February 28, 2022, at 12:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 12:00 PM; it being noted that the following members were in remote attendance: Mayor E. Holder, M. Cassidy, J. Morgan and Hamou.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That consent items 2.1 to 2.5 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   2021 Statement of Remuneration and Expenses for Elected and Appointed Officials

2022-02-28 Staff Report - 2021 Statement of Remuneration and Expenses

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports the following actions be taken:

a)    in accordance with Section 284 of the Municipal Act, 2001, the Statements of Remuneration and Expenses for Elected and Appointed Officials, as appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” and Appendix “B”, BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    in accordance with City Council resolution of March 2012, the annual report on the Mayor’s Office’s expenditures BE RECEIVED for information; and

c)   in accordance with City Council Travel and Business Expenses Policy, the Statement of Travel Expenses for Senior Administration Officials, as appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix “C” and “D”, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.2   Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act Report for Calendar Year 2021

2022-02-28 Staff Report - Public Sector Salary Disclosure Report

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the staff report dated February 28, 2022 regarding Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act report for the calendar year 2021, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.3   Request for Tender 2022-018 – Revenue from Lease of City-Owned Farmland

2022-02-28 Staff Report - Request for Tender 2022-018 Farm Land

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with the concurrence of the Manager of Purchasing and Supply, with respect to the City-owned lands as shown on Schedule A (Location Map) as appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022:

a) the following actions be taken:

i) the bid submitted by Terradust Acres Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars $ 6,750.00 for a three (3) year term on Land Package A; BE ACCEPTED, it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

ii) the bid submitted by London Dairy Farms Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of Twenty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Four Dollars $ 24,354.00 for a three (3) year term on Land Package B, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

iii) the bid submitted by Terradust Acres Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of Nineteen Thousand One Hundred and Eight Nine Dollars and Sixty Cents $ 19,189.60 for a three (3) year term on Land Package C, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

iv) the bid submitted by Terradust Acres Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Five Dollars $ 7,475.00 for a three (3) year term on Land Package D, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

v) the bid submitted by 806433 Ontario Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of Two Hundred and Thirty Six Thousand and Thirty Four Dollars $ 236,034.00 for a three (3) year term on Land Package E, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

vi) the bid submitted by 806433 Ontario Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of One Hundred and Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Two Dollars $ 111,972.00 for a three (3) year term on Land Package F, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

vii) the bid submitted by Terradust Acres Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred and Ten Dollars $ 51,410.00 for a three (3) year term on Land Package G, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

viii) the bid submitted by Terradust Acres Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of One Thousand Four Hundred Dollars $1,400.00 for a three (3) year term on Land Package H, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

ix) the bid submitted by 806433 Ontario Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of Fifty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Dollars and Eighty Cents $ 56,990.80 for a three (3) year term on Land Package l, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

x) the bid submitted by 806433 Ontario Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of Twenty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Dollars and Twenty Cents $ 25,270.20 for a three (3) year term on Land Package J, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender; 

b)    the standard form of farm lease included in Tender 2022-018 as Appendix “A”, as appended to the staff report, BE AUTHORIZED for execution with each individual proponent; and,

c)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022 to accept the bids submitted for Tender No. 2022-018 and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Farmland Lease Agreements.

Motion Passed

2.4   Declare Surplus - City-Owned Property - Part of Cheapside Street, Adjacent 137 Clemens Street

2022-02-28 Staff Report - Declare Surplus - Part of Cheapside Street, Adjacent 137 Clemens Street

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to City-owned property legally described as Part Lot 475, Plan 490, as in 265802 London/London Township, located along Cheapside Street adjacent 137 Clemens Street, the following actions be taken:

a)    the subject property BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and,

b)    the subject property (“Surplus Lands”) BE TRANSFERRED to the abutting property owner in accordance with the City’s Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy.

Motion Passed

2.5   License Renewal - Infrastructure Ontario (Hydro One Corridor)

2022-02-28 Staff Report - Licence Renewal - Hydro One Corridor

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with the concurrence of the Manager, Purchasing and Supply Operations, with respect to the to the property owned by Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, described as Part of Lot 7, Concession C, City of London, Geographic Township of London, as shown on Appendix “A” (Location Map) as appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Licence Renewal Agreement, attached as Schedule “A” to Appendix C, BE APPROVED, granting the City the use of a portion of the subject property for recreational purposes, for the sum of $2.00, subject to the terms and conditions of the Licence Agreement, and

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix “C”, being “A by-law to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Licence Renewal Agreement”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022.

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Election Sign By-law Update

2022-02-28 Staff Report - Election Sign By-law Update

2022-02-28 Staff Report - Election Sign By-law Update-REVISED By-law

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the attached revised proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022 to repeal By-law No. E-185-537, being the “Election Sign By-law” and to replace it with a new Election Sign By-law.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Voting Record:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That section 4.5 (i) of the proposed by-law BE AMENDED to read:

“4.5(i) to be 100m between election signs of the same candidate, on the same side of the street.”

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That section 3.4 of the proposed by-law BE AMENDED to change 96 hours to 72 hours.

Motion Failed (3 to 3)

Moved by M. Cassidy

Seconded by J. Morgan

That section 3.2 of the proposed by-law BE AMENDED in section 3.2 to read as follows:

“3.2  No person shall place of permit to be placed an Election Sign for a municipal election, except an Election Sign which is Placed on a Campaign Office or on the Property on which the Campaign Office sits provided the written consent of the owner of the Property is obtained and furnished to an Enforcement Officer upon demand, earlier than Nomination Day.”

Motion Failed (2 to 4)

4.2   Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Sikh Heritage Month

2022-02-28 Submission - Proclamation - Sikh Heritage Month

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That based on the application dated February 7, 2022 from Guru Nanak Mission Society, London Ontario, April 1, 2022 to April 30, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Sikh Heritage Month.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members only.)

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That the Corporate Services Committee convene, In Closed Session, with respect to the following matters:

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

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

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

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

6.3    Confidential Trade Secret or Scientific, Technical, Commercial or Financial Information Belonging to the City

A matter pertaining to the security of the property of the municipality or board; a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial or financial information that belongs to the municipality or local board and has monetary value or potential monetary value.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

The Corporate Services Committee convenes, In Closed Session, from 12:44 PM to 12:57 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. Hamou

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 1:00 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 (51 minutes)

Yeah, corporate service. Hello colleagues, it is now 12 p.m. So we are going to convene the fourth meeting of the corporate services committee. The I will open as always by informing people that the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council, standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request.

To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or phone 519-661-2489, extension 2425. And to make a request specific to this meeting, please contact csc@london.ca. And I will look to committee members to see if there are any disclosures of pecuniary interest. I see none.

So we will move along to our agenda. We have five items on the consent agenda. I’ve not been made aware of any that colleagues wish to be pulled, but I’ll look now to see if anyone wants anything pulled from the consent agenda. Seeing none, do we have a mover for the consent agenda?

Moved by Councilor Cassidy, seconded by Councilor Fife Miller. Any comments or questions? Seeing none, we will open the vote on that. Councilor Cassidy, sorry.

My apologies, my apologies, Mr. Chair. I don’t know, I was focusing on the participant list to see if any hands were up and I forgot to put my hand up. I do have a question on 2.3.

By all means, go ahead. So first a comment, I think this is great news and a much preferred making use of this land rather than just having it sit, waiting for our plans to go ahead. So knowing that we have plans for all of this different land, always it built in timeline-wise. What, knowing that I did not scour each other, the agreement for the particulars around this?

So do we have notification period? Do we have a timeline? Because some of this will be farming and that relies on their own schedules or when crops need to go in and all of that sort of stuff. So how are we handling when we want to go ahead with our plans for these lands that are going to be farmed?

I don’t know whether Mr. Warner or another staff member might want to address that, but we’ll look to staff for a response there. Yes, through you, Chair, Mr. Warner can answer that question.

We do classify this as interim land management for the lease of these farm lands. We have different projects with different timelines. This is a three year lease for all of these leases and we do have a right determination. So for instance, if there’s an industrial parcel that is sold to a client that’s going to bring employment to the city, then we could terminate and there would be some costs associated with doing so.

But we don’t intend to do that if we don’t have to and most of the lands don’t have a plan for three years. For instance, the W12A lands are offered lands, so they would be essentially farmed for the three year term and then council could revisit that upon another tender of those lands in three years time. Thank you. That’s great, thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you, Councilor Cassidy. Any other questions or comments on any items on the consent agenda? Okay, seeing none, we will get the clerk to open the vote for that.

Mayor Holder, closing the vote. The motion’s passed five to zero. Thank you, colleagues. Moving along in the agenda, we have nothing under scheduled items.

We have two items for direction under agenda item number four. We have 4.1, the election signed by law update and 4.2, an application for issuance of proclamation for seek heritage month. We will deal with these separately and I’m going to ask Vice Chair, Councilor Humu, to take the chair on 4.1, as I’m going to propose a slight amendment to what staff have brought forward. So Councilor Humu, I’ll turn the chair over to you at this time.

So, Councilor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. First of all, I wanna thank staff for the quick turnaround that they’ve made on the election signed by law update. As you know, it was just last month, this was before us.

And we are on a time crunch as the provincial election, as well as our own municipal election are coming up later this spring. I do have one suggested amendment. I’m quite pleased with what the staff have brought forward. My only concern and I discuss this with our administration is 4.5i, which is the 100 meters between election signs.

And I heard very clearly in the debate at the last committee the question of intersections and it also occurred to me as I was reading through this that we don’t have too many roads in London that are 100 meters wide. In fact, I’m not sure if we have any that are 100 meters wide. And I don’t think it was our intent to limit signs being on opposite sides of the road. I think the intent was to prevent that lineup of signs along, especially our busy arteries like Wonderland and Fanshawe Park and in Highbury, where often every couple of feet there’s an election sign.

So I’d like to propose a small amendment that 4.5 bracket I read to be 100 meters between election signs of the same candidate on the same side of the street. And that was language that I got from the clerks. They indicated that would help with the interpretation of that. So I don’t know if I have a seconder for that, but I hope I do ‘cause I think that that was the intent there.

And Councillor Umu, I do see, I realize you can’t see in chambers, I do see Councillor Fyfe Miller’s hand is up. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Councillor Fyfe Miller, would you like to second the motion? We’ll second that motion, yes.

Thank you. So then did we wanna have anybody speak to the motion? Councillor Cassidy. Thank you.

And I’m happy with that amendment. I was one that proposed the 100 meter distance. So I’m fine with that same side of the street thing. I do have questions of staff.

I, after the last corporate services committee meeting where we dealt with this topic, I went back to the tapes from the meetings in the last term of council. And staff were very clear about their concerns with safety and the safety issues concerned the setback from the street, three meters they felt was not enough as well as the height. And I know that in this most recent iteration staff have dropped their concerns, even though they raised them again in the first draft of this by-law. So I would like to hear from Ms.

Share or whoever else on staff that wants to address this. Why, because they’re concerned, they were pretty adamant about their concerns. And this concern, if the height of the sign went above a certain level, pedestrians could be obstructed from the view of cars turning in and out of driveways, specifically along major roads. And so I would like to hear from staff on why they don’t have the same concerns.

Is it just a matter of throwing in the towel because council seems to not be listening to those concerns? Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. I believe Doug McCray, would you like to see that? Thank you, yes, through the presiding officer.

Is it staff did review? Balance where I was trying to strike through this by-law is a clear criteria that is applicable across the city. Could they cover a variety of scenarios from low volume residential streets to high volume commercial corridors. And so striking that balance requires a certain level of judgment.

And so upon further review, and I guess a key feature here is considering the transitional and adaptive nature of the signs and a review of the network. We’re satisfied and support that the current by-law has proposed and we’ll certainly be looking to and hearing feedback from the public as this falls out to inform any future decision-making around the by-law. Thank you. And thank you, Mr.

McCray, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. So I’m glad to hear that. And because, you know, when I watched the tape, there were some real concerns about the fact that the average height of a pedestrian would be low compared to these signs and the safety concerns were real.

Anyway, I also have concerns. So and I’m not going like by the numbering in the actual by-law and going by the staff report. So number B, part B, where it talks about maintaining the current removal period at 96 hours, I do have concerns for that. It has been a short, it’s much shorter in other municipalities.

It is a municipal election. It’s not a large geographical area like would be in a riding. Oh, so I guess this covers both. But when you’re talking about a municipal or federal election campaign, generally there is a team behind those candidates.

They have volunteers that are out helping that candidate reach that large geography to knock on doors to put up signs and things like that. So when you’re talking about the bigger geography of a riding, they have volunteers to help. When you’re talking about the municipal level, our writings tend to be more compact. There are three in the south end that are quite large geographically.

However, you’re reaching a smaller segment of the population compared to a riding. I think 96 hours is excessive. I’m glad that staff provided us with that comparison of other municipalities to see the length of time when signs need to be removed and how long they can be up in total. I think London is a bit of an outlier.

Sorry, it’s definitely an outlier. But I think London’s proposal is excessive when we’re looking at others. And I say this with great respect because I’ve seen campaigns run at the municipal level with everyone from one person and their spouse running the campaign to very, very large teams and then teams that have hired professionals to do the signs and all of that for them. In all of those cases, people managed to get their signs down in the city of London in pretty short order.

I myself in 2014, I was out the very next day in the rain with my husband picking up all the signs that were on the public areas of the city. So I think 90, or I think what is being proposed here in part B, that 96 hours is excessive. My other concern is part F where we talk about putting the signs up one week prior to nomination day for nominated candidates. I also think that that is excessive.

I think it doesn’t need to happen before nomination day which tends to be the norm in other districts. So what I would like Madam presiding officer is those items in the staff report A through G, if we could possibly vote on those separately, then I think that that will allow the committee to pick and choose the parts of the bylaw that they support and the parts that they don’t support. Thank you, Madam, sorry, Madam Vice Chair, I think the clerk wants to comment on voting separately there. Thank you through the chair or the presiding officer.

I would like to just point out that the ultimate recommendation that will come from this committee will be to approve a bylaw for introduction and voting on individual pieces of the bylaw is not possible in the omnibus motion. If the counselor would like to put on a motion, put a motion on the floor for an amendment similar to what’s currently on the floor to revise or change parts of the bylaw, that would be in order. But at the, when the committee has done their discussion with respect to the various points within the bylaw, there will need to be a motion to introduce this, recommending the introduction of this in its entirety. I hope that helps clarify how that has to be managed.

Thank you. Councilor Cassidy, do you have anything? I will let the debate continue and I will work on possible wording for an amendment. Thank you.

Okay, we’re gonna move over to Mayor Hilder. Thanks very much, Chair. I’m going to push out my inner Phil Squire and what is not helpful is amendments on the floor. Possible, absolutely, but I don’t get it.

You know what? This has been in front of us. It could have been in writing any of it. And I think Councilor Lewis’s amendment is pretty simple.

It’s now going to get a little more convoluted or at least more involved, depending on what Councilor Cassidy comes up with. But folks, come on. We’ve had a chance to look at this and I would say respectfully for all of us, if these are driving issues, I get it and I truly do get it. But put it in advance, give it to the clerk, let us chew on it and come with some additional prep on it.

Unless we just wanna come and give opinions as we go. Through you, Chair, I have a question for the clerk. When or to Mr, well, I’ll just say to staff, it could be a Doug, but you’ll tell me. And that is the definition of roadway.

So we talk about three meters from the roadway. Is that three meters from the edge of the curb, Mr. McCray? Through you, Chair.

Mr. McCray. Yes, through the presiding officer, it is typically from the curb. The roadway is defined in the bylaw and it’s the portion of the road that’s typically traveled by vehicular vehicles.

So in a urban context, that would typically be the curb. All right. There’s no way it’s gonna go onto a boulevard. That’s clear.

It’s gonna go onto someone’s home because it’s curb up. So if I feel that that’s reasonable, the second part is again to remember that while we get in Wisconsin, our world’s at locally, at the ward level, and in my case, citywide. And in the case of those candidates who ran citywide, which makes it the biggest geography. And I think I can speak with some authority on this, but I’m also mindful of those who run provincially and federally, significantly bigger than a ward, often encompassing two, three, four wards in its area mix.

I don’t know why we’re wasting any time discussing ‘96 versus ‘72. It is not an imposition on the voter. Honest to God, it’s a price that we all pay just a little bit. We invest in democracy.

And I wouldn’t normally quibble about a little thing, but it’s a little thing. And I’m not sure it’s worth much more time than this. If it comes out as ‘72, I won’t support it only insofar as I look at this and think, you know, for those that we’re not just talking about, I mean, it’sable. We’re talking about provincially and federal as well.

And I think that puts a lot of on us on folks to get them down. I never hired teams to take them down, or for that matter, to put them up. And so you do use volunteers. And sometimes for some, that’s all the money.

They don’t have any money left to hire people to do it. And I find when people lose, their enthusiasm for taking signs down is a lot less. So I think the notion of ‘72 versus ‘96 is it’s not worth considering. I think the ‘96 makes sense.

And I’ll leave it at that, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Holder. I just wanted to update everybody on the speakers list.

And just to let everybody just to offer it out to everybody. But we had Councillor Lewis speaking next. And then Councillor Palosa. I would take a point of order, Madam Presiding Officer.

Point of OK. So my point of order is this, and I did not want to interrupt the mayor, even though I could have. My point of order is this. Notwithstanding, Councillor Squire’s frequent complaints, committee work is designed for this.

This is what we do at committee. Yes, it is nice to have things in advance. Yes, it makes things go more smoothly. Unfortunately, that’s not always how things happen.

And we are, it is within my right as a Councillor to bring up concerns, the committee meeting. That is my right as a Councillor. And I will continue to do that if that is what I need to do. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy.

OK, we’re going to move along, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. And before I speak to the specific points that I wanted to address, I will say that I agree with Councillor Cassidy. It’s great to have things in advance when it’s possible.

But sometimes we do get things before us at the last moment. And especially at committee. And sometimes we aren’t able to even consult with staff in time to get things together when we get an agenda on a Wednesday and have a meeting on a Monday. So it’s always great to have that advance notice.

But sometimes it’s just not something that’s possible. And it’s great to have committee work done at committee. I would certainly agree with the mayor when it comes to council. If something has to happen at councils and wasn’t raised at committee, that’s a little bit different.

But I digress. I want to speak to two points here. And the first is the 72 hours versus 96 hours. And I would say three days or four days.

For me, I think I had all of my signs in within 48 hours. But I was lucky. I had volunteers who were available, ready. And I was out with them the next morning pulling in my signs as well.

But I do agree that teams are of different sizes, wards, and writings are different sizes. And I think three days or four days is not really an issue for me or really for the electorate when most campaigns are pulling in their signs quite quickly. So if there’s a campaign or two that’s a straggler by a day because their volunteers had to work that day or weren’t available for whatever reason, I can understand that. And I think the importance of— and I said this at the last committee meeting— the importance of allowing candidates to put a sign up prior to nomination day.

And I was the champion of just one week. There was a time when signs grew up as soon as you filed your papers. They could be up in January of the election year. And then the nomination period changed and some restrictions have come into place.

But signs do play a role in our democratic process. And they may actually indicate to somebody whether or not they want to jump in the race. And having the opportunity to see who else you might be running against prior to nominations closing, I think helps candidates decide whether they want to be or potential candidates. I should say whether they want to be in or out.

They do play a role that way in informing the public. And I think having them available prior to nomination day may spur some candidates to say, hey, you know what? I don’t like the only two choices I’m seeing. And so I’m going to put my own name on the ballot.

I think there’s a value to that. And if we say not until after nomination day, then that person can’t put their name on a ballot. It’s too late. But I also think there’s a question of— and I raised this at the last committee too— there’s a nomination day in provincial and federal elections too.

And it’s not the day the writ drops. Candidates to become an MP or an MPP have to go and collect their signatures, take them into the returning office, have those validated to get their name on the ballot. So there’s a nomination period for provincial and federal candidates. And we don’t tell them they can’t put their signs up until they’re officially nominated.

They can start putting their signs up the day the writ drops. I think what we have here is a nice balance. We’re not saying the day the writ period begins, which is when nominations open, meaningfully. We are saying, though, you can put them up a few days before nominations close.

So I think that there’s a valuable role to play in that. I think we can, as we will continue to do, we can reassess in the future. But already in this campaign, it will be August. Last campaign, it was July.

So I think it’s important to note that the province sets our nomination date, not us. So it’s already a moving target. Giving candidates one week before nominations close is I don’t think an unreasonable imposition. And I think it really democratically informs the process a little bit better.

So I’m going to support the full staff recommendation with that small amendment regarding the different sides of the road. I think we are cutting down on the clutter by saying 100 meters distance. I think that was a really good proposal by Councillor Cassidy. So I hope that we can move forward on this today and get a recommendation before a council that makes sense for us all.

Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. I’m just going to interject and get the clerk’s office. Barb, but sorry, Ms.

Westlake power. Thank you through the chair. I just wanted to point out to members and participants that what is on the floor currently is an amendment and not the entire proposed by-law. Thank you.

So with that, Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Madam President and Officer. At what point would you let me speak to the entire by-law just not the what’s on the floor for EI? So let’s close this one off and vote on it and then we’ll reopen the next one.

Thank you. OK. So with that, are there any other comments from the floor? All right.

So I believe we’re going to call the question. Chair Maya, I’m not sure if the voting has gone through. No, I haven’t seen anything. The vote is open.

You may need to refresh your screen in E-Scribe. Chair, I don’t see it, but I will vote yes to this amendment. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 6 to 0. OK.

Thank you. Move along to the next part of this, which is the entire motion. So we’re going to— Councillor Palosa, would you like to speak to this? Thank you, Madam, Presiding Officer.

My first question is regards to the financial impact. Recognizing there is not a specific non-compliance fee for signs that contravene the by-law. However, we could, if they’re convicted, it’s liable to a fine. Could staff speak to it since we can charge a fine if what it would be or what it would look like?

Can a staff? Madam, Presiding Officer from an enforcement perspective. If the fines were established with the by-law, that would mean the officer could write a ticket. Service is sometimes difficult.

When you write a ticket, you have to serve within 30 days to the actual offender. So finding in this realm is more difficult and resource intensive than actually removing the signs and leaving it at that. Thank you. Councillor Palosa.

Yeah, thank you to staff for that. Recognizing sometimes it’s a question of who signs it is, their names on it, but who actually placed it or from their campaign is doing shady nefarious things in the dark and moving other people’s signs around. Certainly, I’ve seen that happen too. That does make it harder for enforcement and removal could simply be easier.

So thank you for that. I will continue on that I did join corporate services. The last time this report came through, had raised my concerns at that point, though I do not serve on this committee. So thank you for recognizing me as a guest as I don’t serve on this committee.

I guess to one committee’s members of viewpoint, I am going to waste your time today. And I am going to raise my concerns that the 96 hours removal period was not staff’s original recommendation. It was to comply with the 72, which other municipalities around us are doing and tends to be the norm. Recognizing words are smaller, and if we get citywide, the mayor’s campaign has a higher price limit and more volunteers and writing associations federally and provincially.

It’s usually does not an independent candidate trying to run. It’s usually someone with a party affiliation. They have mobilization behind them. So thank you to the clerk for saying that we can’t pull these separate.

So I am trying to do committee work at committee and not muddy the waters at council as those nights tend to already be long enough for us as it is. So if someone on committee did have the concern of putting the 96 back to staff’s original recommendation at 72 hours, I would be supportive of that. As for the F, changed the election sign permission to be placed earlier than one prior to the nomination day. That one was the concern of me too.

Recognizing by time nominations closer a week out from that, you should really have a good idea now if you want to run in the election. The clerk’s office has already done their first public information session for those interested in running and have covered many things in it and was accidentally done. So that public conversation already needs to start a week out at that point, it almost seems like fear mongering of who’s managed to get the most money out first and perhaps not being the most inclusive that we’d like our candidates and our community to be. So that’s my concern about F but definitely B was going against staff’s original recommendation and that was a concern that I had.

Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. Thank you, Councillor Palosa. Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer.

So I’m hearing the comments of some of the committee members who haven’t heard from everybody but I have a feeling where this will go. Nonetheless, I’m going to propose an amendment further amendment to the draft by-law. I would like to amend 3.2 and that would be to remove A altogether, make B the new A and remove the words for a by-election. So that would mean that the signs could not go up until nomination day, which is what Councillor Palosa just touched on.

That was out as she touched on the other one but she touched on both of these items. So nomination day is the preferred day. I do not think that we need an extra week. I agree with Councillor Palosa.

So if somebody gets out there a week early and inundates a ward with signs, then that will be a deterrent to people to run. And I agree with Councillor Palosa. We want more candidates. We want more people engaged in civic government.

We want more people putting their names forward, stepping up. So we don’t want someone to get a whole lot of money from their network and flood the ward with signs as a way of keeping other people out. I don’t think that that’s good for democracy. So I would like to have signs limited to nomination day.

My other amendment would be to 3.4, which is taking that 96 hours and putting it back to 72. I think it is within the realm of possibility. Sure, people are disappointed if they did not win, but they sign up knowing what the rules are just as some people might be disappointed with the stipend that Councillors get paid. You run for election, knowing what rules are in place at the time.

So if you run for election and you know that you must have your signs down within 72 hours, doesn’t matter if you win or lose, those are the rules. And I think 72 hours is completely doable and completely reasonable. I had my signs down the very next day, all of my public signs. And then I went house to house and retrieved the signs that were on private loans, but it’s the public signs that have that 72 hours removal requirement.

Those are my amendments. I don’t know if I have a seconder on Madam Presiding Officer, but now is when you can ask. Thank you. Do I have a seconder for Councillor Cassidy’s amendments?

Madam. Is there anyone inside of the Council of Chambers? Yes. Madam Chair, I’m just wondering if through you, if Councillor Cassidy, she’s expressed three different amendments.

I’m wondering if she might want to put them on the floor separately, because I would support, I will support a return to 72 hours. I’m not prepared to support the other item that she was suggesting. So through you, we’ll see if she’s willing to separate those out and put them on one at a time. Councillor Maddie.

Absolutely. So since Councillor Lewis has said that he would support the 72 hours, why don’t we put the amendment to item 3.4 from the draft by-law? And that would be to change the retrieval period from 96 to back to 72 hours. So have that.

So it’s two separate amendments. Is this okay? May I have a seconder for amendment number one? Yeah.

So Councillor Lewis, all right. So any comments, questions on this? None, okay. Oh, Councillor Morgan.

Yes, and I apologize if my sound isn’t great. My internet’s out at home. So I’m doing this a little different than I normally do on the iPad. So I’m glad Councillor Cassidy is separating these, ‘cause actually I would have seconded the consideration of the change back to nomination day one, but I’m not supportive of this particular one.

And I’ll tell you why, having both lost and won an election, I can tell you it is much harder, like much harder to get volunteers out to help you take down your signs when you lose, than it is when you win. Everybody wants to help you when you win. Everybody wants to go out and spend the time with you. And I think the only group this one hurts is those candidates that aren’t successful.

So I’m not gonna support the change back to 72 hours, but I’m a lending Councillor Cassidy in advance, even though it’s not the item that I’ll help get her other item on the floor. So you won’t have me on this one now. Thank you, Councillor Morgan. Do I have any other comments from the floor?

Anything inside of the chambers? I can see, okay. Clerk, Ms. Pfeiffer.

Thank you through the chair. I just want to advise members that the draft of the proposed amendment for section 3.4 is available for review in eScribe. Okay, thank you. All right, I’m just refreshing as well.

There we go. Do I have any other comments from the floor? Okay, so I believe we’re gonna call the question on the first amendment. Closing the vote, that would be three to three.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. So I will put the other amendment and it’s section 3.2 from the proposed by-law. And that would just basically change it to nomination day for when election signs can be put up.

And the clerks have the wording for that as well. Thank you. And may I have a seconder? Councillor Morgan, we’ll second that.

All right, any comments? Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just, you know, I’ve indicated I won’t be supporting this one.

I think the candidates do need to be allowed to put up signs before nominations close. But I just want to emphasize again, a point to committee members. By doing this, you are actually creating a two-tiered election signed by-law in regard to municipal candidates versus federal and provincial candidates. Because you do not enforce nomination day on federal and provincial candidates, you are enforcing the rip period.

So you are creating a two-tiered system here. I don’t think that that’s fair to municipal candidates. And I think that we should be allowing municipal candidates an opportunity to advertise their campaigns before the close of nominations. Thank you, Councillor Lewis, any other comments from the floor?

Okay, so I believe we’re gonna call the question. Closing the vote, the motion is going to hand the chair back to Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. With the amendments out of the way, we just need to vote on the main motion as it’s been amended.

So I’ll ask the clerk to get that vote ready. Are there any further comments on this before we call that vote? Mayor Holder. Thanks if that requires either a move or a seconder, I’m pleased to do so, Councillor Lewis.

The clerk actually informs me that it requires both. So we will have you as the mover and we will have Councillor Fyfe Miller as the seconder worship. Thank you. Through the chair, I’d just like to point out that the motion that you will be voting on is that on the recommendation of the city clerk, be attached proposed by law, attached proposed revised by law, be introduced at the municipal council meeting to be held on March 22nd, 2022.

And we will have attached to this committee report, the by-law which includes the revisions that were approved. We will get the vote open on that in just a moment. Chair, did not come up on the screen, but I’ll vote yes. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, six to zero.

Thank you colleagues. We’ll move along to item 4.2 under items for direction. And this is the application of a proclamation recognizing C heritage month. I’ll look to see if we’ve got a mover and a seconder for that.

Moved by Councillor Hamou, seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Any questions on that or comments? Seeing none, we will call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, six.

Thank you colleagues. Moving on, we have no deferred matters or additional business that I’ve been made aware of. So that would take us to item six on the agenda, confidential matters. And for the benefit of the public, the items that we’re going in camera for are regarding land acquisition, solicitor, client-privileged advice, and confidential trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, or financial information belonging to the city.

So I’ll look for a motion to go in camera. Moved by Councillor Hamou, seconded by Councillor Fythmalar, and we’ll call that question. I may ask, closing the vote, the motion’s passed. A moment to shuffle the chairs, as it were, and get into closed session.

And then we’ll resume for the three items on which we’re going in camera for. All right colleagues, we have returned to public session. And I will just call on Councillor Hamou to report out on confidential session. Okay, the first matter, 6.1 was land acquisition.

So that’s your client-privileged advice. Sorry, I’m just not sure about this. Do I read this part or? No, all you have to do, sorry, vice-chair, just to be clear, and I know this is your first time doing this one, you don’t have to read the reasons.

Again, they were read before we went into public session. So you just have to report progress made. Okay, so progress made is that we— Okay. And that’s it, really?

Yeah. Yeah, you just report, we made progress on the three items for which we went in camera. All right, so we made progress on the three items that we went into camera for. Thank you for that.

And with that colleagues, we will look for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Fythmalar, seconded by Councillor Hamou, and we can do this by hand, all those in favor. That motion’s carried. Thank you, we’re adjourned, colleagues.

Have a great rest of your afternoon.