inc., the owner of the potential school site located on the south side of Superior Drive, north of Sunningdale Road East, municipally know as 613 Superior Drive and legally described as Block 103 on Registered Plan 33M-641, BE ADVISED that the City has no interest in acquiring the said property for municipal purposes.   (2021-D09/S13)

Motion Passed

8.2.11   (2.10) 59 Albion Street (HAP21-79-L)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the use of the NUVO Iron railing system on the front porch of the heritage designated property at 59 Albion Street within the Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District, BE APPROVED with the following terms and conditions:

a)     any future repair, alterations, or replacement to the railing system require the implementation of the squared wooden spindles approved through HAP21-018-D.   (2021-R01)

Motion Passed

8.2.12   (2.11) October, 2021 Building Division Monthly Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

Motion Passed

8.2.13   (2.6) Transit-Oriented Secondary Plan Prioritization

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the Transit-Oriented Secondary Plan Priority Areas, appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE ENDORSED.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.14   (3.1) 876 Wellington Road (Z-9380) (Relates to Bill No. 58)

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 1985798 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 876 Wellington Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan, (The London Plan, 2016) and the Official Plan for the City of London (1989)), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Highway Service Commercial Special Provision (HS(1)) Zone TO a Highway Service Commercial Special Provision (HS(_)) Zone; and,

b)    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 change in parking is minor in nature, the existing conditions plan circulated in the Notice of Application and Notice of Revised Application and Notice of Public Meeting accurately reflect the existing condition of the site, and no development or site alteration is proposed;

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;

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Auto-Oriented Commercial Corridor designation; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate reuse of the existing building with a use that is appropriate for the context of the site.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.15   (3.2) 4270 Lismer Lane (Z-9494) (Relates to Bill No. 59)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Goldfield Limited, relating to the property located at 4270 Lismer Lane, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Holding Residential R8 (hh-100h-104h-198R8-4) Zone, TO an Holding Residential R5 Special Provision and R8 (hh-100h-104h-198R5-7(_)/R8-4 Zone;

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 zoning by-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

  •    the recommended zoning conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Neighbourhood Place Type, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable London Plan policies;

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

  •    the zoning will permit development that is considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.16   (3.3) 1955 Jim Hebb Way (Z-9382) (Relates to Bill No. 60)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Foxwood Developments (London) Inc., relating to the lands located at 1955 Jim Hebb Way, the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R5/R6 (hh-54h-71h-100R5-6/R6-5) Zone, and a Holding Residential R6/R9 (h-54-R6-5/R9-3-H20) Zone TO a Holding Residential Special Provision R5/R6 (hh-54h-71h-100R5-6(__))/R6-5 Zone.

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 zoning amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, as it promotes efficient development and land use patterns; accommodates an appropriate range and mix of land uses, housing types, and densities to meet projected needs of current and future residents; and minimizes land consumption and servicing costs;

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

  •    the recommended zoning amendment permits a use, form and intensity of residential development that conforms to the in-force policies of the (1989) Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential designations;

  •    the recommended zoning amendment will allow for a reduced front yard depth of main building on Henrica Avenue, a reduced exterior side yard setback of to the main building on Dyer Drive & Jim Hebb Way and reduced yard encroachments to patio projection from the street line;

  •    the subject development block is of a size and shape suitable to accommodate the proposal. The recommended zoning amendment provides appropriate regulations to control the use and intensity of the building and ensure a well-designed development with appropriate mitigation measures; and,

  •    the proposed uses, form, and intensity are considered appropriate and compatible with existing residential development in the surrounding neighbourhood.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.17   (3.4) 506 Oxford Street East (OZ-9397) (Relates to Bill No.’s 43 and 61)

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 Sidhu McDowall Medicine Professional Corporation, relating to the property located at 506 Oxford Street East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021, to amend the 1989 Official Plan to ADD a new policy to Section 10.1.3 – “Policies for Specific Areas” to a pharmacy on the subject lands; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 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 a Residential R3/Office Conversion (R3-1/OC5) Zone TO a Residential R3/Office Conversion Special Provision (R3-1/OC5(*)) Zone;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, for mixed use development within transit supportive areas;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including the Key Directions and the Urban Corridor Place Type; and,

  •    the recommended amendment conforms with the 1989 Official Plan, including permitting convenience commercial in mixed use areas and the criteria for specific area policies.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.18   (3.5) 1408 Ernest Avenue (Z-9385) (Relates to Bill No. 62)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning & Development, based on the application by Paner House Inc., relating to the property located at 1408 Ernest Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 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 Restricted Office (RO2) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(  )) Zone;

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 *Neighbourhood Place Type policies;

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

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate reuse of the existing building with a use that is appropriate for the context of the site; and,

  •    the subject lands represent an appropriate location for intensification in the form of an apartment building, at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and surrounding area.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.20   (3.7) 414-418 Old Wonderland Road (SPA20-103)

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 Four Fourteen Inc., relating to the property located at 414-418 Old Wonderland Road:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval to facilitate the construction of the proposed residential development; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council has no issues with respect to the Site Plan Application, and that the Municipal Council supports the Site Plan Application;

 

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

 

it being further 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 Site Plan, as proposed, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as it provides for development within an existing settlement area and provides for an appropriate range of residential uses within the neighbourhood;

  •    the proposed Site Plan conforms to the policies of the Neighbourhoods Place Type and all other applicable policies of The London Plan;

  •    the proposed Site Plan conforms to the Multi-family, Medium Density Residential designation of the 1989 Official Plan;

  •    the proposed Site Plan conforms to the regulations of the Z.-1 Zoning By-law; and,

  •    the proposed Site Plan meets the requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.21   (3.8) Environmental Management Guidelines (Relates to Bill No. 41)

That Item 21, clause 3.8, BE AMENDED by adding the following new part c):

“c)     the bi-annual review as outlined in the Environmental Management Guidelines BE ADDED to the planning and Environment Committee Deferred Matters List:”

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Environmental Management Guidelines Update:

a)    the Environmental Management Guidelines appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 as Appendix 1 to Appendix “A”, BE ADOPTED as a Municipal Guideline Document; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021 to adopt the Environmental Management Guidelines, appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021, in accordance with London Plan policy 1713;

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

  •    a communication dated December 2, 2021, from S. Franke, Executive Director, London Environmental Network;

  •    a communication dated December 2, 2021, from J. Hanbuch, The Urban League of London;

  •    a communication dated December 6, 2021, from B. Samuels, Member, Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee; Coordinator, London Bird Team and PhD Candidate, Department of Biology, The University of Western Ontario;

  •    a communication dated December 4, 2021, from D. Wake, Nature London; and,

  •    a communication dated December 9, 2021, from M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;

 

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters. (2021-D03)

Motion Passed

8.2.23   (4.1) 1st Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 10th report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, from its meeting held on December 1, 2021:

 

a)    the following comments, from the Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE), BE FORWARDED to the Municipal Council through the Planning and Environment Committee for consideration, with respect to the Wharncliffe Road South Expansion and 100 Stanley Street Relocation:

  •    the ACE recommends that the Wharncliffe Road South Improvements project explore every possible avenue to avoid road widening to provide more traffic lanes for motor vehicles; it being noted that there are a number of alternative methods that provide better traffic flow and improved options outside of driving one’s own personal vehicle (public transit, cycling, walking, etc.) and making this stretch the first of many projects to turn a stroad into proper transportation infrastructure;

  •    the ACE recommends that the Civic Administration be directed by Municipal Council to revisit the issue of moving the property located at 100 Stanley Street and to find a way to move the house across the street; and,

  •    the ACE encourages that, as we are in a climate crisis and have declared a climate emergency ourselves, means we must do everything possible to mitigate negative environmental impacts, for example demolishing homes and making room for more motor vehicles, is the exact antitheses to this declaration; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 2.1 and 2.2, inclusive, 3.1, 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.24   (4.2) 9th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 9th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November 24, 2021 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.26   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development BE DIRECTED to provide current information related to the items on the Deferred Matters List to the Committee Clerk in order to update the List.

Motion Passed

8.2.27   (5.2) 1st Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, from its meeting held on December 8, 2021:

 

a)    on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the demolition request for the heritage designated property located at 50 King Street, located in the Downtown Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED pursuant to Section 42(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act subject to the following terms and conditions:

  •    prior to any demolition, photographic documentations and measured drawings of the existing building at 50 King Street be completed by the property owner and submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development;

  •    prior to any demolition, a demolition plan shall be prepared by the property owner and submitted to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Development demonstrating how the heritage attributes of adjacent cultural heritage resources are conserved, mitigating any potential direct or indirect adverse impacts, and implementing the recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment submitted as part of the demolition request, it being noted that should an area(s) identified as requiring further archaeological assessment be included within the work area for the demolition of the existing building at 50 King Street, further archaeological assessment shall be required;

  •    prior to any demolition, a landscape plan shall be prepared by the property owner and submitted to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Development identifying work required to create a grass lawn on the property as an interim condition until any future redevelopment; no additional commercial and/or accessory parking will be permitted on the property as an interim use prior to the redevelopment of the property; the landscape plan should identify the cost of the work for the purpose of calculating a landscape security;

  •    a security for landscape be taken to ensure the condition above is implemented within an appropriate timeframe;

  •    prior to demolition, the plaques commemorating the opening of the Middlesex Municipal Building in 1959 and 50 King Street in 1986 be salvaged by the property owner; and,

  •    efforts to commemorate the Middlesex Municipal Building and the Court House Block be addressed through any future Heritage Impact Assessment required for the site and integrated into any landscape plans for the broader site;

it being noted that a separate Heritage Impact Assessment will be required as part of a future planning application for the property and Heritage Alteration Permit approval will be required before the issuance of a Building Permit;

it being further noted that the site is an important cultural heritage landscape and should continue to be part of an institutional and public realm landscape in the Downtown Heritage Conservation District;

 

b)    on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the use of the NUVO Iron railing system on the front porch of the heritage designated property located at 59 Albion Street, within the Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District, BE APPROVED with the following term and condition:

  •    any future repair, alterations, or replacement to the railing system require the implementation of the squared wooden spindles approved through HAP21-018-D;

it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from C. Siemens, with respect to this matter, was received; and,

 

c)    clauses 1.1, 2.1 to 2.4 inclusive, 3.1, 4.3, 4.4 and 5.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.19   (3.6) 978 Gainsborough Road (Z-9247)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That items 19, 22 and 25, BE APPROVED.

  1.    (3.6) 978 Gainsborough Road (Z-9247)

That the application by Highland Communities Limited, relating to the property located at 978 Gainsborough Road BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration for further consideration;

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

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication dated December 8, 2021 from H. Froussios, Senior Associate, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  •    a communication dated December 6, 2021 from M. Niglas;

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

  1.       (3.9)  50 King Street – Demolition Request

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the demolition request for the heritage designated property at 50 King Street, located in the Downtown Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED pursuant to Section 42(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act subject to the following terms and conditions:

a)    prior to any demolition, photographic documentations and measured drawings of the existing building at 50 King Street be completed by the property owner and submitted to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Development.

b)    prior to any demolition, a demolition plan shall be prepared by the property owner and submitted to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Development demonstrating how the heritage attributes of adjacent cultural heritage resources are conserved, mitigating any potential direct or indirect adverse impacts, and implementing the recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment submitted as part of the demolition request, it being noted that should an area(s) identified as requiring further archaeological assessment be included within the work area for the demolition of the existing building at 50 King Street, further archaeological assessment shall be required;

 

c)    prior to any demolition, a landscape plan shall be prepared by the property owner and submitted to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Development identifying work required to create a grass lawn on the property as an interim condition until any future redevelopment. No additional commercial and/or accessory parking will be permitted on the property as an interim use prior to the redevelopment of the property. The landscape plan should identify the cost of the work for the purpose of calculating a landscape security;

 

d)    a security for landscape be taken to ensure condition c) is implemented within an appropriate timeframe;

e)    prior to demolition, the plaques commemorating the opening of the Middlesex Municipal Building in 1959 and 50 King Street in 1986 be salvaged by the property owner; and,

f)    efforts to commemorate the Middlesex Municipal Building and the Court House Block be addressed through any future Heritage Impact Assessment required for the site and integrated into any landscape plans for the broader site;

it being noted that a separate Heritage Impact Assessment will be required as part of a future planning application for the property and Heritage Alteration Permit approval will be required before the issuance of a Building Permit;

 

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated December 8, 2021, from K. McKeating, President, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, London Region, with respect to this matter;

 

it being further pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters; (2021-R01/P10D)

  1.    (4.3) Request for Council Resolution, under Section 45(1.4) of Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13-1919-1929 Oxford Street West

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the property located at 1919-1929 Oxford Street West:

 

a)    on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the report dated December 13, 2021 and entitled “Request for Council Resolution, under section 45(1.4) of the Planning Act, 1990, c. P.13 - 1919-1929 Oxford Street West” BE RECEIVED for information; and,

 

b)    the request to accept a Minor Variance application relating to the property located at 1919-1929 Oxford Street West BE APPROVED. (2021-D13)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3   1st Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2021-12-14 CPSC Report

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 1st Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Item 4 (2.2).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   (1.1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (1.2) Election of Vice-Chair for the term ending November 14, 2022

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That Councillor J. Helmer BE ELECTED Vice-Chair of the Community and Protective Services Committee for the term ending November 14, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.1) 9th Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 9th Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on November 25, 2021, BE RECEIVED

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.3) Administrative Monetary Penalties - Application to Municipal By-laws and Housekeeping Amendments (Relates to Bill No’s. 42, 44, 45, 46 and 47) 

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated December 14, 2021, related to Administrative Monetary Penalties – Application to Municipal By-laws and Housekeeping Amendments:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021, to amend By-law A-54, as amended, for the purpose of applying the Administrative Monetary Penalties System By-law to various municipal by-laws;

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021, to amend By-law PS-112, referred to as the Off-Street Residential Parking By-law, to add a new section in Part 6; 

c)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021, to amend By-law PH-15, referred to as the Idling Control By-law, to add a new section in Part 4; 

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021, to amend By-law C.P.-1555-252, referred to as the Tree Protection By-law, to add a new section in Part 14; and,

e)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021, to amend By-law CP-22, referred to as the Boulevard Tree Protection By-law, to add a new section in Part 9. (2021-C01)

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.4) Single Source (SS21-49) Reaching Home Capital Projects (Relates to Bill No. 40)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated December 14, 2021, related to Single Source (SS21-49) Reaching Home Capital Projects:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021, to:

i)    authorize and approve the standard form Reaching Home: Canada’s Homelessness Strategy Sub-Project Funding Agreement, to be entered into between the City of London and such entities who have been selected for funding for their sub-projects in accordance with the City’s funding Agreement with Canada, substantially in the form appended to the above-noted by-law;

ii)    delegate authority, jointly and severally, to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, and their written designates, the discretionary power to insert the applicable required information in the above-noted Sub-Project Funding Agreement;

iii)    delegate discretionary power to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, to approve the above-noted Agreement with the details inserted in subparagraph 2(a), and execute agreements which employ this form on the condition that the exercise of such powers is consistent with the Reaching Home: Canada’s Homelessness Strategy guidelines and applicable agreements with Canada, and that the exercise of such powers does not require additional funding or is provided for in the City’s current budget, and that does not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of the City, subject to prior review and approval by the Manager of Risk Management;

iv)    delegate discretionary power to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, and their written designates, jointly and severally, to authorize and approve such further and other documents, including amending agreements, that may be required in furtherance of the City of London’s agreements with organizations that are consistent with the Reaching Home: Canada’s Homelessness Strategy guidelines and applicable agreements with Canada and requirements contained in the standard form Sub-Project Funding Agreement approved in the above-noted by-law, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of the City, subject to prior review and approval by the Manager of Risk Management; and,

v)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development to execute such documents, including the above-noted amendments agreements; 

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to this matter;

c)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into and/or amending Purchase of Service Agreements and/or Contribution Agreement with Agencies outlined in the above-noted staff report; and,

d)    the Overview of Reaching Home Capital Project Funding Allocations, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE RECEIVED. (2021-S11/F11A)

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (2.5) Housing Stability Services - Housing Stability Bank Single Source Procurement SS21-48

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated December 14, 2021, related to Housing Stability Services - Housing Stability Bank Single Source Procurement SS21-48:

a)    for Housing Stability Bank services, a funding agreement extension BE APPROVED for the existing Purchase of Service Agreement with The Salvation Army at a total estimated amount of $450,000 (excluding HST), effective as of December 22, 2021 to March 31, 2022, as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4.d; 

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts necessary to wind down the current Housing Stability Bank, including transitioning client interest free loan program to a grant program for the period of January 1, 2022 to March 31, 2022; and,

c)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into and/or amending a Purchase of Service Agreement with The Salvation Army Centre of Hope. (2021-S11)

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at December 6, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.2) Agreement for London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (Relates to Bill No. 39)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report, dated December 14, 2021, with respect to an Agreement for London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021 to:

a)    authorize and approve the Contribution Agreement for the London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership between Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and The Corporation of the City of London, substantially in the form appended to the above-noted by-law;

b)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Contribution Agreement for the London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership;

c)    delegate authority to the City Manager, or written designates, to approve and execute any further amendments to the London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership Contribution Agreement if the amendments are substantially in the form of the above-note Contribution Agreement; and,

d)    delegate authority to the City Manager, or written designates, to undertake all the administrative, financial and reporting acts, including signing authority regarding application forms for funding, budgets, cash flows, other financial reporting including financial claims and directions, consents and other authorizations as may be required, provided that the monetary amounts do not exceed the maximum amount of Canada’s contribution specified in the Contribution Agreement that are necessary in connection with the above-noted Contribution Agreement. (2021-S15)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4   1st Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2021-12-13 CSC Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 1st Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 2 (1.2) and 4 (4.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   (1.1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.1) Restricted Acts of Council After Nomination Day and Voting Day

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the staff report with respect to restricted acts of Council after Nomination Day and Voting Day, in accordance with section 275 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (5.1) 2021 Accessibility Compliance Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression, and the concurrence of the City Manager, the staff report dated December 13, 2021 regarding the 2021 Accessibility Compliance Report BE RECEIVED for information purposes.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (1.2) Election of Vice Chair for the term ending November 14, 2022

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Councillor J. Fyfe-Millar BE APPOINTED Vice Chair for the term ending November 14, 2022.

Motion Failed (1 to 14)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Councillor M. Hamou BE APPOINTED Vice Chair for the term ending November 14, 2022.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.4   (4.1) Delegation Request - B. Benedict - Public Notice Amendment

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the communication from AM Valastro and the delegation from B. Benedict, with respect to an amendment to the public notice policy, BE RECEIVED; 

it being noted that the original delegation request from AM Valastro was withdrawn.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5   1st Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policies Committee

2021-12-02 SPPC Report - Final

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following clauses of the 1st Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED: items 1, 2, 4, 8, 9 and 12 to 20.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest specific to items 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10, with respect to any direct connection(s) to the London Public Library (LPL), by indicating that his wife is an LPL employee.

Councillor J. Helmer discloses a pecuniary interest specific to items 4.8 and 4.9 with respect to any direct connection(s) to the municipal golf system by indicating that his father employed by golf course owners association of which the City of London is a member.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (3.1) 2022 Annual Budget Update Presentation

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the overview presentation, as appended to the added agenda, by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports with respect to the 2022 Budget Update BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (4.2) 2021 Middlesex-London Health Unit Funding Request

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 2021 Middlesex-London Health Unit additional funding request in the amount of $640,233 BE RECEIVED and no action be taken with respect to the request; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a verbal update from K. Murray, noting that the request was no longer required.

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (4.6) Debt Overview

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Debt Overview BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.9   (4.7) Reconciliation of the Draft Property Tax Budget to the Public Sector Accounting Board Budget

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the reconciliation of the draft Property Tax Budget to the Public Sector Accounting Board financial statement budget BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.12   (4.10) By-laws Regarding Tax Levy, Operating and Capital Budgets

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward any necessary by-laws regarding the tax levy, the operating and capital budgets for introduction at Municipal Council.

Motion Passed

8.5.13   (4.11) Review of Water Budget Amendments (2022-2023 totals rounded to the closest $1,000)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 Annual Water Budget Update:

a)    Case W-1 - Schedule Changes for Water Lifecycle Renewal Projects - Operating Expenditure $0; Operating Revenue $0; Capital Expenditure $0 BE APPROVED; and,

b)    Case W-2 - Schedule Changes for Water Growth Projects -Operating Expenditure $0; Operating Revenue $0; Capital Expenditure $0 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.14   (4.12) Water Reserves/Reserve Funds Overview

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Water Reserves/Reserve Funds Overview for the 2020 to 2023 Multi-Year Budget BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.15   (4.13) Reconciliation of the Draft Water Budget to the Public Sector Accounting Board Budget

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the reconciliation of the draft Water Budget to the Public Sector Accounting Board financial statement budget BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.16   (4.14) Water Services

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, in accordance with section 291(4)(c) of the Municipal Act 2001, as amended, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 to 2023 operating budgets and 2022 to 2023 capital budgets and associated forecasts for Water Services:

a) the amended 2022 operating budget for Water Services BE READOPTED in the gross expenditure amount of $90,530,000 and gross revenue amount of $90,530,000;

b)  the amended 2023 operating budget for Water Services BE READOPTED in the gross expenditure amount of $93,695,000 and gross revenue amount of $93,695,000;

c)  the amended 2022 capital budget for Water Services BE READOPTED in the amount of $34,654,000;

d)  the amended 2023 capital budget for Water Services BE READOPTED in the amount of $84,508,000; and,

e) the amended 2024 to 2029 capital forecast for Water Services BE APPROVED in principle in the amount of $278,507,000;

it being noted that all rates and charges related to the provision of Water Services were increased by 2.5% effective January 1, 2020 as approved by Council on November 26, 2019, increased by 2.5% effective January 1, 2021 and will be increased by 2.5% effective January 1 each year for 2022 to 2023 as approved by Council on October 27, 2020.

Motion Passed

8.5.17   (4.15) Review of Wastewater and Treatment Budget Amendments (2022-2023 totals rounded to the closest $1,000)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 Annual Wastewater and Treatment Budget Update:

a)   Case WWT-1 - Reduce Energy Budget at Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant and Create Dedicated Program for Sewage By-pass and Overflow Elimination - Operating Expenditure $0; Operating Revenue $0; Capital Expenditure$1,417,000 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.18   (4.16) Wastewater and Treatment Reserves/Reserve Funds Overview

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Wastewater and Treatment Reserves/Reserve Funds Overview for the 2020 to 2023 Multi-Year Budget BE RECEIVED for information

Motion Passed

8.5.19   (4.17) Reconciliation of the Draft Wastewater and Treatment Budget to the Public Sector Accounting Board Budget

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the reconciliation of the draft Wastewater and Treatment Budget to the Public Sector Accounting Board financial statement budget BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.20   (4.18) Wastewater and Treatment Services

Motion made by E. Peloza

That in accordance with section 291(4)(c) of the Municipal Act 2001, as amended, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 to 2023 operating budgets and 2022 to 2023 capital budgets and associated forecasts for Wastewater and Treatment Services:

a)  the amended 2022 operating budget for Wastewater and Treatment Services BE READOPTED in the gross expenditure amount of $113,668,000  and gross revenue amount of $113,668,000;

b)  the amended 2023 operating budget for Wastewater and Treatment Services BE READOPTED in the gross expenditure amount of $117,544,000 and gross revenue amount of $117,544,000;

c)  the amended 2022 capital budget for Wastewater and Treatment Services BE READOPTED in the amount of $98,873,000;

d)  the amended 2023 capital budget for Wastewater and Treatment Services BE READOPTED in the amount of $96,168,000; and,

e) the amended 2024 to 2029 capital forecast for Wastewater and Treatment Services BE APPROVED in principle in the amount of $606,551,000;

it being noted that all rates and charges relating to the provision of Wastewater and Treatment Services were increased by 2.5% effective January 1, 2020 as approved by Council on November 26, 2019, increased by 2.5% effective January 1, 2021, and 2.7% effective July 1, 2021, and 2.5% effective January 1 each year of 2022 and 2023 as approved by Council on October 27, 2020.

Motion Passed

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 Annual Budget Update:

a)    Case P-1 - Various Services - Budget Right Sizing - Operating Expenditure ($4,982,000); Tax Levy ($6,994,000) BE APPROVED;

b)    Case P-2 - Middlesex London Health Unit - Inflationary Pressures - Operating Expenditure $1,280,000; Tax Levy

$1,280,000 BE APPROVED;

c)    Case P-3 - RBC Place London - Funding Support - Operating Expenditure $850,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED;

d)    Case P-4 - Private Parking Enforcement - Increased Fines -Operating Expenditure $0; Tax Levy ($200,000) BE APPROVED;

e)    Case P-5 - Child Care and Ontario Works - Reduction in Required Investment - Operating Expenditure ($2,773,000); Tax Levy ($2,773,000) BE APPROVED; and,

f)    Case P-6 - Infrastructure Gap and Community Building Projects - Reductions - Operating Expenditure ($1,300,000); Tax Levy ($1,300,000) BE APPROVED.

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 Annual Budget Update:

a)    Case P-1 - Various Services - Budget Right Sizing - Operating Expenditure ($4,982,000); Tax Levy ($6,994,000) BE APPROVED;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

b)    Case P-2 - Middlesex London Health Unit - Inflationary Pressures - Operating Expenditure $1,280,000; Tax Levy

$1,280,000 BE APPROVED;

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

c)    Case P-3 - RBC Place London - Funding Support - Operating Expenditure $850,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

d)    Case P-4 - Private Parking Enforcement - Increased Fines -Operating Expenditure $0; Tax Levy ($200,000) BE APPROVED;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

e)    Case P-5 - Child Care and Ontario Works - Reduction in Required Investment - Operating Expenditure 

Case P-5a – Child Care - Operating Expenditure ($1,630,000); Tax Levy ($1,630,000)

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Case P-5B - Ontario Works ($1,143,000)

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

f)    Case P-6 - Infrastructure Gap and Community Building Projects - Reductions - Operating Expenditure ($1,300,000); Tax Levy ($1,300,000) BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

8.5.5   (4.3) Review of Consideration Property Tax Operating Budget Amendments (2022-2023 totals rounded to the closest $1,000)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 Annual Budget Update:

a)     Case P-7 - Neighbourhood Strategic Initiatives and Funding and Sports Services - Reduction to Neighbourhood and Athletic Travel Grant Programs - Operating Expenditure ($200,000); Tax Levy ($200,000)

i.    Case P-7a – Neighbourhood Decision Making Program - NOT SUPPORTED

ii.    Case P-7b – Neighbourhood Small Events Fund - NOT SUPPORTED

iii.    Case P-7c – Athletic Travel Grants - Operating Expenditure ($200,000); Tax Levy ($200,000); and,

b)    Case P-8 - Parks Planning and Design, Parks and Horticulture and Urban Forestry - Naturalization and Reduction in Tree Trimming - Operating Expenditure ($516,000); Tax Levy ($516,000) BE APPROVED.

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 Annual Budget Update:

a)     Case P-7 - Neighbourhood Strategic Initiatives and Funding and Sports Services - Reduction to Neighbourhood and Athletic Travel Grant Programs - Operating Expenditure ($200,000); Tax Levy ($200,000)

i.    Case P-7a – Neighbourhood Decision Making Program - NOT SUPPORTED

ii.    Case P-7b – Neighbourhood Small Events Fund - NOT SUPPORTED

iii.    Case P-7c – Athletic Travel Grants - Operating Expenditure ($200,000); Tax Levy ($200,000); and

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

b)    Case P-8 - Parks Planning and Design, Parks and Horticulture and Urban Forestry - Naturalization and Reduction in Tree Trimming - Operating Expenditure ($516,000); Tax Levy ($516,000) BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 Annual Budget Update:

a)    Case P-9 - Invasive Species Management - Capital - Capital Expenditure $750,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED;

b)    Case P-10 - Transportation - Capital Project Adjustments -Capital Expenditure $9,191,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED;

c)    Case P-11 - Long-term Disposal Capacity - Revised Costs -Capital Expenditure $1,720,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED; and,

d)    Case P-12 - LTC - Zero Emission Buses - Capital Expenditure$25,960,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED.

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 Annual Budget Update:

a)    Case P-9 - Invasive Species Management - Capital - Capital Expenditure $750,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

b)    Case P-10 - Transportation - Capital Project Adjustments -Capital Expenditure $9,191,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

c)    Case P-11 - Long-term Disposal Capacity - Revised Costs -Capital Expenditure $1,720,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED; and,

d)    Case P-12 - LTC - Zero Emission Buses - Capital Expenditure$25,960,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.7   (4.5) Reserves and Reserve Funds Overview

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Reserves and Reserve Funds Overview BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted projections are subject to annual review and adjustment.

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Turner

That Item 7, clause 4.5, BE AMENDED by adding the following new part b):

“b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority with respect to the potential need and ability to facilitate additional monitoring of ESAs, and report back to the appropriate committee in the first quarter of 2022.”

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. Hamou

Approve clause 4.5 as amended.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.5.10   (4.8) Operating Budget

Motion made by E. Peloza

That in accordance with section 291(4)(c) of the Municipal Act 2001, as amended, the following actions be taken with respect to the operating budget (Appendix A):

a)  the amended 2022 operating budget BE READOPTED in the gross expenditure amounts as follows: 

     i.    the amended 2022 operating budget for London Public Library BE APPROVED in the gross expenditure amount of $21,741,937 and the tax levy amount of $21,741,937;

     ii.    the amended 2022 operating budget for Children’s Services BE APPROVED in the gross expenditure amount of $58,666,453 and the tax levy amount of $7,145,081;

     iii.    the amended 2022 operating budget for Golf BE APPROVED in the gross expenditure amount of $3,740,834 and the tax levy amount of $57,062;

     iv.    the amended 2022 operating budget, excluding London Public Library, Children’s Services, and Golf BE APPROVED in the gross expenditure amount of $989,370,443 and the tax levy amount of $672,905,283 after recognizing $9,430,132 of increased taxation from assessment growth;

it being noted that the amended total 2022 operating budget being readopted is the gross expenditure amount of $1,073,519,667 and the tax levy amount of $701,849,363 after recognizing $9,430,132 of increased taxation from assessment growth;

b) the amended 2023 operating budget BE READOPTED as follows:

     i.    the amended 2023 operating budget for London Public Library BE APPROVED in the gross expenditure amount of $22,128,694 and the tax levy amount of $22,128,694;

     ii.    the amended 2023 operating budget for Children’s Services BE APPROVED in the gross expenditure amount of $60,815,173 and the tax levy amount of $8,835,703;

     iii.    the amended 2023 operating budget for Golf BE APPROVED in the gross expenditure amount of $3,787,965 and the tax levy amount of $75,564;

     iv.    the amended 2023 operating budget, excluding London Public Library, Children’s Services, and Golf BE APPROVED in the gross expenditure amount of $1,012,085,786 and the tax levy amount of $698,023,097;

it being noted that the amended total 2023 operating budget being readopted is in the gross expenditure amount of $1,098,817,618 and the tax levy amount of $729,063,058.

Motion made by E. Peloza

That in accordance with section 291(4)(c) of the Municipal Act 2001, as amended, the following actions be taken with respect to the operating budget (Appendix A):

a)  the amended 2022 operating budget BE READOPTED in the gross expenditure amounts as follows: 

     i.    the amended 2022 operating budget for London Public Library BE APPROVED in the gross expenditure amount of $21,741,937 and the tax levy amount of $21,741,937;

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

ii.    the amended 2022 operating budget for Children’s Services BE APPROVED in the gross expenditure amount of $58,666,453 and the tax levy amount of $7,145,081;

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

iii.    the amended 2022 operating budget for Golf BE APPROVED in the gross expenditure amount of $3,740,834 and the tax levy amount of $57,062;

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

iv.    the amended 2022 operating budget, excluding London Public Library, Children’s Services, and Golf BE APPROVED in the gross expenditure amount of $989,370,443 and the tax levy amount of $672,905,283 after recognizing $9,430,132 of increased taxation from assessment growth;

it being noted that the amended total 2022 operating budget being readopted is the gross expenditure amount of $1,073,519,667 and the tax levy amount of $701,849,363 after recognizing $9,430,132 of increased taxation from assessment growth;

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

b) the amended 2023 operating budget BE READOPTED as follows:

     i.    the amended 2023 operating budget for London Public Library BE APPROVED in the gross expenditure amount of $22,128,694 and the tax levy amount of $22,128,694;

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

ii.    the amended 2023 operating budget for Children’s Services BE APPROVED in the gross expenditure amount of $60,815,173 and the tax levy amount of $8,835,703;

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

iii.    the amended 2023 operating budget for Golf BE APPROVED in the gross expenditure amount of $3,787,965 and the tax levy amount of $75,564;

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

iv.    the amended 2023 operating budget, excluding London Public Library, Children’s Services, and Golf BE APPROVED in the gross expenditure amount of $1,012,085,786 and the tax levy amount of $698,023,097;

it being noted that the amended total 2023 operating budget being readopted is in the gross expenditure amount of $1,098,817,618 and the tax levy amount of $729,063,058.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.5.11   (4.9) Capital Budget

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, in accordance with section 291(4)(c) of the Municipal Act 2001, as amended, the following actions be taken with respect to the capital budget (Appendix B), excluding Library Services and Golf:

a.    The amended 2022 capital budget BE READOPTED in the amount of $311,174,000.

b.    The amended 2023 capital budget BE READOPTED in the amount of $407,389,000.

c.    The amended 2024-2029 capital forecast BE APPROVED in principle the amount of $1,585,802,000.

d.    That the following actions be taken with respect to the Library Services capital budget:

     i.    The amended 2022 capital budget BE READOPTED in the amount of $745,000.

     ii.    The amended 2023 capital budget BE READOPTED in the amount of $745,000.

     iii.    The amended 2024-2029 capital forecast BE APPROVED in principle the amount of $7,425,000.

e.    That the following actions be taken with respect to the Golf capital budget:

     i.    The amended 2022 capital budget BE READOPTED in the amount of $150,000.

     ii.    The amended 2023 capital budget BE READOPTED in the amount of $150,000.

     iii.    The amended 2024-2029 capital forecast BE APPROVED in principle the amount of $900,000.

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, in accordance with section 291(4)(c) of the Municipal Act 2001, as amended, the following actions be taken with respect to the capital budget (Appendix B), excluding Library Services and Golf:

a.    The amended 2022 capital budget BE READOPTED in the amount of $311,174,000.

b.    The amended 2023 capital budget BE READOPTED in the amount of $407,389,000.

c.    The amended 2024-2029 capital forecast BE APPROVED in principle the amount of $1,585,802,000.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

d.    That the following actions be taken with respect to the Library Services capital budget:

     i.    The amended 2022 capital budget BE READOPTED in the amount of $745,000.

     ii.    The amended 2023 capital budget BE READOPTED in the amount of $745,000.

     iii.    The amended 2024-2029 capital forecast BE APPROVED in principle the amount of $7,425,000.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

e.    That the following actions be taken with respect to the Golf capital budget:

     i.    The amended 2022 capital budget BE READOPTED in the amount of $150,000.

     ii.    The amended 2023 capital budget BE READOPTED in the amount of $150,000.

     iii.    The amended 2024-2029 capital forecast BE APPROVED in principle the amount of $900,000.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

11.1   Update on Islamophobia Directions and NCCM Recommendations

Councillor J. Morgan inquires with respect to his communication related to a request for an update on Islamophobia directions and National Council of Canadian Muslims recommendations; the City Manager provides Council with an update on activities and actions that are underway and have been undertaken.

11.2   COVID-19 Vaccination Administrative Policy

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lewis

That pursuant to section 18.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, leave BE GIVEN to introduce a substantive motion with respect to the Members of Council Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Policy.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward an updated Members of Council Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Policy that incorporates any changes to bring the Council Policy in line with the updated Mandatory Proof of COVID -19 Vaccination Administrative Policy, as verbally noted by the City Manager, to the next Corporate Services Committee.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

12.   Emergent Motions

12.1   (ADDED) Opposition to the Province of Quebec’s Bill 21

12.1.1   (ADDED) Mayor E. Holder and Councillors M. Hamou and J. Morgan

2021.12.17 - Emergent Motion - Bill 21 - M. Hamou E. Holder J. Morgan

At 5:58 PM, the Mayor places Councillor J. Morgan in the Chair.

At 6:56 PM, Councillor J. Morgan places Councillor E. Peloza in the Chair.

At 7:00 PM, Councillor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by Mayor E. Holder

Seconded by E. Peloza

That pursuant to Section 20.2 of the Council Procedure By-law, Leave BE GIVEN to introduce an emergent motion related to a request for support from Mayor E. Holder and Councillors M. Hamou and J. Morgan with respect to a motion related to Quebec’s Bill 21.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by Mayor E. Holder

Seconded by M. Hamou

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Province of Quebec’s Bill 21:

a)    the opposition to the Province of Quebec’s Bill 21, An Act respecting the laicity of the State (“Bill 21”) by London’s Municipal Council BE AFFIRMED and the City’s commitment to upholding the freedoms set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms BE REAFFIRMED;

b)    the current legal challenge against Bill 21 BE SUPPORTED by London’s Municipal Council; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide a one-time grant of up to $100,000 to the joint legal challenges of Bill 21 by the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the World Sikh Organization, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, with the funding to be accommodated from the operating budget contingency.

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Council convene, in closed session, in order to receive advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, with respect to consideration of funds related to a legal challenge of Quebec’s Bill 21.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

The Council convenes, in closed session, from 6:17 PM to 6:29 PM.

Motion made by Mayor E. Holder

Seconded by M. Hamou

Motion to approve parts a) and b).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by Mayor E. Holder

Seconded by M. Hamou

Motion to approve part c)

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Mayor resumes the Chair at 7:07 PM.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That the Introduction and First Reading of Bill No’.s 38 to 62, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the Second Reading of Bill No’.s 38 to 62, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by M. Hamou

That the Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No’.s 38 to 62, inclusive. BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Council rise and go into Council, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering the matters noted on the public agenda.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Council convenes, in closed session from 7:12 PM to 7:24 PM.

At 7:22 PM, Councillor S. Turner leaves the meeting.

At 7:25 PM, Councillor P. van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

9.   Added Reports

9.1   2nd Report of Council in Closed Session

6.1 - Dec. 21 Minutes (Released in Public attachments)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lewis

  1.    Settlement Agreement – 1673 Richmond Street – Fanshawe Park Road and Richmond Street Intersection Improvement Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, and the concurrence of the Director, Transportation and Mobility, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the property located at 1673 Richmond Street, further described as Part of lot 33, Registrar’s Compiled Plan 1029,  in the City of London, County of Middlesex, described as Parts 1 and 2, Plan ER-1383826, being part of PIN 08066-0211 (LT), as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements for the project known as the Fanshawe Park Road and Richmond Street Intersection Improvements Project, as follows:

a)    the Settlement Agreement, attached as Appendix “C”, submitted by Richmond & Fanshawe Centre Inc., as full and final compensation for the market value of the land expropriated from the subject property BE ACCEPTED, for the sum of $59,000.00, and subject to the following conditions:

i)    the City agreeing to pay the Vendor’s reasonable legal, appraisal costs, disbursements and applicable taxes, as incurred to complete this transaction;

ii)    the City agreeing to pay a further sum of $2,000.00 as disturbance damages for the loss of any and all trees, shrubs and landscaping located within the Property; 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 (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by M. Hamou

That the Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No.’s 63 and 64, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Second Reading of Added Bill No.’s 63 and 64, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No.’s 63 and 64, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

The following by-laws are enacted as by-laws of The Corporation of the City of London.

Bill No. 38

By-law No. A.-8199-27 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 21st day of December, 2021. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 39

By-law No. A.-8200-28 - A by-law to authorize and approve the Contribution Agreement with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: London & Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership. (2.2/1/CPSC)

Bill No. 40

By-law No. A.-8201-29 - A by-law to approve a standard form Sub-Project Funding Agreement, for projects under the Federal Reaching Home program, and to delegate authority to execute the Agreements. (2.4/1/CPSC)

Bill No. 41

By-law No. A.-8202-30 - A by-law to adopt Environmental Management Guidelines. (3.8b/1/PEC)

Bill No. 42

By-law No. A-54-22009 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A-54, as amended, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London”. (2.3a/1/CPSC)

Bill No. 43

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wo)-31 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 506 Oxford Street East (3.4a/1/PEC)

Bill No.  44

By-law No. C.P.-1555(b)-32 - A by-law to amend By-law No. C.P.-1555-252, as amended, referred to as Tree Protection By-law, to amend Part 14. (2.3d/1/CPSC)

Bill No. 45

By-law No. CP-22-22002 - A by-law to amend By-law No. CP-22, as amended referred to as Boulevard Tree Protection By-law to amend Part 9. (2.3e/1/CPSC)

Bill No. 46

By-law No. PH-15-22002 - A by-law to amend By-law No. PH-15, as amended, referred to as Idling Control By-law, to amend Part 4. (2.3c/1/CPSC)

Bill No. 47

By-law No. PS-112-22001 - A by-law to amend By-law No. PS-112, as amended, referred to as Off-Street Residential Parking By-law, to amend Part 6. (2.3b/1/CPSC)

Bill No. 48

By-law No. S.-6160-33 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Borden Street and Spruce Street)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes, registered as ER1409658, pursuant to SPA20-071 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 49

By-law No. S.-6161-34 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Oxford Street East and Crumlin Sideroad)  (Chief Surveyor -  for road widening purposes, registered as ER1409016, pursuant to SPA21-034 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 50

By-law No. S.-6162-35 - A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Hickory Heights Subdivision, 33M-649)  (Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure)

Bill No. 51

By-law No. S.-6163-36 - A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Talbot Village Subdivision Phase 5, 33M-726)  (Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure)

Bill No. 52

By-law No. Z.-1-222981 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provision from the zoning for lands located at 355 Middleton Avenue. (2.1/1/PEC)

Bill No. 53

By-law No. Z.-1-222982 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provision from the zoning for lands located at 890 Upperpoint Avenue. (2.2/1/PEC)

Bill No. 54

By-law No. Z.-1-222983 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove the holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at 1478 Westdel Bourne. (2.4/1/PEC)

Bill No. 55

By-law No. Z.-1-222984 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove the holding provision from the zoning for lands located at 1235 Fanshawe Park Road West. (2.5/1/PEC)

Bill No. 56

By-law No. Z.-1-222985 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provision from the zoning for lands located at 1225 Hyde Park Road. (2.7/1/PEC)

Bill No. 57

By-law No. Z.-1-222986 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provision from the zoning for lands located at 1150 Byron Baseline Road (2.8/1/PEC)

Bill No. 58

By-law No. Z.-1-222987 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 876 Wellington Road (3.1/1/PEC)

Bill No. 59

By-law No. Z.-1-222988 - A bylaw to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone lands located at 4270 Lismer Lane. (3.2/1/PEC)

Bill No. 60

By-law No. Z.-1-222989 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1955 Jim Hebb Way. (3.3/1/PEC)

Bill No. 61

By-law No. Z.-1-222990 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 506 Oxford Street East (3.4b/1/PEC)

Bill No. 62

By-law No. Z.-1-222991 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1408 Ernest Avenue. (3.5/1/PEC)

Bill No. 63

By-law No. A.-8203-37 - A by-law to authorize and approve a Settlement Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Richmond & Fanshawe Centre Inc., for the partial acquisition of property located at 1673 Richmond Street, in the City of London, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.1/1/CSC)

Bill No. 64

By-law No. A.-8204-38 - A by-law respecting the 2020 – 2023 Multi-Year Tax Supported Operating and Capital Budget for The Corporation of the City of London. (4.10/1/SPPC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourns at 7:34 PM

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 30 minutes)

[0:00] That would be great. Just tell me when. If you could kick off a vote now. Do you see all of that, okay?

[1:00] No, nothing came up. I’m gonna try exiting and going back in. Okay, I am seeing an open vote.

[1:38] Yeah, you just edited Ben Mirbergen. Maybe change Hopkins, just. Sure, just a moment. Okay, great. It seems to be working. Thank you. Thanks. If you want to close them or you’re going to. Close them when I hear you start to speak. Sounds good. Or when they’re full. Okay, yeah, that works.

[2:10] I just, I want to minimize the risk of something going sideways. So why don’t we do that? That’s fine. That’s fine. Thanks. Can I have screens on, please?

[22:16] You have a quorum, Your Worship. Thank you, also colleagues. I’m told the counselor Homer will be several minutes, but we’ll be coming into the meeting as he is able to advise you formally, as we like to do when we’re aware of it. Any of our colleagues are not in a meeting at a given time. So thank you very much and colleagues as well. Thank you very much for making the accommodation with regard to the issues in terms of being in council, as required in council chambers. Certainly I think your response is in the interest of staff and ourselves and I’m certainly grateful for your efforts in doing that.

[22:59] So with that, I’ll call the meeting to order. The meeting is held as a virtual meeting during the COVID-19 emergency. We would invite viewers to check the city 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 a rare effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council, standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request.

[23:34] To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425 colleagues. I’ll look for any disclosures of peculiar interest. Councillor Sallie. Yes, I’d like to declare a peculiar interest on the community protective services report, the 2.2, the agreement with the London Mental Sex and local immigration refugees and citizenship Canada as a employee by the Canadian Board of Services Agency. So noted, thank you.

[24:08] Councillor, did you get that clerk? Thank you very much. Councillor Hummoo. I have a conflict of interest with 978 Gensborough Road as I worked on the project. That’s number 19 on 8.2, number 19. And I also have a conflict as I am related to York development, people at York development. Can you be specific on the items?

[24:42] That would be— - Oh, it would be items 6.1, number one, York development. Thank you, Councillor Turner. Thank you, Your Worship. With respect to number 8.5, the first report of the strategic priorities and policies committee and municipal budget, I declare conflicts with any of the funding risks associated with the London Public Library system as my spouse is an employee of London Public Library.

[25:17] Thank you again for the benefit of all. Could you just specify that item, please? No, you have my name, but my number? I was trying so hard to be as specific as a court of your worship. I can’t find it in a fast enough time for you, but I will pass it forward to the opportunity when I can. I believe it’s within the operating budget, which would be items number 4.8. 4.8, yeah. And there may be a specific item within that you’ll deal with at that time as per the conflict or the whole item as you see appropriate.

[25:54] Any other items where colleagues wish to disclose? Councillor van Merberg and please. Thank you, Mary. It’s in regard to the budget. And I believe it’s from 4.1 from the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting that we had on the budget, case number P5, which in regard to childcare, the conflict is my wife runs her own and operates her own childcare.

[26:27] So I just like that declared. Thank you and colleagues. Four have indicated a cleaner interest in. So what I would ask you to do as well is to pay specific minus we deal with those items so that we’ll ask you to be very specific to your potential for a conflict. So we appreciate your declarations. Thank you very much. Mayor Holder. Hello. There’s one for me too. And Councillor Helmer is in the room. Go ahead, please, sir.

[27:02] Thank you. I just wanted to declare a pecuniary interest on the Gulf operating and capital budget as I did at the FPP. So noted, and again, thank you very much. We’ll ask colleagues that as these items come forward to reconfirm the conflict so that we can deal with it appropriately. And I appreciate that very much. Any other disclosures? Colleagues, we have pre-recognitions tonight and I first like to count on Councillor Palosa for the first two, please. Thank you, Your Worship.

[27:36] Two items I just wanted to bring for public recognition. The first being the Deerness Home. It’s the city’s musically run long-term care home. Just a thank you to our board, I chair it, but to thank you to Councillor Hopkins, Cassidy Helmer and Lehman who join me on that board and to the staff who support it as the home’s been doing great work throughout the pandemic and stays behind the scenes, but so much is being done. Some volunteers have recently been able to start returning to the home and operating the tech shop, which residents enjoy.

[28:08] And for the public, there’s been over 480 residents, trained who are now essential caregivers who can enter the home and care for their loved ones, which is absolutely crucial. And for those in the public wondering about the home and looking for information, the home is in the process of developing a virtual tour video for residents can, potential residents can see what the home would be like to live there. So thank you so much to all in the community who make that home such a special place, especially over the holidays and every day. My second recognition this evening is recognizing Brian Meehan, who’s the executive director of Museum London.

[28:48] It was a virtual conference, but he was recently recognized with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the Galleries of Ontario, as he served at Museum London and as executive director for 22 years developing and devoting so much of his life to the museum, to the arts in this community and to the community at large. So a special congratulations to Mr. Meehan. Thank you. Thanks very much and colleagues. It’s my honor to pay tribute to a great Lunder and a great Canadian, James, William, Scotty Martin.

[29:25] In the early hours of Saturday, December 18th, London lost one of its most decorated soldiers, James, William Martin, known to most of us as Scotty, was in his 96th year. Scotty Martin, honorary Lieutenant Colonel 31 Service Battalion, had a long and distinguished military career, which he began at the age of 15. His 40 years of service took him around the world from Korea to Newfoundland, to Kingston, Jamaica to Vietnam and back home to London, Ontario. Numerous awards as one of the most decorated soldiers in London, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal in class, the 1939, 1945 war medal, the Canadian Korea Medal, the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal for Korea, the Peacekeeping Medal, UN Korea, the International Commission of Control and Supervision, ICCS Vietnam, the Queen’s Silver Jubilee Medal, and finally, the Canadian Foreign Declaration CD with two bars.

[30:25] Friends, Scotty dedicated his career to the country, that he loved and in his retirement, he continued to give back to our community in so many significant ways. Locally, Scotty’s contributions included service with the Royal Canadian Legion, the Garrison Community Council of the Warriors Day Parade and London celebrates Canada. He was a great Canadian, a great Lunderner, we will miss him and we will remember him. Colleagues, I’m not aware of any confidential matters to be considered in public.

[31:05] And with regard to item four, which is council in closed session, I’m going to look for a motion to change the order to move item four, council in closed session and the 10th of fourth council in closed session. After stage 13 bylaws, I’ll take a look for a mover. Please, Councilor Van Mirberg and seconded by Councilor Lewis. Thanks very much, we’ll call the vote in favor. Thank you.

[31:52] And Mirberg and councilor Turner. And in favor. Thank you. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Fair much. I’m looking for a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held on December 7th and I’ll put that on the floor. Is there a mover, please?

[32:24] Councilor, five milliliters, seconded by Councilor Hamou. Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. In favor. Thank you. Mayor, I’m in favor as well. I’m having trouble getting, keeping my voting thing. Thank you.

[33:03] Then, whole, opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thanks, Colleagues. We have patients and petitions dealing with the environmental management guidelines, a public notice policy amendment. And for those items, we’re looking for a mover and seconder to put those to the appropriate committees as they are noted.

[33:36] Do I have a mover, please? I see Councilor van Mirberg and seconded by Councilor Hillier. Thank you very much. Questions? We’ll call the vote. Thank you, Councilor Slan. Councilor Mann-Hullis is in favor.

[34:15] Thank you. Councilor five milliliters in favor. Thank you. Excuse me, your worship. I haven’t opened the vote yet because Councilor Hillier was trying to get your attention. Thank you. So it was nice to everybody voted, but we’re gonna let you do it again. In just a moment, Councilor Hillier, did you have something to ask or comment on?

[34:48] I was just curious in this motion, didn’t we have to split it out for Councilor Homo? ‘Cause she needs 6.1 separately. I did ask colleagues to do their own policing, but you’re exactly correct. So I believe on this by virtue of this communication, which involves communication from York developments that likely Councilor Mulio might wish to recuse yourself. So I appreciate that. Let’s deal with 6.1. And with that, I’ll look to clerks. Thank you very much, Councilor Hillier. We will deal with 6.1 environmental management guidelines and the communication from York developments in that.

[35:32] Any comments or questions on 6.1? To the clerk to pull the vote up. Motion regarding 6.1, part one is open. It’s in favor. Thank you, Councilor. Councillor Turner, Councillor Turner.

[36:25] Motion carries 14-0 with one recuse. Thanks very much. In item 6-2 and there are communications there from Mr. Bennett, Dick and Ms. Velastro and the second one from Ms. Velastro. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder, please move by. Mr. Van Berberg and the seconder by Councillor Fai-Familler, thank you.

[37:03] Any comments, questions? Call the question then. Thanks. Motion carries 15-0. Any motions to which notice has been given? So that takes us to the first report of civic works.

[37:37] I’ll call on Councilor Palosa, please. Thank you, Your Worship. This is the first report of civic works. We have items one through eight. I have not been given notice to have anything pulled separate before I comment. I’ll look to see if colleagues have anything that they would like to have dealt with separately on the civic works report. Just bear with me, I want my colleagues.

[38:23] I’d ask if I could if 4.1 could be dealt with separately for actually not for a separate vote, but I would like to, I’ll discuss it at the appropriate time. So I will not have it pulled, thank you. I see no other items to be dealt with separately over to Councillor Palosa, please. Thank you. All these were unanimous votes at civic works. I would like to congratulate Councillor Fai-Familler for becoming the vice chair of civic works. And thank you for being willing to serve. Everything was in-depth conversation with the highlight being item 4.1, which the mayor will make comment on in a moment.

[39:01] We did receive a staff presentation that was about six minutes long. And in the added civic works agenda was a slide deck that went in-depth in advance of our conversation about a regional transportation in London in this conceptual framework. So I will leave it there and allow the mayor to speak more on 4.1. Thank you. Thanks very much, colleagues. 4.1 is a conceptual framework for regional transportation in London and transcends just London beyond London. What it does is it highlights our city as the regional transportation mobility hub for Southwestern Ontario.

[39:38] You’ll note that we had early support from Thames Centre when London had originally positioned itself as the regional transportation and mobility hub. And since that time, EDC score, which is our number of rural communities from across Southwestern Ontario, Ontario have endorsed this. And in my capacity as chair of the Southwestern to our transportation task force pointed by the province, I will tell you that we’ve got very strong supporting remarks from most of the communities tied to the task force and we’ll be getting formal direction there from them.

[40:19] The reason I share that with you is because I think it is important that particularly as we go forward with our regional transportation plan, our inner city works, our discussions around rail and road and air and water that all of this is become fairly clear that as we go forward, it doesn’t happen unless London has a part to play in it. But what this endorsement does too is that it really acknowledges from this community right through to Queen’s Park how important the things that we are doing to improve transportation networks throughout our community as it grows and throughout Southwestern Ontario as it grows.

[41:05] So I’m quite excited about the opportunity to support this and work with mayors and banshees from across Southwestern Ontario as we go forward and later plan in February. So I want to thank the committee for supporting this totally and look forward to your support on this as well. Thank you, Councillor Ploza. I’m just looking to see if there’s any speakers for you and if not, that was all my comments on all the items that are on the floor.

[41:47] Any comments on any items on the floor? I see none, we’ll call the question. Close in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Ploza. Please, the first report of the Civic Works Committee. Thanks very much. And now for the first report of the Planning Environment Committee, I’ll call on Councillor Hopkins please. Thank you, Your Worship.

[42:21] I have not heard from anyone wanting to pull any items. So with that, I do understand that Councillor Hamou has requested that 19, 3.6, which is 978 Gainesboro Road, she would like to recuse herself on that. I would like to bring to her attention and through you to staff, there are a number of other items relating to York, which is number 22, 3.9, which is 50 King Street, the demolition request and the number 25, 4.3, which was a request for Council resolution on 19, 19, and 19, 29 Oxford Street West, all related to York developments.

[43:08] Not sure if missed any, but I wanted to bring that to the Councillor’s attention before moving forward. I appreciate that, Councillor Hopkins, and I’ve noted those three items. If Councilor and move leaves there are any others, then she can bring that to our attention. But I’ll ask if any colleagues as well wish to deal with anything else separately. Councillor Hamou, I see your hand up. Sorry, that was to declare as well that number 22. And thank you for the catch on number 25. So noted, thanks very much.

[43:40] Any other items, colleagues, you wish to have dealt with separately? I see none. So we’ll like overview, Councillor Hopkins, where we’ll be dealing with all the items, 19, 22, and 25. Over to you, please. Yes, thank you, Your Worship. I would like to say and thank the committee for the amount of work that was done at planning. Our agendas are quite long. We had nine public participation meetings. And the election of Vice Chair, which is Councillor Layman.

[44:14] So congratulations, Councillor Layman. Of course, we received a number of consent items removing holding provisions. So lots of development going on. We endorsed the transit oriented secondary plan prioritization, as well as receiving October’s building report and a special thank you to staff for all the work that they’re doing, getting these permits out. We are reaching unprecedented numbers and really want to thank staff. I also want to thank Britto Hagen and her staff for doing the virtual urban design awards for 2022.

[44:58] I was a privilege to be part of that jury. I want to thank the volunteers that came out. I always find that being on planning, seeing these applications come in on paper and then going out and seeing them in our communities is always such a fascinating and educational process for me to be part of. And the work that goes into that virtual award ceremony, we do this every two years and of course, this year being virtual and many, many thanks to staff for all the work that they do.

[45:33] They really truly believe in the importance of urban design as it relates to our city and all the building that’s going on. With that, I’d like to present the report. We also just want to bring to the attention of council. We have also adopted the Environmental Management Guidelines. These are guidelines that will be reviewed by annual. We did have a conversation about putting it in on the deferral list, but it was not supported and it’s really important that these guidelines be updated.

[46:14] The last update was in 2007. So they were needed to be done. And thanks to staff, three years of work that went into updating these guidelines. So with that, I’d like to present the first report of the planning environment. Thank you and that’s what the three exceptions, as we’ve indicated here, which depending we may put us as one motion, appreciating that there will be one declaration of interest. So with that, any comments on all but those three items any colleagues wish to make?

[46:57] Here I am looking around the horseshoe, nobody’s there, but it was interesting to see nobody there. But having said that colleagues, let’s call the question please. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. I wonder, Councillor Opkins, if you’d like to put those other three items together as one since it seems to be working of interest.

[47:36] Yes, I’ll put on number 19, 3.6, which is 978 games for a road, 22, 3.9, 50 King Street, the demolition request, as well as number 25, 4.3, a request for council resolution. Thanks very much, comments or questions? I see none, we’ll call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse.

[48:21] Councillor Opkins. That is my— And now for the first report of the community and protective services committee, call on Councillor Halmer, please. No longer me, it’s Councillor Cassidy. I thought it was my, we miss you. I guess that was all I can say. Councillor Cassidy, if you would please. I won’t take offense to that, Mr. Mayor, and I will put the entire report on the floor. I have not heard yet if anyone would like to pull an item. Any items or colleagues who wish to have dealt with separately, Councillor Silly?

[48:59] Yes, if I could just pull the, sorry, 2.2, the agreement with the immigration refugees. So this is your piano as an employee by the federal government. Thanks very much, any other comments or questions with all with the exception of 2.2. Back to you, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, your worship and my apologies to Councillor Silly for not catching that. So I will put everything on the floor except for 2.2. I just have one comment on 2.4, which is the Reaching Home a Capital Projects, it’s a good news story for London.

[49:41] City of London responded on behalf of the London Metal Sex Local Immigration Partnership. We were just a select group of limb lips that were, lips that were invited to apply to an RFQ from Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada. And we were successful in getting funding through this program, we’re looking at, sorry, sorry, sorry, I’m talking about the wrong one. 2.4 is the Reaching Home Capital Projects. And again, we have received our allocation which will fund flow through the City of London to three organizations, the Atlosa Family Services Group, London Cares and the Unity Project and the details of those projects are in the agenda and the reports, $2 million in total capital funding and very happy to receive this allocation and see that these groups get this funding.

[50:36] So with that, I’ll put the entire report except for 2.2 on the floor. Other comments or questions? I guess we didn’t miss you that much, Councillor. Yeah, we’re so with that, we’ll call the question. We did, actually. So hello, who’s in the vote?

[51:17] Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, the one where we responded on behalf of our local immigration partnership, City of London, responded to the RFQ through Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada. And we were the successful organization to align, sorry, so on behalf of the limb lip, we will, there will be service delivery improvements, developing models of community-based plans for settlement service delivery and funding.

[51:56] And I’m putting that item on the floor. Also with the comment that Councillor Helmer was chosen by the committee as the vice chair for this next year. So you might see him again. Well, I feel a lot better knowing that. Thank you very much. And having said that, any comments or questions with the final item here? I guess two items, the confirmation of Councillor Helmer’s vice, Councillor Hopkins, did you have a comment? I’m sorry.

[52:28] Okay, thank you. I see none. We’ll call the question. Sir Morgan, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero with one right here.

[53:09] Councillor Cassidy. That’s my report, Your Worship. Thanks very much. Now for the first report of corporate services committee, I’ll call on Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. It was a short agenda at corporate services, but I haven’t asked to pull item two, that’s 1.2, the election of the vice chair. Councillor Faif Miller asked that people so he could speak to it. Thanks very much. So that puts items one, one through five, one with exclusion 1.2 on the floor. Anyone who wish to have any other item dealt with separately.

[53:48] If you’re talking about one, two, you’re bitterly a Councillor Faif Miller. No. Okay, go ahead. Could I ask that item four, 4.1 be put on the floor two, please? Thank you. So we’re now dealing with items one, three and five. Anyone else wish to do, will anything separately? Councillor Lewis? Well, then I think we can call the question on the consent agenda, Your Worship, on what’s left of it.

[54:21] With that, we’ll call the vote. Sir Morgan, closing the vote.

[55:00] Motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Lewis. Your Worship, all put item two, that’s 1.2 from the committee agenda, the election of the vice chair on the floor. Anyone wishing to speak to it? Councillor Faif Miller, I think you did. Go ahead, please. If I could through your worship, obviously I was a little bit too much of a teener on this going the first time through and I’ve ended up with two vice chairs. I am vice chair for Civic Works. I do know that there is another member of the corporate services committee that would be more than happy to take over the vice chair role of this committee.

[55:40] So I guess what I’m asking is my colleagues reject that item and then we’ll put a new name on the floor for vice chair of corporate services. Do you have a seconder for me, please? Director for that, please. Okay, Councillor Lewis, thank you. So this is to withdraw, the motion is to withdraw Councillor Faif Miller. Point of order, Your Worship.

[56:14] Go ahead, please. So I think doing anything different from Councillor Faif Miller would be contrary and I think we should just defeat this motion. Do you know when, when you speak with wisdom and the clerk agrees with you, Councillor Cassidy, who am I to challenge either of you? So to defeat the motion allows us then to go forward. So any other comments or questions? Thank you, by the way. Then we’ll call the question. I vote to defeat it.

[57:06] It doesn’t want to let me in, so. Thank you. Thank you. And Councillor Morgan has lost one to 14. Councillor Lewis.

[57:45] Thank you, Your Worship. I believe Councillor Faif Miller wants to put a new motion on the floor for the election of vice chair. So I’m happy to defer to him to do that now. Good, Councillor. Thank you. I’d like to put on a motion that Councillor Amoo be named as vice chair for the corporate services committee. And do you have a seconder for that, Councillor Hiller? Thank you. Thank you. Comments, questions. We never lead with what were you thinking?

[58:20] Go ahead, Deputy Mayor, please. Yeah, obviously I voted the wrong way on the last one because my e-scribe is not working and I’m trying to catch up. So I just want to let colleagues know about that. I would have liked to make it unanimous to voting as Councillor Faif Miller, that’s rare. But I missed that and I’m probably going to log out of e-scribe and log back in. So I’ll end up voting manually until I get back in just to try to correct this problem. Thanks and so you’ll be voting yes on this just in case we miss otherwise.

[58:54] Any other comments? Yes, I will be. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Then we’ll call the question. Paul’s had his hand up. Thanks very much. Not used to all this. I didn’t see Councillor Van Hose show up but go ahead, please. I didn’t see his hand nor that. So go ahead, please, sir. Oh, thank you, worship. I was just hoping to hear confirmation from the Councillor Hamou that she accepts the nomination.

[59:27] I’m happy to support it, but. We’re just about to be in the voting cycle. Councillor Hoon, do you accept the nomination? I do. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Raj. A colleague sits on the screen for your vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

[59:58] I’ll put item four, that’s 4.1. It’s a delegation request just to clarify with all colleagues the delegation was received and the committee direction was to receive the delegation’s presentation. Thanks. Any comments or questions with respect to item 4.1? Councillor Fai, no, go ahead, please. Thank you, Your Worship. And through you, based on the letter that we received in our package today and I’m going to give my apologies because I wasn’t around in March of 2021.

[1:00:38] One of the lines in the letter that we received is that, and I’ll quote it, we don’t know why this Council resolution was not fully implemented by staff. I’m wondering through you if I could just get staff to confirm two items. One that the motion is in place and two that we are following the motion. Mr. Cotsmith, do you want to respond to that? It’s Mr. Catolek here. All right, thank you. You can hear me fine. Yep, go ahead, sir. Yes, as previously mentioned at three previous committee meetings, any future municipally operated public parking lots will go through a site plan process involving a public participation meeting and public participation meetings are advertised on the city web in the Londoner and circulated by mail.

[1:01:28] The direction of Council in March 2021 was implemented by our city clerk’s department in the public participation policy. Thank you. Councilor Feistman or any comments or questions? No, thank you. That was extremely helpful. I appreciate it. Any other comments or questions to 4.1? Seeing none, then we’ll call the question. Opposed in the vote.

[1:02:14] Motion carries 15 to zero. Thanks very much, Councillor Loz. Thank you, Your Worship. That’s it for proper services until we move into closed session. This is your first chairing new corporate services. Thank you very much, appreciate that. Colleagues, we now turn our attention to the first report of the strategic priorities and policies committee, as this is all financially focused. I’ll turn this over to Councillor Palazzo, please. Budget chair. Thank you, Your Worship. For colleagues, if you’re having an issue with E-Scribe, I do suggest taking this moment to refresh or log out and log back in, as this will be a bit like Groundhog Day and get convoluted decently quickly and it will be most helpful to see wording on the screen.

[1:02:58] So for colleagues this evening as your budget chair, we will follow the same format that we did on the ninth of the budget meeting. Any votes that were not unanimous or had conflicts already declared will be pulled separately. So no worries there. So to start, the clerks I had went through, we identified the votes that did not have conflicts and were unanimous. We’re gonna call those as a chunk of council allows. And then we will go item by item and separate them all out and pass it, recognizing it connects to bylaws and it keeps it a little bit simpler behind the scenes as things get more complicated.

[1:03:39] So for consent, what I’m going to be putting on the floor, there’s 13 items we’re gonna start with, which will be items one, two, four, eight, nine, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19. So that’s all the water. It was all unanimous and the budget presentation. Number four was the letter mail sex funding request so that wording should be available in eScribe.

[1:04:20] And then we’ll deal with the six items separate that we had conflicts on and split votes on. So the 13 items that will be before you to start were all unanimous with no conflicts in them. Thanks, any of those items that have been named that colleagues wish to have separated, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, your worship is number seven, the 4.5 reserves and reserve funds overview. I would like that one pulled.

[1:04:55] Yes, it is pulled. Okay, thank you. I wasn’t sure if like communicate went out. Thank you. Thank you, any other items, colleagues? Then any other comments or questions with respect to those items that were dealt with unanimously? As presented, any comments or questions? I see none, we’ll call the question. Mr. Mayor, before I open the vote, I’d ask if we could have that motion reviewed.

[1:05:36] So what is on the floor is one, two, four, eight, nine, and items 12 to 20. That’s close. It’s actually 13 through 19 according to what I have, but Councillor Palosa can confirm that. I’d start at number 12. All right, thank you. So 12 and did you finish at 20, Councillor Palosa? I’d finished at 19. I wasn’t, I’d have to find what number 20 is, but. Waste water and treatment services, Councillor.

[1:06:10] Okay, yeah, 20’s fine. Any question, colleagues? If you refresh, you’ll see the current item, which references one, two, four, eight, nine, and 12 through 20. Any comments or questions about those? We’re not trying to rush this. We just want to make sure that it’s clear that what we’re voting on right this very moment. Clerk, are we good? Clerk is good.

[1:06:44] As long as the members have reviewed those clauses, I will open the vote. Well, I think in preparation for this meeting, all of these items have been reviewed, but they’re always open to question by colleagues to get answers that may not have yet been dealt with. So with that, we’ll call the question. Close the vote motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:07:21] Councillor Palosa. Our unanimous votes and ones that did not have conflicts. So thank you to committee for passing the bulk of that. So efficiently. Next before us is item three being 4.1. This is the recommended property tax operating budget amendments and within it is items key one through P6. We had discussed just calling them separate, recognizing there was split votes throughout the way and they do interconnect into other bylaws that’s coming before us.

[1:07:55] And that would be the easiest way that we saw forward. So if I would just put 4.1 A in P1. All right, we’ll just make sure the clerks are ready and we’ll deal with these as six separate votes. And we will start with A and open it up for any comments or questions. Deputy Mayor. Yeah, and I don’t intend on redubating or revisiting all the components of the budget, but the 4.1 P1A is the component of the review where staff did a whole ton of work in all the different civic areas to find savings for us and really get our budget tax increase down.

[1:08:44] And I just didn’t want to let this one go without again, thanking them for the incredible amount of work they did to present this as an option for council. So thanks again, staff. Thank you, other comments. I see none. None we will vote on 4.1 A. Those in the vote motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:09:18] Councilor Palosa. Thank you. Be on the floor and this was a split vote. Council has to do with the London middle sex health unit inflationary pressures. Comments or questions? I see none. We’ll call the question. As in the vote motion carries 14 to one.

[1:09:59] Councilor Palosa. Thank you for the RBC place London funding support request and it was a unanimous vote at council. Comments or questions? Committee. Councilor Turner knows that ‘cause he’s on that committee actually. So that’s, thank you, comments or questions? Let’s call the question then please. Sometimes we’re not on mute when we should be and sometimes it’s the other way around.

[1:10:45] As in the vote motion carries 15 to zero. Councilor Palosa. 4.1 D is case number four. The private parking enforcement increase finds. This was unanimous vote at council. Thanks very much. Comments or questions? We’ll call the question. Those in the vote motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:11:23] Thank you, 4.1 E at committee was, there’s a conflict in there. And so we’re going to have to call it separately as its childcare in Ontario works. And the clerk can advise best then recognizing there is a funerary interest in this one. I think Councilor Van Merberg and you acknowledged a conflict there. Thank you. Any comments or questions on this item? Both questions. Clerk’s not quite ready with this one just a moment please.

[1:12:01] Thank you. Councilor Van Merberg and you had a comment or a question before the vote? Yes, I just wanted to clarify. So the childcare portion will be separated out from Ontario works. We’ll go to the clerk for that. Yes, Mr. Mayor, if you could just give me a moment.

[1:12:35] I’m not sure, my note has it separated out and I just want to make sure about the other half of it. So if you just give me just a brief moment. Thank you. Thank you, Clerk. Thank you.

[1:13:45] So the first vote to be opened is case P5A. This is the childcare portion of subsection E. Any comments or questions with respect to this component that we’ll call the vote? Councilor, thank you.

[1:14:24] Those in the vote, motion carries 12 to two with one recuse. And the next section regarding Ontario works, the wording will now come up from the clerks. And again, we’ll invite you to, so it’s very clear what it is. We refresh, go to a current item and you’ll see what it is we’ll be dealing with before. And now, but what I’ll do before we call the vote, I’ll look for entertaining any comments or questions. I see no more call the vote.

[1:15:38] Sir, Jenna, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to one. Councilor Palosa. Point one F was a split vote at council and is as business case P6 be an infrastructure gap in community building projects reduction. I’ll put it on the floor. Comments or questions, colleagues? Councilor Turner? Councilor Turner, you have your hand up.

[1:16:27] Any other comments or questions and colleagues? Last call for Councilor Turner. There you are. Did you have any questions on this item, Councilor Turner? Thank you. I might just throw to staff, the infrastructure gap. Has it been accounted for with respect to environmental and climate change impacts? One of the things we’ve seen recently, especially in British Columbia and out east with the significant adverse weather events is almost catastrophic loss of municipal and provincial infrastructure, roads, bridges, things like that.

[1:17:10] Does our corporate infrastructure plan account for that or is it just based on routine and regular amortization of assets? The assessment is purple. Thank you through the chair. So no, this is at this point in time, it is solely related to the replacement value of a like for like asset. That is something that we are certainly looking at and in discussions with our capital asset management team about how we would go about doing that going forward.

[1:17:47] But it is something that is certainly going to take a little bit of time as those standards and as things start to evolve to look at how we would account for that. But it would certainly move to likely increase the cost of a replacement value if we’re not doing like for like in the future. That’s for sure. Thank you. Thanks, Ms. Pargone, I appreciate that. So this kind of highlights a bit more of my concern. I had thought to raise the point when we were discussing that budget last time. I still have significant reservations about reductions in our contributions to infrastructure gap.

[1:18:22] This highlights a little bit further, shows that our replacement costs will either be higher or our life cycles will actually have to be shorter as a result of climate impacts or having the potential for catastrophic losses of pieces of infrastructure, as you may recall. Not long ago, we had significant flooding at the forks of the Thames, which threatened to shut down even the Warren Cliff Street Bridge. And we’ve had to bolster up supports around our sewage treatment plants and the like like that. So I hope, I know where the vote had went to the last pass, but I hope maybe some of my colleagues will reconsider.

[1:19:02] Thanks very much. Any other comments or questions? I see none, we’ll call the question. Councillor Cassidy.

[1:19:58] Everything that Councillor Turner just said. I think we’re looking for the vote here. So I had to sign out of eScribe. I will vote no if we’re on the infrastructure item. Still, that’s what I would vote no one. Thank you. Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries nine to six.

[1:20:34] Thank you. That included that section. So that moves us on to item five being 4.3 review of consideration property tax operating budget amendments. This relates to budget cases P7 and P8. We had split votes on all items in the above section or the forthcoming section that we are going to be discussing. So we had put business case seven into three sections. So P7A has to do with the neighborhood decision-making programming operating expenditure.

[1:21:10] I will put that one on the floor. Thank you, comments or questions? Call the question. Mr. Mayor, so P7A was not supported. So there’s not something to vote on. The only portion that was approved at committee is the P7C for 200,000.

[1:21:47] So I will save this motion so that the members can review it. But the subsections one and two were not supported at committees. So they just go forward in that manner. So I’ll present this for the members review. Thank you. So that leaves us with business case P7 part C being athletic travel grants. And this had passed at committee 13 to two and I’ll put it on the floor. Thanks very much, Chair.

[1:22:20] Comments or questions? Then we’ll call that question. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to one. That’s your closing.

[1:22:55] Jeez for that. Item, business case P8s. This is the parks planning, design, parks and horticulture and urban forestry, nationalization and reduction in tree trimming. I’ll put this one on the floor and it was also not a unanimous decision at committee. Comments or questions? Jean, now we’ll call the vote. Present the vote.

[1:23:39] Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you. That moves us along to item 4.4 being number six, being a review of recommendation amended property tax capital budget amendments. This is business cases P9 to P12. Sorry, just one moment. We went quickly. So it is a split vote where we come to be. So I will put it on the floor.

[1:24:18] The invasive species management capital expenditure, any comments or questions? Then let’s call that’s vote. Opposed in the vote.

[1:24:54] Motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor. Thank you. I’ll know on the floor being P10, the transportation capital project adjustments and expenditures. Comments or questions? I see none. We’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote.

[1:25:38] Motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor. Thank you. Committee be called C and D together. So if the clerks are fine with that, I will do that the same. And this is business case P11 and P12. So long-term disposal capacity and zero emission buses. colleagues wish those voted on separately. That can be done failing that. If there are any comments or questions, I see none. We’ll call the question. Present the vote.

[1:26:20] Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, this brings us to item seven being 4.5, reserves and reserve fund overview. This was a unanimous decision at committee, but was requested by Councillor to pull it and she has circulated a motion beforehand to council, which I believe she will now speak to. Good, Councillor. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I would like to follow up on the public participation meeting that was held on the annual budget update for 2022. And we received a submission from Mr. S11 for additional monies that are needed for monitoring ESAs.

[1:27:03] And as we know, ESAs are environmentally sensitive areas. And they are being very well used during the pandemic. People use them not only for mental health, but for physical health as well. And the challenges of getting extra boots on the ground to monitor our ESAs has been a concern for the team. And so following up on Mr. S11 submission, I would like to present a motion to council through the reserve fund portion where I have circulated the motion and I would like to read it.

[1:27:51] I prefer those who are listening in and the motion reads that the civic administration be directed to consult with the upper Thames conservation authority with respect to the potential need and ability to facilitate additional monitoring of ESAs and report back to the appropriate committee in the first quarter of 2022. I know I’ve got a seconder in Councillor Turner. I would like to put that on the floor.

[1:28:25] I think it’s really important that we at least send this submission to staff to have a review and a report back to the appropriate committee before we go through. We have a four year budget. I’m very respectful of where additional money should go. And I do think that having that this report back will be giving us further clarity on the boots that are needed on the ground.

[1:29:01] And with that, I’d like to present my motion. And Councillor Turner, your seconding. Thanks very much, comments or questions. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. And through you to our finance staff or perhaps our budget chair wants to respond as well. But through you, when an annual budget update is coming together, if boards, agencies and commissions of the city have additional needs that have arisen outside of their business cases that come through the multi-year budget request of the big process, are they not able to work with city staff to bring that forward as appropriate already?

[1:29:54] Ms. Barbara. I thank you through the chair. So our understanding is that this request was brought forward by Mr. Levin through the PPM. It is not a request from the UTRCA and in conjunction with the discussions we had with Mr. Barrett earlier, our understanding is there was some discussion about some potential needs, but that nothing has been identified. So we would need to do some work to report back and identify if there even needs a need at this time. Councillor Lewis. Thank you.

[1:30:25] So I’m not gonna be supportive of this motion. I, you know, respectfully, ‘cause obviously in the East End, we have the middle of the woods ESA, very, very important part of the community’s natural environment resources. But to me, this is the upper towns responsibility to come to us with an annual budget update request if they’ve identified a need. When we start responding to PPM comments and then start looking to generate more business case potential costs, even through reserve funds.

[1:31:01] And frankly, I’m concerned about, you know, even identifying it as potential use of reserve funds, because if it’s an ongoing monitoring situation, to me that’s an operating cost and belongs appropriately in an operating budget asking the future. So I’m really cautious of using one-time money for what could potentially be an ongoing ask. And I’m really cautious about asking civic administration to undertake an additional round of consultation, specifically with upper tems on a need.

[1:31:34] When every board agency and commission has already had this opportunity to do so, and they did not bring this forward through the budget process, I’m not willing to support something that’s coming through from one letter received at a PPM. So I’m not supportive of this. Despite the fact that I have zero doubt that the councilor is bringing forward because of her passion for the environment and obviously the value that we all place on our ESAs, but I can’t support this at this time. Thank you, Councillor Godholst.

[1:32:09] Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll be supporting this one. I think there was a pretty good case made for at the public participation meeting. And of course, I hope that we’ll be responsive to PPMs. That’s the purpose of holding it. So in this case, I think it’s fine. We’re looking a little further into an idea that was brought forward from a longstanding member of our environmental committee. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins.

[1:32:50] Thank you, Your Worship. I’m not sure if there’s anyone else that would like to speak to this. I would like to wrap up and respond to some of the comments that have already been made, but I can do that in my wrap up. I have no one else on the speaker’s list here. Oh, there you are. No, I’m not ready for you, Councillor Hopkins. I now have Councillor Turner, go ahead, please. My apologies, my hand must have fallen down somehow. Must have gotten tired holding it up there. As for your Your Worship, I appreciate to the motion being brought forward by Councillor Hopkins.

[1:33:23] I agree with Councillor Benholst’s comments on this. See, the request here is just to go back and talk with staff. It was a point that was identified during the public participation meeting. It’s not an earmarking of funds. It’s not an allocation of money. It’s a question that was legitimately raised through the public participation meeting. I’m disappointed by Councillor Lewis’ comments. The entire point of the public participation meeting is to solicit comments from the public on how the budget is allocated through the upcoming year. And if we’re not listening to comments from the public and acting on them, where we have opportunities to do so, I’m not quite sure why we hold those meetings.

[1:34:04] So this is a really important point. I think if there is the opportunity and the need, both of those have to be true. The opportunity and the need have to exist in order for something to be brought back to Council for us to consider. If there’s no opportunity and no need, we don’t have to worry. So this is quite reasonable. I don’t think anybody should be scared by it or worried about it. Let this pass and let’s see what comes back. It’s a conversation and it’s quite the reasonable point in the discussion for us to have that.

[1:34:39] Any other comments or questions with respect to this? I’m not ready for yet. Councillor Hopkins. Will I lie? I guess we are. Go ahead. You worship, sorry. Just on a point of order. Go ahead. If it’s a point of order. Preemptively, we are Council. I thought we established previously that the prior tradition of a wrap is actually not procedurally correct. Well, and I’ll defer to you if it’s not on that, but my full of the fact that you are supposed to be speaking once and once only at Council.

[1:35:19] That would typically be the case, Councillor Lewis. I’m not accepting this actually as a wrap. I’m accepting this because frankly, as Councillor Hopkins was introducing her motion to this and providing a bit of background, I’m actually treating this as brand new, but otherwise, are your points well taken. Councillor Hopkins, please. Yeah, thank you. You worship for allowing me to do a wrap here on the motion that’s being presented. Not a wrap, you’re starting fresh. Go ahead, please. Okay, I’ll start fresh and just to respond to some of the comments that I heard, I think it’s really important that we as Council understand where this request came from.

[1:35:59] It came from the public participation meeting. They are important. Thank you, Councillor Van Halz, for those comments and following up on Councilor Turner’s comments. Public, this is a public submission. It is something that is not coming from the Upper Thames Conservation Authority Board. I think it’s very clear to understand that we have an ESAT with the City of London and it’s operated with the Upper Thames. This is where this report will be coming from to see if there is a need and an opportunity to deal with the monitoring.

[1:36:36] I think we really have to understand that and the importance of public participation meetings are important when we listen to what the public has to say. So with that, I think it’s really clear that we understand where this ask is coming from. Thanks very much. Any other comments or questions? I see none. We’ll call the question. As in the vote, motion carries, 11.

[1:37:32] Thank you, Councillor Ploza. Thank you. I believe that, I would have to ask the clerk if that takes care of item seven being 4.5. Just go to the clerk on that because it was entered as an amendment on the record but the clerk, you can just clarify. So whether we have to vote on this as amended or treat the next item separately, could you just comment, please? It was like power.

[1:38:18] My apologies. I do have a motion to approve the clause as amended. It requires a member and a seconder. I’ll look for a mover. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Hamou. Thank you. Comments or questions? This is the motion as amended. I see none. We’ll call the question. Those in the vote to approve as amended, period 14 to 1.

[1:39:00] Back to you, Councillor Ploza. Thank you. This on to item 10 being 4.8, the operating budgets at committee section A had parts one to four broken out and parts B was broken out as well. We’re gonna follow the same format as this is where different community interests are all mingled in. So we’ll follow the same format to keep things simple. So I will put A1 on the floor. This is the operating budgets in regards to the London Public Library and Councillor Turner had a conflict on this one.

[1:39:34] Comments or questions? Call the vote. As in the vote, motion carries 13 to 1 with one recuse.

[1:40:15] Thank you. AII is that the amended 2022 operating budget for children’s services be approved and a conflict was declared on this one by Councillor van Merbergen. Comments or questions? All the vote. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to 0 with one recuse.

[1:41:12] Pleasure. Thank you. AII that the amended 2022 operating budget for golf be approved. I’ll put it on the floor and Councillor Helmer had declared a conflict on this one. Comments or questions? Call the vote. In the vote motion carries 13 to 1 with one recuse.

[1:41:53] Councillor. Thank you AIV, the 2022 operating budget, excluding the London Public Library children’s services and golf be approved. There was no conflicts on this one, but it was a split vote at committee. Thanks very much. Any comments or questions? Call the vote. Members, Helmer got it and Councillor Layman.

[1:42:57] Councillor Layman. Councillor Layman, the vote say. Thank you. Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 1. Councillor closing. Thank you, B1, the operating budget be re-adopted. And this one is regarding the London Public Library and Councillor Turner had a conflict. Thank you, comments or questions? Call the vote.

[1:43:49] In the vote motion carries 13 to 1 with one recuse. Councillor closing. Thank you, item BII, the amended 2023 operating budget for children’s services be approved. Councillor Van Merbergen had a conflict on this one. Thank you, comments, questions? Dean Nunn will call the vote. In the vote, motion carries 14 to 0 with one recuse.

[1:44:30] Councillor. I, the amended 2023 operating budget for golf be approved. Councillor Helmer had a conflict on this one. Comments or questions? Call the vote. Motion carries 13 to 1 with one recuse.

[1:45:08] Thank you, I’ll put item B1V on the floor, the amended 2023 operating budget, excluding one in public library children’s services and golf to be approved. Comments or questions? Vote, motion carries 14 to 1.

[1:45:44] Thank you, that concludes item 10. Item 11 is 4.9, the capital budget. There’s some golf mixed in throughout this one. So we had separated out at committee when we do it. So I’ll follow the same to the is there golf in this one? I will follow the same voting as we did at committee. So I would put item A, B and C on the floor and respect to the capital budget, excluding library services and golf.

[1:46:24] Thank you, comments or questions? Then we’ll call the questions. Sir Turner, is there a vote, motion carries 15 to 0.

[1:47:22] Councillor. Put D on the floor in all parts and the following actions be taken with respect to the library services capital budget and Councillor Turner has a conflict on this one. Comments or questions? We’ll call the vote. The vote, motion carries 14 to 0 with one recuse.

[1:48:03] Thank you, I’ll put E, I and I on the floor that the following actions be taken with respect to the golf capital budget and Councillor Helmer had a conflict on this one. So just to be clear, there are a lot of eyes there. All of you. All of you. All of you. Thanks very much, comments or questions? I see none. We’ll call the vote. In the vote, motion carries 14 to 0 with one recuse.

[1:48:44] Councillor Plaza. Thank you, we have already dealt with items 12 through 20. So to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Mayor, that concludes the first report, the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee and the 2022 budget. Thank you. As a matter of record, I’ve been through a few of these now. You’ve been much more effective than the prior budget chair. I don’t know what that’s about, but very smooth and very organized. Thank you very much. And no disrespect to the deputy mayor ever intended. He’s quite a nice person.

[1:49:18] Well done, thank you very much. So colleagues, I’m gonna turn your attention now to then item 10. There are no deferred matters, but on the inquiry list, we do have, pardon me, there are no deferred matters, but on inquiries, we have a couple and the first time going to turn to is 11.1. Councillors Morgan and Hamou, you have an inquiry. Go ahead, please. Yes, thank you, Your Worship. I’m just pulling this up here so I can see it.

[1:49:53] So if colleagues will obviously recall that in response to the horrific terrorist attack that occurred in the northwest corner of the city and Hyde Park there, we took a number of actions and as did the entire nation leading up to an entire national summit. Civic administration, we know has been hard at work on a series of projects. However, based on a few media stories recently, as well as some questions from constituents, I don’t think it’s abundantly clear on what work is happening, what work is ongoing, what work is to come and where the key decision points are coming up for council with respect to the work we’re doing on fighting Islamophobia and dealing with some of the recommendations that came out of the national summit from the NCCM.

[1:50:46] So we wanted to inquire today to respectfully ask the city manager if she could provide a verbal update on the progress to date and the general timing of the related topics and council decision points to come. Ms. Louisiana. Yes, Mr. Mayor and through you, thank you for the question. Over the past several months, there have been many activities that have been underway in response to council’s motion. I’d like to first answer the question about the timing of recommendations coming forward to council and then I’ll provide an overview of the work that has been underway since council passed the motion.

[1:51:26] So council can expect a report coming forward to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on February 8th and pending the discussion on February 8th, moving forward to council on February 15th. In response to council’s motion, members of the London Muslim community, along with many members of the community-based and public sector organizations have come together over the past several months to focus on actions that will help to dismantle Islamophobia in our community. Under the leadership of Ramina Morris, who is our director of anti-racism, anti-oppression division here at the city, outreach began over the summer with meetings taking place throughout the fall and in fact they continue and will continue into the new year.

[1:52:12] Approximately 80 members of the diverse Muslim community in London, including individuals from all local mosques, Islamic centers, various ethnic associations, community advocates, CDIS members, HICMA, the Muslim Association of Canada and the Muslim Resource Center for Social Support and Integration, we’re all invited to participate in this working group. In addition to members of the Muslim communities, approximately 30 community-based and public sector organizations, we’re also invited to be part of the working group.

[1:52:45] This included all of our school boards, our post-soak and dairy institutions, our healthcare institutions, London Police, Child Welfare, the London Public Library, our neighborhood resource centers, the YMCA, the museum and members of the community, diversity and inclusion strategy. And finally, recognizing that the media play a very unique role in telling the stories that define our community, local media outlets were participated, were invited to participate in a facilitated discussion as part of this process.

[1:53:18] In total, there have been five working sessions with these groups, as well as many meetings with individual organizations who are part of these groups and individuals who are members of these groups. Now, all of that work is contributing to the development of the final set of recommendations. Those recommendations are being brought to a final working session of the working group in January where representatives of the Muslim community will meet together with representatives from the community-based and public sector organizations to hear a summary of the feedback that’s been gathered to date along with confirming the recommendations that will be brought forward to council.

[1:54:01] In addition to an action plan that will be locally focused, you can anticipate that there will be a recommendation in the report to you to endorse the policy recommendations from the National Council of Canadian Muslims, which were prepared in advance of the National Summit on Islamophobia that took place this past summer. As well, you can anticipate a recommendation to council to support the Our London Family Act. Finally, the report to council will also include a set of recommendations on actions to honor and remember the SAIL family, as well as actions to honor and celebrate Muslim contributions to our community.

[1:54:45] Our commitment has been to facilitate the process to ensure that the recommendations to end Islamophobia are centered on the voices of many, recognizing that the Muslim community in London is diverse. So we have taken the time to engage deeply in many community conversations to identify impactful actions that will be critical to making a difference in London. And we look forward to continuing that work and bringing it forward to council early in February.

[1:55:22] Thank you very much. I understand we have a second inquiry, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. So my inquiries about the news coverage that’s taking place over the last few days, concerning the employee vaccination policy that’s here at the city of London. And I just want to be clear that it was news media that brought this to do my attention. And I believe other members of council and it wasn’t something that I was aware of.

[1:55:59] So the city manager will probably want to outline the changes that have just taken effect today in that policy. But I do have some additional questions. My main question is why the policy for employees of the city of London differs from similar organizations, especially the London police who are also city employees but have come back with their own policy, which seems to be much stricter than the city of London policy. And I’m wondering why we have not an active policy that’s as strict as city of London and the Middlesex London EMS.

[1:56:38] Ms. Livingston, do you want to start with that? Through you, Mr. Mayor. So the changes that have been implemented and it isn’t just changes to our mandatory proof of vaccination policy. We strengthen the number of things based on the review of our practices in response to the current situation of the pandemic and based on the advice of public health. So based on that, the changes that we have made to the proof of vaccination policy for employees is to require that for those who have submitted attestations, that we proceed with individual COVID plans that include either remote work or rapid antigen testing or leave of absence.

[1:57:35] Those are the main options. These are based on accommodations for those individuals based on their attestations. In addition to changes to our vaccination policy, we have also strengthened our screening efforts at all our facilities for employees and reinforced PPE requirements. With respect to the question about why is ours different from other organizations, our policy was developed based on the direction from public health to create a mandatory proof of vaccination policy, we did that based on our analysis of the employment law and Ontario human rights obligations in Ontario and based on our review of that, we developed this policy and have implemented it going forward.

[1:58:31] I would also just like to add that the proof of that, I apologize for that, the proof of vaccination policy is one of the many tools we have and use in order to address COVID in our workplace. We begin first by trying to prevent the hazard in the workplace at the get-go. And that we do by reverting to wherever possible remote work, in-person screening, screening and now the rapid antigen testing, I’m sorry. We also, once you get into the workplace, have done many things to prevent the transmission.

[1:59:11] That is also the screening, the rapid testing, physical barriers like plexiglass, PPE that varies according to the role that an individual may play. So in the case of fire, that includes eye protection and 95 masks, nitro gloves, disposable gowns, bunker wear for medical calls. Additionally, physical distancing, occupancy limits, we do robust contact tracing. And on top of that, our vaccine policy. And in order to prevent or reduce illness for those that may become COVID positive, we have all of those dimensions in addition to that our vaccine policy.

[1:59:56] So it is a tool on top of the many, many other things we have in place to try and keep our employees safe. Thank you. Thank you, I gather a counselor, Cassie, you might have another question. Yeah, I have a follow-up question. So I’m wondering if the city management has considered a special separate policy just for first responders, which would include one in the fire department. It’s my understanding that some of these issues and concerns and worries and fears were brought to the media from members.

[2:00:33] Sorry, I’m gonna stop you there. This is of a question, it’s not that additional background that goes with this, I apologize. Sorry, your worship? Okay, so you’re welcome to ask the question. My question is, given that firefighters are different workers from other city workers responding in people’s homes, in emergency departments, in long-term care homes, going into ambulances and knowing that we have a separate policy for deerness and for lending police, has there been any consideration for a specific or separate policy similar to those other first responders for lending firefighters?

[2:01:11] Ms. Livingston. I thank you through your worship. The direction for separate policies for some of the organizations you have mentioned have come provincially and I am unaware that there’s been a provincial direction for specifically for fire, nor have I seen that direction from public health. What we have tried to do is respond to all of the public health guidance that’s been provided to us, both from a PPE perspective, from a modification to work perspective, and based on the vaccine. So we have modified the PPE requirements, and I should also say that the chief has put in place many other requirements that occur in the halls that are specific to what has to happen in the halls and on the trucks.

[2:01:58] So all of those have been done specific to the role that fire plays and the PPE requirements to assure that they are safe, as well as the public when they respond to calls. However, we have not instituted a separate vaccination policy for fire. Thanks very much. That was her question. My final question in the policy talks about what we have been doing and talking about cohorting. I’m wondering if the cohorting includes, and this is my final question, your worship, the cohorting includes people traveling in trucks together, very small, confined space, knowing they’re with, they have PPE, but would you cohort vaccinated people with vaccinated people and unvaccinated people with unvaccinated people?

[2:02:51] Is that, would your cohorting go to that extent? Ms. Livingston. Through the chair, the attestations for our individuals are private. There are only a very small number of individuals at the city of London who actually know that information. I, in fact, do not know individuals. And so in order to a cohort that way, we would be identifying people’s private information. However, we have gone and fire is an example where cohorts are used to try and limit the transmission in our organization.

[2:03:28] We use cohorts in other places, actually in a number of work sites across the organization to try and be able to maintain service should we have transmission in the workplace. And I’ll just also add that to date, we have had very minimal workplace transmission in our organization. And I say that that is a huge testament to our staff and the steps that they take every day to try and keep themselves and each other safe.

[2:04:02] Thanks very much. Councilor Manholst, we’re not, this is not a debate. This is an inquiry set forward by Councilor Cassidy. So as far as participating in this, I will exclude that. I do permit inquiries if there are those that are specific. And again, in the spirit of the rules around inquiries that has been approved by Council, there’s no argument opinion of facts, except as that which may be necessary to explain the inquiry.

[2:04:36] And that’s on a very limited basis. And again, I’m going to make the point, we do not debate inquiries just to be clear. Councilor Vanholst, did you have a separate inquirer which I was not made aware? No, you worship. I was gonna ask a couple of questions about this. However, I think Councilor Cassidy has asked many of the questions and I’m pleased with the responses that Ms. Livingston has provided. I’m glad to see that our actions to date have been very effective.

[2:05:15] Of course, a new variant has come out. I’m gonna stop you there, Councilor, you were doing really well for a moment there, but again, I’m very mindful and respectful of the rules. So thank you very much for that, I appreciate it. Councilor Morgan, I’ll recognize you. Yes, and I know you’re enforcing the rules chair. So I will say under our procedure by-law, section 18.4 of the procedure by-law allows for a member to ask for leave to introduce a substantive motion based on an inquiry. And it would be my intent at this time based on the inquiry and the answers from Ms. Livingston to bring forward, to ask for that leave and bring forward a motion, a substantive motion related to aligning our council vaccination policy with the administration one.

[2:06:10] So I would at the appropriate time ask for you, for my colleagues to seek leave to introduce that motion. Well, that’s how we’ll start. And by the way, I’ll remind colleagues for the benefit of those who are not aware that it requires a 2/3 support of council members to support leave in accordance with 11.4 of this by-law. So with that, we’ll look for a seconder. Several, Councillor Lewis, thank you.

[2:06:51] So that’s not debatable. We will, this is again, to seek leave. So with that, we will call the question. Councillor Turner.

[2:07:57] My vote does not come up, colleagues. I will vote yes. The close in the vote motion carries 14 to one. Thank you, that’s a majority. So with that, I’ll turn that over to Councillor Deputy Mayor Morgan, please. Thank you, colleagues for leave. The motion I’d like to move is that civic administration be directed to bring forward an updated members of council proof of COVID-19 vaccination policy that incorporates any changes to bring the council policy in line with the updated mandatory proof of COVID-19 vaccination administrative policy as verbally noted by the city manager to the next corporate services committee meeting.

[2:08:48] Thank you, excuse me a moment. You have a seconder there, I see Councillor Lewis. Thank you, comments, questions. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Yeah, if I could speak to this motion now. If colleagues recall, it was always our intent through our discussions to ensure that the health and safety policies that we put on our staff related to this issue are similar to the expectations that we put on ourself. My only intent here is to ensure that civic administration has the opportunity and direction from council to bring forward changes that would align those two policies where appropriate recognizing that there are obviously some differences of process related to the different acts that apply to council.

[2:09:36] So I don’t know what that will look like, but if it comes forward to the next corporate services committee meeting, we can all take a look at it, we can all debate it, and then we can decide whether or not those are appropriate changes that we’d like to support. The reason why I’m doing this at this time is when I look at the committee cycle moving forward, providing that recommendation and direction at corporate services to report back to the next corporate services and then approving it for council would put us out of alignment with the administrative policy by well over a month. And so my preference is to give us the opportunity to make this decision with a tighter timeframe, which is why I raised this motion based off of the city manager’s answers to the inquiry made by Council Cassidy.

[2:10:21] Thanks very much. Any other comments or questions? Councillor Hopkins, please. Yeah, I wanna thank Deputy Mayor Morgan for bringing this forward. It’s, I’m not sure why we didn’t do this right at the beginning, I know a number of municipalities have aligned their staff policies and council policies all in one. So I think it’s about time that we did it. So thank you for bringing it forward. Thank you, Councillor Unholst. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m gonna vote against this. I think it’d be a good thing to come through the regular committee cycle because then it allows for some debate.

[2:11:04] It allows for research. I understand why it might be coming up. There’s a new variant out there. And every time a new variant is announced, people become very concerned and then want to double down on actions that are being taken already, which have debatable effectiveness in some cases in terms of our results. However, I note that upon your request, city councilors were willing to simply zoom in and participate from home.

[2:11:48] And so what I see are always two paths. We can simply ask people and they’re very willing to make accommodations on their own or we can come up with rules to force people to do things. And I prefer that not be the way that we move forward is especially when we haven’t really seen evidence that there is in fact an increased threat. Viruses typically mutate and become less virulent.

[2:12:24] And that seems to be the case with this one. So the concerns I see may be misplaced and I say that not for necessarily our council. And I realize that the deputy mayor is just trying to keep those policies in line. However, I’m looking at the other issues and the broader issues that are going on with the society. I see just more lockdowns, more restrictions happening. And I think people should have an opportunity to object to those.

[2:13:00] I have a minute here to do so. So I’m gonna do that. I wonder why people don’t speak up more. I noticed that there’s always a little more put on the unvaccinated than the others. Maybe that’s why they’re okay with them going forward. But I think we need, and when these policies come forward, I would like to see some evidence that the Omar Khan variant warrants the changes that we’re making, despite the fact that our staff is able to make up a policy at their discretion.

[2:13:46] I would like to see those things for city council be warranted and know that scientifically that’s the case because I think it’s easy for people to overreact. And I believe there’s much of that happening. However, at that point, I think I’ve finished my comments. I’ll be voting against this one and welcome the deputy mayor to bring a motion through to the regular committee cycle.

[2:14:23] Thank you, councilor. I thank you, worship, thanks to councilor Morgan or deputy Mayor Morgan for bringing this forward. I think it’s appropriate that we move in quick step with the administrative policies. I think that’s an important thing for us to do. To councilor Venholst’s points, I can appreciate his concerns. He’s raised them repeatedly. Whether Omar Khan or any of the other variants create differences in terms of threats. We’re finding that out right now.

[2:14:56] However, we don’t want to find that out later and not have reacted now. Because by that point, we’ll be in a bit of trouble if it turns out as predictions are providing to us. That all said, the measures that are being proposed are appropriate in light of increasing case numbers in general. I think it behooves us to make sure that we’re taking all necessary precautions. And I know through you, you’re worshiped to the community.

[2:15:32] This has been a tough ride. We felt like we were getting out of the woods and then we found ourselves faced with even more threat. And people are tired. People are frustrated. They don’t want to see more measures, more restrictions, more requirements of them. But they’re ones that we have to take right now. So hopefully, my audio hasn’t disconnected. I’ve had an unstable Zoom all day.

[2:16:05] But I appreciate your leadership, your worship on this throughout the pandemic. I appreciate the work of staff and the work of council in helping to communicate the message and the need to the community. And I think in making sure that our policies are harmonized, we continue to reiterate that importance, not only with amongst ourselves, but to show that we follow what we think is important for the community as well. And so that’s why I’ll support the emergent motion that’s been brought forward by the deputy mayor.

[2:16:37] Thanks very much. I see no other speakers on our list. So with that, we will call the question. Close in the vote motion carries 14 to one. Thanks very much.

[2:17:12] And thank you Deputy Mayor and colleagues for your discussion around that issue. We are now formally on item 12 emergent motions. I’d like to pass the chair to the deputy mayor, please. Thank you. I have the chair and I will go to the mayor first. It’s great that everybody’s on Zoom so I can actually keep speaking to us. This is gonna work out great. It’s a more interesting way to try to control the audio of the video, but it still doesn’t work Deputy Mayor, good luck to you. Colleagues, first, what I’m looking to do is ask for Lee to deal with emergent motion relating to bill 21 communications that were sent in the last several days that are in your package.

[2:17:59] So with that, I would like to move motion to request leave. So the mayor is moving a motion for leave. I’ll look for a seconder to support that leave. I see Councilor Colosa. We will, I don’t believe leave is debatable. And I believe it requires two thirds. The clerk can correct me if I’m wrong. So with that, leave is moved and seconded on the floor. And we can put that to a vote. Councilor Humber, we’re not seeing a vote.

[2:19:27] If you wanted to vote verbally, that’s also an option. Councilor Humber, if you wanted to unmute yourself and vote verbally, that’s an option. Sure, then yes. Keep closing the vote motion carries 15 to zero.

[2:20:03] To read the motion and then I will look for a seconder. And if seconded, I will allow you to introduce your motion. So to the mayor. Thanks very much, colleagues. Referencing in your package, the letter of December 17th, I won’t go into the body of it, but until we put the motion on the floor, then I’d like to speak to it. But if I can, colleagues, it relates to the province of Quebec’s Bill 21. And there are three primary components to the motion and in the details in front of you and will be on your screens. But basically that the following actions be taken with respect to the province of Quebec’s Bill 21.

[2:20:42] Opposition to the province of Quebec’s Bill 21. And it goes further to that, that the city’s commitment of holding freedom is set out and the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedom is to be affirmed. Secondly, the current legal challenge against Bill 21 be supported by letters of municipal council and that civic administration be directed to provide a one-time grant up to $100,000 to the joint legal challenges of Bill 21 by the National Council of Canadian-Muslims, the World Seek Organization, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association with the funding to be accommodated from the operating budget contingency.

[2:21:23] So that’s the motion, Deputy Mayor. And I know that the letter in the package has been signed by Councillor Hamou and yourself, but I will now turn it back to you. Councillor Hamou, are we looking to second that? I was, thank you. Okay, it’s moved and seconded. So at this time, I can open speakers on this and I know the mayor has his hand up to go first. I will start a speakers list if you can just flag for me. I see you can’t help Councillor Hamou and I’ll start to make a list, so to the mayor. Thank you very much, colleagues.

[2:21:57] 2021 has been the most challenging year in so many ways for this council. And certainly part of that was that horrific racist terror attack six months ago, killing four members of our London community, our Muslim community, just because of the clothes that they wore. I’m gonna move it over to Bill 21, which prohibits the worrying of symbols of religion. That includes kiplas, hijabs, turbines and crosses by government employees and teachers and others deemed to be in position of authority.

[2:22:38] There was a teacher in Quebec who lost her job because of a hijab. I mean, there’s nothing more abhorrent than this. It is the antithesis of everything that we, as a council, represent. I can tell you in recent meetings with the Ontario big city mayors, the supported opposition to Bill 21 and we have many mayors from the big city mayors of Canada who oppose and are providing financial supports. At this point, I’m made aware that some 10 to 15 cities across the country are providing financial support as well as challenging Quebec’s Bill 21.

[2:23:17] This is not our Canada. This is not about the charter of rights and freedoms that we have learned to grow up with. This is not the right thing to do. And if there’s anything that has always struck me about this council is that we do the right thing. And while it is not within the province of Ontario, I can tell you it impacts every city across this great country of ours. And if there is ever an opportunity to stand up, be counted and matter, today is that time.

[2:23:58] So I’m looking to colleagues to help me in supporting this to, and I’d like to also pay a special thanks to Councillor Humu who worked with me on this letter and Deputy Mayor Morgan who worked with me on this letter. To try to get it as right as we could, as we support our Sikh community, our Muslim community, our Christian community, our Jewish community, all religious groups for wearing a cross, wearing a job somehow, some way.

[2:24:30] They’re something other than first class Canadians. That’s not my kind of Canada. And that’s why I’m asking for your support of the motion that’s put forward today. And thank you, by the way, for entertaining this through the emergent motion. It was that critical and has recently come up because of the timing associated with the legal challenge of this situation. So thank you, Deputy Mayor, for the floor. Thank you, I’ll go to Councillor Humu.

[2:25:04] Thanks, can you hear me okay? ‘Cause I switched out my earpugs. Okay, so thank you. I wanted to speak to council about this issue today. As it hits me and my community the most, but it also hits many other communities. It hits the Sikh community, it’s the Jewish community, it’s the Catholic community. And where are we gonna stop? Once it affects, if Quebec says, well, Indigenous people can’t wear their garb to their places of employment, are we gonna ignore it as well?

[2:25:38] I hope that we don’t. And this secular law, unfortunately secularism in the past has been about creating more freedom. This secular law is about taking away freedoms. And anytime you take away freedoms, you erode democracy. And this is one reason we have to fight against this bill. It’s also an issue of accessibility. Once you have a society where, if you wear something or you are part of a community and you cannot be a teacher, you cannot be a lawyer, you cannot be a doctor, you can’t be part of civil society, you can’t be a politician.

[2:26:18] So I would not be able to do this in Quebec. And I just don’t think that that sits right with me and with many other people. I know some people in London may be against this, but many people, not just in my own community, but all over London feel very differently about this. And they are hit by this directly. And even in my own life, my husband is fully Francophony, he does PhD in France. He’s French, he’s background is French, and my children were at France-versed language schools.

[2:26:55] So if one of my daughters were to go to university and Quebec and wanted to wear hijab, this effect is directly. So members of London will be affected by this. So council, I’m really happy with the direction that the mayor and councilor Morgan have taken with this banning together with me to put this emergent motion down on the floor. Because our federal parties, unfortunately, haven’t been taking the lead on this. And this is kind of a more of a grassroots action where our cities, our municipalities, are taking the lead in saying to people we’re not going to stand here quietly.

[2:27:36] Well, people’s rights are being taken away. So the other thing I just wanted to bring attention to is that I personally have been a big champion of human rights, not just in London, but all over the world. And I want to let people in London know that when ISIS was requesting for women and forcing women to wear hijab and the niqab, I used my voice directly against that. And in fact, my office was bombed twice in Turkey by ISIS. So this is not just a fight for Muslims.

[2:28:12] This is a fight about human rights. It’s about people being allowed to wear what they want, when they want, and shouldn’t be banned from work, from a workplace or a job or anything like that, that, you know, to support their family. It just doesn’t, it doesn’t work. And again, anytime anybody wants to take away freedoms from people, I step forward and say no, like I will say no. So I hope that my esteemed colleagues on council today will support and vote for this motion.

[2:28:48] Thank you, Councillor. Just to update colleagues on the speaker’s list, ‘cause it’s hard to tell that I’ve kind of knotted towards you, I have Councillor Lewis, Councillor Hillier, and then Councillor Van Holst so far. So I’ll go to Councillor Lewis next. Thank you, Deputy Mayor, and through you to colleagues. I thought long and hard about how I wanted to articulate myself on this tonight. And I actually still haven’t found the words for it, that really clarify my position in a really nice clear way.

[2:29:24] ‘Cause often I have been the voice who has said, we don’t get involved in other levels of government’s jurisdiction. We don’t backfill for the province, we don’t tell them how to do their job or the federal government. But this one for me is different. And I can’t really articulate well how it is different other than to say I can feel it. And I think we can all, we all have that internal voice in us that can say to us, even when we can’t articulate it in a logical way, we can feel when something is just fundamentally wrong.

[2:30:10] And this is one of those situations where I’m listening to that voice. And I think about what Councillor Hemu was just saying. And I certainly wouldn’t support a piece of Ontario legislation that said she could not join us in council chambers and still wear her hijab. I also wouldn’t support Ontario legislation. And I think that all of you would join me if the situation said that I couldn’t wear a pride bracelet. And that’s where it comes down.

[2:30:46] This is more than just about somebody’s freedom of religion. ‘Cause I believe very much in the separation, church and state and having a secular society, this comes down to personal ability to express oneself and their identity. And their religion can be part of that identity just as other symbols can be other parts of our identity. And so for me, at a personal level, this just says we need to stand up on this one and say, no, this is one where although it is not our jurisdiction, and although the provincial government of Quebec has no obligation to take into consideration, what we’re saying by supporting this motion, it’s still the right thing to do fundamentally at the end of the day.

[2:31:40] And I think we’ve heard from many, many, many lenders over the last few days, both foreign against, some of whom are feeling it personally, some of whom, and I say this respectfully, don’t necessarily understand the full issue. They see the dollar figure attached and say, we have lots of needs in London. And I understand why they say that. I’ve said to myself on other items that we wanna spend on. We have needs right here at home just to focus on.

[2:32:13] But in this case, I think this is a very, this is not only the right thing to do, it’s the thing that a lot of lenders are really calling on us to do today. And it’s, it is a leadership moment. So I mean to be supporting this, I wanna thank, I know that it was introduced by Mayor Holder, and I don’t wanna take that away from him ‘cause I appreciate his leadership on this, but I also wanna acknowledge and thank Councilor removed for sharing her unique perspective on this tonight. And I’ve certainly heard from many members of the Muslim community in London, but from the broader London community to say, support this and I’m going to do that tonight.

[2:32:50] So thank you. Thank you, Councilor Lewis. I have Councilor Hillier next. Thank you very much. Yes, I also support this emergent motion. It is very important. I only have one question and I think legal can answer it publicly. Are there any legal ramifications for us giving $100,000 in municipal funds for legal fees being used in Quebec? Well, it’s up to Mr. Carter, whether or not he wants to answer that publicly or advise to do it in camera. So I’ll go to Mr. Carter.

[2:33:24] Thank you. My advice would be that we discuss legal matters in camera. So I’ll go back to you, Councilor Hillier on this. I know you asked a question, but I don’t wanna stop you from making comments. Yeah, I just like you’ve answered that one question. I appreciate how to support the motion. I just wanna make sure that we’re crossing all our dots. Don here, donning our eyes and crossing our Ts. Yes, the recourse to that would be you’d need to move a motion to go into camera to seek legal advice on the motion that’s before us on the floor.

[2:34:03] And you need a seconder and we could vote on doing that if that’s the course you wanna take. I would like to take that if there’s a seconder. Seconded by Councilor Van Nierbergen. So we’re now shifting gears a little bit here to move into camera to get legal advice from our solicitor on the motion that’s before us. I’ll just wanna check with the clerk since I can’t do the reading their eyes or their movements to make sure that I’m running this properly and that I’ve got all the appropriate pieces.

[2:34:37] I believe moving into camera. Can I remember if it’s debatable or not? I’m trying to pull up my bylaw, but just make sure, if I could just check with the clerk to make sure that this is the appropriate time to move into camera and I’ve got the mover and a seconder and I can open the vote. Through your worship. Yes, that is the appropriate procedure. It has the mover and a seconder and we would just need a moment just to get that wording up any scribe. Can you remind me if that’s debatable?

[2:35:08] I can’t pull up my procedure by a lot faster enough. Yes, that would be debatable. It’s a regular motion. Okay. Well, the motion to move into camera is being pulled up. I’m gonna look to see if there’s any debate on moving into camera for this. Yeah, I don’t see anyone. So I will wait until the clerk’s give me the signal that they’ve got that wording up and then I can open the vote and we’re just gonna pause things until that time. Mr. Chair, that motion is available for voting.

[2:36:43] Thank you. So the motion is up that council convene and close advice subject to solicitor client privilege which funds related to legal challenge of convex bill 21. So that is what you’re voting on. So it’s open. Oh, but yes, it’s not working. Close the vote motion carries 14 to one. Okay, we’re gonna need a minute to come remote here.

[2:37:20] I’m gonna wait for the signal from the clerk that we are good to go. Mr. Chair, I’d also like to vote to note that we will stop the stream in YouTube and it will not be restarted, but the stream in eScribe will be available to be restarted for anybody joining us streaming. Okay, thanks for noting that. Thanks for much colleagues with Quorum.

[2:40:06] I’ll turn it back over to the deputy mayor. Yes, and that was a request from Councillor Hillier to go into camera. I timed him and he still has time left and I would, since you only get to speak once at council, I’d like to give him the opportunity if he had any further thoughts to finish your thoughts on the motion before I move on to the next speaker. I’m just wondering if anyone on council would like to entertain a referral staff to reword Part C to meet the requirements of what we received in closed session.

[2:40:46] Okay, so you’re looking to make a referral? Well, yeah. Or you’re just suggesting that as an option? I’ll conversation to go towards. So that concludes your comments on the matter. Okay, I’ll go to the next speaker, which is Councillor Van Holst. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. We did get many people writing in with their concerns. I responded and I responded to them. And I think at this point, I’ll just share my comments by reading what I said.

[2:41:26] My response was thank you for your email and your concern for rights and freedoms, which are also very important to me. I also appreciate Councillor Humu for her call to action. I personally donated $100 to the National Council of Canadian Muslims to help with the court case, which I think is the most correct way to approach the challenge. In terms of the city of London, I think it’s fine if we publicly declare that we do not support Bill 21, but providing funds to fight legal battles and other jurisdictions is not a proper use of London taxpayer money, in my opinion.

[2:42:04] Those funds should be spent to improve the situation here at home. I’ve also stated that people should not be looking to the government to do everything for them. I believe that it’s disempowering for people to believe local government should make the contribution when they could do it themselves. It only takes a thousand people making a contribution like mine to match the $100,000 proposed in the motion. Londoners as a whole could easily contribute much more than that amount to individual donations. This is a very worthy cause, but providing a donation will guarantee that many other causes will be approaching council to make large contributions.

[2:42:47] And that money would come from an increase in taxes being paid by you. The question then becomes do you want the city council to decide what causes will receive your money or would you prefer to have the freedom to make that decision yourself? Again, thank you for being engaged and sharing your concerns. We are on the same side of the battle for human rights. I’ll be encouraging Londoners to make individual contributions rather than looking to council to do it for them. So Mr. Presiding Office, if you would kindly separate C, I’d like to vote on that one separately, but I’ll certainly support A and B.

[2:43:35] Thank you, given we’ve been debating the whole motion so far. I think it’s helpful to continue that. I will ensure that these components are separated in the way you’ve articulated at the proper time. I’ll go to Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. As much as I would have liked to have gone towards the end to hear everyone’s comments, I would like to speak to the motion and appreciate the items being separated.

[2:44:11] I would like further clarification to maybe, to you on B, the meaning behind B, which is the current legal challenge against Bill 21B supported by London’s Municipal Council. Just wanna have a better understanding what that legal challenge is. It’s something that we need information on or where can I find it? Yes, as the Chair, I’m not gonna provide that information ‘cause I’m chairing the meeting, but I can go to the mover or the seconder to provide some context on the legal challenge if I can provide that.

[2:44:53] I see Councilor Hamou with her hand up, so I’ll go to her first. Sure, Councilor Hopkins, through the Chair, it’s a legal challenge in which Bill 21 states that people who wear religious symbols can’t work in public offices or anything pretty much funded by the province. So this includes schools, hospitals, the legal system, and includes the political system.

[2:45:29] So you’re creating two tiers of society, right? Does that make sense? So we’re just fighting, we’re fighting that bill, that specific bill that states that information. Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. I wanted clarity on that and I’d like to make my comments and I would like to first of all say OPCM, Ontario big city mayors, I wanna thank them for their strong stand on Quebec spill 21.

[2:46:05] I think they have done a good job standing up to the blatant discrimination on religion. And I have not heard from anyone, and I know we’ve all received a lot of emails from residents in London that would support us standing up to the discrimination of Quebec spill 21. Without a doubt, I heard no one saying that we should not do that. I’m very supportive of standing up to that the discrimination.

[2:46:41] And I’ve heard received many emails from the Muslim community. And I stand in solidarity with them as a Christian. I understand the importance of religious symbols. As a Christian, I would not wanna hide my crucifix under my shirt. I would wanna be proud and to stand up for the religious beliefs that I believe in. And that is where I stand in solidarity with all religions. I have that great empathy and understanding of the rights that we hold very dearly here in not only in our city, but in our country.

[2:47:21] I do think though, it is really important that when this bill came forward a couple years ago, and I would hope that Quebecers would wanna have revisit this issue again. And I’m not exactly sure. And I have heard concerns about the cost and the money that is going to fight this legal battle and the importance of having it stay here in our community, be it to stand up to Islamophobia.

[2:47:59] And I’m looking forward to the report coming to us in February as well. So I really appreciate the update that Lynn Livingston gave us here at council. That was really important information for me to have when I try to see and understand where the asks are here. I was brought up that it’s really important before you do write a check. You should know who the check’s going to. And right now, I’m not sure.

[2:48:32] I’ve heard concerns from residents that they’re not sure. So I won’t be supporting C that we’ll be supporting A and B and really thank the mayor, the deputating mayor and Councillor Humu for this motion. Thank you, I have Councillor Sully next. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Chair Morgan and the mayor and Councillor Humu for bringing this forward. So I support the motion and all its pieces. So colleagues, I’ve been around the horseshoe for seven years, going on eight years.

[2:49:09] And these conversations have been things that continue to come up and we continue to try to move things forward and to make a positive impact. The city of Toronto, Council, you know, I’m still voting to support the front as well as many other cities. Brampton called other cities to action. You know, I don’t want the city of London to be the city that starts to just kind of slow down when we have an opportunity to make it very clear that what is happening in our country and another part of our country is unacceptable.

[2:49:50] So tonight we have an opportunity to do more than to just say we stand in solidarity and we have an opportunity tonight to say we’re going to fund a national organization that’s well-known, that has worked with the Prime Minister’s office, that has worked in many capacities with, you know, some of the national summits with the Prime Minister’s office. And we have here at Council voted for motions that came from the NCCM in the past, whether it be the motion that myself and former Deputy Mayor Paul Hubert brought forward from the NCCM that was at that time supported by the majority of Council as well.

[2:50:25] I think for us here, this is an opportune time to say to the Londoners, to say to the Muslim community, to say to those who are impacted by this personally and directly that we’re going to do everything we can to support them. And tonight I’m asking you all to take a moment and to really, really consider the impact of your vote, whether it’s in a positive or negative on how that will feel within our Muslim community here in London. The Muslims are asking you to support this motion and every piece of it. I’m asking you, as your colleagues, to support this motion, I’m hopeful that in the future, we don’t need motions like this and that we don’t have to have these time discussions, but I know these kinds of discussions will continue to happen, but I know my Council colleagues, you know, have the best interests of the city and mine, but I think sometimes when we have these conversations and sometimes when we, you know, sometimes advice and sometimes I understand that advice is always helpful, but I think we need to sometimes think separately from that advice and think what is in the best interest of the now and what is the best interest of those who are asking for us to stand with them and what will be the most impactful, whether it’s just not even the resources, but also the message that we send that we’re here with them and we’ll stand with other municipalities who have unanimously moved forward with this.

[2:51:56] Thank you, Councilor, I have Councilor Turner next. Mr. Chair, so to this, there’s three parts of the motion. I’ve heard some concern about Part C with a specific part to the funding. This isn’t new for us, the funding component of it is, but for the city to weigh in on affairs that may not directly impact the citizens of London. We’ve gone there before and we’ve commented on occurrences that have been happening either in other provinces across the country or in other countries.

[2:52:36] And I think probably one of the closest aligned pieces to this was when a motion was brought forward to investigate whether London could be a sanctuary city. Out of that came a policy that we now have in place called Free of Fear Services for all policy. And that really came out in response to a lot of the very, for lack of a better word, xenophobic activity happening in the States where there is a very overt move to extradite or deport people of different foreign nationalities within that country.

[2:53:18] And a very legitimate concern that could occur here too. So we put that in place and we took a look at all of our services that we offer as a municipality either directly or indirectly through our boards and commissions to take a look at how we could harmonize our policies to make sure that those who may not have legal immigration status within our city would not be fearful of reprisals from seeking very important municipal services. What we have today is a motion that really sends a signal from our municipality that we need to be inclusive and that overt displays of religious alliance and observance are quite acceptable and encouraged within our community that people are allowed to be who they are without fear of reprisal.

[2:54:27] That may not seem like a straightforward, it might seem like just a truth here, but it’s not. And we’ve already heard and we’ve seen what happened where members of our community were targeted because of what they were. So the question on question C about whether we spend money to support that, I think it’ll be debatable whether that’s a large amount of money or not.

[2:55:04] We are being asked to be in line with other municipalities expressing their concern with the Quebec law and helping to fight that. I think that’s appropriate. There’s a mutual exclusivity question. Couldn’t that money be better spent to do the same things in London? Well, if that’s the question, then I think we should be asking, what should we be doing in London too as well? Because I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive.

[2:55:38] I think if there are things and measures that we should be taking here to ensure that over to displays of religious affiliation can be done here and there are impediments. And let’s take a look at what we can do to help support that. So at this time, I can appreciate the concerns about spending the money. I can appreciate the concerns about spending money in another jurisdiction to fight and something that’s not directly our fight, but really it is a fight that affects all of us and affects all Canadians and all who live here.

[2:56:18] Canadians are not immigrants and newcomers. And so I urge you to support the motion being brought forward by my colleagues. I think it’s brought forward in the best of faith. And I think we’ll find ourselves in this position again with other motions and other situations where our council has to comment on the events happening outside of our jurisdiction. But I think it’s appropriate for us to use the weight of our council to express our concerns. Almost like you had a timer, Councillor Turner, ‘cause you were right on the five minute mark.

[2:56:59] Other colleagues who’d like to speak to this? Councillor Hummer. Thank you. First, I wanna say thank you to Councillor Himu and Deputy Mayor Morgan and the Mayor for bringing this forward. I really appreciate your leadership on this issue. I reached out to Councillor Himu when I saw what Mayor Brown was doing in Brampton. And it was wonderful to see that the work was already underway to bring this to council. And I’m very supportive and I just wanna talk about why. I mean, I think it’s very obvious and it’s been said sometimes already what the problems are with Bill 21.

[2:57:40] But I wanna just emphasize that we are all connected. One big community, it doesn’t stop at the boundaries of our city. And what is happening in Quebec and other parts of the world, not just Canada matters. It matters to a lot of Londoners. There’s a lot of connections and relationships Londoners have with people all over the world. And we need to stand up for justice for all people, for human rights for all people. And sometimes that’s gonna call on us as municipal politicians to do things that are pushing the boundaries of our powers.

[2:58:16] And that’s fine. I think that happens regularly. And a beautiful thing about our federal system of government is that we have lots of opportunities for various levels of government to push what they’re responsible for and what their powers are. And we have a long history of that happening over time. And this is a bad law. And I’d like to fight it. And I have made a personal donation to the legal fund, but I also think it’s appropriate for the city to do. So no one does talk about that because it’s come up a little bit in the discussion about whether it’s appropriate to put municipal money into a legal challenge like this.

[2:58:54] So maybe in the past when municipal powers were much more limited in Ontario, I would buy that kind of argument that is really outside of our powers and we should stay out of it. Nowadays, municipal powers are pretty broad and there’s a broad authority for us to basically provide any kind of service or thing that we think is necessary or desirable for the public. And so this is one of those things that I think is necessary and desirable for the public. Let’s fight this law.

[2:59:26] Hopefully it’s successful. Even the fight itself has got value. So even if it’s not successful, say not all parts of the law can be struck down, perhaps an outstanding clause is going to save things. We will have told everybody that we do not support this law. And I think when we hear what people are saying about how this kind of legislation makes people feel unwelcome, like they don’t belong in the country or in Quebec or in our own city, we can show them that they do belong by fighting it and pushing back.

[3:00:01] And I think that’s the value in the grant regardless of the outcome of the legal challenges is we can show people that they do belong, whether they’re Sikh or Jewish or Muslim, whatever kind of religious symbols they’re wearing. So I think there’s a lot of value in this and I think there is a municipal purpose for it. And I think that our authority does cover that. And so I would encourage colleagues to support the grant part as well as the other parts of the motion. I think this is one of those times where big seeing mayors, there’s long history of mayors getting together and then councils coming together to push the federal government or the province in a particular place to do something different.

[3:00:42] And sometimes we have to be quite forceful about it. And I think this is one of those times. And so I hope colleagues will support the motion. I really appreciate a lot of what I’ve heard from colleagues tonight. But I think this is squarely in our authority and I hope you’ll support it. Further speakers. Given I’m chairing, oh, I have Councilor Van Mirbergen and then I’m gonna flag Councilor Gloza that I’m gonna put myself on the list and so I’m gonna have you chair when I do that because the mayor is moving a motion.

[3:01:16] So I’ll go to Councilor Van Mirbergen first though. Okay, thank you chair. Yeah, I certainly disagree with Bill 21 from the government of Quebec. It’s wrong, a lot of people know what’s wrong. But again, that’s in Quebec. It’s an entirely different jurisdiction obviously from us, we’re a municipality, we’re a municipality, which is a creature of the province of Ontario.

[3:01:51] And so for us to leave our jurisdictional boundaries and somehow think that we should use our municipal authority to help fund a legal action against another provincial government, I think is not an appropriate expense of our municipal tax dollars here in London, Ontario. I can certainly support the moral suasion aspect of this motion, but when it comes to the concrete action of taking $100,000 from the hardworking people of London, Ontario to fund a legal action in another province with absolutely, it certainly doesn’t look like there’s any certainty at all of any kind of success.

[3:02:52] I think is simply wrong. Federal jurisdiction is what’s necessary here. It sounds like the federal government is still contemplating some type of action, but this law is not new, this bill is not new. It’s been around since 2019. And now for all of a sudden, the city of London, just to come forward and take our precious dollars that hardworking Londoners generate for here in the city government and then take it out to a fight against the government of Quebec is wrong.

[3:03:37] And that’s why I will not support C. Certainly the first two portions, there are parts of this motion are fine and well within our bailiwick, so to speak, in terms of our opinion. But the minute that we take money, we have a contract with the city of London. We are the stewards of their money and just to take $100,000 and put it into some legal fund with other entities going after another government, the government of Quebec is not a wise or appropriate use of the municipality of the city of London, property tax dollars.

[3:04:24] So I’ll vote against C. Thank you. At this time, I’d like to hand the chair over to Councilor Palosa. Thank you. I’ll start a speakers list and I’ll recognize Deputy Mayor Morgan. I wanna thank colleagues for the discussion and the debate and I wanna make a couple of additional points than what’s been made. First on the idea of jurisdictional boundaries. I wanna say I appreciate what Councilor Halmer said. Municipalities have always pushed to jurisdictional boundaries.

[3:04:59] I sit on the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and we lobby all the time for a direct relationship and a direct funding relationship with the federal government, despite the fact that we are creatures of the province. And we benefit to the tune of direct funding relationships with the federal government and direct investments to the tune of millions of dollars. Municipalities have always been at the center of pushing boundaries and fighting for more autonomy and more of a say within the Canadian Federation. This is a call to action that involves cities.

[3:05:33] And in the absence of some federal action on this, cities have started to step up and we are not alone. There are multiple other cities who have already passed motions and many more considering motions that are similar. It should come as no surprise that us as a major Canadian city is having this discussion and debate because they all will be. They all will be and those who we are joining have passed motions to fund the legal battle in the way that has been funded. The comments about us taking hard earned learners money.

[3:06:09] I agree with the fact that every single dollar that we collect is someone’s hard earned money. Londoners disagree, disagree on how we spend their money all of the time. And there are many Londoners in our email inboxes who say, “I don’t want you to do this.” And there are many Londoners in our email inboxes and say, “I’d like you to do this.” So it’s their money too. When Councillor Halmer mentioned the word belonging, I wanna play back to that because for those Londoners who are saying, “I want you to do this.” The word belonging is pretty important.

[3:06:48] In our LRCM shared metrics which we’re developing consultation with the communities, a sense of belonging is one of the metrics key to our recovery. It’s included right in there. And when a government and the leadership stand up for the rights that our citizens believe in and want defended, you get a sense of belonging. Our city feels like home. We’ve become a more cohesive community and we cannot look past the value of defending the rights that our citizens care about, particularly those who feel most impacted by the actions, no matter where those actions are happening.

[3:07:29] And in this case, it is the actions of another province, but it is make no mistake from the emails and the letters and the words of Councillor Slee and Councillor Hamou, Londoners feel the impacts of this, not all of them, but many of them, and when they see their leaders stand up and try to take action, like Councillor Helmer said, we may not, and it may not be a successful legal challenge that defeats all aspects of this bill, but some may be. And the fight matters. And standing up on behalf of those residents who feel this in their homes matters.

[3:08:06] And those are the comments I wanted to add to the debate. And I appreciate the concerns that colleagues have. I appreciate the discussion. I think these are the kind of debates that are being grappled by cities across the country and will continue to do so. And I appreciate how respectful everybody has been with this discussion tonight. So thank you. Those are my comments. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan. I will recognize that you have Councillor Cassidy on the speaking list as I hand the chair back over to you. Go ahead, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. President, so I struggled with this one and I struggled because I remembered in the last term that something similar simply in that another city came to us looking for funding from the city of London for a legal battle that they were engaged in.

[3:08:57] And that didn’t even make it to the floor as a motion. We didn’t even entertain the thought of doing that. And I would have strongly opposed any motion on that particular issue. But I think, and I’m glad Councillor Turner brought up these safe cities. And this originally started as a sanctuary, cities emotion and emotion and became services, accessing services free from fear.

[3:09:30] What we saw and what brought that to the forefront were powerful leaders using their position of power to take stands on issues that were, as Councillor Turner said, xenophobic, that were making certain members of society feel, again, unwelcome.

[3:10:03] And I think that this bill is similar to that. It is a leadership that has taken a stand that is making Canadian, certain Canadians who look a certain way unwelcome. And I think when leaders take those kinds of stands, we see certain members of society become emboldened and do and say things that would not have been acceptable to do or say publicly, but they feel this power to express sometimes really awful sentiments directed at people that don’t look the same way as they do.

[3:10:49] And so I think it is important for leadership that we’re seeing it from municipal councils to take this stand and counter that messaging and provide the opposite message to say, this is not acceptable and all people are welcome, no matter their faith, no matter their creed, no matter their color or their ethnicity. And I think we, especially in London, have a responsibility to provide that counter message because of what happened in the summer here in London.

[3:11:26] And we know that the Afself family was targeted because of their faith, but we know that the Afself family was targeted because of the way that the girls and the women in the family were dressed. And that’s what made them stand out as Muslim women and as a Muslim family. And so it does hit very close to home here in London. And I recognize the concerns with the dollars that are being proposed.

[3:12:06] But I think that this is too important. I think there are many, many, many Londoners as we have seen and heard on side with this and in support of this. And as another councillor already said, we never have consensus from the citizens, the residents of London on how our budget is spent or how taxpayer dollars are spent. I think this is too important and it is too directly important here in London based on what happened here in London.

[3:12:43] We had the federal leader come to London. We had provincial leaders. We had members from all levels of government come to London and denounce that crime. And yet we haven’t seen a lot of follow through with regards to this particular issue. And I think it’s important for us to take a stand. So I will be supporting this. Okay, other colleagues who have not spoken yet because you only get to speak once at council, I just wanna make sure anybody wants the opportunity has it. Okay, then as I had indicated in at request of a couple of members of council, we’re gonna deal with A and B first and C, which is the funding piece subsequent to that.

[3:13:34] So as long as the mover and seconders are still okay with being the mover and seconder on both those pieces, what I’d like to do is open the voting on parts A and B of the motion on the force. The vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[3:14:27] And if I believe it was the mayor and Councillor Hamou with the mover and seconder of the original motion, if they’re okay with doing that for part C, which is the funding piece, we can vote on that as well now. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to two.

[3:15:16] Okay, and with that, I believe I have dealt with the emergency motion and I’ll turn the chair back to the mayor. Thanks very much, Deputy Mayor. We’ve got a choice colleagues. We’ve got the bylaws to approve for second and third reading. We go into closed session to deal with two items and then we adjourn. But I met your, we passed two bylaws from that and then adjourn. We can break for 15 minutes or we can work through this for the next 15 minutes, which I suspect it will be, but I’m sincerely at your pleasure.

[3:15:54] I’m always mindful and respectful of your time. Councillor Van Halft, do you have an opinion? I do your worship. I would move 15-minute recess. Do you have a seconder for a 15-minute recess? I don’t see that. So with that, can I ask for the indulgence and of colleagues to thank you, though, Councillor Reynolds, and just push this through and we’ll do this thoughtfully, but we’ll move this along if that’s all right. So thank you for that.

[3:16:28] So colleagues, we have bills 38-62 that we inclusive that we’re dealing with. I’m going to look for a mover and seconder for introduction of first reading of those bills. May I have a mover? Please, Councillor Palauza, seconded by Councillor Fai-Miller. Thank you, let’s call the vote. Councillor Cassidy, Councillor Cassidy.

[3:17:42] Call Councillor Cassidy if not, Omar, Councillor Cassidy absent. Councillors of the vote, motion carries 14-0. Thank you, colleagues. I’m going to look for mover and seconder. Seconder, second reading of bills 38-62. Councillor Van Mereberg and seconded by Councillor Lehman. Any discussion? Thank you. I see none. We will call the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14-0.

[3:18:37] Colleagues for third reading. An enactment of bills 38-62. I’ll look for mover and a seconder. Please move by. Councillor Loz, seconded by Councillor Hamou. Thanks very much. We’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15-0. Before we go into closed session, I’ll ask the clerk just to advise the public what it is we’ll be dealing with in said session.

[3:19:17] Your worship, the matters to be dealt with in closed session in two matters that are outlined in the public council agenda. Those are a solicitor client privilege matter regarding litigation or potential litigation with respect to an appeal in the OLT. And a matter related to land acquisition with associated solicitor client privilege to advise. Thanks very much. So without a look for a mover, please. And a seconder moved by, Councillor Fai from others, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Thanks very much. We’ll call the vote. Councillor Turner, Councillor Turner, if you wanted to vote, thank you very much.

[3:20:26] Close in the vote, motion carries 15-0. Before we move into closed session, just advise the public that when we’re dealt with our business items, we will return back into public session. So with that colleagues, I’ll just ask you to give us a minute and we will just be adjusting the horizontal and the vertical. Greensong, please, colleagues, quorum.

[3:22:41] Thanks very much for the second report of council in closed session. I would like to call on Deputy Mayor Morgan to put the report on the floor, please. Thank you. And I’m just giving this over to my screen here. I’m happy to present the second report of council in closed session. Your council in closed session report is number one, settlement agreement, 1673 Richmond Street, Fanshawe Park Road and Richmond Street intersection improvement project. That on the recommendation of the DEPBCD manager, Finance supports with the concurrence of the DEPBCD manager environment and infrastructure and the concurrence of the director of transportation mobility.

[3:23:20] And on the advice of the director of Realty Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the property located at 1673 Richmond Street further described as part of lot 33 registrars compile plan 1029 in the city of London County of Middlesex described as parts one and two plan ER 1383826 being part of pin 08066-0211LT. As shown on the location map attached as Appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements for the project known as the Fanshawe Park Road and Richmond Street intersection improvement projects as follows, A, the settlement agreement attached as Appendix C submitted by Richmond and Fanshawe Center, Inc, as full and final compensation for the market value of land expropriated from the subject property be accepted for the sum of $59,000 in subject to the following conditions.

[3:24:15] One, the city agreeing to pay the vendors reasonable legal appraisal costs, disbursements and applicable taxes as incurred to complete this transaction. Two, the city agreeing to pay a further sum of $2,000 as disturbance damages for the loss of any and all trees, shrubs, landscaping located within the property and B, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report attached here to you as Appendix A. Thank you, do you have a seconder for that? I see, Councillor Lewis, thanks very much.

[3:24:52] Need a discussion? Get the clerk to put that up, call the question. Mr. Mayor, I’ll vote verbally, yes. Thank you. Councillor Turner.

[3:25:27] Councillor Turner is having some technical issues, let’s hope he’s able to get through this. Make one more call, Councillor Turner. Martha, Councillor absent. Close on the vote, motion carries 13 to 0. Thanks very much colleagues. We have two added bills that we’re dealing with 63 and 64, 63 dealing with the item of corporate services that we dealt with in closed session and 64 being the budget. So with that, I’m going to be looking for a mover and seconder of introduction and first reading of Bill 63 and 4, Councillor Layman, seconded by, Councillor Hamou, thanks very much, we’ll call the vote.

[3:26:17] Mr. Mayor, I’ll vote verbally, yes. Thank you. Close on the vote, motion carries 13 to 0. Thanks, colleagues. Now I’ll be looking for mover and seconder, second reading of added bill 63 and 4. Moved by Councillor Hummer, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Thank you. Any discussion? Call the vote.

[3:26:56] Cassidy voting yes again, Mr. Mayor. Thanks, Councillor Cassidy. Close on the vote, motion carries 13 to 0. And finally, colleagues, for third reading an actman of added bills 63 and 64, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder. Councillor Fyfe Miller, seconder by Councillor Hillier. Thanks very much, we’ll call the vote. Sorry, Mr. Mayor, I missed the mover and seconder. If you could repeat that, please.

[3:27:30] Councillor Fyfe Miller, Councillor Hillier. Cassidy voting yes. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. Councillor Hillier. Close on the vote, motion carries 13 to 0.

[3:28:10] Thanks, colleagues, before we adjourn just very briefly. You know, it’s been interesting. Today’s December 21st, we’re working right up to season end for a number of folks, their holidays, whatever that might look like for them. This city is very busy. Our staff are engaged. Councillors, by proof of this meeting and meetings held right through to today and going forward are active. And look, we all know that COVID and Omicron have created just enormous challenges to so many.

[3:28:45] But our staff across the city have persevered through all this. You’ve been nothing less than stellar. You continue to demonstrate character and commitment and we as Council are grateful for that. Our citizens too, if I can add a comment, have demonstrated great resilience and amazing support in the vaccination fight against this pandemic. And we are going to encourage you to continue to book your boosters. And again, we thank you for doing the right thing. Thanks also to our business community, your warriors.

[3:29:21] He truly are. And I know that in city council, I speak for all my colleagues on this call. I encourage everyone to shop local ‘cause it does matter to them and to all of us to keep business vibrant. We just want to thank everyone for all of this and wish you a happy, healthy, safe holiday season. And on behalf of council, I say thank you to all of you for 2021. May we turn the page and see what 2022 brings. I’m very curious. So with that, I’ll look for a motion to adjourn please.

[3:29:54] I see Councillor Foehf Miller, and seconded by Councillor Hill here. Thanks very much. Let’s do a show of hands, can we? Those who want to leave. No other motions carried. Well, thanks very much, meeting adjourned. Merry Christmas, everyone. Merry Christmas.