February 15, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor S. Lehman discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 4.1 of the 3rd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with the Core Area Pilot Program involving the London Downtown Business Association (LDBA), by indicating he is a member of the LDBA. Councillor S. Lehman further discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 4.6 of the 3rd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with the appointment to the LDBA, by indicating he is a member of the LDBA.

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 4.9 of the 3rd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with the 7th Report of the Governance Working Group and specifically the Childcare Advisory Committee being dissolved, by indicating that his wife owns/operates a childcare business.

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 6.1 of the 3rd Report of the Corporate Services Committee, having to do with the purchase of property and settlement of potential claims located at 220 Wellington Road South and potential claims by A Team London Inc., by indicating that it involves a principal donor in his 2018 election campaign.

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 1 of the 4th Report of the Council in closed session and the related Bill No. 122, having to do with the purchase of property and settlement of potential claims located at 220 Wellington Road South and potential claims by A Team London Inc., by indicating that it involves a principal donor in his 2018 election campaign.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by S. Hillier

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 E. Peloza

Seconded by M. Hamou

That the Minutes of the 3rd Meeting held on January 25, 2022, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

6.1     Draft Climate Emergency Action Plan

1.   C. Hansen, EVP & President, Gas Distribution and Storage, Enbridge

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   3rd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2022-02-01 CPSC Report

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 3rd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.2) Single Source Procurement - London Homeless Prevention Housing Allowance Program

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 February, 1, 2022, related to a Single Source Procurement - London Homeless Prevention Housing Allowance Program, as per the City of London Procurement of Goods and Service Policy, section 8.5.a.iv, that committee and city council must approve single source awards greater than $50,000.00:

a)    the single source procurements BE ACCEPTED, at a total estimated cost of $1,084,000 (excluding HST), for the period of April 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023, with the opportunity to extend for four (4) additional one (1) year terms, to administer Housing Stability Services Housing Allowance program, as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4 d), to the following providers: 

  •    Mission Services – Rotholme Family Shelter (SS-2022-029) 

  •    CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services (Street Level Woman At Risk Program) (SS-2022-030)

  •    CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services (SS-2022-031)

  •    Unity Project Emergency Shelter (SS-2022-033)

  •    Youth Opportunities Unlimited (SS-2022-034)

  •    London Cares Homeless Response Services (SS-2022-035) 

  •    St. Leonard’s Society of London (SS-2022-036) 

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

c)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into Purchase of Service Agreements with each program. (2022-S14)

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.4) Odell Jalna Social Housing Provider Proposal

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 February 1, 2022, related to the Odell Jalna Social Housing Provider Proposal: 

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with the Board of Odell Jalna and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to advance the provider’s proposal; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to re-invest the anticipated future tax levy supported mortgage subsidy savings related to the Odell Jalna portfolio to address the long-term financial stability of the Odell Jalna portfolio;

it being noted that the communication, dated January 27, 2022, from C. Sprovieri, Odell-Jalna Residences of London, with respect to this matter, was received. (2022-S04)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.1) Single Source Award Recommendation for Housing Stability Service Programs Including Outreach, Emergency Shelter and Housing Stability Bank

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 February 1, 2022, related to a Single Source Award Recommendation for Housing Stability Service Programs including Outreach, Emergency Shelter and Housing Stability Bank:

a)    single source procurements BE ACCEPTED, at a total estimated cost of $9,890,000 (excluding HST), for the period of April 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023, with the opportunity to extend for four (4) additional one (1) year terms, to administer Housing Stability Services Emergency Shelter and Housing Stability Bank and Outreach programs, as per The Corporation of the City of London’s Procurement Policy Section 14.4 d), to the following providers: 

  •    Men’s Mission Emergency Shelter (SS-2022-021) 

  •    Salvation Army Centre of Hope Emergency Shelter (SS-2022-022)

  •    Rotholme Family Emergency Shelter (SS-2022-023)

  •    Unity Project Emergency Shelter (SS-2022-024)

  •    Youth Opportunities Emergency Shelter (SS-2022-025)

  •    London Cares Homeless Response Services Outreach Program (SS-2022-026) 

  •    The Salvation Army Centre of Hope Housing Stability Bank Program (SS-2022-027) 

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

c)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into Purchase of Service Agreements with each program;

it being noted that the communication, dated January 23, 2022, the presentation, dated February 1, 2022, and the verbal delegation from P. Rozeluk, Mission Services of London and the communication, dated January 21, 2022 and the verbal delegation from J. DeActis, Centre of Hope London, with respect to this matter, were received. (2022-S11)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.3) End of Mortgage (EOM) and End of Operating Agreement (EOA) Impacts and Analysis

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 February 1, 2022, related to the End of Mortgage (EOM) and End of Operating Agreement (EOA) Impacts and Analysis:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to re-invest any anticipated future municipal mortgage subsidy savings in the social housing portfolio to address the long-term financial sustainability of the portfolio; and

c)    the Mayor BE REQUESTED to send a letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on behalf of the City Council, to:

  •    request continued provincial partnership and investment in existing community housing;

  •    highlight Council’s recent significant investment commitments in housing with the need for additional provincial support; and,

  •    communicate the need to receive the new Housing Services Act regulatory Exit and Service Agreement framework as early as possible to develop strategies to address challenges facing the sector;

it being noted that the Civic Administration will continue to examine alternative and innovative solutions to the challenge of maintaining social housing units due to EOM/EOA;

it being further noted that the communication, dated February 1, 2022, from M. Carlson, Birch Housing, with respect to this matter, was received. (2022-S04)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at January 24, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2   3rd Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2022-01-31 CSC Report 3

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 3rd Report of the Corporate Services Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding item 3 (2.2).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) Banking Services By-laws – Amendments Due to Appointment of New City Clerk (Relates to Bill No.’s 94 and 95)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to various By-Law amendments to implement organizational changes:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “A”, being “A by-law to amend By-Law A.-7955-83, entitled “A by-law to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Resolution Regarding Banking and the Master Client Agreement for Business Client Authorization and any contract or document with the Royal Bank relating to the Ontario Works Royal Bank of Canada Right Pay Reloadable Payment Card Program and to authorize the signing of cheques and the withdrawal or transfer of funds” to reflect the current organizational structure”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022; and,

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “B”, being “A by-law to amend By-Law A.-8047-15, entitled “A by-law to approve an Amending Agreement between the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Corporation of the City of London”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022.

Motion Passed

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022, being a By-Law to amend By-Law No. A.-6151-17, and the revised page included in the added agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on February 15, 2022, to revise Schedule “C” to By-Law No. A.-6151-17 being the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, where the following amendments are being recommended; 

a)     increase the dollar limit from $3,000,000 to $6,000,000 for Administrative Awarded Tenders that do not have an irregular result as per Section 13.2 in the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; and,

b)       make minor “housekeeping” revisions necessary in Section 4.6 related to contract amendments, and Sections 19.5 and 19.6 related to organizational titles.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.4) Assessment Growth for 2022, Changes in Taxable Phase-In Values, and Shifts in Taxation as a Result of Reassessment

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the staff report regarding Assessment Growth for 2022, Changes in Taxable Phase-In Values, and Shifts in Taxation as a result of Reassessment BE RECEIVED for information purposes.

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (4.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Parental Alienation Awareness Day

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated January 10, 2022 from Just Another Parent, April 25, 2022 BE RECEIVED and NO ACTION be taken.

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (5.1) Corporate Services Committee Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the Corporate Services Committee Deferred Matters List as of January 24, 2022 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Considerations and Viability to Implement a Vacant Home Tax in London

At 4:37 PM, the Mayor places Councillor J. Morgan in the Chair.

At 4:41 PM, the Mayor resumes the Chair.

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That part b) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“b) That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to begin a Request for Proposal (RFP) for consultant services to study and validate the number of vacant residential properties in London and report back on the scope of the problem and potential mitigation measures to a future meeting of Corporate Services Committee;“

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by M. Cassidy

Clause 2.2, as amended, excluding part b)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That part b), of clause 2.2, as amended BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the consideration to implement a vacant home tax in London:

a)    the staff report dated January 31, 2022, “Considerations and Viability to Implement a Vacant Home Tax in London BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to begin a Request for Proposal (RFP) for consultant services to study and validate the number of vacant residential properties in London and report back on the scope of the problem and potential mitigation measures to a future meeting of Corporate Services Committee;

c)    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue to monitor implementation, execution, and experience of other Ontario municipalities of this tax;

it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated January 27, 2022 from M. Laliberte, Staff Lawyer, Neighbourhood Legal Services and J. Thompson, Executive Director, LIFE*SPIN with respect to this matter.

8.3   3rd Report of the Civic Works Committee

2022-02-01 CWC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 3rd Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interests

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) Wastewater Treatment Operations Master Plan - Notice of Completion

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated February 1, 2022, related to the Wastewater Treatment Operations Master Plan:

a)        the Notice of Completion BE FILED with the Municipal Clerk; and,

b)        the Wastewater Treatment Operations Master Plan report BE PLACED on public record for a 30-day review period;

it being noted that the recommended implementation plan presented in the Wastewater Treatment Operations Master Plan will not be formally approved and endorsed until the following 30-day public review period and following responses to any comments received in accordance with the Master Planning process;

it being further noted that the pace for advancing the projects recommended through this Master Plan will be addressed through existing programs and budgets and Council’s decisions through the upcoming 2024-2028 multi-year budget process. (2022-E03)

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Sole Source - Organic Rankine Cycle Equipment Service Contract

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 February 1, 2022, related to the award of a service contract for the maintenance of the Organic Rankine Cycle Equipment package at Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant:

a)        Turboden S.p.A., BE AWARDED a sole source service contract for the Greenway Organic Rankine Cycle system, in the amount of €39,000.00 per year, excluding HST, plus allowance for inflation as described, for a five-year term, in accordance with Section 14.3 (c) and 14.5 (a)(ii) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

d)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-E07)

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) Amending Agreement to the Services Agreement Between Partner Municipalities and the Ontario Clean Water Agency for Contracted Operations at the Elgin-Middlesex Pumping Station (Relates to Bill No.’s 92 and 113)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Water, Wastewater and Stormwater, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated February 1, 2022, related to an Amending Agreement to the existing Services Agreement between the partner municipalities and the Ontario Clean Water Agency for the contracted operation of the Elgin-Middlesex Pumping Station:

a)        the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022, to approve an Amending Agreement Between Ontario Clean Water Agency and the Corporation of the City of London, Aylmer Area Secondary Water Supply System Board of Management and the St. Thomas Area Secondary Water Supply System Board of Management, for the continued contracted operation of the Elgin-Middlesex Pumping Station;

b)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Amending Agreement, substantially in the form as appended to the above-noted by-law, and satisfactory to the City Solicitor, and all documents required to fulfill its conditions; and,

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

it being noted that the Boards of Management for both Secondary Water Supply Systems are concurrently undertaking similar actions to enter into this agreement. (2022-E13)

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) 2021 Drinking Water Annual Report and Summary Report for the City of London Drinking Water System

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater, the staff report dated February 1, 2022, related to the 2021 Drinking Water Annual Report and Summary Report for the City of London Drinking Water System BE RECEIVED for information. (2022-E13)

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.5) Area Speed Limit Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law (Relates to Bill No. 106) 

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 1, 2022 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022, to amend By-law PS-114 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London”. (2022-T08)

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (2.6) Contract Award: Tender No. 21-109 - Victoria Bridge Replacement

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 February 1, 2022, related to the award of contracts for the Victoria Bridge Replacement Project (Tender No. 21-109):

a)        the bid submitted by McLean Taylor Construction Limited at its tendered price of $22,771,238.28, excluding HST, for the Victoria Bridge Replacement Project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by McLean Taylor Construction Limited was the lowest of eight bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)        AECOM Canada Limited BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for this project at an upset amount of $1,740,991.00 excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

e)        the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the work to be done relating to this project (Tender 21-109); and,

f)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-T10)

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (2.7) Contract Award: Tender No. 21-117 - East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 1

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 February 1, 2022, related to the award of contracts for the East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 1 project:

a)        the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Construction Inc. at its tendered price of $20,887,870.36, excluding HST, for the East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 1 project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Construction Inc. was the lowest of 5 bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)        AECOM Canada Ltd. BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $1,565,255.00, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

e)        the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (Tender 21-117); and,

f)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-T10)

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (2.8) Exclusion of H.I.R.A. Limited from the City of London’s Bidding and Tender Processes

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 staff report dated February 1, 2022, related to an outstanding legal action against the City of London:

a)        H.I.R.A. Limited BE EXCLUDED from any City of London bidding opportunities until such time as they are no longer in litigation against the City of London in accordance with Section 19.6 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; and,

b)        the balance of this report BE RECEIVED for information. (2022-E03)

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at January 24, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (5.2) 2nd Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 2nd Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on January 19, 2022, BE RECEIVED

Motion Passed

8.3.12   (5.3) Municipal Drain Petitions - Scotland Farms

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 February 1, 2022, related to the municipal drain petitions for Scotland Farms:

a)        the petitions for two new Municipal Drains to be located at 2657 Scotland Drive (Lot 14 and 15) to benefit the drainage of the east and west sides of the property BE ACCEPTED by the Council of the Corporation of the City of London under Section 5 of the Drainage Act; and,

b)        Mike DeVos, P.Eng. of Spriet Associates London Limited BE APPOINTED under Section 8 of the Drainage Act to complete a report for the new drains.

Motion Passed

8.5   3rd Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2022-01-31 PEC Report - Full

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 3rd Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interests

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) 2nd Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on January 20, 2022:

a)    the Working Group report relating to the property located at 4519 Colonel Talbot Road  BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 2.1 and 2.2, inclusive, 3.1, 4.2 and 5.1 to 5.5, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) 3425 Grand Oak Crossing (H-9414) (Relates to Bill No. 114)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2219008 Ontario Limited (York Developments), relating to the property located at 3425 Grand Oak Crossing, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (hh-100h-198*R6-5(43)) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision Zone (R6-5(43)).   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (3.1) Housekeeping Amendment to Secondary Plans (O-9346) (Relates to Bill No.’s 98, 99, 100, 101 and 102)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to housekeeping amendments to approved Secondary Plans:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to AMEND the McCormick Area Secondary Plan, to DELETE references to the 1989 Official Plan and to ADD references to The London Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to AMEND the Old Victoria Hospital Lands Secondary Plan, to DELETE references to the 1989 Official Plan and to ADD references to The London Plan;

c)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to AMEND the Riverbend South Secondary Plan, to DELETE references to the 1989 Official Plan and to ADD references to The London Plan;

d)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to AMEND the Old East Village Dundas Street Corridor Secondary Plan, to DELETE references to the 1989 Official Plan and to ADD references to The London Plan;

e)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “E” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to AMEND the Beaufort/Irwin/Gunn/ Saunby (BIGS) Neighbourhood Secondary Plan, to DELETE references to the 1989 Official Plan and to ADD references to The London Plan; and,

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with an in-depth review of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan to consider the potential for broader changes;

it being noted that changes to the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan will be addressed through Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment (OZ-9328);

 

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated January 28, 2022, from L. Logan, Vice-President, Operations and Finance, Western University, with respect to this matter;

it being further pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individual indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made an oral submission regarding these matters;

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

  •    the purpose and effect of the recommended action is to update Secondary Plans to reflect the transition from the 1989 Official Plan to The London Plan. The recommended action will assist in the interpretation and implementation of the Secondary Plans in conjunction with The London Plan and to improve clarity and consistency of policies and maps in the Plans.   (2022-D08)

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (3.2) 3207 Woodhull Road (O-9429/Z-9430) (Relates to Bill No.’s 103 and 115)

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 Karen and Eric Auzins, relating to the property located at 3207 Woodhull Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to amend The London Plan to change the designation of a portion of the subject lands FROM a Farmland Place Type TO a Green Space Place Type on Map 1 – Place Types, and to change the identification and delineation of natural heritage features on a portion of the subject lands FROM a Potential Environmentally Significant Area TO an Environmentally Significant Area on Map 5 – Natural Heritage;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with The London Plan as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject lands proposed to be severed FROM a Holding Open Space (h-2OS4) Zone, an Agricultural (AG2) Zone and an Environmental Review (ER) Zone TO an Open Space Special Provision (OS5()) Zone, and to change the zoning of the lands proposed to be retained FROM an Agricultural (AG2) Zone, a Holding Open Space (h-2OS4) Zone and an Environmental Review (ER) Zone TO an Agricultural Special Provision (AG2()) Zone, a Holding Agricultural Special Provision (h-AG2(_)) Zone, an Open Space Special Provision (OS5(**) Zone and an Environmental Review (ER) 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 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, Farmland and Green Space Place Types, and Natural Heritage Features and Hazards; and,

  •    the recommended changes to Maps 1 and 5 of The London Plan support the conservation and protection of environmentally significant features and functions over the long-term.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (3.3) 755-785 Wonderland Road South (O-9409/Z-9410) (Relates to Bill No.’s 96 and 116)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the applications by The Corporation of the City of London and McCorr Management (East) Inc., relating to the property located at 755-785 Wonderland Road South:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to amend the 1989 Official Plan by ADDING a policy to section 10.1.3 – Policies for Specific Areas;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Regional Shopping Area Special Provision (RSA2(2)) Zone TO a Regional Shopping Area Special Provision (RSA2(_)) Zone;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a 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 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 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the criteria for Specific Area Policies and Planning Impact Analysis;

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit a new use that is appropriate within the surrounding context ; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would repurpose existing vacant and underutilized building stock and would provide convenient access to services for dog owners in the urban area of the city, thereby reducing the length and number of vehicle trips.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (3.4) 345 Sylvan Street (SPA21-112)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by the Housing Development Corporation, London, relating to the property located at 345 Sylvan Street:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval to permit the construction of a 42-unit apartment building:

i)    lighting;

ii)    board on board wooden fence instead of the proposed chain link fence;

iii)    loss of privacy;

iv)    evergreen trees instead of the proposed deciduous trees and requesting maintenance of existing trees on the lot; and,

v)    movement through the lot with quick ingress and egress; and,

b) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council advised of the following issues with respect to the Site Plan Application, and that the Municipal Council supports the Site Plan Application:

i)    a six foot board on board wooden fence with one foot of lattice on top instead of the proposed chain link fence; and,

ii)    fir trees and requesting maintenance of existing trees on the lot; 

 

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

  •    a communication dated January 14, 2022 from J. Lanys, by e-mail;

  •    a communication dated January 16, 2022 from K. Busche, by e-mail;

  •    a communication dated January 16, 2022 from L. Gosnell, by e-mail;

  •    a communication dated January 17, 2022 from A. Sworik, by e-mail;

  •    a communication dated January 19, 2022 from D. Gosnell; and,

  •    the staff presentation;

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

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

  •    the proposed Site Plan is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which directs development to designated growth areas and that development be adjacent to existing development;

  •    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 is in conformity with the policies of the Low Density Residential designation of the Official Plan (1989) and will implement an appropriate form of residential intensification for the site;

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

  •    the proposed Site Plan conforms to the regulations of the Site Plan Control By-law.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (4.1) Secondary Plan for Meadowlilly Road Area

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the communication dated January 4, 2022, from J. Crockett, President, Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association, with respect to the request for a Secondary Plan for the Meadowlily Road Area BE RECEIVED for information.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.6   4th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2022-02-07 PEC Report - FULL

At 5:03 PM, the Mayor places Councillor J. Morgan in the Chair.

At 5:05 PM, the Mayor resumes the Chair.

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 4th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.6.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.6.2   (2.1) 2021 Annual Development Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the staff report dated February 7, 2022 entitled “2021 Annual Development Report” BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated February 3, 2022, from C. Butler, 863 Waterloo Street, with respect to this matter.  (2022-A23)

Motion Passed

8.6.3   (2.2) 2624 Jackson Road and 1635 Commissioners Road East (H-9445) (Relates to Bill No. 117)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Drewlo Holdings Inc., relating to lands located at 2624 Jackson Road and 1635 Commissioners Road East, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 7, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R1 (h-h-100-R1-4) Zone and a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-h-100-R1-13(8)) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone and a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-13(8)) Zone to remove the h and h-100 holding provisions.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.6.4   (2.3) 751 Fanshawe Park Road West (H-9448) (Relates to Bill No. 118)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by MTE Consultants Inc., relating to portion of lands located southwest of corner of Sunningdale Road West and Wonderland Road North (formerly known as 751 Fanshawe Park Road West), the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 7, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R1 (h-R1-4) Zone, a Holding Residential R5/R6 (h-R5-2/R6-4) and an Open Space (OS1) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone, Holding Residential R5/R6 (h-R5-2/R6-4) and an Open Space (OS1) Zone to remove the h holding provision.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.6.5   (2.4) 1750 Finley Crescent (P-9369) (Relates to Bill No. 104)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by Kenmore Homes (London) Inc., the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on February 15, 2022 to exempt Block 101, Plan 33M-733 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, for a period not exceeding three (3) years.  (2022-D25)

Motion Passed

8.6.6   (3.1) 2624 Jackson Road and 1635 Commissioners Road East (Z-9449) (Relates to Bill No. 119)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by Drewlo Holdings Inc., relating to lands located within the Parker Jackson Subdivision – Phase 1, known municipally as 2624 Jackson Road and 1635 Commissioners Road East, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 7, 2022 as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R1 (h-h-100-R1-4) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-3) Zone;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with these matters;

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

  •    the conditions for removing the holding (h & h-100) provisions have been met and the recommended amendment will allow development of single detached dwellings in compliance with the Zoning By-law;

  •    subdivision security has been posted with the City in accordance with City policy, and the Subdivision Agreement for Phase 1 has been executed by the applicant and the City; and,

  •    provision has been made for a looped watermain system to ensure adequate water service, as well as provision for a second public road access to the satisfaction of the City.   (2022-D07)

Motion Passed

8.6.7   (3.2) 475 Grey Street (OZ-9406) (Relates to Bill No.’s 97 and 120)

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 2810645 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 475 Grey Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 7, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on February 15, 2022, to amend the 1989 Official Plan for the City of London Planning Area by ADDING a policy to Chapter 10, Policies for Specific Areas, to permit a maximum residential density of 96 units per hectare (UPH) in the form of stacked townhouses to align the 1989 Official Plan policies with the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies of The London Plan; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 7, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on February 15, 2022, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R2 Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated February 4, 2022 from S. Jones, by e-mail, with respect to this matter;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas, opportunities for intensification and redevelopment, and higher density residential development within transit supportive areas. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

  •    the recommended amendment to Zoning By-law Z.-1 conforms to the Residential Intensification policies and the Infill Housing and Conversion of Non-Residential Buildings policies of the 1989 Official Plan, and criteria for Policies for Specific Residential Areas which allow Council to address intensification opportunities through specific policies which provide additional guidance to the general Residential policies;

  •    the recommended amendment to Zoning By-law Z.-1 conforms to the in-force policies of the Neighbourhoods Place Type polices of The London Plan and implements Key Directions of The London Plan; 

  •    the re-use of the subject land supports Council’s commitment to reducing and mitigating climate change by making efficient use of existing infrastructure and focusing intensification and growth in already developed areas; and,

  •    the subject lands are an appropriate location for residential infill and intensification in a stacked townhouse form.  The recommended amendments are consistent with and appropriate for the site and surrounding context.   (2022-D07)

Motion Passed

8.6.8   (3.3) 346, 370 and 392 South Street & 351, 373 and 385 Hill Street (Relates to Bill No. 105)

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 Vision SoHo Alliance, relating to the properties located at 346, 370 and 392 South Street and 351, 373 and 385 Hill Street:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to a property located at 346, 370 and 392 South Street and 351, 373 and 385 Hill Street; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council has no issues with respect to the Site Plan Approval application and the Municipal Council supports the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 346, 370 and 392 South Street and 351, 373 and 385 Hill Street;

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

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

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

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, which directs new development to designated growth areas and areas adjacent to existing development;

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan including but not limited to Our Tools, Key Directions, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies; and,

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, High Density Residential Designation and will implement an appropriate form of residential development for the site.  (2022-D07)

Motion Passed

8.6.9   (4.1) Inclusionary Zoning

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Inclusionary Zoning review:

a)    the preliminary findings of the Inclusionary Zoning Review attached hereto as Appendix “C” BE RECEIVED for information; and

b)    the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing BE REQUESTED to consider the City of London Assessment Report evaluating the potential for, and feasibility of, Inclusionary Zoning on a city-wide basis, incorporating lands outside of the Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs) as Inclusionary Zoning eligibility areas;

it being noted that the Minister may prescribe the City of London through Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c .P. 13, section 16(4) so that the area where Inclusionary Zoning may potentially be applied incorporates lands outside of the designated PMTSAs;

 

it being further noted that the request is clause b) above is to broaden the review of the potential new tool of Inclusionary Zoning;

 

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

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    the consultants’ presentation;

  •    a communication dated February 2, 2022, from Mike Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute; and,

  •    a communication dated February 3, 2022, from Jared Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders’ Association;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee heard verbal delegations from the following with respect to these matters:

  •    Mike Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute; and,

  •    Jared Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders’ Association.   (2022-D14)

Motion Passed

8.6.10   (5.1) December, 2021 Building Division Monthly Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the Building Division Monthly Report for December 2021 BE RECEIVED for information.  (2022-A23)

Motion Passed

8.4   3rd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2022-02-08 SPPC Report 3

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 3rd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 3 (4.1), 5 (4.3), 8 (4.6), 11 (4.9) and 12 (4.10).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

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

a) Councillor S. Lehman discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 4.1 having to do with the Core Area Pilot Program involving the London Downtown Business Association (LDBA) and clause 4.6 having to do with the appointment to the LDBA, by indicating he is a member of the LDBA.

b) Councillor P. Van Meerbergen discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 4.9 having to do with the 7th Report of the Governance Working Group and specifically the Childcare Advisory Committee being dissolved, by indicating that his wife owns/operates a childcare business.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) Anonymized Application Review for the London Community Grants Program

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the staff report dated February 8, 2022 regarding an Anonymized Application Review for the London Community Grants Program BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (4.2) Draft Climate Emergency Action Plan

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the draft Climate Emergency Action Plan:

a)    the draft Climate Emergency Action Plan, as appended to the staff report dated February 8, 2022 as Appendix “A”, BE RECEIVED;

b)    the draft Climate Emergency Action Plan Foundational Actions, as appended to the staff report dated February 8, 2022 as Appendix “B”, BE RECEIVED;

c)    the Background Information (Supporting Documents) to Develop the Draft Climate Emergency Action Plan, as appended to the staff report dated February 8, 2022 as Appendix “C”, BE RECEIVED for information; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to hold a public participation meeting at the April 5, 2022 Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with respect to the draft Climate Emergency Action Plan;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a presentation from the Director, Climate Change, Environment & Waste Management and a communication dated February 6, 2022 from Councillor M. van Holst with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (4.4) London and Middlesex Community Housing

Motion made by J. Morgan

That Anne-Marie Mitchell BE APPOINTED to the London & Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors for the term ending December 31, 2025 (Third Class); it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication from A. Anderson, Board of Directors, London & Middlesex Community Housing with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (4.5) Consideration of Appointment to the Waste Management Working Group

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following BE APPOINTED to the Waste Management Working Group for the term ending November 14, 2022 or when the City’s Resource Recovery Plan and Residual Waste Disposal Plan are approved by Council, whichever comes first:

Councillor S. Turner

Councillor M. van Holst

Councillor E. Peloza

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (4.7) 1st Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee from its meeting held on December 16, 2021:

a)   the communication from L. Poeta with respect to the Canadian Brewhouse Inukshuk BE REFERRED to Civic Administration for their consideration; and

b) clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6.1 and 6.3 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (4.8) 2nd Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee from its meeting held on January 20, 2022:

a) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to include a template for the Acknowledgement of Indigenous Lands on all future Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee Agendas;

it being noted that the meeting was opened with an Acknowledgement of Indigenous Lands by M. Buzzelli; and,

b) clause 1.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 7.1 and 7.2 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.13   (5.1) Audit and Accountability Fund - Intake 3 - Transfer Payment Agreement and Single Source Contract Award (Relates to Bill No. 91)

Motion made by J. Morgan

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

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 8, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on February 15, 2022, to:

i)    approve the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement, appended as Appendix “B”  to the proposed by-law, for the Audit and Accountability Fund – Intake 3 (the “Agreement”) between Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and The Corporation of the City of London;

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

iii)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written delegate, to approve further Amending Agreements to the above-noted Transfer Payment Agreement for the Audit and Accountability Fund;

iv)    authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute any amending agreements approved by the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development; and,

v)   authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written delegate, to execute any financial reports required under this Agreement and to undertake all administrative, financial, and reporting acts necessary in connection with the Agreement;

b)    a Single Source Procurement (SS-2022-044) in accordance with section 14.4(e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy BE AWARDED to EZSigma Group, 61 Wellington Street East, Aurora, ON, L4G 1H7, to conduct the Audit and Accountability Fund Intake 3 – Site Plan Resubmission Process Review for the City of London at a cost of up to $305,280.00 (including HST); and,

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

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (4.1) Strategy to Reduce Core Area Vacancy - Business Case: Core Area Pilot Program

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the “Strategy to Reduce Core Area Vacancy – Business Case: Core Area Pilot Program”:

a)    the communication dated February 8, 2022 from Planning and Economic Development regarding the Strategy to Reduce Core Area Vacancy - Business Case: Core Area Pilot Program BE RECEIVED;

b)    the funding request by London Economic Development Corporation as presented in the “Business Case: Core Area Pilot Program” BE APPROVED; and,

c)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required by the City Solicitor, to implement the approved noted in part b) above.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.5   (4.3) A London For Everyone: An Action Plan to Disrupt Islamophobia

At 5:10 PM, the Mayor places Councillor J. Morgan in the Chair.

At 5:13 PM, the Mayor resumes the Chair.

Motion made by J. Morgan

That on the recommendation of the City Manager, the following action be taken with respect to ending Islamophobia in London:

a) the report of the Anti-Islamophobia Working Group, A London for Everyone: An Action Plan to Disrupt Islamophobia (Action Plan), attached to the staff report dated February 8, 2022 as Appendix “A”, BE ENDORSED;

b) the recommendations of A London for Everyone: An Action Plan to Disrupt Islamophobia which are specifically directed towards the Corporation of the City of London BE ENDORSED;

c) letters of support, from Community Based and Public Sector organizations and individual members of the Muslim communities, attached to the staff report as Appendix “B”, BE RECEIVED;

d) the members of the London Anti-Islamophobia Working Group BE THANKED for their time and effort in developing recommendations to end Islamophobia in London;

e) one-time funding of up to $150,000 BE AUTHORIZED from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve for the erection of a memorial plaza at the intersection of Hyde Park Road/South Carriage Road, creation of a mural, and establishment of a Community Garden in honour of Our London Family;

f) the Mayor BE DIRECTED to establish an Anti-Islamophobia Advisory Council/Circle, with appropriate representation of diverse Muslims in London, to meet quarterly with the responsibility to provide oversight for the implementation of the Action Plan recommendations directed to the Corporation of the City of London;

g) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake the following actions for accountability and implementation:

i) establish a Muslim Community Liaison Advisor role within the Anti-Racism Anti-Oppression Division with the responsibility of working with community partners and the City of London to implement the recommendations of the Action Plan, it being noted that this position will be funded on a temporary basis within existing budget resources;

ii) continue the work of the Anti-Islamophobia Working Group to provide a forum to update on progress, share best practices and hold each other accountable;

iii) request that the Community Diversity & Inclusion Strategy (CDIS) consider whether Islamophobia should form a distinct priority within the Strategy; and,

iv) create an implementation plan for the Corporation of the City of London actions to end Islamophobia with activities, responsibilities, timelines, measures, and budget requirements (inclusive of additional funding needs) by September 2022;

h) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to share the A London for Everyone: An Action Plan to Disrupt Islamophobia with local Provincial and Federal Members of Parliament, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a presentation from the Director, Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.8   (4.6) Appointment to the London Downtown Business Association

Motion made by J. Morgan

That Councillor J. Fyfe-Millar BE APPOINTED to the London Downtown Business Association for the term ending November 14, 2022; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated January 20, 2022 from Councillor J. Helmer with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.11   (4.9) 7th Report of the Governance Working Group

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 7th Report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on January 17, 2022:

a)  based on the results of the Council-directed Advisory Committee Member consultation, the Governance Working Group (GWG) recommends the following actions be taken:

i)    the attached revised Terms of Reference for the London Community Advisory Committees (LCAC) BE APPROVED for enactment;

ii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to recruit for the membership appointments for all of the LCACs, included in part a) above, upon Council approval;

iii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the GWG with respect to an updated General Terms of Reference for all Advisory Committees to support the approved new structure, including but not limited to the feedback collected from the Advisory Committee consultation with respect to recruitment, term, flexibility in procedure, and reporting;

iv)     an additional round of consultation with the newly established LCACs, once established, BE UNDERTAKEN to identify any additional considerations around operational matters;

v)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with a plan to establish a new Housing Committee to assist Council in meeting its goals under the approved municipal budget, the Strategic Plan and the Roadmap to 3000, with the committee include representatives from London and Middlesex Community Housing, community members at large, and relevant housing not-for-profits, organizations, and industry partners;

vi)    the Childcare Advisory Committee BE DISSOLVED and no new related committee be established.

b) clause 1.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion made by J. Morgan

That all of clause 4.9 BE APPROVED, excluding:

a) i)

a) ii)

a) vi)

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 7th Report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on January 17, 2022:

a)  based on the results of the Council-directed Advisory Committee Member consultation, the Governance Working Group (GWG) recommends the following actions be taken:

iii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the GWG with respect to an updated General Terms of Reference for all Advisory Committees to support the approved new structure, including but not limited to the feedback collected from the Advisory Committee consultation with respect to recruitment, term, flexibility in procedure, and reporting;

iv)     an additional round of consultation with the newly established LCACs, once established, BE UNDERTAKEN to identify any additional considerations around operational matters;

v)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with a plan to establish a new Housing Committee to assist Council in meeting its goals under the approved municipal budget, the Strategic Plan and the Roadmap to 3000, with the committee include representatives from London and Middlesex Community Housing, community members at large, and relevant housing not-for-profits, organizations, and industry partners;

b) clause 1.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Parts a) i) and a) ii) of clause 4.9 BE APPROVED.

i)    the attached revised Terms of Reference for the London Community Advisory Committees (LCAC) BE APPROVED for enactment;

ii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to recruit for the membership appointments for all of the LCACs, included in part a) above, upon Council approval;

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by J. Morgan

That part a) vi) BE APPROVED:

vi)    the Childcare Advisory Committee BE DISSOLVED and no new related committee be established.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.4.12   (4.10) Unique Part-Time Role of Council

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the Governance Working Group BE REQUESTED to discuss and report back to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with their recommendations about Council continuing as a unique-part-time-role versus transitioning to a unique-full-time-role.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

8.7   1st Report of the Audit Committee

2022-02-09 Audit Report 1

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 1st Report of the Audit Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.7.1   (1.1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.7.2   (1.2) Election of Vice Chair for the term ending November 14, 2022

Motion made by J. Morgan

That Councillor Helmer BE APPOINTED as Vice Chair for the term ending November 14, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.7.3   (3.1) Introduction of MNP - Deepak Jaswal, Senior Manager, Enterprise Risk Services, MNP

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that a verbal presentation from D. Jaswal, Senior Manager, Enterprise Risk Services, MNP, G. Rodrigues, Partner, National Leader, Internal Audit, MNP, J. Barbour, Partner, MNP, and P. Racco, Partner, MNP, with respect to an introduction to Internal Audit Services for the City of London, was received.

Motion Passed

8.7.4   (4.1) Audit Planning Report for the Year Ending December 31, 2021

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the KPMG LLP Audit Planning Report, for the year ending December 31, 2021, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

8.7.5   (4.2) London Downtown Closed Circuit Television Program for the Year Ending December 31, 2021

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the KPMG Report on Specified Auditing Procedures for the London Downtown Closed Circuit Television Program, for the year ending December 31, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.7.6   (4.3) Internal Audit Dashboard as at January 31, 2022

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the communication from Deloitte, regarding the internal audit dashboard as of January 31, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.7.7   (4.4) Internal Audit Summary Update

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the communication dated January 31, 2022, from Deloitte, with respect to the internal audit summary update, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.7.8   (4.5) Observation Summary as at October 22, 2021

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the Observation Summary from Deloitte, as of October 22, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.7.9   (4.6) Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) Project Review

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the Internal Audit Report from Deloitte with respect to Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) Project Review performed December 2021, issued January 28, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.7.10   (4.7) Fire Process Assessment

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the Internal Audit Report from Deloitte with respect to Fire Process Assessment performed November 2021 to January 2022, issued January 28, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.7.11   (4.8) Fleet Allocation and Utilization Management Assessment

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the Internal Audit Report from Deloitte with respect to Fleet Allocation and utilization Management Assessment performed November 2021 to January 2022, issued January 28, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

9.   Added Reports

9.1   4th Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

  1.    Property Acquisition, 220 Wellington Road South – Wellington Gateway Project

That, on the recommendation of the City Solicitor’s Office the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to:

a)  offer to purchase the above property and settle all potential claims pursuant to the Expropriation Act on the basis of payment to the registered owner, A Team London Inc., of the total sum of $1,140,000.00 as full compensation for market value of the land taken, future business losses, disturbance damages and statutory interest, in connection with an acquisition of a commercial property located at 220 Wellington Road South, in the City of London;

b) offer to settle the legal costs incurred by A Team London Inc., in an amount of up to $25,000, including disbursements, plus HST, failing which the matter would be referred to assessment by the local assessment officer;

c)  the Mayor and the City Clerk, BE AUTHORIZED to execute an Agreement pursuant to Section 30 of the Expropriations Act between the City and the owner to create the legal framework for the purchase transaction and settlement, all in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor’s office, substantially in the form attached as Appendix “C”;

d)  the Mayor and the City Clerk, BE AUTHORIZED to execute a lease Agreement between the City and the owner to create the legal framework for the lease by the City of the premises until July 30, 2022, all in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor’s office, substantially in the form attached as Appendix “C”; and,

e)  the financing for this settlement BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing attached as Appendix “A”.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by M. Hamou

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That introduction and first reading of Added Bill No. 122, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Peloza

That second reading of Added Bill No. 122, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Peloza

That third reading and enactment of Added Bill No. 122, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Turner

Seconded by J. Helmer

That introduction and first reading of Added Bill No. 123, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That second reading of Added Bill No. 123, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That third reading and enactment of Added Bill No. 123, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

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

Bill No. 90

By-law No. A.-8215-56 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 15th day of February, 2022. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 91

By-law No. A.-8216-57 - A by-law to approve and authorize the execution of the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for the Province of Ontario and The Corporation of the City of London for the provision of funding to undertake the Site Plan Resubmission Process Review under this intake of the Audit and Accountability Fund. (5.1/3/SPPC)

Bill No. 92

By-law No. A.-8217-58 - A by-law to approve an Amending Agreement Between Ontario Clean Water Agency and the Corporation of the City of London, Aylmer Area Secondary Water Supply System Board of Management and the St. Thomas Area Secondary Water Supply System Board of Management, for the continued contracted operation of the Elgin-Middlesex Pumping Station. (2.3/3/CWC)

Bill No. 93

By-law No. A.-6151(ae)-59 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001”, by deleting Schedule “C” – Procurement of Goods and Services Policy in its entirety and by replacing it with a new Schedule “C” – Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, to update the Policy, to provide additional clarity and updates (2.3/3/CSC)

Bill No. 94

By-law No. A.-7955(b)-60 - A by-law to amend By-law A.-7955-83, “a bylaw to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Resolution Regarding Banking and the Master Client Agreement for Business Client Authorization and any contract or document with the Royal Bank relating to the Ontario Works Royal Bank of Canada Right Pay Reloadable Payment Card Program and to authorize the signing of cheques and the withdrawal or transfer of funds.” (2.1a/3/CSC)

Bill No. 95

By-law No. A.-8047(b)-61 - A by-law to amend By-law A.-8047-15, “A bylaw to approve an Amending Agreement between the Bank of Nova Scotia and The Corporation of the City of London.” (2.1b/3/CSC)

Bill No. 96

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wq)-62 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 755-785 Wonderland Road South. (3.3a/3/PEC)

Bill No. 97

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wr)-63 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989, relating to 475 Grey Street. (3.2a/4/PEC)

Bill No. 98

By-law No. C.P.-1512(aw)-64 - A by-law to amend The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to the McCormick Area Secondary Plan. (3.1a/3/PEC)

Bill No. 99

By-law No. C.P.-1512(ax)-65 - A by-law to amend The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to the Old Victoria Hospital Lands Secondary Plan. (3.1b/3/PEC)

Bill No. 100

By-law No. C.P.-1512(ay)-66 - A by-law to amend The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to the Riverbend South Secondary Plan. (3.1c/3/PEC)

Bill No. 101

By-law No. C.P.-1512(az)-67 - A by-law to amend The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to the Old East Village Dundas Street Corridor Secondary Plan. (3.1d/3/PEC)

Bill No. 102

By-law No. C.P.-1512(ba)-68 - A by-law to amend The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to the Beaufort/Irwin/Gunn/Saunby (BIGS) Neighbourhood Secondary Plan. (3.1e/3/PEC)

Bill No. 103

By-law No. C.P.-1512(bb)-69 - A by-law to amend The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 3207 Woodhull Road. (3.2a/3/PEC)

Bill No. 104

By-law No. C.P.-1575-70 - A by-law to exempt from Part-Lot Control, lands located at 1750 Finley Crescent, legally described as Block 101 in Registered Plan 33M-733. (2.4/4/PEC)

Bill No. 105

By-law No. L.S.P.-3499-71 - A by-law to designate 370 South Street (Health Services Building) to be of cultural heritage value or interest. (2.9/17/PEC – 2021)

Bill No. 106

By-law No. PS-114-22001 - A by-law to amend By-law PS-114 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London.” (2.5/3/CWC)

Bill No. 107

By-law No. S.-6165-72 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Innovation Drive east of Innovation Gate)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes)

Bill No. 108

By-law No. S.-6166-73 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to King Edward Avenue and Thompson Road)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes, registered as ER1419534 pursuant to SPA20-054 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 109

By-law No. S.-6167-74 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Kleinburg Drive)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of 33M-787 required 0.3m reserve on abutting plan 33M-749 for unobstructed legal access through a subdivision)

Bill No. 110

By-law No. S.-6168-75 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Dingman Drive, west of Wellington Road South)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes, registered as ER1403524, pursuant to SPA17-111 and  SPA17-117 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 111

By-law No. S.-6169-76 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish, name, and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (to be known as Campbell Street North) (Chief Surveyor – to provide road access to new developments)

Bill No. 112

By-law No. W.-5628(a)-77 - A by-law to amend by-law No. W.-5628-283 being “A by-law to authorize the Sunningdale Road Widening, Phase 3 – Richmond to Wonderland (Project No. TS1496-3).” (6.1/2/CSC)

Bill No. 113

By-law No. W.-5681-78 - A by-law to authorize the Kilally South East Basin – SWMF 1 (Project ESSWM-KILSE). (2.3/2/CWC)

Bill No. 114

By-law No. Z.-1-223000 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provision from the zoning for lands located at 3425 Grand Oak Crossing. (2.2/3/PEC)

Bill No. 115

By-law No. Z.-1-223001 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 3207 Woodhull Road. (3.2b/3/PEC)

Bill No. 116

By-law No. Z.-1-223002 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 755-785 Wonderland Road South. (3.3b/3/PEC)

Bill No. 117

By-law No. Z.-1-223003 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at 2624 Jackson Road and 1635 Commissioners Road East. (2.2/4/PEC)

Bill No. 118

By-law No. Z.-1-223004 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at southwest of corner of Sunningdale Road West and Wonderland Road North (formerly known as 751 Fanshawe Park Road West). (2.3/4/PEC)

Bill No. 119

By-law No. Z.-1-223005 - A bylaw to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone lands located at 2624 Jackson Road and 1635 Commissioners Road East (Parker Jackson Subdivision – Phase 1). (3.1/4/PEC)

Bill No. 120

By-law No. Z.-1-223006 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 475 Grey Street. (3.2b/4/PEC)

Bill No. 121

By-law No. A.-8218-79 - A by-law to approve and authorize the execution of the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for the Province of Ontario and The Corporation of the City of London for the provision of funding under the Streamline Development Approval Fund. (2.1/4/SPPC)

Bill No. 122

By-law No. A.-8219-80 - A by-law to authorize and approve a Section 30 Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and A Team London Inc., for the acquisition of the property located at 220 Wellington Road, in the City of London, for the Wellington Gateway Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.1/3/CSC)

Bill No. 123

By-law No. A.-8220-81 - A by-law to appoint Scott Mathers as Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development and repeal By-law No. A.-8104-155 being “A by-law to appoint George Kotsifas as Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development.” (6.3/3/CSC)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

Councillor A. Hopkins enquires with respect to the process for the approvals associated with the Reptilia building permit at Westmount Mall.  The Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development provides information to the Council with respect to this matter.

Councillor M. van Holst enquiries with respect to downtown street closures over the previous weekend.  The City Manager provides information to the Council with respect to this matter.

12.   Emergent Motions

12.1   Councillor M. Cassidy - Proclamation Request - International Day of the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

2022-02-15 Emergent Motion - Proclamation Request - Councillor Cassidy

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. Hamou

That pursuant to section 20.2 of the Council Procedure By-law leave BE GIVEN to introduce the following emergent motion related to a request for support from Councillor Cassidy of the application from London & Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership, submitted on February 4, 2022, to proclaim March 21, 2022 “International Day of the Elimination of Racial Discrimination”.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by M. Hamou

That based on the application from London & Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership, March 21, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED “International Day of the Elimination of Racial Discrimination” day.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

13.   By-laws

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. van Holst

That introduction and first reading of Bill No.’s 90 to 120, and the Added Bill No. 121, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Hillier

That second reading of Bill No.’s 90 to 120, and the Added Bill No. 121, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by M. Hamou

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That third reading and enactment of Bill No.’s 90 to 120, and the Added Bill No. 121, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by E. Peloza

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

4.1    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, in connection with the purchase of property and settlement of all potential claims located at 220 Wellington Road South, London; potential litigation with respect to claims by A Team London Inc. in respect of property located at 220 Wellington Road South, London; and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality regarding settlement negotiations in connection with the potential purchase of a property located at 220 Wellington Road South, London. (6.1/3/CSC)

4.2    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, and advice with respect to litigation with respect to various personal injury and property damage claims against the City. (6.2/3/CSC)

4.3    Personal Matters/Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to an identifiable individual; employment-related matters; advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation, including communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.3/3/CSC)

4.4    Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation with respect to litigation currently before the Superior Court of Justice, Court File No. 2112/19, affecting the municipality in relation to Tender T17-104 Vauxhall WWTP Effluent Pumping Station and Berm. (6.1/3/CWC)

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

A matter pertaining to the security of municipal property; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/3/SPPC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The Council convenes in closed session at 5:45 PM with all Members participating.

The Council resumes into public session at 6:28 PM with all Members participating.

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Turner

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 6:53 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 7 minutes)

I’ll ask colleagues for screens on, please. That’s the clerk to confirm, quorum. I have quorum, Your Worship. Councillor Humber is just entering Councillor Cassidy and Councillor Silly.

I have not yet entered. Just let us know when they arrive just for the benefit of all. Like to welcome you to this virtual meeting held during the COVID-19 emergency. I would invite the public to check the city’s website for current details of COVID-19 service impacts.

Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city’s website. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact exisibility@london.ca or 516-661-2489, extension 2425. Colleagues, I will look for any disclosures of opinion or interest.

Councillor van Merber. Thank you, Mayor. I’d like to declare a conflict. It’s in the third report of the strategic priorities and policy committee, specifically number 11, which is 4.9, 4.9, the seventh report of the governance working group and specifically in their section A6.

So if I could have section A6 called separately, it deals with childcare and my wife operates a childcare operation. So noted, thank you. Any other declarations? Councillor Layman.

Thank you, I’ll declare a conflict on the third report of the SPPC, number 3, 4.1 and number 8, 4.6. As I’m a member of the LDBA and the LDBA has financial implications on these matters. Thank you very much. Any other declarations?

Thank you kindly. I’ve not been a maid aware of any recognitions nor confidential matters to be considered in public. So I’ll look for a motion to move item four, confidential session into after stage 13 bylaws. Look for a mover, Councillor Van Hoel, seconded by Councillor Hillier.

It’s called a vote on that. All council members are in full attendance for the benefit of colleagues to know. So there’s Cassidy and Silly. Colleges haven’t signed into the e-scribe yet.

I vote, yay. I’ll vote, yay. It hasn’t come up on my screen, the vote option. Thank you both.

Thank you for closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you. I’ll turn your attention to item five minutes of our last meeting held on January 25th.

For that, I’ll look for a mover and seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Ploza, seconded by Councillor Hamou. Any discussion? I see none.

We’ll call the question. Hey, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.

I’ll vote, yay. For some reason, I’m still in February 8th. So I need to go into the future. It was a good day.

Thank you. As in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Colleagues, under communications and petitions, draft climate emergency action plan. We have a communication from C.

Hanson, President, EVP and President of Enbridge. And we’ll look for that to be moved into the appropriate component of the SPPC meeting. And for that, I’ll look for a mover and seconder. Please move by Councillor Hummer.

Seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Let’s call it. Yay, on this one, it’s all I want, yeah. Thank you.

Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. The item seven, there are no motions which notice has been given. So that turns us to our reports 8.1, the third report of the Community Protective Services Committee. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. I will put the entire report on the floor. I have not heard from anyone about pulling any matters. Does anyone wish to have any item dealt with separately?

Councillor Cassidy. Just, I was pretty quick meeting. We heard from staff and from two delegations. One from Peter Roosevelt of Mission Services, London.

And Mr. Teftis for the Center of Hope Salvation Army. It was about doing a shelter services a little bit differently. There was an RFP that staff had issued, but it had been canceled because of difficulty in getting respondents to the RFP to meet the requirements of the RFP and actually fulfill within the budget that had been approved by Council previously.

So it was a pretty good and robust discussion on this item. And hopefully people were able to tune in or at least see the tape later on. So with that, I will put the entire report on the floor. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you.

Now for the third report of corporate services committee. I’ll call and Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you, worship. For the third report of corporate services committee, I will move everything except item three on the council agenda.

That was 2.2 on the committee agenda. That’s the considerations and viability to the implementation of a vacant home tax in London. See what that would separately I’ll put everything else on the floor. Thank you.

Does anyone wish to have any other item dealt with separately? Yes, of those. You can call the vote and worship. You have no other comments on your committee.

No, all right. Thank you. Any other comments on any item except 2.2? Councillor Halmer.

Thank you. For the report on the shifts based on assessment growth, I just wanted to ask through the mayor about what the outlook is for the reassessment cycle, which has been postponed. The reassessment has been postponed by impact in the province for a few years now. And myself, I’m concerned about every year that goes by and the changes in market value are happening.

They’re just not being recorded as changes in assessed value. It’s starting to become a long time since 2016. And I wonder if staff can just give us a sense of what they expect to happen in terms of impacts, reassessment cycle when we think that will resume and what that might mean for a residence. Thank you, let’s check with staff.

Ms. Barboon, would you be handling that? Yes, thank you through the chair. So at this point in time, we understand that they’re looking to do valuations in 2023 with the implementation of that in 2024 of the start of the four-year phase.

And we’re still waiting on confirmation of that, but that’s at this point what we believe will occur. So 2024, we believe at this point would be the first time that you would see the reassessment take effect and that they would have a full communication campaign and opportunities for people to look at their reassessments prior to that time. So certainly we’re trying to get more information and would be looking to have a report as part of the tax policy to give a further update likely at the end of March or April. Councillor Humb.

Thank you, I just wanna briefly follow up on that night. I appreciate it will be updated as we go. And if we don’t know the answer to this question, that’s fine, I can see if we figure it out later. Are they still planning, do you know, Ms.

Barbone, to have the four-year phase in? Because we’re now be looking at, if it’s 2024, we’re looking at eight years of change being implemented over a four-year cycle, which would be quite a lot. So I wonder if you know, are they thinking four years or are they maybe gonna extend it to a five-year phase in or a six-year phase in? Ms.

Barbone. Thank you, through the chair. I don’t know with certainty what they’re planning to do. I believe that as part of the strategy, they’re still looking at to understand what the impacts could be.

I mean, generally what you see is that there tend to be potential shifts between classes as the impact that it, you know, in terms of severity, but all things being equal, the impact on the taxes per se, is really across classes. So we can certainly continue to have conversations with the ministry to see if there’s anything that we could learn from that and certainly report back, but I’m not aware of a final decision on that if it was going to change. Councillor Hummer? Thank you, that’s great.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yes, a further day, Councillor Helmer’s comments and what the treasurer just said. I do think that this is something that’s important to keep our mind on. The province obviously needs to have a plan when they unpause the freezing impact valuations.

And I think the big question mark that concerns me is not having a sense on if there have been any significant shifts between the different tax classes that we have in the city of London. Obviously, if they all appreciated at the same rate, that’s not going to make much of a difference. But if there’s been dramatic shifts between say residential and commercial, that’s going to shift the tax burden in a way that they could be concerning, particularly given the limitations we have on adjusting the tax ratios within some of the classes to mitigate that if it’s even desirable in the first place. So I think I’m glad to hear the treasurer say, we’ll keep in contact with the ministry on it, but anything we can do to ensure that the province is going to be very clear about what their plan is, well in advance so that we know where it is.

And any time we can start to figure out what the shifts have been between tax classes would be beneficial as well, which we may have to just wait until they actually do the assessments to find out. But I think there’s a lot of speculation around that from different types of tax class owners that I’ve heard as well. So just some comments and thoughts, but it may be something that becomes important in our government lobbying as well to keep on top of this to figure out what the plan will be. Thank you, appreciate comments from all and any other comments from colleagues.

I see none, so with the exception of item 2.2, we will call the question. Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. 2.2 was a divided vote at committee.

So I had intended to pull it anyway so that those who did not support it could continue to do so. But following the committee meetings, there’s also been some discussions with civic administration just around direction, providing a little bit more clarity and direction on what the RFP would entail. And so Councillor Cassidy and I circulated an amendment this afternoon to part B of the committee recommendation, which in consultation with our administration would help them define the scope of the RFP. So at this point, I think I’ll look to Councillor Cassidy to see if she’d like to put that on the floor.

And as I indicated in my email, your worship, I’m happy to second that. Well, let’s see if you would, Councillor Cassidy. Yes, your worship, I’ll move that. And reserve comments for later on, if necessary, thanks.

All right, thank you very much, Councillor Lewis, your seconding. So noted, comments or questions? Councillor Morgan, Deputy Mayor. Yeah, so I’ll make some comments on this.

I like the amendment. I think that the amendment tightens things up. It also recognizes that there may be multiple solutions to any challenges we find through the investigation. So I’ll support the amendment.

And I think that the recommendation coming out of committee was likely to be a much more expensive process. It was going to develop an entire plan. And I think that this is a much more logical two-step process where we identify what the challenge is, what the scope of it is in London, have someone come up with some possible solutions and then return that to council for some decision-making. So I’m very comfortable with this because it allows us to have a couple of exit points on the ramp and get a lot more information before we decide what the best path forward is.

So Mike, kudos to the Councillors for adjusting this one. I think this makes a ton of sense. Councillor Hummer. Thank you, Mayor Holder.

I will also be supporting this. I didn’t support it through committee because I was really worried about two things. The first thing was that I couldn’t see how it fit with affordable housing. And I couldn’t understand the linkage between a vacancy home tax and affordable housing.

And I just couldn’t wrap my mind around that. The second thing I had a problem with was the fact that there was no, there was no, the range was between 64 to 738 vacancies. And that’s such a large range that I couldn’t, it didn’t make sense in my head. So with the numbers, like you can’t have a stretch from 64 homes or vacant homes to seven or like a range of 64 to 738 without kind of questioning things.

So I’m hoping that staff will come back with a more or, or this will go out to consultants to come back with a more robust kind of research on how many vacant homes we have in London. Thank you. Any other comments? Councillor Lehman.

Thank you. This is an interesting one. I, when I originally saw this, I thought, yeah, it was a great idea. But then as I read through the, you know, the staff report, I had some serious concerns.

As Councillor Humu said, for sure, quite a discrepancy between 54 homes that we currently show in projected homes. I was very concerned about the financial viability because even if it was at the high end of the homeless projected, we’d still be only at a break even point. I was also concerned about what is a vacant home, definitions of vacancies. There’s many folks that went her away for more than six months.

Would they be required to declare their home vacant? Or red tape, even if we go at the high number, 99.5% of homes in London are not vacant. So would they have to file a report every year saying that they’re not vacant? We’re not Vancouver Toronto.

I don’t know if we had the same speculative commercial activity that those centers have or that are driving our homes up, our price of our homes up. However, I do have some vacancies in my ward. And, you know, I appreciate the amendment here getting closer to identifying what’s our true vacancy rate in London and what’s the best way to address it once we know the costs and what we’re gonna get in return for those costs. So I will support the amendment, but for sure look forward to a very detailed analysis by what comes back in terms of true numbers and true expected results for any investment we might make.

Thank you, Councillor Turner. Thanks Your Worship. I’m a little intrigued by this one and also concerned at the same time. So perhaps through your staff, how exactly would this RFP work?

It looks like this is not even just a preparation of the RFP, but the issuance of the RFP prior to it coming back to council and that it would be a no identified funding source at this point, but that would be associated with it. I’m not sure if this is a straightforward task as it seems to enumerate the number of vacant homes within the city, the staff report goes into good detail about the difficulties in doing so without a regulatory framework in order to be able to achieve that. So perhaps through your worship to staff, if we could just get a little bit more explanation on how this might be accomplished or if it could or what the challenges with that might be. Well, let’s take that to staff.

Mr. Berger, is that for you? Ms. Berbon, I think I have to answer that.

Thank you. In truth of the chair, this absolutely in other municipalities was one of the very first steps that was undertaken to start to do some work. It’s been done to varying degrees. There are a number of different ways that this could be in further investigated.

There is a detailed analysis of stats can data that is possible. There has been among other municipalities where they have done detailed analysis of electricity and water billings to determine what might pose a reasonable threshold for possible vacancies. Those are just the two that I know off the top of my head. So certainly the intent would be to validate how big a problem there is in the city of London and to get a much better estimate of what that vacancy rate is.

That would certainly give council the sense of what and how big the issue may or may not be in the city of London. Certainly we know from tracking how many vacant homes create a problem where we monitor and where we now have imposed the monetary penalties. That is a very small percentage. We know that there are others.

The question is how big? The number that we came up with at the point 5% is typically what other municipalities have approximately that have gone forward with more work have looked at. That seems, and again, that’s a range. We have not seen anybody actually implement.

So we don’t know how reasonable those estimates are. So this is absolutely a very good first step to give council an understanding of how big is the problem. And then based on how big the problem is, what potential targeted steps you could do to actually, ‘cause it could be by-law enforcement and may not be the tax that you may wish to move if it’s clearly the large majority is ones that are boarded up, et cetera. So this will give us a very good sense.

And we know that many have done this across the province to look at this. And there are some good ways to begin that we would look to have a consultant do this work and then we would bring that forward and report out to council. Councillor Turner. Thank you.

So those are interesting and sound like fairly good methods. The point 5% seem to have been cleaned by Ottawa and Vancouver, which was, and those are fairly markedly different markets than ours. I’d imagine it’s kind of apples to oranges. When we, I think my concern in all of this is that we haven’t really identified this to be a problem in London.

When this first came forward, I was very supportive. I thought, okay, this makes sense. But the reality is where our challenges are in London is in commercial properties, residential properties. We haven’t really seen that as a big issue.

We know it’s a massive issue on commercial, but we don’t have any tools to address it on the commercial side. We certainly do on the residential side. The next question is, once we identify that, is what tools do we use to shift those into habitable and unoccupiable properties? And through the report, it says those are pretty limited to the amount of shift that we might anticipate is not large.

And even if we did increase the or place attacks on it, would that be incentive enough to move people to either selling their property or lessening it out to somebody for living in? I don’t know. And so, you know, the kind of the precondition, when we asked staff to come back with a report on this, yeah, let’s do it. This absolutely makes a lot of sense.

So let’s see what’s involved. And the post-condition, we’ve got this report and the case for that kind of evaporated underneath their feet. And it’s not as strong. I’m very much a proponent of, let’s quantify the problem.

So I have to be careful in saying I’m dismissing the idea of going to a consultant outright, but I’m very worried about what that cost might be and if it was ever recoverable. But going to an RFP to find this information out might be helpful for other things beyond housing availability. And that’s worth considering as well. But more so, I think probably where most of our housing that might be available for Londoners is sequestered is probably in the short-term accommodation market.

And we don’t discuss that at all here in Airbnb’s and temporary rentals, those help to support tourism to a degree, but certainly don’t help the people in London who are looking for housing. And those in other municipalities have been massive pressures on the housing market and housing availability. And we haven’t spent a lot of time talking about that. So I’ll listen to a few of the arguments.

I’m not really inclined to support going to this if we’re going to be spending money on something that probably isn’t recoverable. But again, it might be good data for us to have. I certainly appreciate the work staff did to evaluate the options for us and the discussion that happened at the committee. Thank you, Councilor on Holst.

Thank you, Your Worship. So I had some concerns about this as well. I’ll support the amendment because it seems like it’s an improvement to what came through committee. However, I might vote against be in the main motion.

The table on page 27 of our report, 4.4, it’s pretty clear that it’s not that viable program. There was $2 million estimate for revenue, $2.1 million for administration. So we’re losing money. And then $5.5 million just to start it up.

And I looked at the $5.5. And I thought, wow, how many tiny homes could that purchase? Because I just this morning on a walk passed by someone who had built a shelter out of four pallets and a tarp and was emerging from that. So I see that there’s ways that we could use this money that might be better than pursuing this.

I would like to ask through you to staff, if it’s not going to be a vacant housing tax, what are the other things we would be looking at? Ms. Barbara. Thank you, through the chair.

So as I had said indicated previously, based on the extent of the problem, there may be different solutions. So if the study were to show that the majority of the homes in London that are vacant are ones that are known and have property issues with them, the solution may be more by law enforcement as an example. Certainly, if there’s a large number of vacant homes and more than way might contemplate, then there may be a greater opportunity and ability to recover the cost of a program and supplement additional money for housing through a vacant residential tax. There may be other options depending on what the extent of the problem is.

So this is definitely a smaller scope for an RFP. I expect that it would likely around $100,000, probably a little less, if I had to hazard a guess and that we can do it with an existing funds, but that the intent of that would give us options to pursue as potential solutions based on the extent of the problem. Councillor Unhost. OK, thank you, $100,000.

And that’s a bit of a hard sell for me, especially if it doesn’t seem like there’s many other options out there. It’s going to turn out to be this vacant home tax. Then I’m not sure I’m interested in that. Also, when I look at it, there’s already a big penalty for having a vacant home.

And that’s the 99% of the tax that people would be paying. So we’re looking at adding a 1% extra on there as sort of a fine by penalizing people. I don’t know if that’s significant enough to make a difference here, here in London. And I don’t know about always using penalties to accomplish things.

I noticed that the Democracy Index came out very recently. And Canada slipped from number five down seven places to number 12 because of just more government interventions or overreach largely to do with COVID. But here we are making more interventions that, for the most part, we collect a bunch of money and we use it to pay our administration. And I don’t think that works out well for the residents here.

I’d rather just take the $5 million we might think would be required to start up this program and put that into affordable housing or even $100,000. Councilor Unholst, I’m going to interrupt. But I want to clarify, you made a comment. I think I just heard that 100,000 would go into administration if you meant expenses for a survey, so be it.

But I don’t think you meant that the money is associated with a survey would go back towards administration per se. You might wish. No, it was in the table. Table one, it said 2 million goes to revenue and is the revenue.

And then the other ongoing costs are in brackets, they’re administration. So that’s what most of that funds goes to run the program. And although it mostly pays for itself, we’re still expanding our bureaucracy. And I think I’d prefer to have our staff work on other projects, because we do have a lot of priorities.

So I’ll support the amendment, but likely vote against the main motion, or at least the part B, if you would kindly split that out for me, thank you. Noted, thank you very much, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I want to thank staff for the report.

I found it to be a very good read. And I was back and forth on this one as well. I wasn’t sure where to go and really appreciate the information. I know comparing the city of London to other municipalities like Vancouver and Toronto may not necessarily be the right way.

It obviously Vancouver is the only one that really does have the data on it. But I do think that this is sort of starting the conversation in the city and coming up with our own plan, and for us to come up with our own plan, and looking at opportunities to create more housing, residential housing, it is something that we should be doing. At AMO, the Board of Directors had a very long conversation on affordable housing and opportunities for our municipalities to have available to them. And this was one that was mentioned to be able to tax properties that are not occupied.

But I think that leads to the bigger conversation, as was mentioned by my colleague about where is the vacant commercial, what are the challenges around Airbnb’s in our city that really is not part of this. But we do need that’s some kind of a solution, another tool, I guess, for housing. And I’ll be supporting this as much as I have concerns around it. I don’t see any other speakers.

I do. Councilor Lewis. - Thank you, Your Worship. I just wanted to take an opportunity to speak to the amendment now and to, through you, just share a couple of comments on concerns that I’ve heard raised.

And I actually said this at committee on the main motion as well. Well, it’s all well and good to talk about the importance of how many tiny homes or how many more affordable units could we build with $100,000 or $5 million. I think it’s really important that we all keep in mind that this council and people should take some pride in this. And I know, and I’ve said this before, it feels like we’re treading water, but we’ve put $90 million of new investment into combating homelessness and developing more affordable housing in the city.

It’s been a tremendous investment and it’s been the issue that has united us all. And I think for good reason, because we all recognize that it’s a problem and we all care about finding a solution. But when we’ve put in that level of money and still feel like we’re treading water, I think it is incumbent upon us to look at what other tools may be necessary. It’s not just going to solve itself by continuing to put money into new builds.

There has to be a look at how the existing inventory is operating out there on the market. And through you, Chair, I’ll share with all colleagues and to Councilor Turner’s point. And I don’t mean to speak for staff on this. I’m not sure if Mr.

Catolic is here or not, but I believe we will be getting the report back on licensing of short-term rental accommodations, either in March or April’s committee cycle. That’s something that Councilor Hopkins and I both raised back in 2019. And while it has been a little while in coming, I believe we’re going to see that in the weeks ahead too, which to Councilor Turner’s point will be another tool that we can look at and consider in terms of how that may free up some units that are being used as short-term stock right now, rather than long-term stock. There’s a number of challenges facing us on the housing file.

Of course, we’ve got work to do in our own London community housing as well in terms of getting vacancies down and units restored so people can occupy them. There’s a whole gamut of challenges here. I think that getting an assessment of the scope of the vacancy problem in the private residential market in our city right now is a good first step as our city treasurer indicated. And I really hope that colleagues will support getting the data on this because to Councilor Layman’s point and to others who have said it, we are to Toronto or Vancouver or even Ottawa.

We are a different market. We’re not a capital city and we are not a city near a large body of water or we don’t have a major port into the community. So there are some differences between us and some of the communities that have implemented this already, but I think getting a better handle on the scope of the problem is an important step. And I think Councilor Turner is right as well that it may be data that we can put to use and put our thinking caps on to apply in other directions too.

So I do hope colleagues will support this at the end of the day and I just wanna extend my thanks both to Ms. Barbone for her help in this as well as to Councilor Cassidy. I really appreciate we’ve had a few conversations since the original Corporate Services Committee agenda came out about how to deal with this and I appreciate being able to work with her on that. So I’ll conclude my comments without your worship.

Thank you. I’d like to ask the Deputy Mayor to take the chair please. Yes, and I’ll go to the Mayor. Thanks very much.

Colleagues, this came up at committee and was discussed extensively. You heard references tonight to homelessness and affordable housing as we heard at committee. And that is an issue and our issues that we as a Council have embraced to take seriously. We all get that and we understand what that means.

What I’m trying to understand though, as I see this massaged motion, how it gets us to where we need to be to deal with issues around homelessness and affordable housing. Listen, that is always good. It’s always helpful to have that information but it comes at a cost. And when I look at what we’re intending to do here in the perspective and potential outcomes of this, I think if we’re trying to use this data for the purpose of understanding affordable housing and how that can assist us, this doesn’t do that.

From my standpoint, you need incentives to create affordable housing, not punitive measures. And ultimately where this would go and it’s the unspoken words in this motion in terms of its, I will say logical conclusion is that as certainly part of the discussion in committee was the issue of surtaxing vacant homes. I think here we’re identifying a solution that’s looking for a problem. And from my standpoint, I think when Councilor Turner made the reference to issues around vacancy and we talked more in his comments around the issues of commercial vacancies, I think we all get that and we understand that there’s a need to understand and deal with that issue because it’s rampant in our city and I don’t think that is helpful.

So from my standpoint, there are a lot of things with this motion that don’t really round out terms of reference, how long does a home have to be vacant before it’s considered vacant? I think we’re right that vacant that we are not a Toronto nor a Vancouver because there was a lot of speculation on housing as a result of their geography and the draw of immigration to this country and the draw as a regional center. What we’ve seen in London of late is the fastest growing city in all of Ontario and we grew some 10% in the last five years. And so to me, I don’t see this study as a way to get us where we want to be.

If the issue is to discuss homelessness, absolutely, to discuss housing affordability, absolutely. I think we are all moved by that, those issues. But to imagine that this tool, quote unquote, will be the one that gives us the information that we need to act, I don’t see that. Again, someone that owns a home that happens to be vacant for any reason for any period of time, can you imagine that that is going to turn into affordable housing?

I don’t see it. So with the deepest of respect, I will not support the amendment, the balance of the items on two point. Two are absolutely reasonable to support. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thanks, Councillor Cassidy is on the list and I’ll return the chair to the mayor. Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

So I will jump in now just to say that a number of the concerns that have been raised about what would be considered a vacant home and what will, you know, this discrepancy in the number of homes that have been identified, whether it’s 54 or 700 and something, those are all reasons to proceed with the RFP. Those are the very reasons to go ahead and seek the information and the data that we’re looking for to then decide whether or not to move forward with a vacant home tax or some other option, some other way of addressing a problem, if a problem is identified. There has been discussion about whether or not this will provide incentive for people to then open the property up for affordable housing or housing at all if it’s just sitting vacant. I think that the point is that it could be, and as it is in other jurisdictions, it could be an incentive for some, it could be a source of revenue for other properties, source of revenue for the city for other properties.

And we could use that revenue towards affordable housing programs or homelessness prevention programs or other such housing related programs. So there are a variety of possibilities if city council chooses at some point in the future to go ahead with a vacant home tax. The other thing is what problem is this seeking to solve? There are a number of problems.

It is not just about affordable housing. It is also about possibly some of the issues that come forward with these problem homes that sit vacant, but again, this is what the data is supposed to help us in moving forward and coming to a decision. And the decision may be, okay, the problem is not great enough or the problem will not be solved in this manner through a vacant home tax, but perhaps some other manner, perhaps beefed up by-line enforcement or something like that. And again, to councilor Turner’s points about commercial vacancies, I 100% agree with him on that.

And while this is not directly related to that and while we do not right now, we have been told we do not have tools to adequately address that, I see the possibility of data as a good thing and possibly leading us towards a solution on the commercial vacancies as well. But we really do have to start somewhere and getting additional data for me is the place to start. So I’m pleased that we tightened up the request or the direction to civic administration through this amendment. And I really hope that city council will support this amendment.

Thank you. Thank you very much, any other speakers on the issue? Mr. Hummer.

  • Thank you. I hope colleagues will support this step in the process. Just speaking anecdotally over the years and in word four, there have been several properties that have been vacant for very long periods of time. Some of them are in great shape and are well maintained by the owners and they just sit there totally unused for anything.

And it’s perplexing on why that’s happening. You know, this is a perfectly good residential building. Nobody’s in it, it’s being maintained properly. People are spending money to look after it but it’s not being used for anyone to live in it.

And I’m not talking about it for a short period of time. I’m talking for years, years where it’s been left vacant. In many other cases, unfortunately, what happens with these vacant properties is they’re not very well maintained and they started to become huge problems on the street. And you can imagine on the street, say you’ve got 45 or 50 homes in a densely packed residential street, you know, one or two of them are vacant and that starts to become a big problem on the street.

And again, they tend not to be short term vacancies, they tend to be longer term vacancies. And obviously that is an issue around property standards but the reason it becomes a property standards issue is because the owner leaves it empty at the beginning. And I think the idea of attacks on vacant homes is worth looking at because for those problems, you know, we can avoid all the property standards issues and the problems that come with that in neighborhoods, we can create more housing in the sense that it’s available and on the market instead of empty by putting in that disincentive at the beginning and making it more expensive for owners to leave them empty. And so I do think there’s value in looking at it.

Unfortunately, you know, this is not a small problem. I know personally of like, I don’t know, half a dozen houses in word four where this has been an issue for many years, multiple different locations, different property owners. It’s not, it’s not very small issue. I think it’s actually fairly big.

And for the people who live in the area, you can imagine it can become a huge, a huge problem. So I think we need to look at it. I think this is a good step. It is a tough one to get a hold of, you know, and I think the anonymous utility data is probably the best way.

That’s, you know, something’s really vacant is when there’s no power really being used or no water. You can get a good sense of it. And I think having somebody look at it to give us a sense of the scope. So it’s not to stand a total, but we can get some real data behind it is a good step forward.

Thank you very much. I see no other speakers. So with that, we are voting on the amendment, which has been duly moved and seconded with that, I’ll call the question. Vote, motion carries 13 to two.

We have all the voting 2.2, Councillor Lewis, do you want to go through that? I will now put the main motion as amended on the floor. And that will be to receive the report. Section B is the piece that we just amended.

And then of course, for civic administration, you continue to monitor the outcomes and other municipalities as well. So I’ll move the entire motion as amended now. And I believe there’s a request for me to be called separately by some individuals. So the folks can do that.

Let’s just, let’s just find out, Councillor Vanholz. Did you have- This piece of you kindly pull B and I would say a couple of things to the main motion. Okay, thank you very much. So we are dealing now with the admitted motion, but with all but B.

So with that, any comments on all but B? Yeah, we need a mover and a seconder. I’m sorry for that. I have Councillor Fife Miller, seconded by Councillor Cassidy.

Thank you very much. So we’re voting on the amended motion, but it is all but B, which is the amendment. So with that, we will call the question. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

And I will now put part B as amended on the floor. Thanks very much. There’s been full some discussion. Any other comments on this?

We’ll look for that’s been put on the floor by Councillor Lewis to look for a seconder. Councillor Hill here, discussion, Councillor Van Halst. Oh, thank you. So again, I think I’ll vote against this.

It is $100,000 and we’re basically asking somebody to count the empty houses. I’m thinking that later this year, we’re gonna have a bunch of candidates knocking on the door. Maybe we should just ask them to tell us if they encounter an empty house. So the, I don’t see this as a great project for us to be taking on.

So I think I’m gonna again vote against this one and stick to what was our staff recommendation. I think I’d prefer to let the other cities that are looking into this come up with the other ideas that we may be able to do. And I don’t know this data is gonna be that helpful because we know most of the properties that are causing the big problems already. So thank you.

Thank you. I see no other speakers on the list. With that, let’s call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 11 to four.

Councillor Lewis, that concludes the third report of your corporate services committee, Your Worship. Thank you very much. Now with the third report of civic work, so Councillor Palazzo, please. Thank you, Your Worship.

All votes for unanimous committee and I have not been given notice deploying things separate. Thank you, does anyone wish anyone, wish anything dealt with separately? I see none. Councillor Palazzo, any sum up?

Great committee meeting. As always talk about drinking water system and how everything was in no irregularities there, wastewater treatment, Oregon Rankin for waste and that the Victoria Bridge replacement being item 2.6 has been brought forward to avoid conflicts and construction with the Wellington BRT corridor. Thank you, any other comments or questions? I see none.

We’ll call the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Palazzo. And that concludes the third report of the Civic Works Committee.

Thank you very much. Now for the third report of planning environment, I’ll call on Councillor Hopkins, please. Oh, excuse me, we have, according to this here, don’t we do have the third report of planning environment, Councillor Hopkins, please. Your Worship, I have SPPC in front of planning, but if you’d like me to go forward with the two planning reports before the third report of SPPC, I can do that.

I appreciate that. I’ve just conferred with the clerk. We’re still going to proceed with planning environment if you’re ready, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, yes.

And I’m happy to put forward the third meeting report of the planning and environment committee. I just want to bring to everyone’s attention. I’ve heard from no one to pull anything. And I just want to make a few comments around our meeting.

We had a presentation on housekeeping amendments to last secondary plans. Okay, before we do that, then why don’t we just determine if anyone wishes any item dealt with separately on the third report of planning environment? If we could, please. Back over to you, Councillor Hopkins, thank you.

Yeah, thank you. And we held a number of public participation meetings for them, one in particular was the amendment, rezoning amendment to allow a kennel at West Mount Mall. We also referred the secondary plan as an item of direction for a metal Lilly Road area. There was no decision on a referred, a referral back to review and for consideration in the development of a special area policy for a metal Lilly Road South, it was a tight vote.

So therefore, no decision was made. And with that, that is my report. Thanks very much. Any comments or questions from colleagues?

I see not, we will call the vote. Did I have a question? Councillor Turner, you snuck in there, thank you. Very sneaky, thank you, Richard.

Just really quickly, I wanted to thank the committee for hearing the concerns of the neighborhood on a 345, sorry, 345 Sullivan Street. And this will be much needed affordable housing for the community and for the neighborhood. There were the concerns that we heard were largely a site plan in nature and those recommendations have been incorporated by the committee and passed on to four site plans. So looking forward to seeing this move forward, I think those amendments will be very helpful in addressing those concerns.

And I think it’s a good project to see for us in our, as we talked earlier about affordable housing. This is one of those movements that this council has been able to accomplish. Thank you, any other comments? Seeing none, I’ll call the question on the third reporter plan environment.

Van Holst, who’s in the vote motion carries 15 to zero. Just colleagues with the order because of SPPC, but I’m actually going to now go to the fourth report of the planning environment and turn it back over to you, Councilor Hopkins, if I could please. Yes, thank you, Your Worship. I’d like to put on the floor the fourth report of the planning and environment committee.

I’ve heard from no one to pull any items. So I would like to put all items on the floor. Thank you very much. Does anyone wish any item dealt with separately?

Any other comments, Councilor Hopkins? Yeah, it’s as always is a interesting and busy committee to chair. We received information on the 2021 annual development report, had a discussion around that. There were a number three public participation meetings.

For me, good news with one of our public participation meetings with the Victoria, the old hospital lands with the affordable housing coming into play. It wasn’t a zoning amendment conversation. We’ve already done that, but it was more a site plan conversation. So some good news there.

Items for direction, inclusionary zoning, good discussion presentation from staff on that and supported the recommendation to receive the inclusionary zoning review and to request the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to consider London’s assessment report in evaluating the potential for and feasibility for inclusionary zoning on a city-wide basis. So with that, that is my report. Thank you, do colleagues have any other comments or questions? Councillor Turner, as opposed to not being sneaky, I found you straight away.

Well, I’m right there. Thank you, Your Worship. So I just wanted to make a couple of comments. One with respect to inclusionary zoning and second with the building report.

And third with respect to the old Victoria hospital lands. First, the inclusionary zoning, I think this is an important letter to be sent into the province. So we’ll see if they listen. They have indicated and spent a lot of time talking about how they want to advance the construction of housing.

The reality is in London, our biggest need is in the affordable housing sector. And this is one way to help accomplish that. But so far, what I’ve seen from the province seems to be, and not so much focused on the affordable sector, but rather housing writ large in order to address concerns and issues that are predominantly in the GTAA. The loss of the ability to do inclusionary zoning on a city-wide basis and left to the primary major transit to corridors is very restricted for us.

And I draw your attention to the London Plan, which actually has a goal of 25% of all new housing to be affordable. The building report identifies that we built 4,000 units last year or issued 4,000 building permits or permits for 4,000 units. If we had applied that 25% standard, that would have been 1,000 affordable units within the city, but that’s not what we accomplished. And bonusing, we have used as a moderate tool to be able to accomplish some extra affordable housing units within existing developments.

And I think it’s really important. This is one of the big advantages of inclusionary zoning is that it integrates affordable housing within property development. It doesn’t segregate affordable housing. It incorporates it, and if we’re going to be a city that’s inclusive and diverse, then we need to be able to make sure that the way we build our housing is inclusive and diverse and inclusionary zoning helps us to accomplish that.

So bonusing has led us about 53 units a year. It’s a set that’s in very stark contrast to the 1,000 units a year. Now that set 53 units isn’t all the affordable housing we’ve built, we’ve actually built a lot more than that. But we’ve got a long road to go.

Our goal of 25% is a hard one to achieve, which segues really nicely into the South Street Hospital lands. The proposal that we had a chance to see that looks phenomenal. It’s a great example of collaboration, a wonderful consortium that mixes market rate and significant amounts of affordable housing. When we heard the applications and did the approvals for the South side of South Street, there wasn’t any affordable housing incorporated into that.

And I was concerned about the North side of the street because it was very key to the area plan and the discussions to make sure that we didn’t get into a gentrification situation. That still may occur, but I think the risk is much lower with the way that it’s being proposed to be developed. That’s very complimentary to the neighborhood. And it was very much driven by the community.

The secondary plan for South Street Hospital lands was a very strong community collaboration. And it’s a great example of mid-scale development to hear a lot about the missing middle. This is the personification, not even the personification, but the clear example of what that is and what it can be. And I’m really looking forward to seeing shovels get on the ground, especially with the preservation of two significant heritage assets in the Medical Science Services Building and the War Memorial Children’s Hospital.

So well done. And I’m very excited. Thank you. I’ll call on the deputy mayor, please.

Yes, and I’ll go to the mayor. Thanks very much. Colleagues, the reference to inclusionary zoning was brought up by Councilor Turner, certainly a big item that was dealt with. I’d like to thank staff for the tremendous work that they have done with respect to this issue.

For the benefit of the public, what happens is we’ve lost bonusing, which is our ability to grant certain considerations to the development community and builders to allow for units based on affordable housing. And that particular process has been eliminated. And so that gives us the only option as it relates to inclusionary zoning. And you heard Councilor Turner make reference to the need for the province to work with London.

And it is my intention to speak directly to the minister of municipal affairs and housing and to the perimeter on this issue. It’s that important for our city. I think this was a made-in-GTA kind of policy where the PTMSAs are prevalent. And so the notion of really strong infill and higher density in those areas is significant.

That is not the case in London. And so as a result, the need, I believe, and you’ve heard Councilor Turner affirm for us to have that flexibility in inclusionary zoning is absolutely critical. It will be one of the priorities I take forward that I’m hopeful because in politics, you have to be a little bit optimistic. And that’s part of the world we live in, but I intend to take that to the provincial government to determine on behalf of Council to ensure that London has certainly heard.

And we’ll see where that goes. I’ll be happy to report back to Council any success. If it’s not successful, I may not report it back, but if we are successful, I’ll be extremely happy to share that with you all. So I wanted to make that as a reference point and thank the Councilor Turner for speaking to it and for the great support that the committee provided and staff for doing the great work.

Thank you. Thanks, and I’ll return the chair to the mayor. I see no one else on the agenda. So with that, for the fourth report of Planning Environment Committee, let’s call the question.

Councilor Helmer, closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you. And since I’ve confused you all, I’m now going to be third report of the strategic priorities and policy committee and calling the deputy mayor, please.

Yes, thank you, Your Worship. For the third report of SBPC, there are a number of colleagues who have declared conflicts. So we will deal with three, item three, item eight, and item 11 separately. Item 12 had a divided vote.

So I think it’s probably appropriate to deal with that separately too. I believe everything else was by consensus. So I would be happy to move the balance. So that’s everything except item three, eight, 11, and 12.

Does anyone wish any item to be dealt with separately for voting purposes? I see none. So what we will be doing is voting on all items in need. This SBPC report, except items three, five, eight, 11, and 12, if I have that right, Deputy Mayor.

You do, Your Worship. And there are significant items in this batch. We have the draft climate emergency action plan, which was debated extensively as well as a London for everyone, the plan to disrupt Islamophobia too. Thank you very much, Councillor Hopkins.

Did you wish to have anyone anything dealt with separately? Just to make a comment before we proceed to vote. Absolutely. Go ahead, you’re on the list.

On 4.2, which is the draft climate emergency plan. Okay, we’ll vote on this. These other items with the exception of those pulled, and then we will hear your comments on 4.2 right now. Right now, thank you, Your Worship, ‘cause we will be voting on it.

And I would like to just make my comments. I wanna thank the committee for the, it was a great conversation that we had. It was a long conversation, an important conversation. I really do wanna reach out and mention how well done this report was and thank staff.

It was thorough, it was lengthy, the presentation. There’s a lot more to be done. The consultation with the community, we are going to be doing a public participation meeting on April the 4th. To me, that is just the beginning of the conversation that we’re going to have and the collaboration.

I think everyone around the horseshoe understands we need a roadmap and this is the beginning of that. And just wanna, again, thank staff and the committee and looking forward to the community engagement as we start the process. Thank you. Thank you.

I have no other speakers on all of the items with the exception of those that have been pulled. And seeing none, we will call the question. Opposed on the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Deputy Mayor.

Yes, and I just wanna check with the clerks ‘cause I read the vote there and I just wanna make sure that we did the right ones. I don’t think I pulled a London for everyone planned, but I think it got pulled from that list. Is that correct? I did ask the clerk and I apologize.

I shouldn’t have made that public because I did wanna speak to it, not have invented the meeting. I apologize, Deputy Mayor. No problem. You can’t slide one past me if it’s a vote.

I will go then in order due to the conflicts. So I believe Councillor Layman had a conflict on item three, which is 4.1, so I’m happy to put that on the floor. This is the strategy to reduce core area vacancy. Any comments or questions?

I see none, we’ll call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse, Deputy Mayor. Next is the item you wanna hold your worship item five, which is 4.3, a London for everyone, an action plan to disrupt Islamophobia. I’m happy to put that on the floor.

Thank you very much. I’d like to speak to it if I could, please, and then turn it back to you, Deputy Mayor. Sure, go ahead. Well, colleagues, I was not in attendance at the last SPPC meeting health issue precluded me, but were I at that meeting?

There are a few things I would have said and I’ll be brief, but I think it is important to be said. And I am confident that I am speaking, actually on behalf of all members of council, as we acknowledge and recognize Romina Morris, our city director of any racism and any oppression for the obvious amount of care and compassion that went into this report. It was an enormous responsibility. You’ve all come through on behalf of all Londoners.

Similarly, I’d like to thank members of the London Muslim community, along with representatives from community-based and public sector organizations for lending their voices and their support to what’s being presented before us tonight. Look, what happened the evening of June 6th, 2021 was London’s darkest hour. From that moment onward, there could be no question racism exists in our city. There could be no question that hatred had managed to take root and there was no way to deny.

We were somehow immune to the potential for deadly violence. So from that moment on, the only question that mattered was, how do we heal and how do we work with our Muslim community to ensure that this type of thing could never happen again? Well, those were the questions that informed our community’s response in the immediate aftermath when we all grieved together and when we comforted each other. And those same questions now informed the policy-driven community-led response before us tonight.

We must be clear. This represents the start of our work, not the end. Our commitment and our resolve must be as strong today and as strong years from now as it was in the hours and days after the attack. Perhaps above all else, the love and dignified grace, which I believe to be at the core of these recommendations are an absolutely fitting tribute to the FSL family who personified these traits and whose memories we honor in cherish.

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll return the chair to the mayor. I have no one else on the speakers list.

Thank you very much. Any other comments or questions? And with that colleagues, let’s call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

That’s the next is item eight, 4.6, which is an appointment to the London Downtown Business Association, Councillor Layman declared a conflict on this item. I’m happy to put this on the floor. Thank you, any comments or questions? I see none, let’s call the question.

Was in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one on Q. Yes, next is the seventh report of the governance working group. And there are a couple of items on there that had divided votes, no, just one. So the within item 4.9, there were items A through V-I, A and B, and A had sub-components.

Councillor Vameerberg and wanted V-I, which is the component on childcare where that committee was being dissolved voted on separately. So I think that’s probably the easiest one to deal with first, if the clerks are prepared to deal with it that way. The other component was A1 and two had divided votes on it. So I could call A1 and two separately.

And then the rest we can all just do as a batch, it was all unanimous. So we would have that, they can queue up whatever order they’re prepared for. I’m not one to get ahead of what they planned. So to be clear, Deputy Mayor, you’re talking about under 4.9, A numbers three, four and five and a B.

Yeah, that would be the things that everybody had consensus on. So I’m happy to put that on the floor first. Any comments or questions on those specific items, excluding 4.9, A1 and two and six. It’s always fun when we put the clerks through some hoops like this.

I’m sure they think it’s fun as well. So when they’re ready, we will proceed with those specific items. For the benefit of the public, we’re just calling. Opposed in a vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Yes, so next, I can put parts A1 and A2 on. This is the approval of the new terms of reference for London Community Advisory Committees. Part two is with the approval of those, the recruitment of members to fill those committees. So I’m happy to put that on the floor.

Thank you very much. Any comments or questions? Seeing none. Call the question.

The vote, motion carries 12 to three. Yes, the final item in this section is A6, which Councillor Van Mirbergen declared a conflict on. This is the dissolution or the dissolving of the childcare advisory committee at their request. Comments or questions?

Let’s call the question. Is in the vote, motion carries 13 to one with one recuse. Thing on that particular SPPC report left, Deputy Mayor. Yes, I believe I also called 12, which is 4.10 separate, which was the motion on the referral to the Governor’s Working Group on the role of a Councillor as part, part-time, full-time unique.

It was a divided vote, so I’m happy to put this on the floor separately as well. Thank you very much. Comments or questions? Seeing none, we will call the question.

The vote, motion carries 11 to four. Do you hear anything else on that? PPC, I believe I’ve got it all now. Okay, thank you.

Well, just in the spirit of carrying on, almost in the order we started, we are at 8.7, the first report of the Audit Committee. Deputy Mayor, would you present the report? Yes, colleagues, I’m happy to report, or present the report of the Audit Committee. I will put all the items on the floor for consideration.

I don’t know if colleagues have any questions. What I will note for colleagues is there was, there was a great introduction to our new auditors MNP. They brought their team along, and the Audit Committee got to have a conversation with them, get to know who we will be working with on behalf of council over the next couple of years. And so it was a good introduction, a good back and forth.

And as you know, the auditors, do you have that direct relationship with the Audit Committee? And so I just would draw your attention to that. And I put the whole report on the floor for colleagues approval. Other comments or questions with respect to the Audit Committee report?

Professor Van Holst? Thank you, your worship just wish to extend our thanks to Deloitte, who then our internal auditors for the last four years, and a lot of great work done. And a lot of excellent cooperation with and from our staff too. So I think it was, as I look back at the reviews that were done, it was many tweaks and suggestions, but very, very solid performance from our staff prior.

So there’s, the city I believe is running very well. And I think our staff for all the work that they’ve done in that regard. Nice to sit on both counts. Councillor Turner.

Thanks, Your Worship. Yeah, so it was a good meeting. We had a good discussion. I’d like to thank our previous auditors who are going auditors and welcome the new ones.

It’s been great to work with them. And this is now a seven years sitting on the Audit Committee and going into eight is what Council may recall is that we made a shift from a kind of value from money audits into kind of our exposures and liabilities and take a look at processes and from our external audit perspective. And that’s born a lot of fridge because it’s taking a look at best practices, made a lot of really good recommendations and helped to align the internal practices of the corporation to be as efficient as possible. The internal audit dashboard and summary provided some really good of the indicators, those financial indicators that you take a look at to see what the health of the organization is.

And they paint a good picture against a number of our peers. The City of London performs quite well on those and especially when we take a look at our debt management and our assets, we’re a pretty stable and solid city. And there’s a bit of a trope that cities take on too much debt that they don’t spend money wisely our audits and in summaries show that that’s not the case. We actually do quite well.

So I highlight that one for council. If you hadn’t had a chance to get right into the minutiae of the audit report, the internal audit summary provides some of those really good, really at a glance indicators and second for the community to just reaffirm that this is a city that knows what it’s doing in terms of its financial management and its course to make sure that there’s best value for money for Congress in this person. Thank you, other comments or questions? I see none, we’ll call the question.

Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you very much, Deputy Mayor, one more item and that is the special SPPC meeting that was held this evening prior to council. Please. Yes, as colleagues recall from just a couple of hours ago, the fourth report of SPPC had one item on it, the streamlining development approval fund transfer payment agreement.

I’m happy to put the approvals that we unanimously agreed on at that committee before council for approval. Thank you, comments or questions? Dean Nunn, we will call the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero.

Deputy Mayor. I think that’s it, thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Colleagues, there are no deferred matters, but I’m aware of an inquiry that’s come through Councilor Hopkins, please.

Yes, thank you, Your Worship. I, given the confusion that may still remain in the community and the number of inquiries Councilors may have, I’d like to ask staff for further clarification on the process that has allowed for the permit to be granted to the reptilia establishing operations at West Mount. Through you, Worship, I would like to go to staff to give us further clarification. Thank you very much.

Would I turn that over to Mr. Cotsmiths? Yes. Yes, thank you, not through your worship.

So let me provide a bit of history and where we are today with this file. I want to say though, that they are not currently operating anywhere, but there have been certain approvals that have been issued and I want to clarify as to how those may have come about. So you may recall back in December of 2018, we undertook, we prepared a report to the corporate, sorry, the Community Protective Services Committee. The report was actually with respect to zoos and mobiles, it wasn’t specific to this proponent, it was a general report.

However, part of that report did address the interest of reptilia to locate in London. As part of that report, there was a planning analysis that was provided regarding a proposed adaptive reuse of an existing commercial building for a place of entertainment. The planning analysis concluded that the proposal was consistent with the provincial policy statement, the London plan and zoning as a place of entertainment and provided for an opportunity to contribute to the vitality and regeneration of the city. Additionally, the report addressed compliance with the animal control bylaw.

So there’s the planning analysis, but it also had to address the animal control bylaw. The bylaw itself provided for an exemption of these types of organizations and operations where they are either licensed by a municipal government or another government authority. Staff at the time had recommended that the municipality license these operations and recommended that staff be directed to draft an amendment to the business license bylaw to regulate these businesses. Council did not support the amendment and received the report.

So with no municipal— Yeah, is that to happen? Yeah, there’s just a couple of items here before me. Well, sorry. Okay, what do you want me to do?

What should I do? It seems we have a group chat here. Just bear with us a moment. Is it okay to proceed?

Yep, please sir. Yeah, please proceed, Mr. Carlos. Okay, so with no municipal license scheme at that time and no other government license, I believe the perception was that the reptilia could not operate in London.

However, since that time, a minor variance was approved to increase the floor area for a place of entertainment at West Mount Mall. I believe it went from a 10% to a 16%. So a 6% increase. And also a building of permit was applied for under the Building Code Act.

And under that legislation, the CBO shall issue a permit unless it contravenes applicable law. So the annual control by-law is not applicable under the building code, but zoning is. So they did have zoning, but it does not, but the annual control by-law does not come into play for the issuance of a building permit. From an operational perspective, we now understand that reptilia tends to operate under a provincial license.

Again, not a municipal license, but a provincial license. The terms of that license would be held by the province. And once they are open and operating, enforcement of those terms and conditions of that license will be the responsibility of the province. Any allegations of nonconformity could be subject to a provincial investigation.

However, any matters outside of their license, they could still be subject to the city’s animal control by-law. But that, again, that would be determined at that time depending on what they are doing and how they are operating and how the provincial investigation is concluded. I believe that is basically how we came to a re-art today. If there’s anything further that I could provide, I would be pleased to do so.

Thank you very much, Mr. Cotsfis. Has Hopkins any other direct specific question? Does that answer the question you’ve asked?

Yes, I understand through an inquiry. I can ask a question and wanna thank staff for the further clarification around a reptilia setting up at Westmount. Thank you. Thank you very much.

I’m not aware of any other inquiries. Councillor Vanholst. Thank you, Your Worship. Yes, I submit in an inquiry.

The, on the- Councillor Vanholst, I apologize. I recognize now that you did and I just missed that, I’m sorry. That’s no trouble, Your Worship. On the weekend, I came downtown and noticed that some streets around City Hall were blocked off by snowplows.

And so my inquiry was just what was the reason for doing so and what’s the cost for that sort of an operation? Thank you, Councillor. I’ll take that to Ms. Livingston, please.

Thank you, Your Worship. And through you, that activity was part of our operational planning for the weekend. And I do not have the cost information at this time. Thank you very much.

So that takes us to item 12, colleagues, which is emergent motions. There is one item under emergent motions. I’ve been made aware of Councillor Cassidy, with respect to a proclamation request regarding International Day of the elimination of racial discrimination. For us to consider the emergent motion, I would be looking for a mover and secondary for leave, which would be required.

Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Hamou. Thank you very much. We’ll call the vote. Those in the vote motion, 30 to 15 to zero.

I’ll now turn to Councillor Cassidy, please. Thank you, Your Worship. And received a proclamation request to declare an annual day of action against anti-Asian racism. We did make the same proclamation last year.

And we have a requirement for a six week deadline to put in an application for a proclamation request. Applicants don’t always meet that deadline, but in this case, these applicants have met the deadline. The problem is that the proclamation date is March 21st, but because of family day and spring break, our next council meeting is not until March 22nd. So we will not have another opportunity to approve this proclamation request.

So that is the motion that I’m putting forward that based on the application from London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership, March 21st, 2022 be proclaimed international day of the elimination of racial discrimination. And you have a seconder for that, please. I just saw first, Councillor Hamou, thank you. Comments or questions, colleagues?

I see none, let’s call the vote. President vote, motion carries 15 to zero. And thank you, Councillor Cassidy. So with that, for the benefit of our viewers, we are going to go through a number of bylaws to review and vote on.

And then we will move into closed session, coming out of closed session, we will report out. And then a couple more bylaws to be dealt with. But for now, we colleagues were dealing with bills number 90 through 121 inclusive. And for that, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder.

Moved by Councillor Palazzo, seconded by Councillor Vanholz. Thank you. We’ll call the vote. Councillor Turner, motion carries 15 to zero.

For mover and seconder, second reading of bills 90 through 121, Councillor Van Mirbergen moved. Seconded by Councillor Hillier. Any discussion? I see none.

We’ll call the vote. President vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you. And third reading an act made of bills 90 through 121.

I’ll look for a mover and seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Hamou, seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Let’s call the question. President vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Thank you. In a moment, motion to go into closed session. But I’ll turn to the clerk and ask the clerk to advise the public for the reasons why we’re going into into closed session. Your worship, the matters to be dealt with in closed session are five matters that are outlined on the public council agenda.

Those are a solicitor client privilege matter regarding 220 Wellington Road South, solicitor client privilege advice related to various personal injury and property damage claims against the city, matter pertaining to an identifiable individual, a matter related to litigation, currently before the spirit court of justice, and a matter related to the security of the municipal property. Thank you. Thank you very much. So with that, I will look for a mover and a second to go into closed session.

Moved by Councillor Fyfe Miller, seconded by Councillor Palosa. Let’s call the question. Close in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Mind the public that we will return from closed session on completion and I’ll ask colleagues for their forbearance for a few moments as we make the conversion.

Thank you. I’ll ask colleagues for screens on please. We have quorum according to the clerk. Thank you very much.

We have a number of items that were discussed in closed session and I will call on Councillor Layman to put the report on the floor. Thank you all report of, fourth report of Council in closed session. Properties acquisition 220 Wellington Road South, Wellington Gateway Project that on the recommendation of the city solicitor’s office specific, administration be directed to a offer to purchase the above property and settle all potential claims pursuant to the expropriation act on the basis of payment to the registered owner, 18 London Inc of the total sum of 1.14 million as full compensation by for market value of the land taken, future business losses, disturbance damages and statutory interest in connection with acquisition of a commercial property located at 220 Wellington Road South and city of London. B offered to sell legal costs incurred by 18 London Inc in an amount of up to $25,000 including disbursements plus HST filling which the matter would be referred to assessment by the local assessment office.

C the mayor and city clerk be authorized to execute an agreement pursuant to section 30 of the expropriations act between the city and the owner to create the legal framework for the purchase transaction and settlement, all the form acceptable to the city solicitor’s office substantially in the form as appendix C. D the mayor and city clerk be authorized to execute a lease agreement between the city and the owner to create the legal framework for the lease by the city of the premises until July 30, 2022. All the form acceptable to the city solicitor’s office substantially in the form as appendix C and E and the financing for the settlement be approved and set out in the source of financing as appendix C. Thank you.

Is there a seconder? Mr. Fife Miller. Comments or questions?

I see none. We will call the question. Worship. Councillor Turner.

I declare my conflict of interest on this with respect to the property expropriation. The property in question is sent by a proponent to as a donor to my political campaign for 2018. Bear with me in a moment, please. Thanks very much, appreciate that, Councillor.

So with that, we will call the question. So the vote motion carries 13 to one with one recuse. Thank you very much, colleagues. We’re now going to be dealing with two final bills, the added bylaws.

The first is dealing with bill 122, dealing with the Wellington Road Gateway. It’s been pulled due to a question that at least some council members have with respect to this issue. And so with that, I’m going to look for a mover and seconder for introduction. First reading of added bill 122.

Moved by Councillor Hamou, seconded by Councillor Fife Miller. We’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to one with one recuse. For second reading of added bill 122, I will look for a mover, please.

Moved by Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, seconded by Councillor Palosa. Any discussion? I see none.

We’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to one with one recuse. Thank you very much. Colleagues, now I’ll turn your attention to added bill 123, which does to the right word is revokes, but terminates the contract with Mr.

Crossfuss. And points, Mr. Scott Mathers in that role. And for that, I will look for a mover and seconder of introduction first reading of added bill 123.

Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Helmer. Let’s call the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. For second reading of added bill 123, I’ll look for a mover and seconder.

Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Van Mirberg. Any comments or discussion? I see Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

I wanna rise and take the opportunity to express my sincere gratitude and best wishes to Mr. Crossfuss on his pending retirement as we repeal his appointment this evening. He’s been a fantastic leader. He has been somebody who’s taught me a lot and even as recently as late last week, we had a meeting and I said the good news, George, is that we’ve got one more thing crossed off the, you can’t retire until we finish this list of things that I have outstanding with you.

I think he has one item left that I need to follow up with him on tomorrow, but I appreciate all of the assistance that he’s given. I also wanna take the opportunity to congratulate Mr. Mathers on his appointment as deputy city manager. I’ve had the pleasure of working with him on a number of files in my own ward in the water wastewater department.

He and his team have been nothing but exemplary in their work, not just with myself, but with constituents. And that kind of leadership starts at the top. So I know that Mr. Mathers is going to bring that kind of leadership to his new role as well.

And that he will be somebody who communicates not just with Council, but with the broader public and with all of the members of his team underneath of him. So, although it is a bit of a bittersweet best wishes on your pending retirement to Mr. Cossifis, also a congratulations to Mr. Mathers.

Well done, job by both gentlemen. And look forward to all the best from both of you in the future. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yes, and thanks to Councillor Lewis for starting that off.

I wanted to add a few words. First about Mr. Cossifis, who I believe has been with the city since 2008, and someone correct me if I’m wrong on that, but as you approach retirement, having to do the last couple of years leading a team through the pandemic, and particularly the team that had challenges with not only a pandemic, but also a tremendous, just tremendous growth in the development of our city and the growth of our city was certainly a challenging, and continues to be a challenging job to take on. And Mr.

Cossifis has executed that job and his team, I think, exemplary. And certainly I want to add my thanks to him for the great work he’s done. I also thank him for being a very accessible leader at the city, always able to answer a question and reach out. Obviously, I have a lot of development in my ward, and Mr.

Cossifis and the team that he leads has been very helpful to myself and my constituents through my entire time on council. So I want to add those words. To Mr. Mathers, who enters the role as Deputy City Manager for Planning and Economic Development, obviously, there’s some big shoes to fill, but this is an individual who comes highly qualified, is exceptionally intelligent, one of the most professional people I’ve ever met, and is a thoughtful leader for the city, and I think he will step into the leadership in that team and hit the ground running very well.

I am fully supportive of the recommendation to appoint him to this position, and I look forward to continuing to work with this exemplary individual as part of a great senior leadership team here at the city of London. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you.

Your worship for allowing me, first of all, to thank Mr. Cossifis for his dedication to our city. I breast missed Mr. Cossifis when I was a community activist.

So before my time on council, and I’ll never forget his openness and he’s always been accessible, not only to the public, but also when I became a member of council, I also want to thank him for his compassion throughout the years, there have been some ups and downs, and he’s always shown compassion and understanding and his accessibility, and I am going to miss him, and I want to thank him for his service to our city. I want to also take this time to congratulate Mr. Mathers on coming over to planning and development services. We’ve got a long road ahead, I think, with the challenges around moving forward with planning our city, and I know he will do a great job with his background, his understanding of different departments and areas that he’s worked in and bringing that, as well as his desire to work with staff and moving our city forward.

I agree with him, there are infinite possibilities that are available to us in our city, and I want to congratulate him, thank you. Thank you, any other comments or questions? For comments, excuse me, else for Van Holst. Thank you, worship.

And it’s through you to our student retiree. Mr. Consivis is very personal, very helpful, and as for me, it’s been a pleasure to work with him, so I extend my gratitude, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I also want to add my thoughts. This is gonna go on all night, I guess, but one thing that I have missed the most because of our virtual setup, aside from beating with my council colleagues, but having those interactions that we’ve got to have with staff. I am lucky because I did have a previous term where I had plenty of time for the social interactions that we have after meetings or between meetings when we’re having a dinner break or whatnot, and some of my most enjoyable times were, sitting down at a table that included Mr.

Consivis and hearing all about his life at home with his many daughters and his grandchildren and dogs that didn’t all probably any belong to him, but with daughters and grandchildren, come dogs as well. And some of those personal moments and exchanging family stories and all of that was so wonderful and really allowed me to get to know Mr. Consivis on a more human level, which is really important for us in how we do our jobs. We can never lose sight of each other’s humanity and that is something that I really, really have missed over these last two years.

It has been a great pleasure working with Mr. Consivis. He’s always been so professional and very pragmatic and helping me find solutions for residents of board five, no matter what the problem was. But beyond that, he’s always been very kind as well.

And so when we approach our jobs with professionalism, pragmatism and kindness, it is a recipe for success, which is why I imagine Mr. Consivis has enjoyed the success that he has at the city of London. I wish him nothing but the very, very best and I will miss him. And I am extremely pleased as well to see Mr.

Mathers come into this role. He has already shown himself to be all of those great things that Mr. Consivis has, all of those great qualities, including the kindness. So it’s a happy night and I wish George very, very well, and lots of rest and relaxation and lots more grandchildren, if possible.

Thank you, any other comments? Colleagues, I’m gonna take a liberty, if I might as well, from the chair to address George, if I can. You know, I was thinking what the deputy mayor said about when he thought you started and he’s quite correct. And it made me think, you know, you are six and a half years away from your 20-year pin.

And that’s too bad. And it’s very much our loss, but I will tell you, if you’d not gone to the city of Burlington, I’m sure we would have had you so much longer, but you’ve really gone from success to success from the director of building controls to managing director of development and compliance and now to this role as deputy city manager of planning and economic development. And yours is a story career, but it isn’t just the business that you’ve done. It’s the friends you take with you, from all aspects, from certainly from staff and from council members, as you’ve heard.

And from our own development community that truly saw you as a class act, I will tell you, and thoughtful in terms of your cooperation in trying to find solutions with them. I think from my standpoint, in the three plus years that I’ve been on council, you’ve dealt with us in a fourth-rate manner, honest and exceptionally fair. You know, if there’s one thing I would say about you, George, is your approachability. You are candid and you are sincere, and those are great gifts.

And truly council does owe you a great debt of gratitude for your commitment to service. And you’ve heard a number of accolades tonight, you absolutely deserve them. You’ve heard them from peers throughout this past while since you’ve announced your decision to step down. And you’ve heard them tonight and throughout this last while from city councilors.

You’ve earned this, and I can only say from all of us that we wish you every success and joy with your family, because it isn’t just the commitment you’ve made, your wife, your family, everybody in your family has made a commitment to the service you’ve provided, and we acknowledge them tonight and say thank you to them as well. And we wish you every success and fun in your next adventures wherever they may take you. And so with that colleagues, I wonder, could Mr. Cotsmith, I hope you were here to hear all those nice things that we all said?

If not, it would be really disappointing. But if you’re there, I’d give you a moment, there you are, to perhaps as many moments as you like, just to respond. Oh, I really, I think I’m kind of a little bit emotional. So bear with me, but just want to say I’ve been, I’ve been working in this for government for over 30 years, in the public and the community and various councils.

And I’d like to say to you, Mayor and members of council, you are a great council. You’re extremely knowledgeable, professional, and very respectful. And I really appreciate that. I know you all have extremely challenging roles, but you excel at what you do and you serve the public very well.

I also want to just recognize our senior team, Lynn Livingston and the rest of my SLT colleagues. I’ve been on many senior leadership teams, and I can tell you this is by far the best. Lynn is a great leader, a mentor, a coach and friend. And I’m very appreciative of her and the team.

I also want to thank my team. I’ve got a great EA, Michelle Verveneto, my directors, Peter Cacorus, Horace Catolic, Greg Barrett, Sheryl Finn, Patrick Cooper, and Stephen Thompson, the latter two are very new to the city and they’re very competent and excellent folks. To Scott, I’d like to just say, I’m extremely pleased that he is going to be your new DCM. He is very competent.

And I’ve got the utmost confidence in his abilities and his role. And finally, I just want to acknowledge our great staff at the city. We have fantastic staff that serve council and the public extremely well. I want to thank you, Nunk.

Namizia. Now, George, you’re going to make us all get a little emotional on this. So, bravo, my friend, bravo. As we wish our friend, George, the very, very best, we also wish certainly to Scott Mathers, who just shows such strong, progressive leadership skills.

All the very best for success. I know I speak for all of us when I say that as well. Colleagues with that, maybe call the vote. Councillor Sully and Councillor Hamoon.

Namizia, it’s not coming up on my computer. We close in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Thanks very much.

Finally, for third reading and act, I’ve added bill 123, we’ll call the vote by, excuse me. Excuse me, moved by Councillor Lewis. I apologize. Seconded by Councillor Fyfe Miller.

I guess I thought it was seven o’clock already. I apologize, Colleagues. Appropriately moved and seconded. Now we’ll call the vote.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Colleagues, I guess I was little for Clamp thinking about George and, you know, I’ve also thought about this last couple of weeks and it really makes, I think us all appreciate the kind of work that George and our senior leadership team, all our staff, the folks who work for our city and with our city do. I just think of the things that we’ve done and dealt with tonight, we’ve dealt with the climate emergency action plan and action plan to disrupt Islamophobia, followed up by a proclamation, the International Day of the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, vacancy rates and issues around housing and homelessness and core vacancies, with change of auditors, various appointments to boards, drinking water, wastewater treatment, businesses coming to London, civic appointments, secondary plans, inclusionary zoning, significant staff change.

But, you know, our staff have always been progressive and resilient and, Ms. Livingston, I hope that you remind them, as I know you do regularly, but from this council that we appreciate the kind of work it takes and we heard Mr. Cotsfus even say tonight about working with a great leadership team and working with a great course of staff at City Hall and even like City Council and that’s to boot. So I will tell you this, we’re a great team, all of us together and Ms.

Livingston, please pass that on and with that, I’ll look for a motion to adjourn. I see Councillor Lewis always likes to do that, seconded by Councillor Turner. With that, let’s do a hand vote. Can we all those in favor?

A motion carries. With that, we will call the media adjourned. Thank you all.