June 7, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:00 PM; it being noted that the following were in remote attendance: Councillors M. van Holst, M. Salih, J. Helmer, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Turner, E. Peloza and S. Hillier.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

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

  • Councillor J. Morgan discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 4.2 of this Report, having to do with appointments to Western University Board of Directors, by indicating that Western University is his employer;

  • Councillor J. Helmer discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 4.2 of this Report, having to do with appointments to Western University Board of Directors, by indicating that Western University is his employer; and,

  • Councillor M. Salih discloses a pecuniary interest in Clause 4.1 of this Report, specific to Business Case #4: Talent Attraction and Labour Force Growth for Sustainable Economic Recovery, by indicating that he works for the Federal Government.

2.   Consent

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Hillier

That consent items 2.1 to 2.3 and 2.5 to 2.7 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

2.1   Development Charge Planning Horizon Policy Review

2022-06-07 Staff Report - Development Charge Planning Horizon Policy Review

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, a 15-year planning horizon BE ENDORSED as part of the preparation and completion of the development charges ‘soft service’ master plans and 2025 Development Charges Background Study; it being noted that a 20-year planning horizon will be maintained for ‘hard service’ components.

Motion Passed

2.2   Development Charge Stormwater Management Land Payment Trigger Policy Review

2022-06-07 Staff Report - SWM Land Payment Policy Review

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the development charge stormwater management land payment trigger threshold for future stormwater management land acquisition BE DISCONTINUED effective July 31, 2022; it being noted that payment will now occur at the time of agreement execution.

Motion Passed

2.3   Inventory of Current Actions Addressing Core Area Land and Building Vacancy

2022-06-07 Staff Report - Inventory of Current Actions Addressing Core Area Land

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the staff report dated June 7, 2022, with respect to the Inventory of Current Actions addressing Core Area Land and Building Vacancy, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.5   London Community Recovery Network – Update on Municipally Funded and Community Initiatives

2022-06-07 Staff Report - LCRN Update on Municipally Funded and Community Initiatives

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the staff report titled London Community Recovery Network – Update on Municipally Funded and Community Initiatives for BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.6   London Economic Development Corporation (LEDC) Activity Update 2021

2022-06-07 Submission - LEDC Activity Update 2021

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the London Economic Development Corporation Activity Update 2021 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.7   5th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee

2022-06-07 - DIAAC Report

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the 5th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee from its meeting held on April 21, 2022 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.4   Core Area Action Plan: 2022 One-Time Program Enhancements

2022-06-07 Staff Report - Core Area Action Plan

Moved by J. Helmer

Seconded by M. Cassidy

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

a)    the staff report dated June 7, 2022 entitled “Core Area Action Plan: 2022 One-Time Program Enhancements”, including its appendices, BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the enhancements to the Core Area Action Plan detailed in “Appendix ‘A’ of the staff report, 2022 One-Time Program Enhancements” BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of $1,055,000.00, with the funding to be sourced from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy received a communication dated June 2, 2022 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Not to be heard before 4:05 PM - London Hydro Inc. - 2021 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder Annual Resolutions

2022-06-07 Staff Report - AGM - London Hydro

Moved by M. van Holst

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That the following actions be taken with respect to London Hydro Inc.:

a)  the recommendation of the City Manager, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 7, 2022 as Appendix “A” entitled “A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London Hydro Inc.”  BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held June 14, 2022;

b)  the presentation by V. Sharma, CEO and G. Valente, Board Chair, London Hydro Inc., including the attachedrevised slide 5, BE RECEIVED;

c)  the 2021 Annual Report on Finance BE RECEIVED;

d)  the communication from London Hydro Inc. regarding the Election of Directors BE RECEIVED; and,

e)  Class l Directors, Gabe Valente and Jack Smit, whose terms are expiring, BE APPOINTED to the Board of London Hydro Inc.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

3.2   Not to be heard before 4:30 PM - Public Participation Meeting - 2023 Growth Management Implementation Strategy (GMIS) Update

2022-06-07 Staff Report - 2023 GMIS

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development regarding the implementation of the London Plan growth management policies applicable to the financing of growth-related infrastructure works, the following actions be taken:

a)    the 2023 Growth Management Implementation Strategy Update BE APPROVED as appended to the staff report dated June 7, 2022 in Appendix ‘B’; it being noted that:

i.    Stoney Creek SWM 7.1 will be rescheduled from 2023 to 2025;

ii.    Stoney Creek SWM 8 will be rescheduled from 2023 to 2025;

iii.    Stoney Creek SWM 10 will be rescheduled from 2025 to 2027;

iv.    $1.5 million of the Kilally Road project will be rescheduled from 2030 to 2023;

v.    North Lambeth SWM P2 – North will be rescheduled from 2023 to 2025;

vi.    Thornicroft Drain Improvements will be rescheduled from 2026 to 2024; and,

vii.    project design work for North Lambeth SWM P2 – North, North Lambeth SWM P2 – South and Thornicroft Drain Improvements will commence in 2023;

b)    the Capital Budget BE ADJUSTED to reflect the timing changes associated with the projects noted in clause (a) above;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  • M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute (LDI)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Committee recess at this time for 15 minutes

Motion Passed

The Committee recesses at 6:37 PM, and resumes at 6:55 PM.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   London Community Recovery Network – Recovery Funding Business Cases

2022-06-07 Staff Report - London Community Recovery Network Recovery Funding Business Cases

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the staff report dated June 7, 2022 with respect to the London Community Recovery Network (LCRN) – Recovery Funding Business Cases, the following actions be taken:

a) LCRN Business Cases: A through D BE RECEIVED;

b) the following funding requests BE APPROVED:

i)  Business Case #1: Propel: Moving Business Forward;

ii)  Business Case #2: Recognition of Micro-Credentials Among Employers in the London Area;

iii) Business Case #3: Centre Stage Patio Grant; and,

iv) Business Case #4: Talent Attraction and Labour Force Growth for Sustainable Economic Recovery

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;

it being noted that Municipal Council authorized $10 million to support social and economic recovery measures, and $3.7 million was previously approved for LCRN ideas led by the City of London and partners, leaving $6.3 million still available to be allocated;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the following communications with respect to this matter:

a communication dated May 27, 2022 from B. Mejia, Executive Director, Argyle BIA;

a communication dated May 25, 2022 from D. Szpakowski, CEO and General Manager, Hyde Park Business Improvement Association;

a communication dated May 30, 2022 from J. Pastorius, Manager, Old East Village BIA;

a communication dated June 1, 2022 from B. Maly, Executive Director, Downtown London.

Motion Passed

Voting Record:

Moved by M. Cassidy

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

Motion to approve, excluding Business Case #4:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the staff report dated June 7, 2022 with respect to the London Community Recovery Network (LCRN) – Recovery Funding Business Cases, the following actions be taken:

a) LCRN Business Cases: A through D BE RECEIVED;

b) the following funding requests BE APPROVED:

i)  Business Case #1: Propel: Moving Business Forward;

ii)  Business Case #2: Recognition of Micro-Credentials Among Employers in the London Area;

iii) Business Case #3: Centre Stage Patio Grant; 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;

it being noted that Municipal Council authorized $10 million to support social and economic recovery measures, and $3.7 million was previously approved for LCRN ideas led by the City of London and partners, leaving $6.3 million still available to be allocated;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the following communications with respect to this matter:

a communication dated May 27, 2022 from B. Mejia, Executive Director, Argyle BIA;

a communication dated May 25, 2022 from D. Szpakowski, CEO and General Manager, Hyde Park Business Improvement Association;

a communication dated May 30, 2022 from J. Pastorius, Manager, Old East Village BIA;

a communication dated June 1, 2022 from B. Maly, Executive Director, Downtown London.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to approve Business Case #4:

iv) Business Case #4: Talent Attraction and Labour Force Growth for Sustainable Economic Recovery

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.2   Consideration of Appointment to Western University Board of Governors (Requires 2 Members)

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the following BE APPOINTED to Western University Board of Governors for the term July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2026:

Lori Higgs

Marlene McGrath

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated June 3, 2022 from R. Konrad, Chair and K. Gibbons, Vice-Chair, Board of Governors, Western University with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) Recruitment for the London and Middlesex Community Housing

2022-06-07 Submission - LMCH Appointments

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the application process BE RE-ADVERTISED to allow for additional outreach for applicants for the 2 vacant positions for the Board of Directors for the London and Middlesex Community Housing; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated May 30, 2022 from P. Chisholm, Chief Executive Officer, London & Middlesex Community Housing with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 8:10 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 (4 hours, 20 minutes)

Good afternoon colleagues. May I ask for screens on please. Last the clerk to confirm quorum please. Through the chair, I can confirm quorum for you.

Thank you very much. Now I’ll call on Councillor Cassidy please. Thank you Your Worship. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenapeiwak, and Adewandran peoples.

We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all the treaties that are specific to this area. The two row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy/Silver Covenant Chain. The beaver hunting grounds of the Haudenosaunee Nanfan Treaty of 1701.

The McKee Treaty of 1790. The London Township Treaty of 1796. The Huron Tract Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabek and the dish with one spoon covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabek and Haudenosaunee. The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs.

Thank you. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communications, ports for council standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-249, extension 2425. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact SPPC@london.ca.

Colleagues, I’ll look for any disclosures of beginning of your interest. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Your Worship. On item 4.2, which is appointment to the Western University’s Board of Governors, I will declare an interest as Western University’s my employer.

Thank you. Any other declarations? Councillor Hummer. On the same item for the same reason, I will also declare an interest.

Thank you very much. Any other? I see no other, thank you very much. Colleagues, we have several items, seven in fact, on the consent agenda.

I’ll ask if any items that are on this agenda wish to be dealt with separately. Councillor Turner. That’s 2.4 if we could. Thank you.

Any other items, colleagues? I see none, so we have items 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 to 2.7, which will be open for discussion in a moment, but I’ll look for a mover, please. Councillor P5 Miller, seconder of the Councillor Hill here. Any discussion on those items with the exception of 2.4?

Deputy Mayor. Yes, on item 2.5, which is London’s Community Recovery Network Update, municipal funded initiatives. Just a question for our staff on this one. As we know, when we started developing the London Recovery Network, it was based on a number of community metrics, as well as divided into both the economic and social recovery.

As we proceed through, as time has proceeded, it seems like there are segments of the economic recovery that have gone exceptionally well with the amount of investment in our city, the growth rate, both from an economics standpoint as well as from people moving into the city. However, we know that the social recovery seems to be a part that is lagging. So my question is, how is the flexibility built into the recovery network to shift between the community metrics to ensure that as time goes on, we’re focusing on those components of recovery that most need our leadership and support from the recovery network? Thank you, Ms.

Livingston, I think I would direct this to Mr. Thompson. Yes, Your Worship, that’s correct. Go ahead, please, Mr.

Thompson. There, Mr. Thompson. Ms.

Livingston doesn’t appear that we have Mr. I— Oh no, I— Your Worship, I believe we do, but I’ll start in terms of how to address the Deputy Mayor’s question in terms of keeping the work of the network nimble. And this is where the shared measures is extremely important and regular reporting out on how we’re doing and aligning our efforts so that we’re able to make that progress, bringing the network together regularly and identifying those opportunities to shift where we may see that we need to do so either as the city or individual organizations. The other opportunity is, of course, as we move forward to look to the next strategic plan of council, it’s an opportunity to embed this work and strengthen even more our collective efforts going forward.

And so I believe that is where we can be nimble. And I think that’s also the beauty of the framework that the community developed together in that it is based in metrics. And so we understand how we’re moving forward and can start to realign efforts where we’re maybe not making the progress that we had hoped for. I hope that addresses the question.

And I believe Mr. Thompson might be more able to chime in if needed. The fun thing, of course, is always when we have two, Mr. Thompson’s that are staff on the line.

Is Adam Thompson there? If there’s anything you’d like to add? I’m here, I think Lynn covered it. I apologize for missing that I have a baby issue in the back end.

Now, when you say a baby issue in the back end, I’m not sure how to take that, but go ahead, please. We’ll strike that from the record. So the showcase this year, can I just get the question repeated just to make sure I only cut the end for the last part? Yeah, Deputy Mayor.

Yes, essentially, Mr. Thompson, the question was around how flexible the framework is given the speed of both the economic and social recovery may proceed in different ways. I think Ms. Livingston answered the question talking about the community-driven metrics, and I think her answer was quite sufficient.

I would appreciate anything that you’d want to add to that, but I certainly think the framework is designed to accommodate for this. I just wanted to make sure that we’re keeping mind of how things may be progressing well, say in certain parts of the economic recovery, although maybe not all, maybe there’s more of a focus on talent retention and acquisition, but on the social recovery, certainly we see that there’s certainly a lot of work to be done there too. So my question was around, does the network adequately, is it adequately designed to account for those shifts and rebalance that so we can focus where the most need is? Is there anything extra you’d like to add, Mr.

Thompson? No, I think Ms. Livingston answered the questions efficiently, thank you. Thank you, anything else for you, Deputy Mayor.

All right, any other comments or questions? Items 2.1 to three, 2.5 through seven. Councilor Fife Miller. Thank you, Your Worship.

And through you, I’d like to speak to item 2.3, which is the core area land and building vacancy strategy. I think reading the report, first I want to thank staff for bringing forward the report. I think that there are some excellent actions in here, but I think one of the things that we can all agree on is that the downtown has changed a great deal. We have less commercial need, we have definitely increased residential need.

And I think looking forward and looking at some of the changes that are in this list, I think that we’ve got some good key indicators to move forward. I just want to highlight a couple though, that I think have had significant impacts in the downtown over the last while. I think one of the core area diversion pilot project has been an excellent program that we’ve been running in the downtown in combination with police, the justice system and outreach. I think it’s been extremely successful, and I think it’s something that the businesses themselves have really noticed.

I also think the safety audit grant that’s available to businesses and property owners is an important piece, and I would urge businesses to take advantage of that program. I think it’s been a solid program that we’ve been able to use. I think when we look at the item 12, the discontinued of commercial surface parking lots, I think that goes in conjunction with item eight team, which is downtown parking strategy. I think as we look to discontinue those lots, I think it’s paramount that we get a parking strategy in place.

When we look at the Millennium Project and when it came out, I think by 2020, we were supposed to have multiple multi-level parking structures in our downtown, and I think they can give us a great deal of service with the ability to allow for the secure bike storage, the ability to allow for recharging of electric vehicles, and I think these are some of the things that we need to look at. I think one thing that we have to recognize going through here on our move forward report that we had, that’s a report that was put together pre-pandemic, and I think post-pandemic, we have to agree that that move forward is out of date, and I think we have to look at that, and I think we have to refresh that moving forward. I also think one of the key things that we have to look at is an ability to incentivize, to look at our commercial space and converting some of our commercial space to residential space. I know other cities have had to do this, other cities have had to pivot to do this, and I think there’s an opportunity there in our downtown to do the exact same thing.

I think the last thing I’ll say is, there are a lot of things on this list, and I think if there’s one thing that we have to be, we have to be nimble on this, to say if there are items that simply are not working or aren’t giving us the outcomes that we desire, that we have to be able to put them aside and move forward on other opportunities, because the downtown is something that we need to see thrive. We need to see move forward. So I think this gives us a great opportunity to start, but I do think that there are some things here that we need to continue to build on. Thank you.

Thank you, and are you looking for any staff response to your comments, Councillor Fecknallar? No, thank you. Thank you very much, then. I will now call on Councillor Lewis, please.

Thank you, Your Worship. And I just wanna make sure, ‘cause I think she had her hand up first that you got Councillor Cassidy on your list as well, because I apologize, Councillor Lewis. I was just checking with the clerk on an item. Could you just repeat that for my benefit from what directed accordingly?

I apologize. That’s okay. I just wanna be respectful and make sure that you’ve got Councillor Cassidy on your list as well, ‘cause she had her hand up before I did. Actually, I did not notice her before, but she’s definitely on the list.

We would never exclude her. Go ahead. All right, thank you. So I’m gonna be brief.

I wanna talk to 2.3 as well. And I’m not gonna go into the laundry list of things that Councillor Fecknallar has highlighted as some good things that are happening in the core area. And I think the English street reconstruction for sewer capacity is also very important as it allows for residential density increasing. We know that residential requires more capacity than commercial space does.

And so that’s a benefit happening as well. I wanted to highlight as well, and these things kind of go hand in hand. And I know that in 2.4, which has been pulled, there’s the program enhancements to some of the one time things. But in there, the safety audits are mentioned as well.

And so I wanna talk about how these three things go hand in hand. As long as we’re not talking specifically to 2.4, but I think in general, the things that stood out to me and Councillor Fecknallar highlighted, removing vacant surface parking lots and the need for a parking strategy. And I concur with that. If we can have parking structures that allow people to park closer to where they’re going to work or where they’re going to shop.

And particularly in terms of if we want to attract new businesses to some of the heritage properties that we have in the core, that often don’t have much parking available in their immediate vicinity. They’re built side by each and there’s no room in between. So if we wanna fill those spaces, we do have to look at where we’re going to be putting parking garage structures. We know that we have some zones in the downtown that are essentially operating at capacity.

And then we have other parking lots in the downtown that are well below capacity and are not in high demand. But I think that we also have to be realistic that taking away those surface parking lot permits isn’t going to be successful if we don’t provide those multi-story parking structures as well. And taking them away is not necessarily going to mean that those vacant lands are suddenly going to be redeveloped. The economic business cases have to be there for redevelopment as well.

And that brings me to the safety audits and the other piece that I wanted to raise, which was the downtown London Heritage Conservation District. And I know that in 2.4, we’ll talk about streamlining some heritage approvals around safety measures that businesses can take. But I think it’s really important that we recognize that although the Heritage Conservation District plan has value, it can actually be a barrier sometimes as well. And we see that in 2.4 in the need to streamline approvals for security gating.

If we are going to give a property owner the choice between, you can have a heritage building that has a commercial operation in it with security gates. Or we’re not going to let you put up security gates because it’s a heritage building and you’re going to alter the heritage character. And we end up with a vacant heritage building as a result. That’s a loss for us, that’s not a win.

So I’m encouraged that in 2.4, specifically there’s a reference to streamlining one heritage process. But I would like to know through you chair with our staff because we see this regularly at Planning and Environment Committee, the heritage designation requests and things like that coming forward. I recognize that there may be some provincial legislation that comes forward that limits heritage being used after an application is in process to sort of go back and review things again and again. But what are we doing to streamline the opportunities where there’s chances to fill vacancies, but property owners are running up against heritage barriers to do so.

Mr. Mathers, who’s going to take this? With your worship, Jamie and Chula is here and he’s going to be able to take that question. Go ahead, Mr.

and Chula. Sometimes heritage provisions in the heritage conservation districts can be an obstacle, but we have never had a heritage application for any of our LCRN grants where it, we said no to an application. We have had one instance in I think 37 grants where it took us a little longer to reach the owner of the property to be able to confirm that he could do what was requested and he did. Sometimes it’s those interior things that are the problems on part four designation.

So all I can say is I could give you an example today. I met with a heritage planner on Dundas place to review an application that included one of the pull down security gates and that’s how we’re streamlining it. That we’re staff are treating it as a priority. I hope that’s a sufficient answer.

I’m happy to have a follow up if there is one. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, your worship and thank you, Mr. and Chula.

That’s helpful and I just wanted to underline when we’re talking about the core area that often the economic opportunities that the window can be fleeting if they can’t move into a space when they’re ready to do so or if they can’t make it operational in a certain period of time that look for other opportunities and other locations. And I’m glad to hear that in those cases where there’s potentially some heritage barriers that staff are working to prioritize and get those through as quickly as possible. Of course, we’ve got a lot of buildings covered by that heritage designation in the core and when it becomes a barrier to filling them because they need modernization for whatever reason. And I know from a techy point of view, let me tell you, Wi-Fi signals don’t travel very well through some of those older buildings.

So alterations there might be necessary sometimes as well. So it’s important that we have, that we’re working hand in glove with businesses when opportunities come up to get those issues dealt with in as timely a manner as possible. So thank you for that. That’s my comments on 2.3.

Thank you. Councilor Unhost. Thank you, Your Worship. I’d like to ask a couple of questions about 2.6.

And first, of course, thank the Learning Economic Development Corporation for their activity update. So, but I was interested in draw their attention to page 143 of our written agenda where we look at the number, we’re looking at employment in the, in agriculture sector. There seem to be a big jump in 2020. I just wondered if that might be a typo or if something extraordinary happened that I should ask to be described.

I think we have Mr. Locodia here. Is that a typo, sir? Thank you.

And through the chair, I’m scrolling through the right page so I can be on the same page here. That page 143 for the benefit of all. Thank you. So on our agri-food processing sector, we list 60 plus companies that employ 6,000 plus individuals in London.

Agri-food has been growing very rapidly over the last five years. In fact, that out of our manufacturing subplusters that include defense, aviation, automotive, and others. Agri-food by far is leading the pack. With Maple Leaf’s addition and several suppliers that we anticipate coming in to serve Maple Leaf, Agri-food will continue to grow.

So that 6,000 plus employed at the 60 companies is accurate. Councillor Vanholst. Oh, thank you. I was actually looking at the employment statistics that were presented in a table.

You list the total employed and then there was goods-producing sector, agriculture, and construction. It was on page 40 of your report. Maybe that’s when a number of jobs came online, but the numbers 4.5 and— I can clarify that. Mr.

Cody, go ahead, please. Thank you, through the chair. So the difference there being that table comes from Statistics Canada and under goods-producing industries, they list agriculture as a primary goods-producing sector. So it doesn’t include the manufacturing jobs that come from agri-food processing.

So Statistics Canada classifies agriculture as primary crop production. On the other page where I listed 60 companies involved with 6,000 plus positions, that’s more on the manufacturing of agri-food products. So that number would be captured under the manufacturing employment for StatsCan. So that’s where the discrepancy is.

Councillor Vanholst. Yes, thank you. And I will mention the page that you have on film London as well. We’ve had 15 film projects and I had a chance to tour one of those.

And I thought that was a great thing. Looking at our database, I’m hoping that those numbers can grow. I see we’ve got about 94 locations now. That’s developing in terms of talent in performers.

Seems like we have quite a few more in London. So what will be doing to boost those numbers and getting more people into that database? Mr. Locoria.

Thank you, through the chair. There are a number of marketing campaigns that are in various phases of being launched that will proactively boost that database even further. To give you an example, just this past weekend, there was a film production that was shot at the London International Airport. In preparation for that production, there were several callouts for background performers and crew members and other staff over the last two weeks, which has helped boost some of the response for this database.

So I think in the coming months, you’ll find a substantial increase in this database. In fact, for my second report later this year, we hope to have these numbers updated to have the most recent and accurate numbers. Councilor? Okay, thank you very much.

And I was recently at event hosted by our film office representative Andrew Todd. I thought it was great. And it was nice to see the community get together. So I appreciate what the LEDC is doing in these regards.

So thank you. Thank you, Councilor Turner. Thank you, worship quickly, I’ll run through a few of these at 2.1 on the development charges, the soft services recommendation of changing the horizon from 10 to 15 years. There’s some discussion in the report about looking at harmonizing the soft services with the sort of hard services forecast, but it does talk about some of the experiences that might be challenged in terms of forecasting on the horizon.

Is there any material difference between 15 and 20 years in terms of that forecasting? I think once you’re past 10 years, the challenge of providing those forecasts becomes a little more foggy in either scenario. And as such, is it truly more beneficial to keep the shorter horizon for soft services than harmonizing it and having it to just creating one forecast and staying hard in soft services 20 years. And that’s what we’re gonna charge DCs based on.

And then the second question to that is, what opportunities are there for adjustment along the way as we start to get a more refined prospect of what those costs are in the more near horizon? Mr. yeoman, you wanna give those two questions a try? Thank you, worship, and I really appreciate the question.

So to the first question about the benefits of the 15 versus 20 years, we had some really good discussions with the internal steering committee and also with our external stakeholders about this as well. We did discuss the ability to look at a 20 year forecast to does the counselors mentioning to harmonize the two together. Given that we’ve spent a number of DC studies though looking at a 10 year for soft services, it thought that a bridge to get to a 20 year outlook would probably be best at this point. It was thought to be a fairly large jump for the soft service providers to go from that 10 year to a 20 year forecast.

As the counselor does know it as well too, and we’ve got noted in the report, as you start going out longer in your forecast period, things do get a little bit more in the gray. So we think 15 years would be pretty tight on our forecast going forward. And to a second point, we are looking actually at whether or not there are certain soft services that should be considered through GLIS going forward as well to actually look at the needs as developments occurring and whether or not we could be a little bit nimble with our tweaks as well. Councillor Turner.

Thanks, that’s helpful. I figured there was a lot of good discussion that seemed to be indicated in the report. So that’s helpful. Number 2.3, through you to staff.

I’m just curious, we’ve had this discussion before and I’ve raised it before as well. A lot of our core area focus especially around building vacancies seems to be focused on incentivizing rather than disincentivizing. And I would really like to get a sense as we’re doing this work on what role speculation plays versus what role a shift in work patterns play in our core area vacancy. And perhaps maybe it’s encapsulated in what’s being presented here, but I don’t find those elements really coming through.

So perhaps we can talk a little bit about how that might be captured and how we might be able to address those issues because we’re not alone in that and how that might drive core vacancies either in London or in other cities. Mr. Mathers, do you want to direct that? Sure, I’m going to let Mr.

Yanchula take a crack at that one and then I’ll follow up after he’s made his comment. Mr. Yanchula, go ahead, please. Through you to Councillor Turner.

The, I heard the first part, what role speculation plays versus and I didn’t hear the second part. Versus a change in work pattern. Change in work patterns. Such as moving to remote work and all of that stuff right now.

Right, so that, you won’t find that in our summary of current actions in this report. That is part of our core area vacancy study that we are almost ready to, we’ve gone through a consultant recruitment process and there are a number of questions along those very lines. What role does the market play in this that we don’t have as city officials that they will be helping us answer those questions for. So certainly what role speculation plays, what role hybrid work arrangements play.

We’ve got 47 questions so far that we’re going to be asking that consultant to help us with. Mr. Mathers, do you want to add to that? Absolutely, and just to set a bit of expectations and I think we’re all familiar with this, that we are in a really changing world at this point.

So we’re trying to be at the front center here on the bleeding edge and the leading edge and not the bleeding edge. So we’ll work with the consultants and the experts that we have in the field, but there are likely to be some gaps in what we’re able to find. But we’ll get you the best information that we can and be conscious of what we may not be able to strictly say is going to be happening. So just want to be able to set that expectation that we are going to be trying to get as the best information possible.

Councillor Turner. Thank you, there’s a lot of attention and focus on the core and especially in the building vacancy. So recognizing there’s a couple of different strategies, it’s helpful to know that that’s a different one than this. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I’ll call now on Councillor Cassidy, please. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m also on 2.3 and I have a couple of questions.

First of all, it talks about in the list of current actions, the State of the Downtown report and before I had even gotten through the report, that was one of my questions. So it’s been a while since we’ve had London State of the Downtown report. It’s always full of extremely valuable information. For a Councillor, it’s a great resource.

When we have questions on the Downtown and I will say that often the question is, why are from a citizen, why are we spending more and more and more money on the Downtown? And it’s the information in that report has always been extremely useful and I will admit that I’m still using the information from the latest report. So through you, Mr. Mayor, I don’t know if it’s the city manager or Mr.

Mayders who could give us an idea if there will be another State of the Downtown report coming. I recognize COVID has messed a lot of things up but it might be a good idea to do a baseline based on where we are now. And then another report, not too far in the future. Well, all of the item 2.3 has been started by Mr.

Anchula, but I think that perhaps either the city manager or Mr. Mayders might give us some direction. Go ahead, Mr. Mayders.

Through the chair, so there was some previous work that was done on this and I’ll maybe have Mr. Anchula speak to it ‘cause in the past he was responsible for not reporting and if we do need to have anything added, Mr. Barrett’s also on the call, so we’ll start with Jim. Go ahead, Ms.

Anchula. Thank you, through you to Councillor Cassidy. The next installment of the State of the Downtown report is underway, it’s in our current work program. It will cover the prior two years, so 2019 and 2020 and we’ll be reporting it later today.

It’ll be our, sorry, did I say ninth? It’s the tenth installment of the State of the Downtown report, so you’re gonna be seeing it early next year. Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, that’s excellent news, thank you for that.

So touching on the parking, a few people have talked about parking and this is our dilemma. It goes back years and years and years. Why would we shut down surface parking lots in the downtown when there’s nothing to replace it at this time? So we had some success with the downtown parking strategy and identifying where there’s a need for parking and where perhaps the need isn’t as great and that allowed us to make decisions on certain surface parking lots.

One of the factors that factored into our decision on not proceeding with another exemption on a particular surface parking lot was a site plan issue. And there were, there had been eight years where site plan requirements had been put in place and they had not been satisfied by the parking lot owner. So I’m wondering if we could continue and not just for a reason to shut down a parking lot, but can we not at least implement stricter site plan controls to help beautify the downtown? I know some of our downtown surface parking lots are not attractive at all.

I would be scared to drive my car into some of those parking lots. They’re not well maintained. So I want to ask through you, Mr. Mayor to City staff, if we can be a little more stringent on some of our site plan requirements for some of these surface parking lots when they are seeking extensions on their exemption.

Well, why don’t you start with Mr. Ann Chula. He is our choice here. Go ahead, sir.

Mr. Ann Chula, were you going to handle that response? I think it’s, you know, there are site plan standards for temporary surface parking lots in our London plan. That’s what guides the review of site plans.

And if there’s more detail that will probably come from Mr. Barrett’s office on how we administer parking lot standards for temporary parking lots. And Mr. Mathers, were you going to be jumping in on that?

Through the chair, I was just going to also note that Mr. Barrett’s here if you would like any further information on what our requirements are for moving forward on site plans for parking lots. We love a team approach. Go ahead, Mr.

Brett. Thank you, through your worship, the part of the issue, well, first of all, there are, yeah, site plan standards as it relates to parking lots. Part of the problem we run into on the renewals is applying new standards or standards that might have changed since the original parking lot was put into place. And that’s because there are some very particular nuances around what constitutes development and at what point we can kick site plan in.

We have been successful in bringing some matters forward as part of, I would suggest a condition of the renewal, but how far we can push that varies based on what we can make with respect to what the nuance of development is. That being said, as Mr. Yanchula noted, there are stronger policies in place now. So if new temporary parking lots were to be created, we’ve got higher standards that we can implement at the outset.

It’s what we can bring in on a retroactive basis on a renewal is where we run into some of these problems. We’ve been successful in some through suasion and others not quite as successful. And as Councillor Cassie noted in one on its renewal, it’s because of the long period of not even implementing those requirements that had been set forth in the original agreement was part of the reason for the recommendation for a few as a lot renewal. Thank you, Councillor Cassie.

Thank you, Your Worship. So just a couple of comments on the downtown and then I do have one question on 2.6. As I said earlier, the state of the downtown report really lays out in clear language, the value of downtown to everyone in London. It’s a very small piece of geography in London with an outsized proportion of property tax revenue.

So it’s very important to all of us in the city of London that our downtown thrives. We cannot let it fail. And we’ve had challenges as I think every downtown across the country has had challenges. So, and personally, I don’t think that we will ever moved 100% to remote work.

I’ve spoken to a bunch of business owners and large employers in the city. And culture is really, really important to their workforces. And you can’t have a workplace culture without an actual workplace. If everybody’s working remotely, it’s really difficult to maintain and grow that culture.

So I’m very optimistic. I’m always optimistic about everything, probably hopelessly so. But I’m optimistic about our downtown. So this touches on 2.6, the London Economic Development Corporation Activity Update.

There is a mention in the downtown vacancy report about the work that was done by LEDC working with Small Business Center, working with Tech Alliance and Old East Village, downtown London, on activating some of these vacant storefronts in the city and providing grants and incentives for start-up businesses to fill in those vacant spots. So I’m wondering if Mr. LaCocia can give us an idea on how successful that is, if how many businesses we’ve seen come into those vacant spaces. Mr.

Cody, can you help us out? Thank you. Through the chair, that data is not presented in the activity report because that work really started earlier this year. But I can tell you over the last couple of months that we’ve been working with downtown BIA and others, there’s been six businesses that have signed leases and moved into the core.

We’ve got an active pipeline of about a dozen more companies that are actively looking interested and evaluating their options. As the counselor mentioned, many of them are bringing people back downtown. We have some prospects that are moving from other jurisdictions as well. So the pipeline is quite robust and we too are optimistic that before the year is over, we’ll have lots more space absorptions.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Well, thank you so much for that. And there’s an old saying, if you want something done, you ask a busy person, right?

So if you look at the LEDC activity report and then you consider some of these new businesses coming to downtown, working in partnership with the other organizations that I listed, I think it’s really good news. We also, this Council gave the film office over to LEDC to operate in one. And I think that’s been hugely successful. And I’m really excited to see where that’s going and kudos as well to Councillor Van Holst who’s always advocated for that film office and to grow the film industry in London.

So good for you, through you, Mr. Mayor, good for you, Mr. Councillor Van Holst for that as well. So just really pleased with both of these reports, the LEDC-1 and the downtown vacancy-1.

Thank you for everyone involved, thanks. Thank you, Councillor Humut. Thank you, Chair, Mr. Mayor.

This is through you to staff. So I wanted to thank the London Economic Development Corporation for the report that they did and in keeping London a vibrant employer. I noticed on page 31 of your report that access to qualified talent is the number one barrier to growth for London companies. So the question I have is what are the actual barriers if you have some of those?

And I know that we’re investing in things like housing. I know that we’re also trying to work on implementing the United Nations SDGs. But what are some of the barriers and what can Council invest in in order to remove all those barriers so that we continue to attract some of the world’s best and brightest? As we know, there’s a huge run on talent as we’re looking at population forecasts going forward.

So I just wanted to know how we’re getting people to come to London. Mr. Locote, I’m sure you have all those answers. So please go ahead.

Thank you, through the chair. So a couple of things, I’ll start at the macro level. London’s facing quite low unemployment rates at the moment. We are at about 4.8% unemployment, which makes the availability of labor pool quite limited to begin with.

The other macro economic factor is across Canada, most communities are struggling with a shortage of labor force as well. So those are at the high level. At the local level, access to housing, transit to get people to their place of employment, childcare, these are some of the variables that impact employability and people’s ability to get to place of employment. Lots of work have been done with London Transit and our industrial areas, for instance.

I know it’s been reported on several times in the past as well. So we made some progress in that respect. Hopefully there’ll be fewer barriers in terms of transportation to some of our industrial gateways. But there are several other challenges that we’re hoping to address.

In today’s meeting, later in the agenda, we have a proposal to help raise London’s visibility to attract more international talent to London and there are a host of other mechanisms that we have listed in that proposal as well. Thank you, customer. Thank you, I’m looking forward to hearing all of those proposals. Thank you.

Thank you, customer office. Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I just want to speak to 2.3.

I’ll just make some comments as the number of my questions have already been asked. I want to thank staff for these reports. They’re very, very important to council. We know the downtown, the viability of downtown is important to our city.

And I think these reports give us some understanding on how we are going to be moving forward and to have these conversations is very important. We, along with other municipalities, are experiencing the same challenges downtown, but we know when we go downtown, there are a number of vacancies. And I really appreciate Councilor Turner’s questions around how we are going to deal with these vacancies. And Mr.

Anne Chula commented about the report coming forward to us, which is something that we should all be really looking forward to and glad that there is going to be a number of questions being asked as they come forward with that report. But we can see how empty the downtown is and we need to do something. And these reports give me confidence that we are doing something as a city and having these conversations as well. I want to just acknowledge LEDC too.

It was good to hear that we are getting some investments in downtown, some commercial space being occupied. And I really do hope as we go through the economic recovery after COVID that we’ll hear more of these good news stories. But again, my thanks and to staff and to encourage them to continue giving these vital reports to us as a Council. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other folks to speak on this? I’m going to just look here at who has spoken, if there’s anyone that has not yet spoken to this issue. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor.

Yes, and I just wanted to add, based on some of my colleagues’ discussion, particularly on the vacancy in the downtown comments, it would appear to me that one of the other avenues that we could go to gather information on this beyond what was already mentioned with our staff, perhaps not on the more technical, municipal standards components, but on the discussions of vacancy and change of work, is the LRCN. As we know, we’ve broken the LRCN into subcomponents. There are a number of those private sector, not-for-profits, as well as government players, who have come together under that, and perhaps at one of the future LRCN meetings, there could be either a group or a subgroup discussion on some of these issues to get a little more information, which would support, obviously, Mr. Yanchula and his work.

So, I just make that comment out there that given the nature of some of the discussions and concerns that counselors have, I think we also have basically a network set up that brings a number of those partners together on some of these issues that we could seek their guidance and feedback on as well. Thank you, Councillor Lusz. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, I have a question for our staff, and I don’t want to get into micro details here today, but something Councillor Cassidy said really had me nodding my head and agreeing with, and that’s when the renewals of the surface parking lot applications come forward. And the idea that perhaps, you know, some beautification, some perhaps depaving for some tree planting in some locations, or resurfacing with permeable asphalt, rather than some of the old-school technology that, or old-school materials that were used.

So, through you to our staff, if perhaps I suspect it’s Mr. Barrett, but whoever could elaborate a little bit, do we have some, I guess, property standards requirements or site plan requirements on the maintenance and upkeep of these lots, where some of them deteriorate quite horribly. They’re very pothole-ridden. I know that they’re private lots, but do we have any sort of property standards-type mechanisms that would, at some point, kick in a site plan review and allow us to impose some conditions on renewal?

Mr. Mathers, are you going to start us up on that? For your worship. I’m going to have Mr.

Barrett address that question. And just this is just to stow along the long lines. If there are specific issues that align with any of our other myelaws, we do have our compliance folks to be able to help out with this, but I think we’re talking about going beyond to that site plan stage, so Greg is going to help us with that. Mr.

Barrett? Thank you, Mr. Bishop, I will attend. So Mr.

Mathers, I think, set it up. Part of the compliance is actually driven by complaint, so we can certainly follow up on this. Again, through the site plan agreements, a lot of it would speak to what, in fact, was in place in the site plan agreement. Some of these surface parking areas that exist long before we had a lot of these kinds of standards in place.

That being said, what I can report on is there is part of, and the council is aware of this, ‘cause he hears this at PAC all the time, but as part of our whole process review and a lot of the updates that we’re looking at, part of that includes the site plan control by-law, and part of that is going to include municipal requirements as it relates to these kinds of things. So on the go forward, this is under review on the existing condition. We can certainly follow up because these are on a complaint spaces, but where we can go with them is going to be very much tied to what the agreement say in a lot of these pre-exist. Excuse me, where we would have had conditions as it relates to a lot of these kinds of things, but it certainly something to follow up on.

Thank you, Casos. Thank you. So just a quick, very quick follow up on that. Is it a possibility that if we were to refuse a renewal that an applicant may bring forward a new request for temporary parking with new conditions that might be part of a new application for temporary surface parking?

Mr. Baird. Sorry, through your worship, I was trying to find the mute button. A new application would, I would suggest you have a very difficult time coming forward because it would not be consistent with the policies that exist, right?

So a lot of the issues or a lot of what we’re speaking with now are related to temporary surface parking lots that exist within the downtown. It’s council’s decision on whether or not a new temporary lot would be permitted. The policies that are in place, not only in the London plan, but were in place in the ‘89 plan, strongly discouraged the provision of temporary surface parking lots. So it would go through that hurdle first and then of course then it would be a decision of council.

And as part of that, those conditions could be put into place. Casos, thank you for that. And I appreciate that, Mr. Baird.

And I keep coming back to applications where we’ve got legal non-conforming uses and thinking about how those play out sometimes and thinking about our climate emergency action plan as well, even if we can green two or three spaces in a parking lot, it’s better than having pavement there. And so you’ve given me some food for thought there. And I want to say thanks to council Cassidy for tweaking that idea. And maybe she and I will have some discussions offline about how we can further this discussion with staff.

Thank you. Thank you. I have no other speakers. This has been duly moved and seconded.

All items on the consent agenda with the exception of 2.4, we will call the vote. Councillor, sorry, my screen’s doing something weird, but I’ll vote manually, yay. Thank you. Councillor Palose, same issue on the screen.

It seems to be frozen, manually, yay. Green’s frozen, so I’ll vote manually, yay. Thank you. Yes, I have the same issue, so I’ll vote manually, yay.

The Mayor may be the only one with a perfect screen, but I’ve already voted. So anyone else outstanding clerk? Councillor Cassidy, please. Yes, it’s great out.

It’s like the entire screen is grayed out, so I will also vote yay. Thanks very much. Anyone else not having voted? The clerk has it all.

Closing the vote, the motion’s passed. Colleagues, thank you. That was a lot of, pardon me? Thank you very much, Colleagues.

That was a lot of information on some very critical issues. That leaves us with one item on the consent agenda, which has been pulled separately, 2.4. Councillor Turner, you pulled the second. Please go ahead.

Thanks Your Worship. I had a couple of questions, and actually Mr. Butler raised a couple of good questions in his correspondence here as well. First is a question about the ambassador program, and one of the constant discussions that we’re having when we’re talking about what resources need to be invested in policing versus what needs to be invested in social services.

I think we could ask that question wherever we encounter that program spends, especially on focus on the core. And the ambassador program, we’re aiming for about $220,000 in spend. But not, their training skills aren’t necessarily focused towards outreach or those direct intervention skills. It’s more a question of eyes on the street.

So I raised this, and I asked for it to be pulled, just because I wanted to hear a little bit about our options and our choices in our spending here, recognizing that we don’t have a limited budget and we don’t have unlimited options, but there are opportunity costs here. So I want to start there, and then I have a second question, a couple more questions to follow up. Ms. Sherry, do you want to give that a go?

Thanks, if I may, and if you’ll indulge me, Your Worship, just a bit of context on where this report arose from. We have been hearing loud and clear from property owners, institutions, businesses, the BIAs, that we have one sort of chance to reopen the core and have set the right tone as we start seeing conferences, concerts, return to in person work, business is opening. And so that’s where this report was started from. And from that perspective, we were looking at things that we could onboard fairly quickly, and that could be a one-time investment.

So investing into more social services, into additional policing, takes a fair bit of lead time to get there, whereas we thought our ambassadors may be an opportunity to help support that return to more activity, more in person work, more events in the core in a more immediate way, and not necessarily a program that we would need to continue into the future. There is a lot of training provided to our ambassadors in terms of de-escalation and recognizing concerns, but they are neither social services workers nor police. With that, I’m gonna turn it over to Mr. Mathers, whose team runs that program, and he can provide some more details for the counselor.

Good, Mr. Mathers. Through you, worship, yes, this is definitely a balance between who we have on the street. So I think we can all agree that there is a place for the ambassadors, and there’s also a place for our municipal enforcement officers as well.

So we wanna try to strike that balance wherever we can, that what we propose, we think, is a good suggestion of how we should move forward. Of course, we are also having other challenges, which were noted in the appendix of the report, even trying to get hiring and getting skilled people out there to fill some of these positions. And that’s why we didn’t suggest even expanding the ambassador program. If we were to move forward, as we actually would like to, we’d like to be able to have more ambassadors on the streets, and also as suggested in the improvements, we are looking at bringing forward some further MLEOs to be able to support the work as well.

So it is a balance, and I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer, but we’re trying to see what’s happening on the streets and then provide what we think is the best of people to be able to support the needs. Thank you, customer. Thank you to you both. So Mr.

Mathers, you addressed something that led into the second question, which is one of metrics. I identified that the ambassadors were an effective program. I’m not so sure, but that’s also because I just don’t know. And I don’t, I guess intuitively, I don’t see huge value added from it necessarily, but that’s not to say it’s not there.

What metrics, and this was something that was raised in Mr. Botner’s letter, what metrics are we using in these programs to identify whether the investment is appropriate, whether it’s something we’d consider in future years. And I noticed that we have a pilot program, for example, in there and the pilot should be accompanied with metrics to be able to say, yeah, this is doing what we wanted it to or it’s not. Mr.

Mr. - Thank you, Your Worship. I can start and I can maybe flip that over to Mr. Mathers.

The original query action plan was largely a yes-no sort of set of metrics where we were saying, is it done or is it not done? We have launched as of the beginning of this year, a more robust set of quantitative measures that we are tracking throughout the year. There are a number of metrics associated with the ambassadors, including the number of events, say they go to their beats, the number of business interactions. I believe between Mr.

Mathers and potentially Mr. Yanchua, they could get into some of the details there, but absolutely the intent is to have quantitative as well as some qualitative metrics, which would involve reviews with various stakeholders once we’ve had a little bit more time with them on the street. Mr. Mathers, do you want to take the next step?

Just to find, sorry, if I might jump in there first. Go ahead. I’m just coming on Ms. Sherrod said.

The one part two in metrics and I’ll wait to Mr. Mathers in a second on this is that when we do the metrics, those are those be output metrics and then there’s the outcome metrics, right? And the outcomes are identified in the report as the second column. So the outcomes in this specific circumstance, we’d be looking for things like, what impact did it have by having them there?

So they can go to a lot of events, but did it do anything? And that’s where my big concern is, is did they do anything in terms of a positive outcome for the core? Did it reduce crime? Did it increase a feeling of security?

Did it, some of these are subjective rather than objective and makes it really difficult to quantify sometimes? Well, let’s have Ms. Sherrod give that a go. Thank you, Mr.

Mather. And I think that really is an important distinction to make that there are both outputs and outcomes that we need to be measuring. A lot of the issues we’re facing in the core are multifaceted and complicated. And so it’s very difficult to say, did this one program make all of the difference or is it a combination of a variety of programs?

The ambassadors themselves are not designed to be crime fighters, they are designed to be ambassadors, but they are certainly part of our eyes on the street, part of our support and security for both patrons and organizers of events. So there is a plan to do a holistic review of the whole program, which will come back to council early in the new year and it will be focusing on what difference they were able to make quantitatively, but also qualitatively hearing from our various stakeholders and partners who deal with them every day through the core. So, Mr. Mather, so I’m gonna look to you to see if you have anything dead to the prior comment of the counselor or perhaps this as well.

No, that’s great. Yeah, we are planning to do a one-year review and that we’ll come back to council and hopefully we’ll be able to address some of these questions. Thank you, Councillor Turner. Wonderful, I appreciate that.

My last question is just with respect to item number three, expand diversion pilot project capacity targeting individuals committing frequent minor crimes. Third bullet in the outcomes is expansion of the by name list of individuals to include more people committing repeated minor crimes. I’m curious about how this is going to be handled and one that there is a list and two how it handles on an expanded basis. Whenever we talk about lists of individuals it kind of raises concerns for me in terms of a number of things, whether how that’s targeted, what’s done with that information, how that privacy is handled, what protocols are in place.

We’ve seen challenges with lists by other agencies and how they’re handled. So with this one, it seems like it could lead to risks of incarceration, it could certainly address outcomes to the individuals or it could go the other way and look for helping hands in support of interventions. So I’m curious about what that leads to and what safeguards are in place. Well, why don’t we start with, I see Mr.

Dickens would like to jump in both. Mr. Dickens, are you the first person to start with this? Yeah, I’m seeing none.

Thank you, yes. Call the order for me. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and through you.

Thank you for the question. So the core area diversion program, this pilot is a pilot program that was initiated led by London Police Service. They connected in with the city and with civic administration to really brainstorm and find a way to be more holistic in the response and intervention of police to really engage with a set of individuals that are already within the police system that are already connected to police through the repeat offenses or the prolific offenders list that police have. The way the program works is that there was a barrier to seeing some change in the behaviors and a decrease in the repetitive crime because there seemed to be a disconnect between police engaging with individuals and then those individuals connecting with service.

So what has been piloted here is a team of outreach workers to work with London Police to engage the individuals that are already involved in the justice system and who already are connected into London Police. The outreach work begins with obtaining consent to participate. Up until this point, we’ve had a very high rate of success with individuals agreeing to consent. Of course, acknowledging when informed consent is in fact informed and when it is not.

So there has been some challenges throughout that process but really looking to engage individuals to ensure that we can begin to hear from them really what those supports are that they’re in need of and working with the police to ensure that we direct people away from repeat, petty crime, from repeat offenses and becoming more engaged in the social service system, whether it be through obtaining ID, getting connected to financial assistance, getting connected to caseworkers, social assistance supports, working through some housing applications, food security, those type of things. So this is a list that is maintained by London Police through their programming and through their regular day-to-day activity. And what we’ve done is we’ve tried to supplement what would be a police interaction with a social service interaction. And the police are quantifying those outcomes and tracking those outputs and outcomes to determine the effectiveness of this partnership.

Right now, there are some early signs that there has been both anecdotal and recorded decrease in criminal activity or occurrences in the core area where this program’s being delivered. So we are seeking here to maintain that type of work, that type of partnership to continue to work towards those positive outcomes. Councillor Turner. Thank you, I appreciate the answer.

Thank you, Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you, Your Worship, and I’m gonna offer some comments on this as well. And I agree with Councillor Turner. Mr.

Butler did raise some good points in his letter. And Councillor Turner and I actually have a couple of the same concerns. And I’m really glad that staff is not recommending proceeding with an expansion of the ambassador program at the moment. I too am not convinced that we’re truly getting good value out of the ambassador program compared to what we’re getting out of the coordinated informed response, the coast program, our MLEOs, and even the Clean Streets Partnership, which is helping you through YOU find employment and keep our downtown looking cleaner and tidier than it has been in the past.

And I wanna share a story. And, you know, it is an example, but it leads me to question the value of the ambassador program. Couple of weeks back, we had opening night for the London majors at Lebatt Park. We had a poutine fest happening on Dundas Place.

I went down early. I took the nephew to the game. We went to Dundas Place to enjoy some street food and see what was going on. You know, on our way to the game, I saw two ambassadors who were sitting at a picnic table eating poutine.

And they may well have been on their dinner break. And they should have one of those, absolutely. I don’t disagree with that. When we were coming back from the game that night and we had to come back a little early because we had a little bit of an evacuation at Lebatt Park that night.

And kudos to our first responders, by the way, for their response and kudos to Londoners, for how they left the park very respectfully and got out of the way for the first responders to do their job. So, but walking back through the downtown, we had a little Sunfest pop-up stage and there was some great music playing. There was some great artists. And again, as we’re walking back through the crowd near the market tower, unfortunately, there was an individual who was in a doorway using injection drugs right on the street, feet away from families who were trying to enjoy the festivities.

I watched two ambassadors standing there talking to each other and enjoying the music. Maybe they were done their shift. I, you know, again, I don’t wanna presume too much on this, but they were standing there talking to one another, not to other folks in the audience or in the area. And there is the point that these are not social workers.

These are not by law enforcement officers. These are not law enforcement officers. And I don’t know that they would have been able to do anything about this even had they tried to actively engage the person. In fact, I suspect they would not have been able to do anything really about it.

But that’s where I see a lot more value. And I’m glad that staff are noting in the mid and long term, looking towards expanding the coordinated informed response, the COAS program and some more MELO presence, because I think that’s where we’re really going to start to change the perception of the safety issues downtown. You know, both on my way to and on my way from that game that day, I saw the ambassadors around, but I didn’t see them directing people to, oh, here’s where you can go for this or providing that sort of ambassadorial outreach. In fact, I happened to bump into former counselor squire on my way to the game.

And he was providing somebody with directions on how to get somewhere. Well, the ambassadors were having their poutine. So to me, that night raised some real questions about the value we’re getting from this program. I wasn’t convinced about it when it first came through the budget.

It’s a pilot program. We don’t have any metric yet. So I’m glad we’re not moving forward with that. I have seen the good work that we get from the coordinated informed response.

And I’ve certainly had the opportunity to talk, not just with folks who are in the downtown, but with some officers with LPS. And I know that they are very much feeling like the close program is proving successful. And that’s a good thing. So I can support what’s in here tonight.

I would not be too supportive of further expanding pilot projects until we get some metrics back on their success. I understand that some of these are qualitative, but to counselor Turner’s point, attending events and actually having a meaningful impact while you’re at events are two different things. So I will look forward to that pilot review coming back. But I think that we have some better value added items in this report to make the downtown hopefully more vibrant than we’ve seen it in a long time.

I do have, sorry, Your Worship, I do have one question for our staff though, just before I wrap up. In terms of promoting the events downtown and creating that comprehensive list, what role or engagement is happening with tourism London around that? Let’s ask Ms. Schur.

I can certainly start Your Worship and then I’ve been to Mr. Mathers and Ms. McKake. Then we have some additional things to add to that.

We do actually have a pretty active inventory of a lot of the events and programming that are happening in the core. We’d like to add to that some of the things that traditionally aren’t always caught, things like convocation for Fanshawe, major conferences, concerts, opening dates for things at various performance halls. So we will definitely be working with tourism on that piece. And I’m going to flip that over to Ms.

McKake and Mr. Mathers to fill in some of those details. Ms. McKake, do you want to start?

Sure, thank you through Your Worship. It’s a great question. We’ve been working very closely on both with the BAA’s as well as with tourism London to make sure that we can promote events that are taking place in the core area across all of our social media channels as well. So we connect with them on a regular basis and make sure that we’re taking stock of the things that they have happening so that we can help amplify and make the community aware of what’s taking place.

And Mr. Mathers, anything you want to add? It’s the one addition that the tourism London is within my portfolio. So we are making sure that we’re all working as a team together and it’s working out really well.

Thanks very much, colleagues, just one thing. I’m going to turn over to Councillor Van Halst. And I say this with respect ‘cause I’m always very mindful of making reference to colleagues’ comments. But I’m just going to caution about what I would call indictment by speculation unless we have known facts because I know this was put in good faith.

I know certain Councillors had, I’m talking about the ambassador program, had a variety of views but I’m just mindful of what that might mean. Councillor Van Halst, go ahead. Thank you, worship. So maybe my first question will be about the pilot, the London Lunches gift card program.

So my question is how those gifts cards might be distributed. Let’s ask Mr. Mathers. Three-year worship.

So we are still working on the implementation plan for this but the intention was to be able to use this as a way to get feet back on the street and to work with some of the larger businesses in the core to try to provide a little bit of an incentive or motivation to bring their staff back to their workplaces. So we’ll be working with some of those larger employers but then also there might be other opportunities to be able to release this to the general public just to try to get people within the core during those lunch hour times that are a little bit less likely that we have substantial people in the downtown. So we’ve done a lot of work on trying to get people here in the evenings and the last success on the evenings and weekends. And this was the thought of trying to get people here also during the daytime as well.

Councilor got a host. Thank you very much for that answer. And I wanted to ask about the coast program. The, I know that the police’s core unit has been downsized.

So I wondered if someone could provide an update on the coast program. Will I start with Mr. Mathers? I’m not sure if that’s me sure though.

Thank you, Your Worship. We are actually looking for some new updates from our colleagues at LPS and the people involved in coast. They are currently evaluating the performance of the work so far. I know they’re interested in what it can be as it grows in the future but we don’t have that information available from the service providers right now.

Councilor and host. Okay, thank you. Well, I can certainly wait for that at another time. And maybe a last question we’re talking about very programs for security.

I know some of the BIA’s have and are considering using some security companies to as a visual determine and to be eyes on the street as well. And a car with an individual is I think fairly cost effective. Have we considered for or how often do we use resources like that in the core area? Can we try and miss sure again?

You sure can, Your Worship. So the core area safety security audit was completed and we are working on a number of aspects of implementation. It’s extremely comprehensive. It goes in hand in hand with Project Spotlight which also is using private security cameras to enhance the ability to monitor conditions voluntarily in the core with respect to private security forces.

We have done some pilot projects with that with having some patrols throughout the core but ultimately they’ve been found to be pretty cost prohibitive to continue on a full time basis. So as we work through the implementation of that security and safety audit, we will be looking at what the requirements for patrols and that sort of eyes on the street would be particularly at high risk times. So it’s a bit of a stay tuned, Councillor. Thank you and Winston, Councillor van Host.

I will stay tuned, Your Worship. And thank you for the opportunity to ask the questions and to staff for the report. Thanks very much, Councillor Lehman, please. Thank you.

Just want to touch on two things briefly. The first, just echoing the concerns of a couple of Councillors on the ambassador program. The challenge I think with the ambassador program is one of training and experience to deal with the issues that we have downtown. And I personally, I would like to see those resources put towards programs such as CIR and maybe coast initiatives to help the police out because then we’re having highly trained social workers and please deal with the issues that we see downtown, which I think better served by that type of trained individuals.

I just want to touch briefly on number three that was brought up by Councillor Turner. When we hear the word list, I think sometimes it has some bad connotations. My understanding from places like reasoning behind safe injection sites, shelter, CIR, core response, et cetera, has been to identify individuals that are off the grid that need assistance, but they, due to their circumstances, are unable to access programs, et cetera, that are to help them just because of unable to identify them. So those questions for Mr.

Dickens. Last couple of years, I see the city putting more emphasis on dividing relationships with four individuals that they’re reaching out to. Can Mr. Dickens let us know the expound on that, the success of that initiatives to develop relations through identifying individuals in their outreach?

Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Chair, and through you, I believe I understand the question to be touching on the outcomes and some of the successes of more information sharing and some of the coordinated lists and some of the tracking. So that’s how I will respond.

And if I’m wrong on that, please correct me. We have made great strides as a community and a network of service providers to onboard organizations into our homeless individuals and families information system, which is HIFAS. And that creates a real-time data point and by name tracking database, which helps the entire community, really, be more efficient in our interactions so that individuals are not going through the same assessment multiple times that we’re not trying to recreate someone’s last 24 or 48 hours on the spot with them every time that we engage. So the HIFAS system includes a multitude of organizations representing a number of provincial ministries that allows us to support the entire individual from many different angles.

So whether it be on a shelter stay, whether it be on an outreach in a unsheltered situation, be it in encampment or sleeping rough, or whether it be through coming through the front doors of one of the many organizations. On top of that, we also have a coordinated access system, which allows us to turn a number of community front doors into one virtual front door, which allows us as a organization at the municipality work in tandem with a number of community-based agencies to triage and match individuals experiencing or at risk experiencing of experiencing homelessness into the appropriate intervention. So from day one, making sure people are connected to the appropriate service when they need it and then the ongoing follow-up and connection and being able to really see in real time where people enter and exit the system allows us to have a more informed decision-making process and it allows us to be the most efficient with our resources. And frankly, it allows us to bring informed reports before a council about where investments need to be made going forward.

So hopefully I’ve answered the council’s question and if not, happy to elaborate. Councilor Lehman. Thank you, Mr. Second, that’s what I was looking for.

Thank you, any other comments or questions, colleagues? Councilor Feifft Miller. Thank you, Chair. And through you, I’m not going to repeat what everyone else has said.

I want to thank staff though for the list. I think the items on this list, short-term impactful, things for the downtown. I’m going to address just a couple of items on here. I think number nine, the activation in places and looking at locations outside of Dundas place.

I think that’s really important to a lot of the businesses in the downtown core. I think sometimes when you talk to the businesses, there’s a lot of focuses, and there’s a lot of emphasis on Dundas place. And when you look at the core plan, the core plan includes Richmond Road, it includes the downtown, it includes Old East Village, and it includes Midtown. So seeing that we’re looking at opportunities outside of just Dundas place, I think is a plus.

The other one that I would say item six, which is the pilot program for the gift cards for lunches. You know, one of the goals there is getting people into the restaurants. I think considering that the restaurants, maybe look at the restaurants, distributing those cards and getting people in there, I think is a plus, but again, I just want to say I really commend staff for this list because I do think the things on this list will be extremely impactful in the short-term to the downtown. Thank you, and here’s the comments for questions.

So for this, we are now talking 2.4, the core action plan, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder. Please move by Councillor Helmer. Seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Oh, sorry, Councillor Helmer, you had a comment.

I’m sorry, I didn’t see your hand up, but I did see it wave though. So go ahead. Happy to move it as well. And I’ve just been thinking about what to say.

I was listening to what everyone else was saying about the report. I support most of these enhancements. I will say I’m a little skeptical about the gift card idea. I think I’m willing to support it in the hopes that it will work out.

I think as soon as people are back in the office working, they’re gonna be out at their favorite lunch spots. I’m not sure that an incentive is really needed to make that happen. And if we’re giving money to people to help them by food, I think you should probably go to people who don’t have great jobs downtown already. But I will support it ‘cause I think it’ll help get people connected into the restaurants for now, hopefully it’s successful in doing that.

I wanna say through the mayor, I think you tried to do this in a very gentle way. And I was thinking about whether that was really sufficient. And I’m not sure that it really is. And I wanna be very direct.

I don’t think it’s appropriate for a counselor, in this case, counselor Lewis, to come to a council meeting and criticize the work behavior of city staff in the way that he has. I just don’t think that’s appropriate. People are entitled to take breaks. People are entitled to talk to other people they’re working with.

Point of personal privilege, Your Worship. Sorry, we have a point of personal privilege. Go ahead, counselor Lewis. I was very specific in my comments acknowledging that they may well have been on their break through you to counselor Helmer and others.

But it is part of our role as counselors to raise concerns that we have about values of the program. I likewise, in my comments specifically said, even had they been able, I was not sure that the ambassador program would have been able to intervene with a drug injection situation. So please note for the record, go back and watch the YouTube video. I indicated very clearly that they may have well have been on their breaks and I did not wanna speculate on that.

Well, that’s why, and I’m not going to intervene too heavily on this and I’ll bring it back to counselor Helmer in a moment. That’s why I made the reference be mindful of indictment by speculation. I was very careful in those words because I think we have to give latitude but we also have to be mindful. Counselor Helmer, go ahead.

Right, no, I listened very carefully to what counselor Lewis said and that’s not a point of personal privilege. And we had a report on the core area ambassador program and update on it back in March. And in that report, it laid out very clearly how the core area ambassadors have already, this is, they started in November, have already been super helpful in resolving many issues on the street and are fulfilling their functions, which is not to be a police officer and is not to be part of court community and form response. Those are different services that are doing different things.

And I’m all for, you know, we should take a look at how is it working? Is it being very successful? Is it not working in some ways? Can we improve it?

That’s fine. What I am objecting to is the idea that looks gonna, well, I walked around and I saw some stuff happening and now I have a lot of concerns and beating up on people doing their jobs. I just don’t think it’s appropriate and I want to say that so it’s really clear. You know, they have called 911.

They have administered naloxone when necessary. They have connected people. We know that because we’ve had reports that tell us that. You know, so I just think it’s really unwise to do that in a council meeting.

If you’ve got concerns about that, bring them up with the management. Thank you. I believe you made the motion to accept the report. I did.

Thank you, seconded by, actually, I had a seconder already in councilor Cassidy, although councilor Fife Miller was jumping in, but he, sorry, you don’t count, except for this big vote. So with that, we’ll call the question. Mr. Helmer, closing the vote.

The motion’s passed 15 to zero. Thank you colleagues. If two good news on 3.1 is we were not to hear it before 4.05. So we’re in luck.

So with that, what I’d like to do is I know we have, Mr. Sharma here from London Hydro, and he is going to be making a presentation for the benefit of the public. We are also going to be dealing with the 2021 annual report on finance and consideration of two appointments. So Mr.

Sharma, are you about? Mr. Chair, your worship, Mayor Holder, I’m here. And so is our Chair Gabe Vellante.

I wonder if you can invite Gabe to make the introductory comment, then I can take, make the presentation. Mr. Vellante, if you’re there and hear us, by all means, please come forward and your time starts now. Thank you.

Thanks. Thanks, Your Worship. And here, can you hear me? We can indeed.

Great. Well, thank you, Your Worship, for allowing us the opportunity to present to you today and to Council, we’ve provided a slide deck which you all have in advance. So we’ll just quickly do some highlights of the accomplishments and the continued success of London Hydro in 2021. Vinay will provide that presentation.

But I’d like to start by thanking certainly our senior leadership team and all the employees of London Hydro, who actually went above and beyond in the last couple of years, certainly with COVID in making and continue to make LHI an industry leader. But I’d also like to thank our board members who have been committed throughout that process and to provide a strategic leadership to London Hydro, just so that you’re aware, this is my last year as Chair of the Board. Connie Gran will be stepping into the seat of Chair with Jack Smith becoming the Vice Chair, both Connie and Jack certainly will provide ongoing dynamic stewardship and oversight for you guys, the shareholders. And I will continue with one year as past Chair.

Just as some quick highlights for the year, you will have seen in your strong slide deck that despite certainly, you know, business interruption, we’re happy to report that 2021 was again a year of strong financial performance and industry leadership and certainly award-winning technology and innovations. Just a couple of items of note, some of the financial highlights, distribution revenue of 73.7 million. Our net earnings unadjusted were 20.5 million, providing an average rate of return on shareholder equity of 11.1%. We continue to make capital asset investments.

2021 saw $37.4 million being invested in new assets and continuing to maintain the infrastructure. Our financial position, we had total assets of 520, almost $522 million worth of asset base. Our shareholder equity increased from 175 to 192 million. We continue to maintain a dividend distribution to the shareholder of $5 million in 2021, cumulatively year to date, that those dividends are in a quantum of 221 million.

And we’re proud to say too that we’ve done that in continuing our S&P credit rating at an A1 stable level. So for all intents and purposes, another banner year for London Hydro, even in light of the challenges that we’ve been facing. I guess as representatives for you, the city of London, we can confirm that we continue to try to fulfill our shareholder objectives through strong growth and shareholder value, caring for our customers and continuing to be an industry leader in innovation. So I will leave it with that brief summary as you have the slide deck.

And I’ll hand it over to Dr. Vinay Sharma to present. Dr. Sharma, please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, your worship and through you to the counselors. What I’d like to share first and foremost is two weeks ago as you experience a storm.

Dureko, I think, Measure Environment Canada is calling it. It created a lot of trouble for us on the long weekend, Victoria Day weekend. I have to say that this was a long weekend starting Saturday and many of the employees had gone for their first camping trip. But when trouble began, they all heated the call and came back leaving their families in their camps.

So just absolutely appreciated and we’re proud of the employees that worked hard. It took us three days to recover majority of the outages, but our employees worked very hard. And the exemplary role was much appreciated. We were lucky, we did not get the damage, the level that hydro Ottawa got.

So after we recovered fully, we sent a crew of 12 people from here that went to work in Ottawa. They worked for eight days and we also issued or help Ottawa with some emergency supplies as they ran out of emergency stock to repair their system. So we provided to our sister utility help and again, I’m proud of employees. We will talk about the storm next year at the AGM, but I just wanted to give you a small highlight of that today.

If I may, through you, your worship mayor, slide number five, I just want to show you the planning and thinking and discussion and debate that happens at the board. We in 2021, it looks a stroke of luck now, but at the time we worked hard and we planned very well to position the company so that our debt is very well placed and has the lowest coupon rate possible. And we did that. We had a $200 million debt at this time and it is at a all in coupon rate of 2.13% as compared to the going rate today.

And we are locked in at that rate for 10 years until 2032. So that’s a remarkable, even regulators have appreciated that because it does impact the not only other performance, but also our customer’s rates. So there was remarkable planning by our management and of course council of our board that helped us achieve. Going to slide number seven, which shows you how well we have preserved shareholder equity.

Not only we have provided cash stable dividend and sometimes special dividend, we have increased your corporate value. Just to give you a glimpse off, back in 2001 when we became a corporation, you had $96 million in equity. And today that equity is more than double and you have $192 million. Market value, of course, of that equity is certainly much, much, much higher than that.

On the performance side, your objective given to us is to keep competitive rates and good reliability of supply. Slide number eight shows that where our costs on a competitive basis are very competitive. We are in low core time and our reliability trends are declining despite some time the freaky storm that we had on the long weekend in May. Our chair referred to our leadership in technology on slide number nine, we show you how our technology is helping achieve efficiency in our customer service delivery parameters.

And it shows you how much digital engagement and I thank our customers in London. Every Londoner, I think, is a technically savvy person. I’m proud of the fact that nearly 100,000 customers are now using our digital online services rather than calling us because phone sometimes can be long wait. And as a result, our service level have improved because our customers are engaging us on digital platform.

And these technologies that we are developing are very cost effectively and much of the brain power comes from within London Hydro. So we develop our skills of our employees as well. Moving on to slide number 11, if I may, your worship mayor, you participated with us. We finally saw the province adopt a regulation for a service that we led the development of.

Green button services are finally now a require mandate for all utilities. And it is a mark of leadership of London Hydro that minister chose our location because we are the leader and we champion that standard to announce that regulation on November 1st in our city. Continuing with your objectives, our service level to our customers are certainly becoming more digital even in the supply of electricity and protection of our system. On slide 12, we show you the display for your information, many new technologies that we’ve deployed, especially in downtown London.

When the flex street on Dundas Street got developed, we created another innovative mesh network so that customers along the Dundas Street will never experience an outage despite any malfunction of the equipment. We will know the equipment has failed but customers will not experience power, will be automatically sent through a different route while we will go and repair the damage equipment. Secondly, the entire system is underground so hopefully stone shall not damage that either. So that’s the innovation of London Hydro.

Furthermore, we continue to work with the city on the climate change action plan. On our own, we have been carrying on the environmental leadership as we show in slide number 13. 60 seconds, Mr. Sharma.

Okay, yes, I’m done, Mr. Chair. Your worship, Mr. Mayor.

13 slide, we show you our achievements on the environmental leadership. We are doing our best, being a small corporation. I think we have done much more than a small utility like us will do. Lastly, your worship, I wanna repeat, as Chair said, we have a strong financial performance, a stable asset and big credit rating, strong customer focus.

We got 94% satisfactory survey index. And our community leadership is certainly unparalleled. We continue to contribute to our vulnerable community members as well as our charity work remains strong. And our employees do tremendous amount.

So with that, Mr. Chair, your worship and along with our chair, we lastly would appreciate and thank one team and that is a city hall under Brian, David, Dave O’Brien. He has helped us in the strong condition, treat streaming team from city has also helped us. So I wanna thank them for helping us during a strong condition.

Your worship, Mayor, that’s our presentation. Thank you. You may be the only presenter ever that calls me your worship, Mayor, Mr. Chair, all the above in one expression.

Thank you very much, Mr. Villante and Dr. Sharma for that presentation. That was helpful.

As you know, we extend this discussion because as the shareholder for London Hydro, it’s important that we hear all of this. So be for us colleagues and before I ask for a motion to accept the presentation as well as the annual report on finance as well as the consideration of appointment of Mr. Gave Villante and Mr. Jack Smith.

I’m gonna open up to questions. If any colleagues have any questions of our guests and I’m going to start with Councilor Vanholz, please. Your worship, I’m happy to allow my colleagues to ask questions first. I was putting up my hand to move those things and we’ll be happy to do that at the right time.

At the right time, I’ll be happy to accept. Thank you, Councilor Vanholz. Any comments or questions? I see, Councilor Lewis, please.

Thank you, Your Worship. And through you, I just want to express to Mr. Sharma because he did mention the storm that we had a couple of weeks ago and the significant power outages. My thanks to his teams who got out and did their very best to restore power to Londoners as quickly as possible.

I know it wasn’t fast enough for some people, but I know it was as fast as you could possibly do it and please pass along to your teams our appreciation for their rapid response. Thank you, Councilor Vanholz. That’s exceptionally well said. That was an important thing to say.

Councilor Hopkins. Thank you for recognizing me. I know the Deputy Mayor had his hand up first too, but— Yeah, but I saw you first. So you go ahead, please.

Thank you. And thank you to Mr. Valente and Dr. Sharma.

I always appreciate you coming to Council with your reports. I find them very interesting and really appreciate the way London Hydro goes back to our community as well. Thank you for that. I do have a quick question, maybe to the presenters regarding the continued environmental leadership.

And I think that’s going to be more of a conversation as we go forward into the future. And as not only as the municipality changes to electrification, but also the community and would like that to know, generally speaking, what the conversations are like at London Hydro as we look into the future. Dr. Sharma.

And by the way, when I say Dr. Sharma, that could be interchangeable with Mr. Valente, if that’s more appropriate, but by all means, please go ahead. Thank you, your worship through you.

Thank you for the question, Chancellor Hopkins. Yes, indeed. So other than of an own leadership, we have a strong set of programs to help our customers also achieve greater energy efficiency. There are many fronts that we are working with the customers.

One is commercial and industrial sector, which is an important sector for us. And our focus really has been to assist them with strategic energy management program. So we have, with the help of the provincial government, a program called Energy Manager and City of London, as a matter of fact, has made use of that program and many other industries that are making use of that program. We provide advisory services through that, plus we provide technology so that customers, especially our commercial and industrial customers, can take advantage of measuring the effect of that energy management project that they have done.

And that has been a very successful partnership with them. The rebate and the incentives come from the provincial and the federal government, but we are the delivery people and advisory people. And we have a strong team that looks after the CNI customer. As a matter of fact, just first of June, we had the symposium where we brought 66 customers, including City of London, London Police and Fire Department, so that we can share with them the new development in the energy management side.

Second, a sector is of a residential sector. A residential sector, much of the program has been subsumed in the broader category, which is now being executed by the provincial entity called the system, electricity system operator, independent electricity system system operator. But we are a partner with them and our partnership pertains to giving our customers a green button-based technology so they can understand their energy usage and take advantage of provincial rebate program, whichever is pertinent to their usage and consumption profile. Lastly, another program that goes to reflect our planning and our thinking of the management is the pilot project.

We have done three, but now fourth one is underway. To find ways for customers to make use of electricity for heating purposes more than the fossil fuel. So right now we’re working with Enbridge, which is a gas company in town, so that we can install old heating furnaces with electricity and gas heat pumps. It’s a dual source heat pump.

And our objective is to reduce the dependency on gas. However, in order to provide economic benefits, also not use that heating system when electricity prices heavy or high. So our technology helps customers automatically choose between gas and electricity, keeping in mind two parameters. One, the price of energy and second, the emission from the usage of that energy.

60 seconds, Dr. Sharma. I’m almost done. So that program is underway.

The success of that program was so significant that provincial government extended a special fund to Enbridge in their budget last April before the election was called to fund thousand customers on that project so that they can learn greater lessons from the benefit of such a program for the environment and also for customers to save money. So we are doing lots of things and with the help of provincial government, we are helping our community as well. Thank you. Coach Robbins?

Yes, that was a lot of information. Dr. Sharma, I really do appreciate there’s a lot going on and taking advantage of opportunities that the provincial government assists is also important. I look forward to hearing more as we move forward electrifying our vehicles as well and those opportunities that will sort of look forward to as we undertake the changes in electrification of vehicles.

But I also want to just give my thanks. London, I’d always contribute greatly to the city of London as well. So thank you. Thank you very much, Deputy Mayor Morgan.

Yes, I’ll start off with some comments and I have two questions. First, I want to comment, I want to thank both you and the board for providing tremendous value to the shareholder and by shareholder and extension, the residents of London, who are the true shareholders of this asset, not only have you returned great shareholder equity, but I don’t want to downplay what you talked about briefly in your presentation and that’s the exceptionally well-timed conversion of a significant amount of debt at 125 million dollars from a rate that probably blends at the high twos into an all-in rate in the low twos for a period until 2032. In a rising interest rate environment, that is an exceptionally positive position to be in for the organization, the shareholders, and the citizens of London. So I certainly, I don’t know how much of it was well-planned and how much of it was, we got lucky with getting it ahead of the interest rate rising environment, but certainly I think it’s probably the first of those two given the performance of London Hydro over the years of making excellent decisions from a financial perspective.

So I’ll provide you with those positive comments on that. From a question standpoint, as we enter as the next council, I guess, enters into multi-year budget discussions, I always turn my mind to the sustainability and the amount of the dividend, which is paid out to the city of London. And I wonder if you could answer how often you review with city staff, whether that level is appropriate, whether it’s sustainable and whether it will adjust, certainly as we enter into longer-term planning horizons in the multi-year budget. So that’s my first question.

And my second question is, he talked about the heat pump program and moving to provide options for electric heating of homes. Councilor Hopkins talked about the move to electric vehicles that is occurring. We talk about the electrification of our transit fleet. I wonder how the board is doing on their planning from a capital perspective on any needs to sustain the potential increase demand on London and hydro to provide electricity for all of these new provisions, as people convert to electric cars.

And hopefully that happens more and more. Obviously, there’s more demand. Perhaps that’s very small compared to the industrial demand on hydro, but I’m wondering if you have any comments on that on whether you foresee significant capital investments to meet that demand or not. Dr.

Sharma, are you gonna take that? Yes, your worship, thank you for the question. Yes, the first one on the dividend side, I think the last we reviewed them was five years ago, I believe that’s when we fixed that to $5 million. And previously, there were some other discussion on special dividend.

There are now and then frequent discussion, but the dividend decision is made by the board of London hydro every year. Keeping in mind the minimum predictable and amount that we have set, plus whatever the performance of London hydro is. Now, we can certainly take a review with the city administration more frequently, but we will advise you, and this is just my personal view, not the official view of London hydro, that we are investing much significant amount into our infrastructure. The every dollar that we pay to city and dividend is a borrowed dollar.

We don’t have free cash per se. So I would request, and I’ll leave this discussion for later personally, I would say the London hydro will be in a very difficult bind, given the anticipated high inflationary environment we are entering into, and the pressure on our revenue from the regulator that we will ever have increasing cash. There are other ways to sort of extract value of London hydro, which we can discuss with administration differently. So that’ll be my personal opinion, but we can certainly have frequent discussion.

I can assure you of one thing though, that dividend that level we have established, subject to of course my board’s review, it’ll be more likely that that level could be maintained, at least we have planned to maintain that in the future foreseeable future. On heat pump program, and you mentioned about electricification of transportation for passenger vehicle as well as for transit system. We have been, this is a third report we have done. We always looking into the grid planning, where do we need reinforcement?

Because for us, it’s not just general capacity, but also region by region where the impact would be. And we just shared with the board actually a report on 31st May, our latest report on that. What we have found, we can meet the capacity until 2032 at the rate that we are anticipating city with transit as well as passenger vehicle electrification. Now, we are ready of course, however, if certain regions where we have identified some weaknesses, we will remove those weaknesses on a case by case basis.

In terms of the dollar impact on capital investment, we see marginal increase. We don’t see an increase in capital investment of significant dollars or above what we are doing today for electrification. We can easily meet the needs of the future. However, if something happens in inflection point is reached earlier and everybody’s buying electric vehicles like in 2022 and 2023, then we will just have to advance some of the expenditure that advance may cost us a cash flow crunch, but not a profit and loss crunch.

So we are in a good position to manage that expansion use of electricity because we know it is a fuel of choice and we know it will grow both for transit purposes and for heat spacing purposes. And London Hydro is doing its planning in advance to account for those increased demand. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. No, I appreciate those answers.

Thank you very much. For the record, I’m not certain this is totally accurate, but I believe the Deputy Mayor may be the only personal electric vehicle. So there may have been a bias in that second part of his question. We’re never sure.

Councillor Lehman, please. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Mayor Morgan kind of touched on the two areas I was going to speak about. So I’ll just get back to the dividend.

You know, over the last number of years, the dividend for shares are in flat yet revenues have increased. Congratulations to London Hydro for delivering a solid supply of power to London and also good financial management. They’ve, the board has decided to pay down debt as opposed to increasing the dividend. However, at some point, I think well managed companies do have to show responsibility to the shareholder and provide us a return.

Our share value has gone up, as mentioned in the presentation. We’ve got serious financial challenges ahead of us and to the London taxpayer. So at some point, I would hope to see the board give higher consideration to looking at the dividend amount that’s paid out to the city. My second point was again, as Councillors and Deputy Mayor have touched on with the coming EV transformation with hydro, what are hydro plans to address that?

But I think those have been answered. So those are my comments. Thanks. Thanks very much.

Any other comments or questions for Mr. Sharma or Mr. Valenti? Councillor VenHose.

Thank you, Your Worship. And maybe my first question would be to ask if the, Dr. Sharma would share some of the awards that London Hydro may have won recently. That was missing in this year’s presentation.

There’s always so much to say in five minutes, but there were some distinctions we’ve won recently. And I think those are worth mentioning. It was actually 11 minutes, but I’m sure that there can be a tight report from Dr. Sharma on that question.

Thank you, Your Worship, through you. Yes, we have been winning many awards, but this year there is a special award that via one which is the utility of the year in Ontario. So that’s among all the utilities, London Hydro was recognized by other peers as the best performing utility for 2021. So this certainly is a pattern over back, rather than in our cap, but also a movement of pride for the entire city of London that we would recognize as highest performing utility.

Second, we have been also recognized by the Clean, Canvas Clean 16 top sustainable leadership for all the programs we are doing on a size of utility that we are. And then we have one couple of international awards on our digital platform that we have deployed for our CNI customers and our residential customers. Along with this, there is a list of a large number of awards for safety at London Hydro that I can recite, it might be a long list, but those are worth mentioning. Thank you, Councillor rehearsed.

Thank you, and I also wanted to spend a minute to talk a little bit about the dividend. So early in Mr. Sharma’s presentation, he said that London Hydro made $20 million and made an investment of $37 million. So every year, all the money that’s earned and some more that’s borrowed is invested in our infrastructure.

And we are very well served by that. It’s wonderful to have the utility that only has eyes for our municipality. So the kinds of gains we get from this investment are, for instance, the redundancy that happens with a person’s supply. And that’s why when there’s an outage, it can be returned almost immediately the power because we can root that power through multiple directions.

And when one route is lost, the other automatically kicks in because we also have invested in automatic switching and those kinds of technologies, we’ve got great visualization into our system with the smart meters, because they can also tell us if power has gone out. And it allows us to see where in the city, we need to be responding first, where the biggest group of customers are out and it can help us tell where exactly that outage is. So those investments are of great value to the citizens of London. And so we realize again that every dividend we take really comes out of that extra borrowed amount.

So asking for a larger dividend isn’t the really, I don’t think is a way to go, we might ask for last. And depending on the demands that sometimes may be the case, that a board may say that we can’t provide something on a particular year, but so far things have gone well and we’re able to provide those dividends and keep that little advantage we have in our debt to equity ratio, which of course allows us to have those excellent credit ratings, which in turn allows us to get excellent interest rates, save more money, lower the rates to our residents. So we’re really well served by the forward thinking of our staff at London Hydro. So thanks again for that.

And may I then put on the floor receipt of the presentation, their 2021 annual report on finance and the approving of Gabe Lente and Jack Smith as appointees to our board. So Councilor, if I understand what you’re looking to do is to introduce the by-law to ratify the annual resolutions of the shareholder to receive Dr. Sharma’s and Mr. Valente’s presentation to receive the finance report, to receive the communications and extend the appointments as you’ve indicated.

Is that just to be clear? I couldn’t have said it better myself, your worship. I didn’t think so. That’s why I wanted to jump in there.

And I see Councilor Flight Miller has seconded that as well. Thank you both for your tolerance of my board humor. Colleagues, there’s a motion on the floor that has been duly seconded. I see no other speakers on my list.

So with that, let’s call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 15 to zero. Before we want to also extend my thank yous to Dr. Sharma, Gabe Valente and your board for the work that you’ve done on behalf of the shareholder.

It has not gone unnoticed and it’s appreciated. So thank you for that. So with that colleagues, I’m now going to turn your attention to the second item of the scheduled items. And that is the 2023 growth management implementation strategy update.

And there are going to be two parts. This will be a PPM. But before we move to the PPM, I’m going to ask is there a staff report? I think I’d be directing that to Mr.

Mathers. If there isn’t, that’s fine. We all have the information. Through the chairs.

So there was just the presentation. All right, thank you very much. So with that, I’ll look for a motion to open to PPM. Councilor Hopkins seconded by Councilor Van Mirberg and we will call that question.

Councilor Van Halst. Closing the vote, that motion’s carried 15 to zero. Someone in the committee room on the edge of his seat, just ready to move up to the podium to make a presentation. Welcome, Mr.

Mike Wallace of LDI. What I would like to remind you, which you need no reminding is please five minutes. And the floor is yours, sir. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor and Councillors. And Mr. Mayor, let’s see you back at work. Welcome back.

And I’ll be relatively brief tonight. This I think is the 12th year or so that the GMIS has come into existence in London. And I want to start with a thank you for your staff, for the opportunity that they provide, the development community and others to discuss the infrastructure needs for their projects going forward. They do that both through a stakeholders group meeting, which is excellent exchange of information.

And then they provide an opportunity for individual developers who are interested in coming and talking about their projects and their timing with the staff individually to look at the projects that are planned through the development charges that have been will be collected for them. The second point on this is that this tool has been around for about 12 years. And some of my members of LDI have indicated that there might be some, just started talking about it. There might be some opportunities to improve the system of GMIS to make it more beneficial to both them and to the city in terms of making it a more effective tool.

That discussion is just started. I don’t really have any answers for you here this evening. We are in agreement with the reports recommendations that are presented to you tonight. We have really no issues with what staff has put forward.

We would like to make a couple of points from the staff report, just for your information. One is, there’s some discussion about timing and it looks the way the report is written that the timing is all 100% the responsibility of the developer or the applicant and whether it’s coming in in two years, three years, five years and so on. We just wanna make sure that you keep in mind also that timing of development applications, whether subdivision or site plan as often has been influenced by either staff or third party organizations who approve or comment on those applications. So it’s not always the developer’s decision on how fast or slow something goes that it is a combined effort both with staff, third parties and the development community.

Another point that we just wanna bring to your attention is on the charts and the appendix. There are a number of areas in the report it talks about that there should be or the goal is a three year supply on the base of the low density or family homes and all green fields that are identified through the GMIS program. And if you look at the charts, the Northwest, the North and the West are getting very tight in the next number of years on terms of having availability for a three year supply of housing. We wanna make sure you understand that what this report does, it’s a reflection of the equilibrium in a sense of what we believe the developer believes that their application will get approved and move forward through subdivision site plan and so on and able to put shovels in the ground, building permits, so on.

In equilibrium with the infrastructure, the sewer, the water, the wastewater, all being in place at approximately the same time so that everything’s done efficiently and effectively and we move forward on that. That is not a reflection of demand, of market demand. That’s a reflection of what we think is gonna get approved when and when we need the sewer water and wastewater infrastructure in place. It has nothing to do with what actual market demand is for the product, whether it’s low density, medium density or high density, we wanna make sure that that was understood.

And finally, I think in this report and the report you saw last week, if you were on the housing stability of all plan, for all plan, the update last week at community and protected services is that this JMS is based on low density residential, it’s about 1,000, it would take a few hundred a year, it’s been like that for a decade, it’s a little bit last year. But this report and the report you had before, clearly indicates that we as an industry are embracing intensification. The levels of medium density housing that have now come to wonder over the last number of years has increased significantly. And even in the housing report from last week, it indicates the high density residential development that’s been approved that units, what units are, should come to market over the next number of years, has increased also significantly.

Much more significantly than the small increase we’ve seen in the low density piece. Our industry wants to make sure that council understands that we are committed to intensification, we are committed to the best use of land. And it’s almost always, almost always based on demand that they are seeing at the door in their businesses. It’s not because the city has decided something, it’s because the consumer has decided something.

And we just wanna make sure that that message is given here tonight. At the next committee of your SPPC, we are hoping as an industry, us, LDI, and Home Billers Association to have a report in front of you with a number of recommendations of how we can work with you on the housing supply issue that has been identified in a number of reports going forward. And that we will have 10, 12 recommendations on what we can do together to make things happen, to improve the supply here of housing in London, in the near future and in for the longer term. So thank you for your time and thank you again for staff’s effort on this.

And we appreciate the opportunity to discuss development going forward. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Wallace.

Clerk, do we have any other guests for the PPM? There are none. With that then, I will look for a motion to close. The public participation meeting, Councilor Fife Miller, seconded by Councilor Layman.

We’ll call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 15 to zero. Thanks very much, colleagues. Councilor Van Holst.

Thank you, Worship. And I’ve got a question through you to staff, some page 209 of the report or refers to it, down in table two, project timing request, not recommended by staff. And I wonder if they could just provide some more details on these. Mr., thank you.

I’m sorry, was that your question? Is that the end of that question there, Councilor? I think that might be fine, I can follow up. Thank you.

Mr. Midders. Through you, Worship, Mr. Edwards is going to be here to be able to provide you.

As part of this process, he means personally with all the people that are interested in, mostly members of the development community. So he’ll be here to be able to provide you a bit. Mr. Edwards, do you want to provide that context, please?

Thank you, Your Worship. So yes, table two, there were three projects that weren’t recommended by staff who were identified in table two. So the first one was a wastewater, or a wastewater project called Warren Cliff sewer. The original, the timing for this is 2027.

The requested timing is 2023. Now, when we were working through this, what we identified is you’ll see the costing is for 1.1 million. When the master plans were done in 2019, this project was identified as being part of a road project. So being part of that, typically through these combined projects, roads covers the restoration costs.

So really what the wastewater portion is responsible is basically putting in the pipe. So that was costing at 1.1 million. Unfortunately, there is no road project associated with that. So that was a mistake within the DC background study.

So the real cost to this project is $4 to $5 million, which given the state of the wastewater reserve fund, and maybe Mr. Newman would like to speak more on this, but it would put a significant impact on the wastewater reserve fund, just given the cost of the additional cost of that project, and maybe we’ll jump back to that. But I’ll finish off the other two. So we did have requests for a Creamery Road sanitary servicing as well as Wilton Grove East.

So within both of these areas, as part of the previous master plans, there was no servicing solution identified. Because there was no servicing solution, there was no project identified in the DC. So we’re not recovering for those projects. So there’s really— there’s no funds available to finance those projects.

Now, what we have done, though, as you’ll see the table 3, what we’re doing is we’re maintaining we’re running a list of things to be considered as part of the 2025 DC master plan. So as we kickstart up the DC process again, we work through the master plans. We can capture these. We can cost them properly.

The servicing solutions can be identified. They can be costed. They can be timed. They can be recovered for.

So then we can actually assign timing. And then through future GMISs, we can work through the timing. That sounded thorough, though, Mr. yeoman, is there anything you wanted to add to that?

3D worship, I think that covered it off quite well. Thank you. Councillor Unhost. Thank you.

And then perhaps my last question would just be what are the implications of not going forward with the project for, say, the 1-clip sewer in particular? Sounds like that would be Mr. Edwards again. So right now, I think in this area, and I wish I had maps and I could show all this fun stuff, but basically it’s a stretch of sewer from Campbell Street up to Hamlin.

And it’s picking off some residual lots and those kind of pieces. But there is a lot of pressure for redevelopment in that area. It’s on the gate of Lambas. But what it would really mean is, in theory, instead of the 2023 timing, it could potentially be the 25 to 26.

So it could mean, because then it would be captured as part of the next DC study. So it could mean a two to three year time difference. Councillor Unhost, are we good? OK, thank you.

Thank you very much. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

And thanks to staff for the report. I am supportive of the recommendations that we’re approving these six projects. Two, we’re accelerating. And four, we are deferring to align with the developments in the area.

I do have a question through you to staff, though, regarding some of the comments that Mr. Wallace made about how we can improve the system. And I’m looking at table two, which is the project timing request that aren’t recommended by staff. And I know a Councillor Vanholz referred to the Warncliffe sewer.

But I’d like to sort of— we want development. We need development. We’ve got a lot happening in the southwest. I know we’ve developed up towards the northwest, and it’s coming our way.

How— I guess my question is, how are we managing these requests and opportunities for developers as well as improving our system? And I’m not sure who can answer that question, but if I can ask it. Why don’t we start with Mr. Mathers and see where it goes?

Through your worship, this is a really great comment. So in particular, the three projects noted here are unlikely to occur, or will be able to move forward, no matter what new system we develop. So if a project is highly underestimated, or if it’s not indicated in the development or just study, it’s going to be very hard for us to be able to argue to move that project forward. What we can do and is what we are working very closely with the development community on is try to improve our communication on what their needs may be, and try to bring forward that as part of a few different projects we’re working on.

One is our development charges process, where we’re working to include as many projects as is reasonable. It’s part of that process so that we’re not missing it out and having those communications with the development industry. And as well, it’s also very important to be able to speak with them and hear what they think that we could do to be able to improve our processes. And that’s not just the way we develop or the financial pieces of it.

It’s also sometimes related to our processes. And so I think we’re very open to change. And we’re just trying to keep that door open and the communication lines open as well. So I hope that answers your question.

Councilor Hopkins? Yes, it does. I’m really pleased to hear that that communication is ongoing with the development industry. And I would like to just add, it’s also important to have that communication with the public as well, in terms of if businesses want to improve, develop their own businesses, that they can be part of that engagement.

And how we can have that dialogue, I think is really important. And it can be overwhelming, almost, to try to even understand what a GMIS is and what DCs are. But being involved and being part of that communication before or long before development occurs is really vital. So really pleased to see that staff are working with the developers.

And again, happy to support the recommendation. Thanks very much. Any other comments or questions, colleagues? Councilor Turner?

Thanks, Your Worship, for you to stand for. I’m curious about the Watson report that’s implications here. In the staff report, on all the categories it talks about, to the factors may have implications on the housing projections currently being prepared. And it’s, staff are gonna continue to monitor these trends.

How do we, the Watson report is just from 2019. So it’s a fairly current report. The previous predictions were never realized. And 2021 is the first time that the projections were exceeded in terms of the actuals.

So the next few years, I see probably some a bit of instability in the predictions. But it’s critical in order to be able to make sure, one, that infrastructure is online, but two, that the funding for any infrastructure that’s being moved to sustainable. So I certainly appreciate what staff are doing here because the goal is absolutely for sustainability in it. The second question is, does that meet needs/ demands?

And how do we square a model that may not be accurate from the next little bit, or is it, and we’re comfortable with it right now? Let’s go with Mr. Mathers for that. Through you, worship.

I’m actually gonna pass that to Mr. Yeoman, so he’s gonna be able to help him. Good, Mr. Mathers.

Thank you through you, Mr. Chair. I think that one actually would be best addressed by Mr. Edwards who’s taking care of the growth protections right in the typologies to refer to someone else.

Well, we’re dancing a bit, but go ahead, Mr. Edwards. I think you can probably give us the final appropriate answers for all of this, I look forward to it. It’s come full circle.

Yes, certainly that’s something we’ve been seeing is the, when you look at the 2019 forecast, they did pretty much align for the low density residential. And, but where we did really see diversion was, divergence was within the medium, and especially in the high density residential. Now, when it comes to particularly the greenfield growth, typically what drives the investment, the initial investment is the low density residential as part of the subdivision process. And then there’s blocks of mediums and highs that come on as part of that.

But certainly in terms of, I think, the investment strategy that we’ve been seeing, I would say it’s been in relatively good shape in terms of the low density residential, which is the trigger for the infrastructure investment. But what we’ve really been seeing is the medium and the high density blocks. As part of those subdivisions, the uptake has really been happening a lot quicker than anticipated. So that’s where we’ve been seeing the difference.

Commissioner. Thank you. And through you, so I think that the ultimate question in this is do we have comfort in the model that we had from 2019 going forward, or have things changed substantially enough in terms of what’s been coined with the housing crisis that we need to re-update those models so that our projections are appropriate, or are they right now? I’m gonna take a chance and go to Ms.

Tedridge. (laughing) I think, and certainly once we start seeing the numbers out of the Watson report, that’ll tell us a better story. I think no matter what, you were gonna have to update the growth forecast, and that’s just part of the DC process, where I really see, like I was saying, I suspect low density will be relatively similar to what we’ve been experiencing, particularly over the past two to three years, where we’re going to see a real difference in the forecasting moving forward is going to be in the medium and high, because I think it’s important, if you look at the last five years, we were anticipating about 23, 2,400 units a year in that range, and we did meet our medium, which was about 1,000, as Mr. Wallace said, but where we really saw the difference was in the high density, so last year we cracked 4,000 new units, and a big bulk of that over 50% was in the high density residential, so the models are gonna have to be changed, and updated and revised, but like I said, it’s gonna be mostly in the medium and the high density portion.

Council Chair. Yeah, thank you very much. I think it’s important here in that we kind of pause and take a peek at this, ‘cause this, we’re hearing a lot of discussion in media and in social media and in coffee shops, even at this table, about what housing is and what housing needs are. Tied with that closely is how we pay for it, and if we outrun it, then we can’t pay for it, and we get ourselves in a lot of financial difficulty.

The infrastructure for that growth needs to occur somehow in this growth management implementation strategy looks at these five year chunks to make sure that the projects for the projected growth period are funded and sustainable. And in the staff presentation, you see the graphs about the debt ratios and how much debt’s incurred in order to be able to pay for that infrastructure. This is important stuff. It’s not sexy stuff.

It’s really, it seems rather boring stuff. But thanks to the team that it spends other days studying this stuff to make sure that we’re in a solid and sustainable position. I think this is also a really key component in our climate emergency action plan, but it hasn’t really been tied to that to date. And I hope that as years go forward, as we execute the climate emergency action plan, that the growth management implementation strategy is a key component of that, because it is really the part that helps determine whether we achieve our intensification goals or not, whether the infrastructure that we’re building is green and sustainable.

It’s also the infrastructure that we build is going to be resilient to climate change. So all of that needs to be modeled in forecast and it’s not an easy task. And I think we’ve got some really spark people in the room who do this work. And I thank them for that.

But I hope that the counselors continue to keep an eye on this. And I hope the public starts to recognize the components that go into housing and development, that it’s not just a quick flip of a switch. There’s a lot of work that has to be done beforehand. Thank you, counselor.

Any other comments or questions? I’ve none on my, no one on my list. Oh, I do have one. Councilor Cassidy, I’m sorry, you snuck in there.

Go ahead. Thank you, your worship. So a question to staff and my, and forgive me if this is a stupid question. People say there’s no such thing as stupid questions, but so I’m curious to see how the changes that came about some years ago to the planning act through Bill 108.

And, you know, I had had multiple conversations with the city engineer on some of the road widening projects, some of the infrastructure projects, some of the ability of the city to proactively build out infrastructure, knowing that the residential growth is coming. And so it kind of feels like we’re putting the cart behind the horse when we wait for the growth to be fully out there. And then we have to catch up with infrastructure. But in my conversations with the city engineer, you know, I learned some things about Bill 108 and how it’s affected our ability to be more proactive on this.

So I’m wondering through you, Mr. Mayor, to staff, if those changes to the planning act have affected the way staff are doing this growth management implementation strategy, have they had to adjust or change their forecasting and the way they’re doing the planning based on the changes that came about in Bill 108? Well, let’s see, Mr. Yeoman on my screen, but I’m not sure if I want to ignore him and go to Mr.

Edwards. But why don’t we start with you, Mr. Yeoman, please? Thank you very much, Your Worship.

So that’s an excellent question. And something that we’ve been trying to manage with the changes that have been coming from the problems in the DC sector, which have been rapid pace over the past few years. In particular, we’ve had changes related to the timing of payment and for rates that have been locked in as well for DC payment. We’re not seeing any significant issues right now related to that.

At this point, it’s something we’re continuing to monitor. And I think it’ll be seeing some more information coming forward in the Treasurer’s Report that’s presented to Council every year. So it’s not really having an implication and an impact on GMIS at this point, but it may in the future and will be definitely reporting out to Council. The Council already did have a specific question or related to Rhodes projects.

And just so all members of Council know, through the DC process, we do have master plans that are done looking at our growth needs going forward. Those master plans also consider the service standards for the various infrastructure that we provide to the community as well, including timing and warrants and things like that. And those will all be reviewed through the process as well. Thank you, Councillor Cashman.

Thank you, Your Worship, one follow-up to that. And a little bit of a comment, but a little bit of a follow-up to Mr. Yeoman, I think. So I believe some of the changes to the Planning Act through Bill 108 came about as a result of the province doing engagement with the development industry across the province.

And some of the changes were, I believe, changes that are beneficial to the development industry or may have been lobbied by them. But I see an unintended consequence when we have to perhaps defer some of our infrastructure projects because of some of these changes. So in the end, it’s not necessarily a full-on win for industry that is seeking these kinds of changes. So I’m wondering through you, Mr.

Mayor, if there is a plan going forward, we do this stakeholder engagement when we’re dealing with specifically municipal issues like this right here. But is there a plan going forward where we could be more on the same side with especially our local players, like LDI, London Home Builders, where we could go together to the province to talk about our combined needs and how we can achieve sort of a win-win-win situation rather than a winner-take-all kind of thing? Well, let’s ask Mr. Yeoman.

Do you wish by some Mr. Mayor’s go up first? And I think poets best that he speaks before I would. Let’s do that then, Mr.

Edwards, please. Mr. Mayor, sir. No problem.

Through your worship, that is absolutely what we’ve been in discussions with our industry partners about doing and they’ve been very open with me personally and with the other senior leaders within our group about wanting to have a team approach when it comes to providing housing for monitors moving forward. So I can tell you that they’re very interested into that and we are also very interested in being able to bring a common front for commentary that we can provide back to the province and even federally if we need to, to try to come up with what is a best solution for everyone to make sure our processes are efficient and that housing gets built moving forward. So we are very interested in that. And from my conversations with the development industry and housing, our housing partners as well, they are also very interested in that.

Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. I love that answer. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I’m done. Thank you very much. Any other comments from colleagues? I see none.

And what is on the table is the staff recommendation, which includes two parts, the 2023 growth management implementation strategy that be approved as attached in Appendix B and also the capital budget be adjusted reflect the timing changes associated with the projects noted in Clause A above. So with that, I’ll look for a mover. Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor Palazzo. So with that, we will call the question.

Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero. Only at this time, we might take a break and we can certainly take a bio break as you wish. We have just for your reference one item for direction, the London Community Recovery Network and funding business cases. The second is consideration of two appointments to Western’s Board of Governors.

And then under items for under deferred matters and additional business, it looks like. We have a request from Little Most Sex Community Housing to support the application process as indicated in their letter. I’m fine to carry on if you are, but I really want to respect whether we need a brief break. I wonder this then, we won’t have time for a full break.

Unlike the deputy mayor who provided food before I did not. So with that, maybe I was more optimistic. So I wonder this, could we take like a 10 minute, 15 minute break and then we’ll wrap this all up. So with that, I’ll look for a motion to adjourn briefly for 15 post-consularity or second by Councillor Van Merebergen.

Let’s do a show of hands, please. Lights on, all in favor? That motion’s passed. Thanks, we’ll see you in 15.

And to the public, we’ll be back in 15 minutes. Colleagues, can I have screens on, please? And clerk, do we have quorum? Yes, Mr.

Chair, we do. You said that off microphone, but I just wanted to hear, thank you. Colleagues, I’m now gonna turn your attention to an item for direction 4.1, the London Community Recovery Network, Recovery Funding Business Cases. I’d just like to ask staff if there is a staff report failing that we can get right into any questions and answers.

I’ll turn that back over to staff. Mr. Thompson, Adam, in this case. Do you have anything you’d like to begin with, or shall we carry on with Q&A?

Sure, I can, through you, Mr. Chair, I can introduce this report. There is a cover memo that went along with the business cases that the committee’s gonna be considering tonight. In short, Council has set aside over the last two years, $10 million to support social and economic recovery efforts in the community.

To date 3.7 million has been allocated under that fund. Back in May 2021, we, civic admin, brought forward a report that outlined a process for Council to review business cases as they’re available, as they’re made available by the community. Today’s a report, tonight’s a report, I guess, by the time we’re here. Tonight’s report is the sort of first batch under this new process.

The process that Council endorsed as its base, an idea submitted through to civic administration with some analysis and advice provided by civic admin, particularly and specifically to making sure ideas that come in align with the Council and community endorsed London Community Recovery Framework that was passed in late 2021 by City Council and endorsed by the community. We are pleased to bring forward four business cases that will be discussed by members of the community by the organizations that would be leading and our proponents for these business cases. And we’ve provided some comment in the report how these four business cases align with the framework, the vision, the areas of focus, and the metrics within the framework. And in Council’s consideration of these business cases, we are also pleased to have the four representatives from the organizations available to answer questions that you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thanks and thank Mr. Thompson for providing that as background.

So colleagues, we’re dealing with this item 4.1. I’m gonna roll pop to the floor and see if colleagues have any questions with regard to these four business cases and to the extent they wish to direct those questions through Mr. Thompson to the appropriate individual. I’ll open the floor.

Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m going to focus specifically on business case 4 here.

I’ll just preface and say that I think the other three business cases are really good ones. I’m particularly excited about the investment in music around our music city designation and supporting our local businesses through supports that way. My concern with business case 4 is not necessarily the points that the LEDC has outlined in their case, but while frankly it comes down to me, for me to the question of, it seems that this is largely a private sector problem, not that it doesn’t impact us, certainly as a municipal government, but, and I will also say, I appreciate that there are other dollar commitments being made in here. I noted that the LEDC has some of its own money that it’s putting into this in addition to what they’re asking us for.

Western is contributing. What I’m missing here though is any private sector partnerships, you know, we hear from companies about their need to attract talented labor to fill their jobs, but I don’t see a commitment from them financially to help us with this. So through you, I would like to ask whether it’s Mr. Thompson or Mr.

LaCocia or another individual that wishes to answer, was any approach made to some of our larger employers who are specifically telling us they’re concerned about the lack of skilled labor in the city to contribute to this effort? Well, then let’s take that question through to Mr. Thompson and if you feel it needs to be directed accordingly, please. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, you beat me to it. So I will, of course, I’ll defer to the business case proponent in LEDC to answer questions about the specific business case. I will just preface that by saying the London Community Recovery Network has been in the course of all of its meetings over the last two years, probably not a surprise to any member of council, has heard quite clearly that talent recruitment and retention is an issue that affects each and every sector across the community, not just the private sector, but also the nonprofit sector, the post-secondary sector and other institutions like healthcare, and that as a matter of priority for conversations over the past 18 months or so, talent recruitment and retention has been number one. I am happy to pass it back to Capil to talk about this specific case.

Go ahead, Mr. Wilkoria. Thank you, and through the chair, I’d also like to introduce my colleague Robert Collins, who’s the Director of Workforce Development and works with post-secondary and our employers on this issue. So between Robert and I, we can address the questions.

So it’s a great point, and my apologies, we could have been more clearer in the proposal about how we plan to engage with businesses. But to answer the question, businesses actively participate with us in several recruitment initiatives, and through this proposal, we look to leverage those contributions even further. To give you an example, just at our annual job fairs alone, businesses that participate in those recruitment exercises contribute approximately $40,000 to cover the cost of job fairs and other initiatives. So business engagement is certainly front and center, and their financial contributions and in-kind and other ways will certainly be sought through the research phase, as well as the marketing campaigns and the targeted recruitment initiatives.

Mr. Collins, do you want to add anything to that? Not at this time, thank you. Councillor Lewis, thank you, Your Worship.

I do appreciate that. To me, and I’m gonna listen to what colleagues say as well, before I decide, I may actually want to see this one referred back and come back to us maybe with a little bit more clarity on where some of the private sector leveraging is gonna come from, because I need to see that. I’m also a little bit concerned that the focus here, and again, I’m hoping that perhaps Mr. LaCocia or others can expand on this for me a little bit.

There’s a lot of language in here about attracting international talent to London, and while I’m certainly not against that, where I am not seeing necessarily the connections is what we’re doing, and perhaps this wasn’t considered in the scope of this business case, but what we’re doing to help skill up, I’m gonna say, our local labor force, which maybe we still do have 4.8% unemployment, and some of that, I think, could perhaps be attributed to the fact that employees may not, or potential employees may not have the skill set that employers are looking for, but I don’t see a whole lot of emphasis on training up the labor force that we have available. I do appreciate actually, in an earlier business case, the reference to the micro-credential piece, ‘cause I think that that is a part of the equation. But we have two great, well, more than two, but I’m gonna speak specifically to Western and Fanshawe. We have great post-secondary institutions in this city, but again, we’re seeing an emphasis on training up international students who may not necessarily stay in London.

I recognize, again, that there’s a federal government program that we anticipate coming where a municipal identified sponsorship type of piece with immigration Canada might be involved, but I’m just wondering if I can get some comment on why the focus is on attracting international talent versus training up our existing labor force. Mr. Ocote, do you wanna start with that? And if you wanna refer to Mr.

Collins, by all means, perhaps you’ll say something this time, sir. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, the Councillor raises a very, very good concern that we’re actively working with our educational partners and our community partners consistently on developing those retraining and upskilling programs. For instance, I met with earlier this morning with an initiative the Fanshawe College has to prepare some of our existing people in our community for roles in the tech community and so on. There are a number of communities, and we do remain very active on both upskilling individuals ensuring that, for instance, the role of the apprenticeship network in making sure that apprenticeships are not only being attracted, but people are fulfilling their apprenticeships.

So there’s a whole area that is underway in the community, but when we look at the net talent needs, we see that the we will have as a community a shortfall. When we look at the close to 7,000 job titles, not just positions, job titles that are currently posted, when we look at the major developments that we already have been approved that are coming to our community and the expansions. And then when we look at what we are regularly meeting with, the number one question is around, will we have the talent and are we attractive to the talent that these companies that are growing here and are being attracted to our community? So yes, very much so, we need to upskill and reskill our existing community, and we’re very pleased to support and help develop those initiatives.

But we also clearly understand that attracting both international students who wish to stay, and by the way, all the data we have is that over 80% of international students do want to stay, but we want to actually through the first phase of the program, make sure that they’re coming to programs where we know that there is a significant need in the community so that that pipeline, that they make, part of the decision making is that there is a specific job in our community that’s available to them based on taking that program. So that’s all part of the different elements that are we through this initiative. Councillor Lewis, thank you, Your Worship. So I’m gonna ask two quick questions of our extended staff here, our leads at LEDC on this, because I’m encouraged by what I’m hearing, but I do want to ask as well, part of the other side of this is, first of all, what conversations are you having, and the reference was made to the 7,000 job titles that are out there right now.

So what conversations are happening with those employers around reasonable expectations of whom they’re trying to recruit, and I’m just gonna use this as a, for example, I see some job postings that are looking not only for a post-secondary degree, but then a minimum of five years, or a minimum of eight years experience, that leaves a lot of people with perhaps one or two years experience or fresh out of school feeling a little bit, well, undesired by those employers, and they’re often, they’re discouraged about even applying for these jobs, although I regularly tell them apply anyway, perhaps the employer will not find somebody with those qualifications and look to you. So what conversations are we having with our employers in regard to their expectations for skilled labor? And the other question is, we know right now we have a, frankly, a housing shortage, a housing crisis in the city. And so if our focus is on bringing people in to the city versus upscaling their skill sets, how do you see that fitting in with our ability to actually house them and provide a quality of life in the community for them, as opposed to individuals who might then just choose to take those skills for remote work?

Mr. Locodia, Mr. Collins. Thank you again.

So some very good points to be considered. The first one in regards, making sure that employers are really looking at what are the barriers that they may have artificially put in place to the constraints talent being attracted to them, what their reputation may be, because by the way, there’s vehicles like glass door, et cetera, which may inform, which may deter job seekers from working with specifically specific companies and specific industries. We work actively to help companies look at how attractive they are and how are they actually reaching into the talent pools? Are they accepting co-ops?

Are they accepting internships? Are they working with the wonderful array of employment services through the Employment Sector Council, et cetera? Actively introducing those through workshops, through sessions, through introductions to the helping community that works with employers. Remember, we are at LEDC, we’re a catalyst for this and we’re a leader in this activity, but we’re not, but it’s with our community partners that this activity occurs and we value the contributions.

Councillor Locutio, oh, I’m sorry. Was someone else there? ‘Cause Councillor Dues still had 30 seconds. The second, sorry, the second part of that was around housing.

And just, I want to be very clear that housing, while it’s not our mandate, we have worked and have listened to the construction industry and we know very much that they had some skill shortages that they are looking forward to be, to help for having very active help to be able to recruit both migrant talent and immigrant talent to help fulfill some of their needs to then help with the construction industry, to then help fulfill some of the housing and other construction needs. So thank you again for that very good point. Thank you, Councillor Locutio, please. Thank you, I really do appreciate those answers.

It does matter, and I continue to have concerns particularly around housing and are bringing in of migrant or immigrant talent and then frankly putting them in substandard housing in unlicensed rental units, where we’re stacking four people to a bedroom and those kind of things. And I know that that is not LEDC’s particular area of expertise, but I— 10 seconds, Councillor. I just want to make sure that we’re giving that thought as we look to how we can invite people into our community in terms of meeting those needs as well. Thanks very much, Councillor Ven most.

Thank you, perhaps I’ll continue on this particular business case. So previously we focused on attracting students from China and India, and it’s suggested we go to other places as well. And so I might ask which countries do we think we’ll focus on or look to next? Mr.

O’Korea. Thank you. So through the chair, that will depend on the results from the research and assessment phase. So starting with the Fanshawe’s institutional research area as well as the local workforce planning board, the idea is to get a good understanding and inventory of the needs.

Based on the needs, the geographies will be targeted accordingly where those targeted skillsets might be. And then the idea would be to engage with international talent at an early stage to match them with employers that are looking to recruit from that talent pool. So more of them can stay in London upon graduation. International students have up to three years that they can stay in Canada after graduation.

And our hopes are that with early engagement with employers, there would be better matchmaking that can happen. Councillor Hose. Okay, thank you. Perhaps you can help me understand then, why does it matter which country necessarily if people are coming here for post-secondary school and studying, that is where they would get their training.

Is that not correct? Mr. Locotti, go ahead. Thank you, through the chair.

It’s also the diversity of academic programming. Most of the concentration from those two source countries tends to be in very select academic programming. The diversity of programming will help meet the diverse range of occupation needs in the London economy as well. So it’s a dual pronged approach to have more students enter a diverse range of curriculum programming to be trained with a variety of different skills that are in demand.

Councillor Reynolds. Okay, thank you. Maybe I’ll ask a question regarding the first business case. So, in this regard to the coaching the businesses, I’m just wondering how the 50 businesses will be chosen.

Mr. Thompson, you wanna direct that? I’m happy Mr. Chair to pass it over to Kristen Duver, who’s the VP of Public Affairs with the Chamber of Commerce.

Please, Guver, go ahead, please. Certainly, thank you. We plan to have an application process for any business that wishes to apply. And part of that process will be questions about how the pandemic has affected them and what challenges they are facing in recovery.

And in addition to that, we will also be looking at some form of inclusivity model where business owners would be allowed to self-identify if they’re a woman or identifiable minority so that we can get underrepresented groups fairly into that process. Councillor Unhost. Thank you very much. The, did I have another question on that?

Have you, I guess maybe two more questions, are these courses that you’ve taught before? These are not courses that the London Chamber has taught before we’ve partnered with the Achievement Center, which actually specializes in coaching and providing professional development opportunities to business owners. Councillor Unhost. Okay, thank you, I’ll leave it there.

And I appreciate the business case and your work at the Chamber of Commerce. Regarding the second business case that deals with micro-credentials. So I guess first I wanted to ask what kinds of micro-credentials would we be, might we be looking at? And it also said that the job or the businesses were willing to hire seekers that acquired a micro-credential in addition to prior training.

So my question also is, is it the prior training that’s the most important in this case? Or how does that relate to the micro-credentials? Back through you, Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll pass this one to Bashir Ademo, who’s the data analyst with Workforce Planning and Development Board. I’d like you to go ahead, please.

Thanks so much and through the chair. So I would like to, I stepped away from my seats. For a moment, sorry. So can I just have a repeat of that question?

Good, Councilor. Okay, sure. There was really two questions. What kinds of micro-credentials are being considered?

Maybe that’s the first one. Mr. Adama, go ahead, please. Yeah, thank you.

So we are actually considering a range of micro-credentials. It’s really difficult at this stage to streamline it to certain kinds of micro-credentials. We know that some nonprofits offer micro-credentials as well as the post-secondary institutions. So until we hear from employers, and again, this is an opportunity to create an awareness of micro-credentials to employers and an opportunity to hear from them as well.

If they have heard of it and are willing to accept applicants that have micro-credentials. So at this point, we are not willing to drill down to the kind of micro-credentials that is filled by employers. Councillor and host. Thank you.

So my second question was in regards to the little chart you had there, which said that 60% of employers would be willing to hire seekers that acquired a micro-credential in addition to prior training. And so my question then is how important is the prior training in relation to the micro-credentials? So they… Mr.

Adam. Yeah, thanks again to the chair. So what we try not to do with this exercise is not to give the impression that people can mistake micro-credentials for proper, usually longer educational trainings. So we would be asking direct questions to employers about if they are willing to take on applicants that have like per second grade education and not emphasize more on just micro-credentials.

Councillor. Thank you very much. So my last question was regarding the third business case which had to do with the patios and the venues. I must say that this is quite exciting to me that we’re gonna get some performance venues out there as well as the patios.

And I’m interested in seeing how this turns out to see if we can extend that to indoor venues as well. But I just wanted to understand it a little better. It looks like our goal is to have 20 participants. But we’re also, our goal is to have 30 grants provided.

And maybe you could just help me understand how that would work. Through you, Mr. Thomson. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I’ll pass someone to my good friend Jim Nantula and Corey Crossman, I think he’s called up. Well, since I see Mr. Crossman on the screen, why don’t we start with him?

And if you’re a good friend, Mr. Nantula wants to respond as well, that’s fine. Mr. Crossman, go ahead, please.

Thank you. So through the chair, the point of this was to create opportunities and lean into the designation that we have, the unique designation which is Canada’s only municipal city of music. A couple years back when we removed the sound by law, it proved that, so we adapted the sound by the law for amplified entertainment and patios. We saw an increase in the number of performances.

Now we’re trying to pick up from where previous grants supported activations on patios, which was for an allowing business to expand on their patios. Now we’re trying to sort of enhance that with light music and lean into that designation. So it’s sort of a opportunity to create performance that could largely be used for music and it could also translate indoors as well when it gets a little bit colder to the weather. Thank you, Mr.

Nantula. Would you, as a good friend of Mr. Thompson, would you like to add something to that? I verify I’m a good friend of Mr.

Thompson’s. The part that I think the Councillor’s asking is, does the math add up? And it does, these are maximum available grants and not everybody uses the whole available grant because they don’t need it. And so we figure our projections are pretty on track from our experience in the patio grants that we did last year without having the added benefit of the center stage portion of it.

Thank you very much. Councillor, any other further questions? No, I’ll just finish off by saying this particular one is thrilling to me. And I can’t wait to see how it’s utilized by our business community.

Thank you. Councillor Hummeu. Thank you, Your Worship. My question is about case number four, the business case number four.

I don’t, I’m really worried about missing the boat in terms of recruitment. And again, so many cities, so many countries are putting a lot of money and stock into recruiting fresh new talent into their countries because we’re looking at population growth and actually there’s no population growth, there’s population shrinkage. And countries are trying to attract the best talent to their country, or people are trying to attract the best talent to their countries at present. So my questions are, while you’re doing this work, the business case work with recruiting, are you looking at different sectors in terms of recruiting through sector?

So food sector or entertainment sector, how are you doing the actual recruitment? Mr. Locodio. Thank you.

Through the chair, to the Councillor’s point, the competition for talent is intense and you’re quite right, provinces, communities, and really countries are all competing to attract the best and the brightest. This is a sectoral approach. And in our business case, we have identified London Regional Manufacturing Council, Robert talked about the Construction Association and several groups like that that would help provide consultation on skills gaps, on high demand occupations, countries of origin. And that research and analysis will help inform how best to target that attraction efforts.

This also involves working with our established networks of Canadian Consulates and Trade Commissioner Services overseas to tap into their networks and their intelligence across the world, really, to try to harness those channels to attract more newcomer talent to help meet some of these 7,000 plus open opportunities in our region. Thank you, customer. Just one other question. Have you done much in terms of recruitment in the United States?

I would think that there are people that would like to come up north just because of the recent kind of events that are happening down there. I don’t know if there’s been any type of movement in that way. Mr. Locoria.

Thank you, through the chair, we have not specifically targeted the United States. More recently, we’ve had that Toronto-based campaigns. Our recent one was called Don’t Tell Toronto. And that helped attract a lot of residents from that area.

But due to hybrid and remote work settings, we’re finding a lot of that talent that’s moved to London is still working for Toronto-based companies. But United States is certainly one of those geographies that we had shortlisted as something we could target with some active campaigns. Councillor. Thank you, that’s great.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll make a few comments. And I’ll just touch on the business cases.

Then I have some questions on business case number four. The first I want to comment on is business case one and I want to commend the chamber. My question earlier about the economic and social recovery, I really liked this program because it is looking at some of the hardest hit demographic groups and those who are most economically impacted by the pandemic and trying to raise them up and support them through the recovery. So I think that that’s an excellent approach and I just wanted to comment and congratulate them on that.

On the center stage, Patio Grande, I’ll echo what Councillor Van Holse said. I think this aligns well with our UNESCO City of Music designation. And I’ll also say I recently brought a motion through the Community Protective Services Committee because we are keeping our temporary patio provisions and some of our pandemic provisions through January 2023. This was a program that supported that, the program that this is built on, to allow those businesses that have been hard hit and are trying to raise revenue, to have some access to capital, to create those spaces that will help them recover.

And I like to see this program continue as we still have those provisions in place and perhaps we’ll make some of them permanent. So this will align well with that. On business case four, I just want to make some notes here. I wanted to say to Council, we need to remind ourselves that we do have a newcomer strategy.

And that strategy is about attracting, retaining, and integrating newcomers with a focus on skilled workers, international students, and entrepreneurs. So I think that this directly aligns with an existing council strategy. What I would say is, I think that there’s a piece missing in this, and I recently had a meeting with Tech Alliance. And I was talking to them about their desire and their application to be a designated partner under the startup visa program, which does have a cost associated with it.

So in this business case, it looks like the Small Business Center will be doing the same thing. And what I would prefer to avoid is duplication by having everybody pull in the same direction. So my question is, I don’t see Tech Alliance as one of the leveraged contributors in this process. But I’d like to know that they would be engaged with and maybe brought in and see where they could support and help enhance this and perhaps leverage this business case, which I am supportive of, but just want to ensure that we’ve got all of those organizations pulling in the same direction and not creating a sub duplication, particularly for programs that might have some cost to them.

Perhaps it makes sense for both to be designated under that program, but I just wanted to get some comments on that and see if that’s something that can be accommodated as we move forward. I certainly don’t think I need to amend the business case based on the comments if there’s a way to include another group like Tech Alliance. I’d feel much more comfortable with this. Mr.

LaCodya. Thank you, through the chair. That’s an excellent point. For background, we’ve worked with the Small Business Center on the Food Pranor program recently, the Grove at the Western Fair to develop new programming in the agri-food space.

This discussion with the Small Business Center on the Startup Visa program has been going on for quite some time. And over COVID, with more remote and hybrid work environments, this came up to the top as something that the Small Business Center working with other provincial counterparts was keen on piloting with us. Certainly Tech Alliance and Small Business Center are both provincially funded organizations for the most part. And I think the Small Business Center leadership is very much and LEDC as well, very much open to working with several other partners in the community.

I think the business case identified a number of the primary organizations that could start rolling with this initiative right away, but certainly a broader canvassing of other community supports would certainly be warranted. Deputy Mayor. Yeah, and thank you for that answer. I was hoping that would be your answer.

And that makes me very comfortable with this. I know there’s a lot of organizations to partner with. And as you try to move quickly on recovery, sometimes it’s difficult to conclude everyone, but given the information that I had, that I was happy to share, I’m glad to hear your answer. And I think this is a great business case.

And like I said at the start, does align with our newcomer strategy, and I think enhances it, and particularly for the targeted areas that was mentioned in your presentation. Thank you, Councillor Hugger. Thank you very much. Yes, regarding business case number four, and we’re looking for to identify, recruit, and connect targeted newcomers.

And I’m assuming some of those targeted newcomers will be skilled trades, ‘cause I have the innovation part right behind me. And one of the things they’re looking for is skilled trades, as you know. And I’m wondering if we have had any consideration with talking to, I believe it’s Minister McNaughton, regarding apprenticeships and apprenticeship programs. I know there’s lots of programs to go back to school, but I’m looking for programs for employers to hire apprentices, ‘cause I know we need a lot of these skilled trades, and they’re looking for electricians, or they’re looking for plumbers, but they’re not looking for the apprentice.

So can I be working? Thank you. Should we hear from Mr. Collins instead?

Why don’t we do that? (laughing) Thank you, Your Worship, for you. Yes, I’m pleased to council Hillia, who I know is active in meeting with many of the different companies in the innovation park and other areas. He’s actively hearing their concerns, which is around the skilled trades.

Yes, we are very fortunate, by the way, locally to have the apprenticeship network, which brings together people from both boards of education, Fanshawe College, and other interests, to actually really try to make sure that we’re raising appropriately the profile of the skilled trades, making sure people are attracted, and also making sure people are fulfilling. One of the biggest challenges we’re facing at the moment isn’t just the people registering for the skilled trades, but it is actually completing their apprenticeship. So yes, that is a key consideration. And we also know that there will be, and one of the examples we put in our business case, is whereby when we’ve identified a particular shortfall, and perhaps a source of red seal, qualified individuals overseas, how to actually build a program that actually then provides both the Canadian context to work safely, but recognizes that red seal training overseas.

So we’re very keen to operationalize that. Thank you, I was actually looking at the equivalency training, and you just answered it. Thank you very much. Thank you, any other comments or questions, Councilor Feithmiller, go ahead, please.

Thank you, Chair, and through you, looking at these programs, and I’ll be honest, I like all four of these programs, but there’s a wide range of dollars here. We’re talking 47,000 to 1.5 million, and I’m wondering if someone can speak to how these programs, what the plan is to report back, and the metrics that will be used, how will those metrics be set up, so that as Council, we’re getting to see the winds that are coming from needs. Mr. Johnson, why don’t I take that to you?

Sure, thank you, and through you, Mr. Mayor, excellent question from the Councilor. So as part of the agreement that we will, if supported, we will enter into with proponents, we’ll be reporting back, like an annual report back, in that case, the business case for it will be, it will be multiple reports as it’s a multi-year program, and the business case before you has a number of metrics included within, which we’ll ask proponents to respond to. In addition, a number of the partners that bring forward these business cases that are bringing forward these four, have their own reporting structures, which they bring back to Council as well, and under an enterprise-wide approach that the City of London uses, there’s multiple opportunities to bring those pieces back, particularly where, in the case of a couple of these business cases, there’s direct ties to Council’s strategic plan on a number of metrics.

So to sum up, there’ll be an annual report as part of these funding agreements, if endorsed by Council. And then there’ll be an additional reporting through other reporting structures that organizations have with the City of London. Councilor, thank you. Thank you, any other comments or questions?

Councilor Salih, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn’t gonna participate, but can we pull number four?

I think I’m gonna have to recuse myself, just ‘cause it skates around a little bit of the immigration, I’ve been trying to think about it, but I think it’ll be to see for me if I recuse on business case four, as I work for the federal government. So noted, thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councilor Cassidy.

Thank you, Your Worship. And it feels like most people have spoken, I’m happy to move all four, and happy to vote on number four, specifically separately, given that Councilor Salih has a conflict. But I do, I wanna say regarding one, two, and three, of course, their relatively smaller amounts compared to business case number four. I support, since I’m prepared to move all four, I’m supportive of all four of them.

I’m very happy with these business cases that have come forward. Deputy Mayor Morgan and I were just speaking this morning about, not this morning, at the beginning of this meeting before it started, about a specific patio in my ward, and how exciting it is, and I can’t wait to see what takes place there. It looks like there’s going to be a stage. So, and I had a pre-meeting as we tend to do with staff, when you’re preparing for an upcoming committee meeting, to talk about the things that are on the agenda.

And I did speak about a recent trip to Oakville, and to see the kind of patios that they have in their downtown on Oakville. And they start on the sidewalk, they have very large sidewalks in the downtown, encourages pedestrians walking, stopping at these sidewalk cafes, shopping, and then it spills off the sidewalk into the parking spots, and it’s amazing. And I’ve been to Paris a few times, reminded me of Paris, these sidewalk patios in Oakville, and I’m really excited to see that same kind of vibe happening in London, not just downtown, but in other places as well. Some questions, Mr.

Mayor, to number four. My first question is actually through you to the city manager, and we’ve talked quite a bit about the newcomer strategy, and how the business case number four could align with this. And when I first saw this business case, that was the first thing that came to mind. And I wonder if the city manager could speak about that alignment, and how she sees these two things working together.

Well, she apparently is here to answer that question. Ms. Livingston, please. Yes, and I’m trying to get my camera on.

There we go. Thank you very much through your worship for the question. So, yes, Council approved the newcomer strategy in 2018, and as Deputy Mayor Morgan highlighted, that strategy was very specifically about attracting, retaining, and integrating newcomers, with a focus on skilled workers, international students, and entrepreneurs. So as we look to growing our city, and we know that that will happen through immigration, as a component of that, that strategy is quite critical.

And we see a direct alignment between what is being proposed with this business case, in three ways with the newcomer strategy. The first is around the labor market forecast. This was a part of the newcomer strategy, but this has not been able to be developed yet. These kinds of resources and leveraging the expertise of the partners involved will assist with that.

Second is around making London a destination of choice. Mr. Locodia has already highlighted that London needs to be competitive, and I can say to you as an employer of municipal folks, we compete daily for talent. And so we see this as an important way to put a stake in the ground for London, from a newcomer’s perspective, and also, frankly, from my perspective, as we strive to benefit from the work that could happen through this business case, we can also attract other talent to London, to fill many of the gaps we see, not just in key industries, but also in public sector settings.

And the third area is around strategies for targeted recruitment and supports for newcomers, entrepreneurs, and international students. So we see very direct alignment. I know that Ms. Tesley has been engaged as have the chairs of the newcomer strategy been engaged in the discussion for this work, and I believe that they would also echo that there is alignment between the business case and what the newcomer strategy envisions.

Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, through you too, Ms. Livingston.

Thank you for that answer. I have a question for the LEDC folks. It mentions the Don’t Tell Toronto campaign in here. Is this a shift in direction?

Is there a reason why we’re not focusing on Toronto anymore as a source? Mr. Locodio. Thank you.

Through the chair, it would be a shift. We focused on the Toronto market for some time, but and noticed people do moving, people did move to London. We did get some positive coverage from the campaign, but that has not necessarily translated into the labor market outcomes that we were hoping for. It certainly helped our economy in terms of housing and the spending that’s happening in the region and things of that nature.

But we are finding that many of the folks who have moved here are still working for Toronto-based companies, either hybrid or remote. So in terms of direct labor market outcomes, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. That’s why the shift. Councillor Cassidy.

Thank you. And another question for LEDC. So some years ago, Mr. Mary, you’ll recall, and some of the work that you did through the London Jobs Now initiative and COVID kind of derailed a lot of these things we’ve been working on.

But there was a low unemployment rate in London, but there was also a low labor participation rate. And there seemed also to be that disconnect as Councillor Lewis touched upon where there were so many open jobs in London, but not necessarily the labor force or enough people in the labor force with the skills necessary for those jobs. Has that changed? What, is there something different now?

Mr. Locodio. Mr. Collins.

Thank you very much through you, your worship. Yes, actually through the good work that has occurred, that has been an improvement in the participation rate. Does that mean that all of the active people who could be, sorry, all of the people who could be working are working? No, that’s not the case yet.

Your Council have received reports about a study that was done and I think you reported about six months ago that there still needs to be active work to remove barriers to encourage those who are on the sidelines to enter the workforce. Some of that involved, as Councillor Lewis mentioned earlier, making sure there’s effective training programs, also making sure that the wage rates are appropriate, but also there’s access to transit and access to childcare, so as well as some mental health support. So yes, the participation rate has been steadily improving through the collective efforts. However, we still know that there’s still work to be done.

Councillor Cassy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I think this is a really good initiative.

I think this is what LCRN was creative for. We set aside a whole lot of money for the recovery network. And just as we found after the 2008 recession, when we took office, I’m looking at you, Deputy Mayor, because you took office with me in 2014, and we were still dealing with recovery from the 2008 recession. These things take some time.

I like that the business case for is a three-year projection. I like that they have metrics in here and I like that I’ve heard from Mr. Thompson that they will be reporting back on those metrics. So they will be held accountable.

We have so many new businesses coming to London. There’s been such success through our industrial land development strategy and through city staff working with LEDC, bringing these employers, these large employers, maple leaf foods, I think alone was projected to have 1400. New jobs here, so where are they coming from? We have an existing labor force here.

We need to expand it. We’ve heard recently that London is number two, I think, in projected growth, second city for projected growth in the country, I think it was number two, number one in Ontario. So people are coming here. We need to do a really good job, I think, as policymakers here and our community partners in targeting that growth.

And in attracting the people we need to fill the jobs that we have. So I know at a recent board meeting of the Middlesex London Health Unit, we were told of the shortage of medical health, public health, especially professionals, public health inspectors, public health nurses and nursing in general. So I asked them specifically, this was before I saw this business case about London’s newcomer strategy. And could that help an employer like Middlesex London Health Unit?

And the response, of course, was an enthusiastic yes. So that’s just one sector that I see benefiting from something like this. I like this multi-pronged approach, working with city staff, working with other organizations like Tech Alliance and Small Business Centre, the Employment Sector Council. It’s a community, it seems like a broad community-wide approach and just like all of our toughest problems, it takes a community-wide approach to solve them.

So I’m really happy to support all of these business cases. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Loz, I’m gonna recognize you in a moment, there’s one other speaker that we haven’t heard from that’s on my list so far, that would be me.

So I’d like to turn the chair over to the deputy mayor. Sure, I’ll recognize the mayor. Thanks, thank you. Colleagues, I support all four of these initiatives.

The one that certainly has had the greatest discussion is item four. And so that’s the one I’m going to make my comments about. There was a time when London struggled to find employers, sufficient numbers of employers, because we were all these people. We have done a very good job of dealing with that.

Then the question becomes, now where will we find all the employees? And take us back to what’s coming on the horizon and Councillor Cassidy mentioned a couple. Maple Leaf Foods, there’s gonna be a full complement of 1,500, 1,600 people. They’re gonna take some employees from other plants and move them in, but most will come from London.

Amazon, and some are already from London right here. Amazon, two to 3,000 employees, focusing on newcomers, interestingly, and that’s what they have told me directly. WSIB, lest we forget, a conservative promise, provincial government promise to bring WSIB over the next several years to London, Ontario. Many of those will become experienced individuals, or our experienced individuals who will come from Toronto.

Many they will look for from the labor force here. Aspire group, we heard about them, and there’s 100 employees, Medicon. A company that I had a lot of involvement with in terms of federal and provincial discussions, 250 employees. First company in Canada will provide PPE gloves, lateral gloves for our health community.

Dimplex, another 200, 250 employees. We have at least 6,000 jobs that are gonna be happening in this community in the next short while. And that could be as high as 8,000 to 10,000. And I gave a range with Amazon and WSIB, depending on what those actual numbers finally become.

So I was on the conservative side, small C, to say 6,000 and a bit jobs, up to 8,000 plus to 10,000. So the question is, where are we gonna get those good people? Our job isn’t to train them. Our job’s to attract them.

We need to sell London. We sell London. We’ve got facilities through Fanshawe College, our other private colleges, our university. We’ve got programs through our provincial government, our federal government, that are working to train up people.

We need to bring more people to this community. That’s absolutely crucial for the success and growth of this city. And I would suggest to you that that’s just a, that’s just a small, what’s a big number, of the individuals that we know are coming. Mr.

Locote will not tell us the stuff he’s working on. That’s kind of like a secret. But as he develops those, I will tell you that that will draw a greater need to have the right number of people. And we don’t know what that number is.

This is about talent attraction. And I think that’s absolutely crucial. Business doesn’t work in a silo. They work in conjunction with government.

We bring them, they hire them, they train them. But in addition to the post-secondary and other groups that will support that. So I want to make that point. ours is not to scale them up.

We will try to find those appropriately skilled individuals. But with our programs and facilities within this community that can assist those individuals. I’m absolutely excited about the prospect of what this can mean for our city. And I just want to close with this.

And I want to come back to what this is. It’s a three year talent attraction to identify, recruit, connect targeted newcomers, entrepreneurs, international students with London employers needs. This is huge. And when I look at what the opportunity for this brings, big price tag, we accept that.

But we have a big need. And the outcome will be huge for this city. So I’m going to encourage colleagues to consider their support of this. I think all four programs are worthy of that support.

Councillor Lewis. Oh, sorry, back to you Deputy Mayor. Thank you. So I will return the chair to you and let you know you have Councillor Lewis and also Councillor Halmer had to stand up.

Well, let’s go to Councillor Halmer if we can please. That’s only fair. Go ahead Councillor Halmer please. Well, thank you.

I just had a couple of questions about this case number four. I do support the other three. I do think it’s a shame that we didn’t add the additional money to the patio program when we talked about it. You can see in the report that the demand was stripped of funding that was available in multiple ways.

And I wish we provided more in the first place ‘cause it seemed to be quite a successful program. On this case four, I just wanted to ask some sort of related questions. Some of it’s come up. So I think Mr.

Ricodio’s probably got the answers pretty handy in terms of they don’t tell Toronto campaign, which seem to be successful in terms of driving people to the website and generating contact forms. I wonder about the overall costs. I’m trying to compare what happened with the don’t tell Toronto to what you’re proposing to do under business case four in terms of the magnitude of those things. Let’s ask Mr.

Ricodio. Thank you through the chair. So that campaign ran for a year included physical advertising in the Toronto market, billboards, bus ads, those sort of sort of things, included consulting resources around graphic design, websites, marketing, social media, all of that stuff. Ballpark figures, it cost about $400,000.

Customer. Okay, so that’s helpful because it helps us understand, we’re basically talking about something the same size or a little bit smaller if we’re gonna run it over three, three years plus some more targeted recruitment. That’s not part of the marketing campaign. So I think that’s helpful to understand.

My second question is about how it is going. I know you guys are the referral partner, LEDC for the global talent stream. And I wonder how often companies in our area are taking advantage of that, asking you to refer them and accessing talent through the global talent stream. Ms.

Glucote. Thank you for that question through you, your worship. Yes, yeah, there are several categories to the global talent stream. One is for individuals which I would say a mission critical staff.

That is, so we are the referral agent so that an employer who has a need for mission critical staff to be able to bring them over relatively quickly within normally between sort of within about six weeks to meet a critical need. So that is actually depends obviously on the company to access that service with us. So we’ve processed probably about 15 over the last year and a half of those individuals who are sort of, and by the way, the salary ranges have to be above 80,000. And by the way, I’ve seen close to $400,000.

So those are mission critical roles. That’s one of the dimensions that we have. The second, because there is a category B of the global talent stream, which we point out to companies, which includes things like software developers, game developers, et cetera. And that’s where companies actually use that directly themselves.

They’re able to not have to have a labor market impact assessment because they’re pre-approved as being a high-end demand occupations. So we have a lot of cut London companies who are using that directly without coming through us. The other area is that we can recommend companies can have something called the designated service channel support. That means that they get actually based on our referral, and this has to be a growing company in London, and then they have an individual that’s assigned to them to answer each and every one of their basic immigration questions regarding the particular talent pools they’re trying to access.

So that’s a very valuable service to employers who are looking to hire internationally and to make sure that they’re keeping the lane straight between the different programs. So I hope hopefully that’s provided more information than perhaps was requested, but I wanted to give you that background. That’s Robert. Thank you very much.

I wanted to pick up on something that was said earlier, which I don’t think it needs to hold up the business case, but I do think this is a good example of something where getting some matching contributions from the private sector would be a very good idea. You think about the amount of money that has been proposed to be spent in terms of marketing our community and trying to attract talent to the community. It’s really quite small in the context of the entire world and where we want to try and market into those places. So I think we actually need more money, especially if you think about we made some impact in Toronto, Toronto was pretty small compared to the entire, everywhere else we’re trying to get the old from, right?

And I think it actually takes a lot in the way of resources to make a dent. I’m not in this business, so I don’t know that much about marketing communities on a global stage, but it seems like more resources would be helpful and perhaps some of the companies that are really in desperate need of talent in the context of their overall HR budgets, what we’re talking about here is not very much money. And maybe they want to chip in and match what the city is contributing ‘cause I think that could help scale up. I’m a little skeptical about the idea that we need to bring the people to London, partly because I think everything is so in flux with certain kinds of work.

Obviously not with everything, right? If you need to be hands-on in your job, you have to be living in the community or close by to do it, right? Within creating distance and that’s still true for a lot of jobs, but the remote working and the ability to do that partially, I think it’s really changed things in a big way. And I want to make sure that our recruitment and attraction efforts are kind of keeping up with how that has changed.

I don’t really have the solution for that, but it doesn’t seem to me like doing something that made a lot of sense a few years ago is necessarily what we need to be doing now. There’s lots of people who live here in our community and they work for companies in the US or in Europe and they have great jobs and they’re contributing here and providing lots of support to our local economy without having to work for a company anywhere in London. And similarly, London companies can hire people in Finland, like it’s a totally different talent pool now in terms of how you can recruit people. And I want to make sure that our efforts are kind of keeping up with that, at least for the people who can do jobs in those remote ways.

And I think if people are doing this work directly, they understand that the businesses understand it a lot better than I do, but I am a little skeptical a little bit about it. I love the Mayor’s enthusiasm for selling London to the rest of the world. I think that is what we need to do. So I’m going to support the business case, even though I’m a little skeptical.

I’ve said in the past, I’m not going to nitpick a lot of these ideas and think, oh, I’m going to vote against it because it’s showing it alike. We’ve got to try a lot of different things. Hopefully this one works out because we definitely have some skill shortages and some mismatches in terms of getting people in here to provide the skills that employers are looking for. And if we can fill those with this kind of expenditure over multiple years, I want to emphasize that, I think that would be a great outcome.

So I’ll support a business case number four, even though I’m sure it’s quite hitting all the right points and I think we’re going to need more in the way of resources, maybe the Mayor and the ADC can rustle up some private sector support between now and when the program launches. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. And I’m going to say, who says debate doesn’t matter?

Who says that ideas that people can’t be swayed because I came into this meeting tonight prepared to vote no to business case four. I came into this meeting tonight prepared to refer business case four back for more information. But because of the answers we’ve gotten from our presenters because of the excellent questions asked by colleagues around this horseshoe and virtually, I am much more comfortable with this now than I was. I, like Councillor Halmer, I still have a little bit of skepticism, I think that we need to tread carefully in our approach to the recruitment.

And I think that, and I did hear Mr. Lococia say that this will be an opportunity to leverage funds. And so I really encourage him and I’ll perhaps badger him a little bit offline to keep that leveraging effort going. But this is a $6 million project that we’re being asked to put $1.5 million into.

It’s over three years. I would underscore Councillor Hymou’s comment perhaps that we can have a don’t tell Biden component to this and look south of the border for some talented labor as well because I agree that there may be some talent in the U.S. that would be happy to have Canadian style of healthcare among other things. So I just wanted to share that because of the debate we’ve had around this, I’ve changed my mind tonight and I’m gonna support this.

I’m gonna continue to be looking for some follow-up steps on this and I’ll be looking forward to the annual reports. But I appreciate the great discussion we’ve had around this tonight. And I think this is the spirit that we should come into committee meetings and debate with is that we’re open to listening and I wanna just also say to Mr. Lococia, your wingman, Mr.

Collins, had a great job answering questions as well. So you might wanna take him out afterwards and get him a cold lemonade to congratulate him for his good job tonight. Thank you gentlemen for the detailed answers you were able to provide and makes me much more comfortable in supporting this. Thanks very much.

I have no other speakers on the speakers list but I have been asked to pull a business case number four in deference to a potential for conflict and consideration for those who might choose to vote whatever other way. Councillor Cassidy is moving business cases one through three, three. One, two and three. Is there a seconder for that?

Councillor Fyfe Miller. Let’s call that question. Council chair vote, yeah. Thank you.

Wasn’t the vote the motions passed 15 to zero. Thank you and now we’re doing business case four. Councillor Cassidy, you indicated you’d be prepared to move that is there a seconder please. I have Councillor Lewis.

So with that then we’ve had discussion we will call the question. Oh yeah, yeah. Thank you. Closing the vote the motions passed 14 to zero with one recused.

Thank you and Mr. Thompson would you please thank all of the participants. I know there are a number of people on the line prepared to answer comments or questions but in particular as well to the individuals who did respond to council questions we appreciate it very, very much. Thank you.

With that colleagues we have, we’re almost there. We have one more item on the items for direction it’s consideration of appointment to Western University’s Board of Governors. I think what you’ll see in the package that’s been sent there are CVs associated with the two individuals that they put forward. As we do this, there are two individuals we need to thank before we get into proceeding with this and I think it is appropriate.

One is our friend Harold Usher, former Councillor who served on the Board of Governors and has agreed to move up his time by a few months to accommodate the timing of this June date and was prepared to work either way with this and we’re very grateful for his participation. And the other civic appointment, Michael Lerner and we’d like to thank him as well for his commitment. I sit as the automatic representative for Western University and I do, I see firsthand the contributions that Mr. Usher and Mr.

Lerner have made to this. So with that, what I’d like to do is I’d be looking for a motion to accept Western University’s Board of Governor appointments, moved by Councillor and Mayor Bergen, seconded by Councillor Hill. Are there comments or questions? Honorable mentioned to Councillor Homou for 13 it because of the Western is in her board.

Comments or questions? I see none, so Clerk can we pull that up? We’ll call the question please. Thank you.

For both the motions passed, 13 to zero with two. Thank you and colleagues, we have one final item to deal with. And if I turn your attention to the last page of our package from London and Middlesex Community Housing and it’s a letter directed to the clerk and members of SPPC from London and Middlesex Community Housing and what they have requested is through the letter, they’re requesting that SPPC reopen the application process to support the focused outreach from members of the community with backgrounds in the identified criteria as set out by the shareholder and you will see that there are some eight categories there and they have requested that that be reopened. So with that I will look for a motion to do that.

I see Councillor and Louis, seconded by Councillor Lewis, comments or questions. Councillor Lewis, please go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. And as the current Chair at London Housing, I just want to share with colleagues that we did have a candidate review committee go through the applicants we had.

We are replacing actually two members of civic administration who were appointed as interim directors during the transition. And we are specifically losing very specific skill sets with legal and legal aid experience and around finance and fiscal management. And so upon review, we just did not have candidates with those skill sets in particular who applied last time. The board did have a discussion and it was recommended that we ask the clerk to recirculate.

It will be an opportunity and the board members have made this commitment as well to actively reach out to their own networks with the links for the recirculation and encourage people with those skill sets to apply. But we didn’t want to do that on our own. We wanted to make sure that Council was aware and was supportive of recirculation. I think that’s helpful background.

Thank you, Councillor. Any comments or questions? Councillor Hopkins, please. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Mayor. And thank you, Councillor Lewis, for expanding on what we’re doing here. I do appreciate that we are looking for community members that were formerly staff members. And I would encourage, I’m supportive of resubmitting the applications.

I would encourage there are a number of applicants that have applied to different boards and committees at the city. And I would assume that a lot of those applicants probably have these skills as well, that they be reached to reapply or to apply to the London Middlesex community housing. So I just think that’s another opportunity that we can look at as well. Thank you, any other comments or questions?

It’s been moved and seconded. Shall we vote? Vote the motion. Thank you.

Opposing the vote, the motion’s passed 15 to zero. Colleagues, thank you. Before we do things, this has been a week of weeks. I can tell you that the Deputy Mayor, Councilor Turner and I went out to FCM, Councilor Cassidy and Councilor Moo participated via Zoom.

And I know others came in and out of those sessions and I think that was exceptionally helpful. But we have great government relations staff that really helped us through all of that at FCM and Regina. And I’d like to thank them. And just let me see when I think of the things that we’ve been through, even since we’ve been back.

So of course, this was a weekend where we paid tribute to the UF South family, our London family. And Romina Morris and her staff were nothing less than outstanding in terms of the work that they put in, not this weekend, but over many, many months to make this a respectful and appropriate acknowledgement of this beautiful family. I’d also like to acknowledge Tourism London, Port Crossman, Natalie and others who were so involved in our Country Music Awards, Ontario, CMAO. And again, this is one where London has hosted four times in the last 10 years.

And I believe in two years time, we’re gonna be hosting again. Maybe they’ll give me a little seat on stage or I’ll bring my guitar and they can dutifully toss me. But I’d like to thank all of our staff full time, all of our staff part time, all of your efforts are valued and appreciated. And we’re exceptionally grateful for the work that you all do.

The clerk’s looking at me sideways, which means I need to acknowledge the clerks as well because they are very special. And I just wanna say thank you to all of you. It’s been a compelling time. I don’t know how we’re gonna top all these thank yous in November when we say thank you.

Maybe we’ll have to name all of our 3,000 plus staff individually in that meeting, but we have a great group here at City Hall and I can tell you that we as council members are very grateful and appreciative. I look for a motion to adjourn please. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Let’s do a hand vote.

Screen’s on please. All those in favor? Councillor Turner. That motion’s carried.

Thank you. Motion to adjourn is a successful meeting adjourned.