May 9, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:01 PM; it being noted that the following were in remote attendance, Councillors P. Van Meerbergen, S. Hillier and E. Peloza (at 5:32 PM).

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That is BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.1   2023 Industrial Land Development Strategy

2023-05-09 Staff Report - 2023 Industrial Land Development Strategy

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Industrial Land Development Strategy:

a)    the 2023 Industrial Land Development Strategy, as appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2023 as Appendix “A”, BE ADOPTED as City Council’s strategy for developing municipally-owned industrial land; it being noted that the Strategy is based on continuing the goal of developing and maintaining an ongoing supply of 200 hectares of strategically-located serviced industrial land;

b)    the funding requirement of for the above-noted maintenance of an ongoing supply of 200 hectares of serviced industrial land BE CONSIDERED as part of the multi-year budget process;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to ensure that the inventory of municipally-owned industrial land are sold to targeted industries including: Advanced Manufacturing, Life and Health Sciences, Information and Digital Media, and Research and Development while prohibiting sales to non-targeted uses, including Warehouses, Transportation and Logistics, Truck Terminals, businesses that store and process data for retrieval, or speculative development to the private sector without verification that the end-user will be a targeted industry;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake an Industrial Land Needs Assessment, which shall include the use of the Climate Emergency Screening Tool; and,

e)    a communication BE FORWARDED to the London Transit Commission requesting information, including a presentation to the appropriate standing committee, related to developing a sufficient industrial land strategy transit plan following the completion of the first quarter pilot program servicing the area.

Motion Passed

Voting Record:

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion be amended in part d) by removing, ” which shall include the use of the Climate Emergency Screening Tool;“

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Trosow

Motion to approve, excluding part d):

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Industrial Land Development Strategy:

a)    the 2023 Industrial Land Development Strategy, as appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2023 as Appendix “A”, BE ADOPTED as City Council’s strategy for developing municipally-owned industrial land; it being noted that the Strategy is based on continuing the goal of developing and maintaining an ongoing supply of 200 hectares of strategically-located serviced industrial land;

b)    the funding requirement of for the above-noted maintenance of an ongoing supply of 200 hectares of serviced industrial land BE CONSIDERED as part of the multi-year budget process;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to ensure that the inventory of municipally-owned industrial land are sold to targeted industries including: Advanced Manufacturing, Life and Health Sciences, Information and Digital Media, and Research and Development while prohibiting sales to non-targeted uses, including Warehouses, Transportation and Logistics, Truck Terminals, businesses that store and process data for retrieval, or speculative development to the private sector without verification that the end-user will be a targeted industry;

e)    a communication BE FORWARDED to the London Transit Commission requesting information, including a presentation to the appropriate standing committee, related to developing a sufficient industrial land strategy transit plan following the completion of the first quarter pilot program servicing the area.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Trosow

Motion to approve part d):

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake an Industrial Land Needs Assessment, which shall include the use of the Climate Emergency Screening Tool; and,

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Mayor’s Provincial and Federal Government Lobbying Activities in Support of Health and Homelessness System Response

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the communication from Mayor J. Morgan with respect to his Provincial and Federal Government Lobbying Activities in Support of Health and Homelessness System Response, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.2   London Police Services Board Candidates Interview Process

That the following actions be taken with respect to the London Police Services Board Candidate Interview Process:

a)    the communication from Mayor J. Morgan BE RECEIVED;

b)    the attached amended process, BE ENDORSED;

c)    the five candidates BE INVITED to attend a special meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to be held on June 5, 2023 to conduct interviews; it being noted that it may be necessary to accommodate an additional meeting date for a candidate; and,

d)    notwithstanding the current Council Policy “Audio Recording of Municipal Council and Standing Committee In Closed Session Meetings Policy”, the audio recordings of the LPSB interviews BE MADE AVAILABLE to any Member of Council who is unable to attend the meeting, upon request.

Motion Passed

Voting Record:

That communication from Mayor J. Morgan with respect to the London Police Services Board Candidate Interview Process BE RECEIVED.

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Franke

That the interview questions BE PROVIDED to candidates, in advance of the scheduled interviews.

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by C. Rahman

That interview questions BE PRESENTED to candidates by individual councillors, through a set rotation.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the London Police Services Board Candidate Interview Process:

a)  the communication from Mayor J. Morgan BE RECEIVED;

b)  the attached amended process, BE ENDORSED; and

c)  the five candidates BE INVITED to attend a special meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to be held on June 5, 2023 to conduct interviews; it being noted that it may be necessary to accommodate an additional meeting date for a candidate.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That, notwithstanding the current Council Policy “Audio Recording of Municipal Council and Standing Committee In Closed Session Meetings Policy”, the audio recordings of the LPSB interviews BE MADE AVAILABLE to any Member of Council who is unable to attend the meeting, upon request.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.3   Resignation from Eldon House Board of Directors

2023-05-09 Submission - Resignation from Eldon House

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Eldon House Board of Directors:

a)  the communication dated April 17, 2023 from R. Griesmayer BE RECEIVED;

b)  the resignation of Rebecca Griesmayer from Eldon House Board of Directors BE ACCEPTED, effective April 19, 2023; and,

c)  the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to advertise in the usual manner to solicit applications for appointment to Eldon House Board of Directors, with applications to be brought forward to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.4   (ADDED) Confirmation of Appointment to the Governance Working Group

2023-05-09 Submission - Councillor Franke - GWG

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Councillor S. Franke BE APPOINTED to the Governance Working Group for the term ending November 14, 2026.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.5   (ADDED) May Progress Update - Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response

2023-05-09 Submission - (4.5) May Progress Update – Health and Homelessness

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the May Progress Update – Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 7:32 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 40 minutes)

Okay, I’m gonna call the meeting to order. This is the 15th meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting on May 9th, remind me to wish my brother a happy birthday. I just remember that now. So let me start with the land acknowledgement.

The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adawandran. We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory.

Further to that, I want to also comment that the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact SPPC@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. I will say it’s not just my brother’s birthday. I believe it’s Councillor McAllister’s birthday as well.

So happy birthday. Everybody can sing later. We’ll see how far we get through the meeting and if we’re too tired, we won’t. But best wishes today.

Thank you for sharing it with us. We’ll try to be as efficient as possible. Are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest? Seeing none, we have a consent item.

I have been asked by a Councillor to pull it. So as per the procedure bylaw, the consent item will go to the end of the items for direction. So we will deal with the items for direction first before we deal with the consent item, which means we have no scheduled items. We’re on to items for direction.

4.1 is a letter from myself. I will make some comments. So perhaps I can pass the chair off to the deputy mayor and I am pleased to take the chair and will recognize Mayor Morgan. So I just wanted to make a couple of comments colleagues.

I know that Council had asked of civic administration for monthly updates on the health and homelessness work and as such, given the substantive amount of work that I’ve been involved in on the advocacy front, I thought it would be appropriate just to give Council an update of the recent advocacy that we’ve been doing on behalf of the city on this file. In speaking with our GR team, they said that this was one of the most intensive advocacy pieces or periods that London has seen in recent history. And I will say our reach has been broad, but also strategic. As you can see from the list of both federal and provincial individuals that we’ve reached out to, these really are individuals who represent the key ministries related to the different aspects of the health and homelessness work that’s being done.

And I want to first comment by saying, this work is being done by my office and with the support of civic administration, but really is grounded in the incredible work that the community has done to build the plan. The plan is at the center of the work that we’ve been doing. The notion of the hubs and supportive housing has been exceptionally well received as innovative as something that is scalable and transferrable to other cities and other parts of the province and country. And something that there is great interest in finding an avenue to support.

Our advocacy efforts are really twofold. One, the advocacy in the short term to try to get support for the hubs and the spaces that we need up and running this year. And also lay the groundwork for the longer term advocacy, which we part of the Ontario and federal 2024 budgets, where we will make submissions to support this initiative through that process. I want to also thank the individuals who took time to be part of these advocacy efforts, both those who were able to attend in person and those who supported.

As you can see in my list of thank yous, we brought representatives from a range of industries, from a range of perspectives and really a number of validators who could speak to the actual work being done on the ground and answer a lot of the technical questions that may be associated with the work in hand. I feel very optimistic about our prospects ahead. As you know, the provincial government has an important role in supporting the operating dollars from a healthcare perspective. The federal government certainly has a role and programs available to support some of the capital costs associated with some of the builds.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me who wants to give us what money and what way. We’re kind of putting it all on the table and then finding the avenues to work through either existing programs or flexibility within existing programs to make those asks. And so that follow-up work is now underway with the different ministries and ministers directly. And again, like I said, I’m optimistic on the prospects ahead.

That being said, I have been very clear that we will proceed with the implementation of the program irrespective of what the governments give us. But obviously, government support will allow us to build out the system as contemplated rather than a smaller version of it. I also want to recognize the significant donation from the London family. And as those dollars flow in, because with donor agreements, it’s not just one giant check all at once, the donor has committed to flowing them at a pace that we might need to access those dollars, which means in the absence of funding coming from other levels of government in the timeframe that we anticipate, we may have some flexible options before us with that donor money that we can use to fill the gaps and allow things to get underway as quickly as possible.

I know that there is a significant staff update on the agenda as well, so I’ll keep my comments there just on the advocacy front. And I just wanted to provide that update for members of council. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. I will return the chair to you.

And I have currently no one on the speaker’s list. I’ll also just point out that you were under your five minutes. So we didn’t need a time extension. Thank you for timing me.

Is there any questions on that? Councillor Lehman. Thank you. And just because we’re discussing your lobbying efforts, so we’ll keep my questions to that.

Two questions, did you get an indication from the provincial government that’s agreed to provide funding now that this was a one-time thing? Or was there an indication that this would be an ongoing funding model because what we were working on is definitely not a one-time solution. It’s something that we will like to see continuing on for the years ahead of us. Sure, happy to answer that.

So the ask is divided into both the operating and capital components of it. Obviously, the operating costs are ongoing. The capital costs, whether it is refitting a building or building a new contemplated hub, those are not necessarily ongoing costs. There are costs associated with life cycle maintenance of any facility that we maintain, but it was very clear, both to the financial government as well, to the federal government about the components of the ask and what is ongoing and what is one-time.

Go ahead. Thank you. And the second question I have is as we are about to invest considerable money to help those who are suffering on our streets and come up with a unique made in London solution with the province assisting us in that. In those discussions were there indications from the province that they will be using the London model with our neighboring cities around London.

For those folks that are in those areas, not having to come to London to get the services that we are going to provide and they can get it closer to home. Sure, and I’ll let our staff expand on my comments on this. So at both the provincial and federal levels, there is a clear understanding that the model that we are developing is both scalable. In other words, the hubs can have a variety of focuses.

There can be the number of them that you need, but also applicable and apply and can apply to other cities. In fact, I will say one minister at the federal level was very keen on commenting on how this would apply in their province. And so there is an understanding that the work being done is meant to be a model that will be applied elsewhere. And I’ve been very, very transparent and very clear all the way from the start that this is something that we will not do on our own.

This is something that all municipalities have to be moving in the same direction on, which is why the work at the Ontario Big City Mayor’s has been so critical to this. And passing resolutions that are in direct alignment with the work that we are doing, I would have to give credit to Kingston and the work that they’re doing as well in that city, very much paralleling the work that we’re doing here. But it is very clear that both from the mayor’s perspective, as well as our communications to government that we anticipate building a model. And we may be one or two steps ahead of other people, but we expect them to be one or two steps behind us on this and following suits so that we can provide services in all of the cities that need them, not create city-based hubs or centers that people would be directed towards.

It is a problem that is about supplying services that are people-centric, and that means supplying them where the people are, not moving them between cities. So there’s that commitment. The other thing I wanna mention too, is unique to the London situation, but I think is gaining momentum elsewhere is the way that we have brought community partners and the diversity of community partners together. What we have also set a model for is how other communities bring their agencies, their business community, their hospital systems together in a way to try to speak with one voice.

And the more effective we are, I think the more that collaborative approach is gaining traction in other cities. I don’t know if Mr. Dickens or Ms. Livingston didn’t have anything to add.

Thank you, your worship and through you. I thank you by touching on the work of the OBCM, it’s quite relevant in this conversation. We know this is an Ontario-wide challenge of people experiencing housing deprivation and housing insecurity and homelessness. For those that were in attendance at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, conversation last week on homelessness, we did hear from a number of communities in Ontario that homelessness does not have borders, and that there are people who will move from communities and to communities, and although it’s difficult to quantify those numbers, we know there’s an inflow and an outflow.

I think to your point, what we were able to accomplish last week was some of our municipal partners across the province was what the Mayor touched on, which is a framework, a way to engage community to be part of this conversation. It was also a way to demonstrate how municipalities can find themselves in the unlikely position of leading from the back when it comes to this type of response. It is in our nature that if there’s a problem, we want to rush in and solve it right away. A problem of this magnitude requires all voices and all people to be part of it, and so I think what we will see is, while we may be a step or two ahead, there are a lot of municipalities in Ontario that are doing great things now that are different than what we’re trying to do, and they will be really good at those things as well, and that may attract people wanting to get services in those communities, so thank you.

Thank you. Okay, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship, for the update. I really do appreciate it.

It’s like you’ve been quite busy these past four weeks. I really do want to acknowledge the fact that you are reaching out to MPPs and MPPs in our area. I know it’s important that they’re updated as to what our plan is, and in particular that funding and the need for extra funding that is going to be ongoing, just following up on Councillor Layman’s concerns. So this one time funding is wonderful, but to continue the work that needs to be done, needs continuous support from province and the federal governments, and I really appreciate the update.

I do want to follow up as well on the AMO ending homeless symposium that a number of us were at last week. And I just want to thank Mr. Dickens for he did a presentation. And I know I was approached by a number of other municipalities in that room wanting to know what London is doing and wanting more information.

And Mr. Dickens, I hope your emails and phone were full because it was received quite well. And there are a number of other initiatives going on in other municipalities. The one big takeaway that I received, I got a number of big takeaways, but I just want to underline what Mr.

Dickens said about homelessness does not have any borders. It is a concern throughout Ontario, big and small. The rural community in particular, the challenges of homelessness that we’re all having to deal with. And I know at AMO we are trying to continue that conversation with the province.

So thank you for the update. Thank you, Councillor. If I could just add one thing you mentioned, there are local members of Parliament and I’ve reached out to all of them regardless of party affiliation because there are local representatives that need to be well informed about what we are doing. I do want to, though, specifically thank our members in the area on the government side of both of those because they were critical to us securing and setting up the meetings that we needed.

They also supported attending those meetings in most instances and magnifying London’s voice at the table with their colleagues in the government. So that includes both MPP Flack and Minister McNaughton as well as MP Kaia Baga and MP Fragus Gatto. So certainly I appreciate the meetings with our other MPs and MPPs, but I know when you’re meeting with the government and trying to get money out of them, it’s nice to have a couple of the colleagues who represent the region, know the city well, and understand our initiatives at the table as well. So I would be remiss not to mention that we appreciate the support they gave in setting up those meetings.

Other questions for me? And again, there’s another report later for staff. I don’t want to stray too far from the advocacy piece at this point, but, okay, we probably need a motion just to receive my report. That’s Councillor Cuddy and Councillor Raman.

Any further questions on that? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Worship, I’m having a technical difficulties while voting verbally, yes. Posing the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero.

The next item is also a communication for me, so perhaps I’ll hand the chair back to the deputy mayor on this as well. Thank you, Worship. I will take the chair and I will start by recognizing you with regard to the London Police Services Board candidates interview process. So colleagues, as was discussed, the last time we met on this, I endeavored to commit to you to bring back a process that we could potentially follow, do a check in with you before we actually finalize and schedule the interviews to ensure that we’re on the same page for the approach to the selection for this particular board.

As you can see in my letter, I reached out and engaged with a number of groups to prepare the process that you see before you, recognizing that this is just my suggestion of the process based on the advice that I was given. With the groups beyond the city manager, the clerk, the ARIO, Division of People Services, who have supported these processes in the past, particularly when we’ve done interviews in the past, I want you to know, I also reached out to the police board and the anti-racism advisory panel of the police board, which I both sit on and presented to on this subject, just to give them an idea of the framework and get their feedback and thoughts. So that is incorporated into this approach as well, recognizing that it’s ultimately up to counsel to decide how to proceed. This was my intention on how to proceed through these interviews.

So you can see everything that we have before you. I’m happy to, now I may not have the answers to all the questions ‘cause these are based on some best practices that I think would be best for others who have more expertise in that space to comment on, but I’m happy to answer any questions and I’m also very happy to take any feedback that counselors have because my expectation here is that everybody knows exactly what we’re gonna do before we start the process ‘cause it’s harder to change the process after you’ve started it. So hence, this is the check-in before we actually move to the next phase in the process. That’s the only introductory comments I have, but I’d be happy to engage in a discussion on it.

Well, I can return the chair to you or I can facilitate the Q&A for you. I do note Councilor Pribble and Councilor Raman are both already on the speakers list. I don’t mind sharing, I’m not gonna make any motions associated with this, I expect Council too. So I’m happy to share, even though I may answer some of the questions, but I’ll actually defer a number of them depending on what they are as well.

So let me just shut down that speakers list and I’ll start with Councilor Pribble. I do have one recommendation and that’s the one with questions should be provided to candidates in advance. I would like to change the range of topics, not the questions, and I do think that we have huge issues, potentially even crisis in terms of the safety, security and crime. And I really think we need to stress that we are taking this very seriously and making this even the candidates aware that it is really very challenging and we wanna challenge them and we need to be challenged to deliver the results.

If we do give the questions in advance, I believe that it’s gonna be more of rehearsed answers and I really wanna know that they are ready to attack this huge issue. So again, range of topics. I think that’s appropriate. Exact questions, no, I don’t believe so.

Thank you. Okay, perhaps as an approach, given I’ve provided a suggestion, is if colleagues wanna provide their comments on areas that they’d like to change, they could do so and I’ll entertain motions after I’ve heard kind of the general feedback. If there’s general consensus on everything else besides a few of the things that are raised, then I think we have a framework to work from we can make some motions. If we actually have to make some decisions on some of these approaches, I’ll go to Councilor Raman next.

Thank you, Your Worship. So first in response and aligning with the questions for interviews, I see no issue with what’s provided here around the interview questions piece, especially with providing candidates with the questions in advance. I do think that it is a best practice when it comes to an interview of this style. I’m not assessing somebody for their spontaneity and how they answer a question and I have no problem with preparedness in that sense.

But I did wanna comment on the training prior to the interview and just ask some questions specific of the training. So it says that this would be tailored for the specifics of the interview. Given that we are not members of Council meeting or in this recommendation are not asking the questions nor are the questions going to be asked on the fly, they’re prepared questions. I’m just not sure how the training then fits in with the actual preparation for the interview.

It’s perhaps I could see if the training was connected to the decision making, but for the interview itself, I feel like we’ve covered off a lot of the issues associated with the interview through the process. Just my thoughts. Can I start with Ms. Livingston and then you can pass it off if you’d like.

Yes, through you, your worship, probably we are being too literal in the use of the term interviewing. I think it was meant, we have an unconscious bias course and we have an ARIO Foundations course or training session, it was bringing those together around participating in an interview process and making decisions. So tailoring it to that. Whether you’re asking the questions or not, people bring unconscious bias to listening and decision making processes.

So really that’s what we meant, not specific to just the give and take of asking and answering questions, if that helps. Thank you. So just to follow up, the training that we’ve already taken with the City of London doesn’t address these topics, the training that we did before, we, for those of us that are new to Council, I guess, does it address those topics in its fullness? So I understand that.

But is it possible to provide more information in terms of a description of what the training will provide? I’m just thinking it’s a three hour training and some of us may have taken them in other positions and other organizations, et cetera. And just wanted to see whether or not there’s an opportunity just to look at the scope of it. Go ahead.

  • Through you, your worship. People services and the director of ARAO are working right now to bring those two training components. So I don’t have a detailed description I could share with you this evening. Happy to provide that between now and Council.

And then Council can make a decision about whether that would meet your needs. Thank you. I have a speaker’s list. So I’ll go to Councilor Ferra next.

And thank you, your worship and through you. I am appreciative of the direction or the suggestion that you have spelled out here. I do like the questions kind of coming out in advance and giving the candidates, you know, proper time to formulate their answers the way they would have. I do have an issue with that as well though.

I’m just worried ‘cause usually when we ask questions or we have a conversation going on or it’s just there’s a back and forth. Sometimes some things that we didn’t think of beforehand might just come up and it might just spark our inquisitiveness in an area that we didn’t foresee before the actual meeting. So I just wanted to just throw in just like a concern that I have and I just wanted to make sure that the process doesn’t push that aside. I would like to have maybe the possibility of maybe like an actual question and answer period at the end that would be still going through the clerk like you suggested, but questions that we might think of at the actual meeting itself that we could send and possibly be asked just in case so we can just not have any open spaces or anything that we’ve missed.

I’ll make one comment on that and then I’ll see if our staff have anything to comment on. My understanding of the process even when we’ve done set questions before is that there can be follow up questions as part of the interview. It is ideal to like keep those relatively consistent, not necessarily in the types of questions asked, but you wouldn’t want to do one follow up for one person and 32 for another. Obviously we are trying to balance the management of the time of the interviews.

So I believe that my understanding of the process is that there’s the opportunity for follow ups. I guess we would have to hear from others about the general opportunity at the end to ask a couple of extra questions. If everybody’s comfortable with that, certainly we could include that in the process as well. But generally there would be a contemplated here, a set of series of questions which I would be happy to circulate to counselors.

I just hadn’t finished compiling them based on all the feedback that I got so that you could see them as provided in advance. But we can decide today whether or not we want to add some extra questions at the end based on the process of the interview. I don’t know if the staff have any comments on that, but that’s Ms. Livingston, I’ll just check in with you.

Yes, your worship, the intention would not be to preclude any of the give and take that happens in an interview process at all. It’s just to, the suggestion is to provide the kind of standard list to everyone ahead of time. And then of course as interviews do, there’s often the give and take throughout the discussion. So we set the interviews unless there are objections from the group.

Certainly we can have any additional questions at the end presuming that there’s time left in the scheduled interviews. Remember we’re going to try to schedule a number of interviews ideally on the same day for everybody’s convenience. So we’ll have some buffer between the interviews, but we’ll want to try to keep them approximately the same length and time for each. So if someone objects to that, let me know as we go through the speakers list.

Otherwise we’ll assume that Councilor Ferra’s suggestion is fine to proceed with. Do you have any other questions? Go ahead. Just a follow up.

I just was wondering also of the process, if we did go that route, how would we submit our questions to the clerk? Like I’m assuming the clerk would still be asking those questions, so are we emailing or are we using Microsoft Teams or anything like that? I hadn’t contemplated that question. So I’m not sure we have an answer to that at this point, but I would take any suggestions that colleagues might have on how to approach that, whether you’re comfortable with the question being asked by the colleague or whether you’d want to pass it along to the clerk to continue to ask the questions.

So I haven’t contemplated that suggestion. Okay, if colleagues, I know I have a list, but there’s a couple of people who might have some suggestions on this. With your indulgence, I want to go to two people so we can resolve this. Go to Councillor Lehman and then Councillor Ramen on this particular issue.

Yeah, just on this, I recall when we were interviewing for the city manager’s position, the facilitator that was assisting us would ask the questions, but then it would be a follow up question and answer posed by the Councillors. And I would hope that this would be the case in this process. Councillor Ramen. Thank you.

My only concern with that, interjecting that into the process is you lose that single neutral person, which was the intent of not having us ask the questions to begin with. I think if we are contemplating the fact that we are going to be asking free flowing questions of which none of us have the advanced notice of those questions, nor does the person being interviewed, now we’re entertaining and interjecting more potential risk into us asking those questions. So it’s completely up to us. We’re going to do that.

But now we’re removing the element of neutrality, which we had encouraged in the process. Councillor Ferriak, go ahead. Thank you and through you. And I’m of the same opinion of Councillor Ramen.

I would like, I think the neutrality going through a single person through the clerk specifically would be ideal. That’s why I’m asking if we had some way to submit those questions, just like anything on the fly that might come up. That’s a logistics challenge that we can solve if that’s the way Council wants to go. We’ll figure it out and make it work.

We don’t have to create a magic solution here. What we do need to do is agree on the process tonight. So there will be one clerk asking the questions available. There will be another clerk in the room clerking the meeting as we would be required to do so between the two of them, we can figure out a way to make that happen if that’s the will of the majority.

Just on this particular topic, and I’ll come back to see what people want to do about the issues raised at the end. We’ll just, if we have to make some motions, we’ll make some motions, but anybody else on this, or can I return to the regular speaker’s list? Are you done with your questions? Okay, Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I do have a number of questions and just following up with the discussion that we just had. Would we be given the questions in advance as well? Yes, in fact, I intend on circulating them to you so that you have them.

Okay, so with that, and I know we’ll be in camera for the interviews, is the interview process going to be virtual, or a hybrid model, or will the candidates be in person? I guess I’m just trying to understand how it’s going to look before I make comments on asking the questions. So the candidates will be invited to attend in person, but we will use a committee room that has the ability to be virtual, if for some reason we have to accommodate that. But the invitation will be, if they would like to, they can certainly be encouraged to attend in person and be there with us.

And then following up with that, so we don’t know who’s really going to be in the room, so asking questions may not be as an easy process to ask questions since we will be divided, or it could be, which presents the next question I have, which is, as counselors, can we attend virtually as well? It’s an actual meeting of the Standing Committee. So your rights to attend the meeting, either in person or virtually, would still stand, because this isn’t a working group meeting that has different procedures. It is an actual meeting of the committee that would start moving to camera, proceed with the interviews.

So anyway, currently that you’re allowed to participate in the meeting, which includes both in person or virtual, would still be available for this process for members of council, ‘cause that wouldn’t change from a procedure standpoint. Thank you for that. So I’m just imagining, I know in the past, we’ve usually been in the one room. Applicants have been in the same room, and I think at one time virtually, the applicants were in the room, but as council, we were able to do the interviews together.

I do think, since it’s this hybrid model that we’ll be working with, having that one person, the clerk, ask the questions. I wasn’t sure how that would work, but I would see that that is being a bit more seamless, even though I do think as a council asking questions, each of us taking one question at a time and going around until we’ve exhausted all the questions and the candidates worked well, but I’m not sure how that’s gonna work with a hybrid model. I do think there needs to be a little bit of flexibility, like Councillor Ferrera mentioned, having an opportunity. So we feel like we are engaged in the process.

I think if not, we’ll be just sitting there, just sitting there and listening, and I’m not sure if that’s gonna be a full-some process. So I’m up for suggestions. I don’t have a problem passing on the questions to the candidates. I think it will help them prepare, but just not sure where I am on this yet.

Councillor, sorry, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So through you, I’ll share a few thoughts with colleagues on this. First, I am of a similar mind to Councillor Pribble.

I don’t feel that the questions necessarily should be circulated in advance. I think some general areas of focus would be appropriate, but I will say I have never in my life attended an interview where the potential employer has forwarded me the questions ahead of time. And being able to assess how someone does think on their feet is, I think, part of an interview process. That said, I don’t feel terribly strongly about this because for me, the more important piece of this stems from the line of questions that Councillor Ferreira was asking, which is our ability to respond and ask some follow-up questions based on the answers we get from the candidates to the standard questions.

I think that that’s really key. So that to me is, that would be a hill I’d be prepared to really take a stand on. The questions being circulated in advance or not, well, I don’t think they should be, like I said, you know, I understand why people think that that’s a good idea. I personally don’t, but it’s not one that I feel terribly strongly about.

But I do think when it does come to the follow-up questions, and again, I’m mindful of time. I’m mindful of the fact as Councillor Hopkins raised that we may have some people virtual and some people in person in the room, we will also be in a committee room. So we will not have our council because we’ve agreed that we’re not doing this at the horseshoe. So you’re not going to have the screen set up like we do before us today.

So I see sending questions through to the clerk, whether that be by teams or by the Zoom or by anything else as being a fairly clunky process. I also think it does rob the council of a participatory role in the interview process. I think the follow-up questions should absolutely be coming from us as individual Councillors, not being passed by a note or sent by a text message through to the clerk. I think that it’s, well, I understand Councillor Robbins’ concerns.

And I think that we all need to exercise responsible question-asking in our follow-ups. That’s on us. And so I think that those follow-up questions should be coming from us. But generally, I support the process that’s been outlined here.

Those were my two concerns. They’ve had some feedback from colleagues already. I look forward to hearing what other colleagues say. But for me, and I will echo Councillor Layman, I harken back to our interviews for the city manager, which we clearly landed on the right decision for at the end of the day.

Started with questions coming, a standard set of questions coming from the consultant and also presentation from our candidates. But then the individual questions, the follow-up questions arose from individual members of Council. And there were different questions from different members of Council for the different candidates because candidates answered the questions differently. So I think that that’s really important because it involves us more in the process to be able to ask those follow-up questions individually.

So those are my thoughts on this. And I look forward to hearing what other people think moving along as well. Councillor Frick. Thank you, yes, and I appreciate the discussion.

I personally would like to go with what staff have recommended given this is their area of expertise and if they’ve made the suggestion, they clearly have done some background research and probably have some experience making this recommendation. As well, just as FYI have gone to many interviews and been provided the questions in advance and it might just be a more current practice that is happening in the HR world. So I was not at all shocked or surprised that that was a recommendation and would like to follow that just ‘cause I think why not let people show their best side and give them the opportunity to practice. I think that to me actually shows stronger commitment if they have been able to dive into their answers and what they’d like to do ‘cause not everyone is, what’s the word, an extrovert and responds well to immediate pressure.

So I’d like to follow with what has been recommended so far. Thanks. Okay, other speakers. If not, I have some, okay, Councillor Palosa, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and to follow-up on Councillor Frank’s comments and others. We went through a campaign. You had the candidate conversations of an elevator pitch at the doors or in conversations when you’re found at the grocery store.

But when it came to the formal debates that the Urban League hosted, you had a long list of potential questions in advance and it really showed what candidates took the time to dive in, give it thought of the impact in different broader scopes. So I do support the questions being provided in advance. Maybe it’s even an outlining how long, ideally they would have on each question or that’s an opportunity to let the candidates potentially take up all their time on a couple of questions and not get to the rest of them. That shows us something too.

So support of that and looking forward to the process and just how we do things to make sure that we’re as smooth as possible, realizing that we might be in different locations and making sure that, I guess my question is how we would handle voting or require Councillors to go back and watch the, I guess if you’re not there and you missed some of the interviews, how are you going to vote on all the candidates if you didn’t get to see them all interview? Is my concern that if some Councillors missed it, how can you vote on everyone when you didn’t give everyone any opportunity? So let me make a couple of comments. So for voting and discussion, none of that will happen in camera.

Like we can ask questions of the candidates but it is question and answers of the candidates, any sort of debate and voting would happen in public session. So to answer your question, it depends. If we’re going to do the interviews and then make a decision right after, kind of have to be at the meeting for both. So I don’t think that would be an issue.

I think if someone for some reason couldn’t accommodate and we were going to have to have the vote at another meeting. And remember, a piece of this is, we will schedule a meeting, ideally works for us. And then we invite all the candidates to the meeting and if there’s one that we have to tack on to the SPPC before on a slightly different day, we’ll accommodate that. So I don’t know if we can commit to having the vote on the same day as the interviews.

But in the possibility that that doesn’t happen, just so colleagues are aware of, in camera we record meetings. The sole purpose of recording those meetings is for the ombudsman to review for any sort of investigation about closed meetings. So it wouldn’t be within our procedure to share that. That doesn’t say with notwithstanding our procedure on a one-time basis, we couldn’t allow colleagues to access the interviews that they missed.

I would expect that we should make a motion to make that a one-time thing since it’s not common to our practice, but that certainly is an option that we would have, knowing that the purpose that we record the videos is actually for the ombudsman and not necessarily as a way for counselors to get caught up on that particular meeting, Councilor Plaza. Thank you, with a follow-up to that then, of one would be the appropriate time to make a motion of a one-time exception for counselors being able to have access to the closed meetings for the purpose of watching any potential interviews. So we can give access to the closed meetings to closed meeting investigator, city solicitor, or designate, or any additional party authorized by the municipal council so we could authorize ourselves to have access to the meetings as individual counselors. Usually, we would make that as a collective group, so I think that would be appropriate ‘cause that would be in line with how we provide permissions under the current policy.

Would it be appropriate to move that? Now, we’re at a different meeting. Let’s do that tonight. It may not be necessary as people might actually be there.

If we make the decision that day, guess what? It still has to be ratified by Council, so I could understand how if someone, even if they weren’t at the meetings, but we’re able to participate in the committee vote, you know, you’re obligated to vote at council, we can’t have someone duck a vote except unless they have a legitimate conflict. So providing that available to counselors would seem appropriate so that they could actually make a fully informed decision that they would be required to vote on should they be present at the council meeting, but not present at the interviews. So let’s do that.

When I, I’m gonna do a series of motions on this. We’ll add that as one of the ones that we consider when we get to the decision making on this. Councillor McAllister. Thank you, Your Worship and through you.

I see on, in terms of like the interview questions that the police service board also had input and we will see what those questions look like. And I’m hoping that those questions are situational because I think it’s an opportunity. I know there’s a few counselors who probably sat on the police board in the past, but just to give the candidates a better understanding of what’s actually involved. ‘Cause I do think that there is a misconception with the public in terms of having say like operational control over policing that we really wanna stress what’s actually involved in the role.

And I hope that the questions that the board will present will give them a sense as to what the job will actually entail. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for the feedback. Other speaker, oh, Councillor Ramen, go ahead.

Thank you. Just to follow up on Councillor McAllister’s question. So I understand that a number of individuals in different departments in different areas have provided advice on the types of questions, but how will we actually narrow down which questions we will ask? So I’ve endeavored to do that because when you reach out to a number of groups, there’s obviously overlap in those questions.

So I’ve already taken the variety of feedback, eliminated the overlap, and then can consolidate it in a shorter list that I can distribute to you. What I would say is if I distribute the questions, like there’s no debating, like we shouldn’t debate those. Like we can’t have an email debating them. You can certainly provide feedback.

But remember, you can do follow up questions. So if the questions aren’t quite perfect, you can always ask a follow up. But it is my intent to make the length of the meeting manageable for both us and the people being interviewed and reasonable. So there will be a consolidation of some of the questions, but there was certainly overlap from the different groups, which tells me those are probably pretty good questions to ask.

So. So within and just managing the clock around those questions, how many anticipated follow ups do we think we can take? Okay, so what we’re structuring is about an hour slotted per candidate, but the interview time is more like 45 minutes because we need transition time between the candidates and the ability to have people enter and leave the room. So it will be an extended period of time that we’ll be meeting.

So if colleagues are looking to have some time at the end, I will have to limit the quantity of questions to ensure that we can fit it into that timeframe. Right now, I think it’s narrowed down to, it’s either nine or 10 total, but there’s certainly the ability to consolidate a little further. So if it’s the intention that we go with asking, I’ve heard it pretty clear from colleagues that they want to have the opportunity for follow ups. It’s meant to have a free flow.

So I will work with people services who do question and answers and can anticipate this question should, you know, you should anticipate it with this much time. And I will try to sketch out a schedule to ensure that the number of questions we ask are manageable with the timeframe to leave some time for additional questions. And of course, we want to be as consistent as possible, but keeping someone in an interview for 45 minutes is pretty, pretty long time. So I think that seems like a reasonable time for us to get our questions in.

I’m happy to take feedback though. This is just me trying to get us on the same page on the process. Go ahead. Yeah, just to follow up, Councillor Hopkins raised a point around individual Councillors asking one of the questions and then that being able to, you know, stand in for and make them feel like they’re being participating in the process.

I do see that if we’re going to allow a follow up process anyways, then we’re kind of negating that neutral voice in the question and answer period. So I do think that there is the possibility of rotating questions around amongst all of us and figuring out a process by which to do that. It may also help with making everyone feel like they’re part of the process, but also then they don’t need to ask a follow up because they are part of the process already. So just throw in that out there.

So I’m happy to do that. The way that this was structured is, I will tell you the same way that we’ve conducted interviews in the past where there is set questions. Those set questions are simply asked by an individual. Those are the questions that they know in advance.

The question and answers could be spread around that their follow ups, obviously, depending on the person who has the follow up. I can tell you, that’s the way we recently did it at the police board too. Without revealing any confidential information, there was a single set of questions that were asked and there was follow ups from others. So again, I’m happy to do it however you want.

The way I structured it was based on the advice that I received on how to approach the set answered questions. But again, I take counsel’s direction. My purpose here is to get you on the same page ‘cause I’m gonna be responsible for managing the process. What I don’t wanna do is during the process be taking questions on the process because we would be in camera and I would not be able to change stuff.

I’m just gonna enforce stuff. We’d have to leave, go into public session, take a different process or a discussion to be clear and then move back in. So I wanna get us on the same page here so that I can be consistent in the way that I manage the meeting. So we can go one way or the other.

Right now, unless we change the direction, the way that I understand what we’re doing is the set questions will be asked by the clerk. The follow up questions would be asked by councilors. Okay, go ahead, councilor Hopkins and then councilor Farah. Just following up on councilor Raman’s comments, I’m not sure if there is support to have each councilor ask the question, given if we’re gonna go into Q and A, I think it just only makes sense to be part of that process.

I would also, you’re looking for a feedback, your worship add to your timeframe of the Q’s and A’s at the end. If this is the way we’re going forward to also allow the applicant to ask any questions as well that they may have, I think that is also important. That may actually be one of the questions. So it’s pretty standard in these interviews to let the, one of the final questions is do you have any questions for us?

So, councilor Farah, go ahead. And thank you and through you, just following up on councilor Raman at her point, just keeping the neutrality of it all. I do feel like there probably is a way we could maybe figure out, I don’t wanna get into like details, but where we are able to submit maybe questions to the clerk and maybe, and I’m sure there’s gonna be other councilors who have overlapping questions and this would be a little more work for the clerk, I guess, but if the clerk would be able to maybe categorize questions and see their similar questions and then maybe reformulate to ask that question, I know the deputy mayor said it would be kind of clunky on our computer system, but I’m sure that there’s a way we could keep the neutrality system in there with a single individual asking the questions and still having that feedback process. How about you let us figure out the logistics if we end up going that way, but I will make a decision point today on whether or not we actually do what you’re suggesting.

It turns out that you wanna be neutral all the way through and that’s the will of the majority. Between the clerks and I will figure out a process that will work for it, but I think that’s a decision point that there’s some disagreement on. So we’ll just, we’ll have a vote on that first and see if it’s even relevant. So I don’t think I need any advice on how to figure that out.

We’ll figure out that out from a meeting management perspective. Any other questions? If not, I think we could probably start making some decisions. Okay, so some of the, so correct me if I’m wrong, but here’s the decision points I think we need to make.

We need to decide whether we’re going to have the questions neutrally asked all the way through or whether there will be a mix between the clerk and member council members. We need to decide whether we will provide the questions in advance. We, I think we generally agree that there will be questions at the end from counselors and follow-ups. So I don’t think we need to make a decision on that.

Barring who asks those questions, whether it’s the clerk or the counselors. And otherwise, I think we’ve kind of generally agreed on everything else. Okay, I see colleagues nodding. Okay, so let’s make some decision points then.

How about we, I’ll look for someone to move a motion to say that the questions be provided in, the set questions be provided in advance. Someone can move in second. That will have a vote on that. Moved by Councillor Plaza, seconded by Councillor Frank.

So that the questions be provided in advance. So if you, are you looking to debate this, Councillor Hopkins? Oh, okay, oh, no, we’re going to do it online. Yeah, we’re, yeah, I’m not going to try to count hands.

So, so that’ll be the question for us. I think we’ve already had the discussion on this for some difference of opinion. We’ll just make a decision for the majority. So as soon as that’s ready, we’ll open it for voting.

Posing the vote, the motions passed eight to seven. Okay, so there was a desire for the debate between, should the clerk ask the set questions or should counselors ask the set questions or rotate through? So Councillor Hopkins, you seem interested in that. So a motion you can move is that the interview questions be presented to candidates by individual counselors through a set rotation.

So you’re willing to move that. And someone willing to second that, Councillor Raman. Okay, so we’ll have a vote on that. This is that the count.

So if you vote yes, then clerk won’t ask the questions. It’ll be, we’ll set a rotation and be consistent through that rotation through all the interviews of counselors asking. Closing the vote, the motions passed 11 to four. Okay, well that takes care of our other questions.

So if the colleagues are asking the questions as a rotation all the way through, then I guess we don’t really have to worry but the follow up questions and who they’re asked for, that would be asked by counselors as well. So that to me, given those two decisions, seems like we have consensus on a process then. Before we finalize the kind of general process, one of the questions the clerk asked me to engage with you is as a scan of your calendars were done by your staff. Now, hopefully your calendars were up to date.

It seemed that the date that had the most where everybody seemed generally available was actually June 5th. We were looking at some earlier dates but that seemed to be the date where everybody had an opportunity. So we could proceed on that date and try to schedule all of the interviews on that date. We would likely, I can call a special meeting then, I would likely be a meeting that starts in the early afternoon and goes for at least five hours because we’d have five one hour blocks of interviews plus any sort of discussion we’d want to have after those interviews in public.

We’d certainly take a break. I can actually schedule a break in the middle of the interviews so that there’s time. But that would be a general timeframe we’re looking at for the interviews. Again, if I can’t, it’s not available on that day.

I will look to add something perhaps the next day before the council meeting if people are available. If that sounds okay to everybody. Councilor Palosa. Thank you, a question.

Did you say that afternoon or just a five hour block? I was just thinking about how we do budget stuff that we kind of maybe started at 10 and that way people had a job or another commitment that they had to do a morning versus an afternoon. It gave an opportunity to have a little bit more flexibility as candidates coming in to see us. There were some morning commitments that councilors had which is why I said start at that time.

Now, if everybody’s willing to kind of accommodate their schedules, then we can start earlier. No, I see. So that was the block that actually generally worked for people’s schedules based on. I’m endeavoring to make sure everybody has an opportunity to participate.

Okay, I have one other question for colleagues and that is we have two options. If we schedule this on the fifth and everybody can make it that day, we can flow the decision given it’s all of us into the council the next day or we can do it on the 27th, which would leave a few weeks gap based on the schedule. So I’m not going to, I’d prefer us to have some consensus on this. One second though.

Or I could call a special meeting attached to the other SPPC on the 20th perhaps. Okay, so here’s your three options. We could flow it into council the next day. I could call a special meeting of council for SPPC on the 20th.

And I say that because everybody should have that available in their schedules or we could let it flow to the council meeting on the 27th. Councilor Ferreira. Thank you through you. I see for the 20th of June, we actually have deerness committee.

So we’d have to move that. It’s at 1 p.m. Or the members of council on deerness, I should say. So you’re saying the 20th doesn’t work because there’s deerness right before committee?

Yes, at one o’clock. Okay, well, we don’t have to mess with that. So it’s the sixth or the 27th. Sorry, just a quick question.

And I don’t know where I’m just, I guess maybe through you to staff as a chair of deerness. Do we know if there’s anything I’m sensitive to coming that we couldn’t push it a little bit either way? Mr. Dickens.

Thank you, Mr. Richard. And through you, that meeting is actually scheduled to be in person at the deerness home for members of DHCOM to have a tour and visit the home and for many for the first time and for some first time in a long time. Callies, this isn’t a complicated decision.

It’s, do you want time between the committee and council before you make a decision? Or do you want to just do it the next day? I just, I’m not gonna make that call. I want consensus on this ‘cause we’re, you know, you could be criticized either way.

It’s either a short period of time or a long period of time. Yeah, so we give time. People who might not be there can watch the recording, but just give me your opinions. We can just vote on this if we have to.

If there’s differences, Deputy Mayor Lewis. I think there’s an important component that was just raised that people may need time to review the video if they’re not attending the interviews in person. So I’m gonna suggest that we deal with this on the 27th of June. Is there a difference of opinion?

People want to deal with it on the 6th? Yes, so let’s, I’ll hear one more comment and then we’ll just have a vote. Go ahead. Thanks and I’m sure we don’t want to deal with the calendars in a meeting like this, but I do have five hours of hydro, right?

On June 27th, right before council. Yes, so we wouldn’t do anything before council. It would just be, that’s the council meeting where you get to make your final, final decision. So Clark says the advantage of not having it the next day is if a candidate can’t make it, there are multiple opportunities for me to schedule another interview, like we could actually use just before the council meeting the next day.

We could use the part, we could actually use part of the scheduled SPPC on the 20th for a catch-all for anybody who can make the interview on the 5th. That way we don’t have to worry about people’s calendars. We just make it part of that meeting. It’s a little bit longer.

We just do it in camera interview for an hour. And then that would all flow into the 27th. So that might actually give us the most flexibility for us and the candidates to be able to not be forced to have to show up on one day. And I assume they’ll try to accommodate their schedules, but recognizing that people do have other things in their lives.

So that means the SPPC results of our committee interviews, we would flow into the 27th council meeting. Does anybody have a problem with that given our discussion? No, I see everybody kind of coming to consensus now. Okay, so we’re clear on that.

So the motion that we’re crafting. So the general motion is going to be as follows, that the communication for me be received, that the attached amended process based on our votes, as outlined in the, well, the attached amended process, which we will attach based on both what I wrote and the motions we had the day, be endorsed. And that the five candidates be invited to attend a special meeting of the SPPC to be held on June 5th to conduct interviews being noted that it may be necessary to accommodate an additional meeting date. So generally everything we just discussed, that’s the motion that we would have before us.

If there’s no discussion, I look for someone to move that. Councillor McAllister, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. We’ll get that on the screen. You can take a look at it, and then I’ll check for any discussion before we vote.

Okay, if you click current item, that should be available for viewing. So just so colleagues understand what we mean by amended process, given the vote on questions in advance past that stays and is not amended, it’s just what I wrote. But the thing that we changed is that the questions will be asked through a rotation of Councillors, not the clerk. So that’s the only difference between what I wrote and what we agreed to today.

Okay, is there any questions on the motion? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Opposing the vote, the motions passed 15 to zero. Thank you for that.

I’m glad we all agree on the process. That’s very helpful for managing those and I’ll look forward to that process with you colleagues. The next item as we proceed through items for direction is a resignation from the Elden House Board of Directors. So we’ll have a motion that will accept the resignation and then direct the clerk to advertise for the Elden House Board of Directors.

And then that will come before a future meeting of SPPC for our consideration. So I’m willing to move that. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Palosa. Any questions?

Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Opposing the vote, the motions passed 15 to zero. 4.4 is a communication from Councillor Frank on her desire to serve on the governance working group. And it requires our approval.

As you know, the governance working group can have as many members of council as you’d like on it. We’re getting close to almost everyone, except for a few. So that’s fine, it’s a working group. It has, you know, flexible and relaxed procedures compared to the process for committee and council and everything they do reports into SPPC.

So with that, I would entertain a motion to add Councillor Frank to the governance working group moved by Councillor Hopkins. Seconded by Councillor Stevenson. Any discussion? No big speech, no campaign speech?

No, okay. Okay, we’ll vote on that then. Opposing the vote, the motions passed 15 to zero. Now you just gotta do that with your FCM board seat.

Just win unanimously. We have 4.5, which is May progress update on the health and homelessness whole of community system response. This was an added report in support of the council’s direction to provide regular updates on the process and how it’s evolving from Lynn Livingston and the team supporting this. I don’t know if you want to, or Mr.

Dickens, Mr. Dickens will make some introductory comments on this report and then we can take questions. This is for receipt. But happy to entertain questions colleagues might have on the process, go ahead.

Thank you and through you, you worship, just a brief overview of this report. This is our May progress report providing council with an overview of the work that’s been happening with the whole of community system response. We did conduct a number of meetings at the tail end of March and then throughout the month of April. We last provided you an update on April 18th and then we met the very next day.

In this report, you’ll see where we have been able to transition from a concept into a framework so that it will guide the work of the strategy and accountability table as it begins to stand up and perform its duties as well as you’ll see some scoping document or overview of the various implementation tables that will be stood up in the month of May as we begin this work to go from summit to planning into implementation. So happy to take any questions. Okay, questions for Mr. Dickens.

Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. There was the article in the London Free Press around the new encampment strategy and then there was the clarification that it wasn’t, it approved and I noticed in this report, it says that any changes will come to council for approval and I just wondered when we would be expecting that. Mr.

Dickens. Thank you and through you, you worship. That is correct, there’s been nothing approved or decided in terms of an encampment strategy. What we’re focusing on right now is the immediate health and safety concerns that exist for individuals that are living unsheltered and all of those that are impacted by that situation.

So we’re meeting on really like what are we needing to do in the next 30, 60, 90 days to keep the community and to keep individuals sleeping unsheltered safe to the best of our ability. The encampment strategy will be part of the encampment implementation table. So we’ll be standing that implementation table up here in the next couple of weeks in the month of May and we’ll be focusing on how we can start to put the foundational pieces together on what a community encampment strategy would look like. That would then come back to council for review and endorsement.

So I don’t have a specific time, but right now there’s two streams. One is the immediate acute safety concerns and the other stream is the actual community strategy on encampments and I hope that answers that. Go ahead. Yes it does, thank you very much.

And so the acute immediate needs, will that be coming to council as well just to inform us as to what that’s gonna look like? Mr. Dickens. Thank you, worshiping through you.

If there’s a change to the process or a change to the practices that occur now, then there would be. Right now we’re not looking at making any fundamental changes to the encampment approach the way it exists. We’re just looking at more of the operational, how are we getting to people? How are we keeping them safe?

Those life saving measures? But yes, if there was a shift in that practice, then we would be bringing that to council. Other questions, Councillor Ferra. Thank you and through you.

I did have some questions for the encampment strategy, but I guess we’ll wait until we get the report back. But I did want to ask about just the targeting for the 100 supportive housing units that we have. I see that we’re supposed to have 100 supportive housing units and I think it was three to five hubs by the end of the year. And I see that we’re six months away.

I just wanted to know if there’s any update on locating or where we are at, exactly, on finding those 100 supportive housing units. Chris Livingston. Yes, through you, your worship. That’s why we’re trying to get these implementation tables up and running as quickly as possible.

So yes, we said that we had hoped to establish five and a hundred in the year. We know that’s very ambitious, but the idea is to try to get moving. But first, we need the definition pieces and to come back to council with those specific plans. What would the hubs look like?

Where would the first five go? Same with the highly supported housing. We may be able to advance some elements of that and we would bring every one of those decisions forward to council. But this is really just trying to say the tables are gonna get to do the work right now.

And we are anticipating that we would be able to bring some of those plans back to council by summer with a view to begin to stand things up in the fall. That’s what we’re hoping for. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Oh, sorry, actually.

Councilor Layman first and then Deputy Mayor Lewis. Finally, I get a precedent for Deputy Mayor. (laughing) Yeah, I’m just glad to see 100 by the end of 2023 this year. I was also happy to see a number of 600 clearly stated ‘cause, sorry, through you, Chair.

Well, in that procedure. ‘Cause I’ve heard estimates, you know, ranging from 300 high needs individuals on the streets to 600. Great to plan for 600. Is there a timeframe at all that’s in being discussed to reach what I would consider a rather ambitious target?

Mr. Dickens. Thank you, your worship and through you. Right now, we’re focused on the priority of trying to accomplish our immediate goals.

The work of the implementation tables will start to map out a timing and a pacing of what would be realistic to get those up and running. Expediency is gonna be a priority ‘cause we know of the growing concern in our community. The other pieces around the pacing around funding this system, right? And highly supportive housing is gonna need funding that aligns and matches to the services that are being provided.

That funding may come from a number of different sources, which would require enough time to be able to do the advocacy, make the applications and go through that funding process of either varying levels of government or different sources of funding as well. We know there are different sources of funding that are available at this point, but we are making sure we follow a detailed and collaborative process before we bring back to council any funding requests. So the 600 highly supportive housing units will be a top priority. The pacing will be determined throughout this implementation process.

And just on another note, how would you foresee our winter response program going forward in conjunction with this? Would this be replacing that program or would the two operate side by side? Through you, your worship, I think everyone who is involved in the health and homelessness work in the whole of community system response does not envision a future where we have an emergency winter response. That’s what we’re trying to address here, put sustainable solutions in place.

This year, we are moving as quickly as possible. I don’t know that I could at this time say we will not have a winter response. I think the hope is that we would get enough hubs up and going, that we would not need that kind of emergency response. I would also just like to say that what we’re proposing here is very different than the winter response, right?

That was emergency, quickly done, try to get people inside and safe. This is about creating sustainable solutions in every hub, those functions all need to be defined. Standards of service delivery need to be part of those. That’s some of the very important work that will happen right now before we stand up the first hub, which is a very different approach than perhaps the emergency solution of winter response.

So at this point, we’re aiming to get as many of those in place as we can this year. I think we’ll have to see how the work unfolds over the next couple of months to be able to say what else might we need for this coming winter. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship, and I will note that Councillor Layman recently had a birthday too.

So I suspect that you were just following the age before beauty adage in moving him forward. Happy birthday, Councillor Layman. I do have a few questions through you for our staff on this report. And I’m gonna start with the supportive housing and the hundred units and the timeline.

I recognize that that’s very ambitious, of course. I recognize that funding is a part of it as well. The other question that I want to pose though is in terms of supportive housing needs staffing and it needs staffing with individuals with specific skill sets and training. We know that there are a number of issues around labor shortages and availability of all types in our community and across the region.

So do we right now anticipate that we are going to be able to meet, and I realize that we’re still hammering out some of the services that will be available at the hubs for individuals, but do we anticipate any challenges in meeting the skilled labor that we’ll need to keep these hubs operational or the supportive housing? I’m sorry, yes, the supportive housing, Mr. Dickens. Thank you, and through you, Your Worship.

Again, as we’re about to stand up these implementation tables, we’ll be defining what those service standards look like. So what does a model of care look like in highly supportive housing? Is it heavily clinically based? Because then we’re looking for a very different workforce.

We may be looking for PSWs and RPNs and that sort of thing. So it’s a little bit premature to say what labor we’re going to be short of, other than the other implementation tables that you will see at your next monthly update, will be defined as our workforce development table and system foundations. And within those, you will start to see where we’ll be putting dedicated strategies around recruitment, retention, development, training, supports for the entire workforce that would be connected to this. So for the highly supportive housing, we will design those models, establish those service level standards, look at what the care plan would need to be in this type of setting, which will then determine what type of labor and staffing needs are required, which would then allow us to work through this model, this implementation framework, to determine where those resources already exist and then where they’re also needed.

Go ahead, Ms. Livingston. Your worship, if I just might add, we also know that we have some partners that are very skilled at this. And unfortunately, there are not a lot of them.

So this is some of having to take advantage of those that know what they’re doing. And there are a couple of groups that do, but also what we’re beginning to see from some of our newer partners to the table, our institutional health partners, our longtime community health partners, perhaps seeing a different role for themselves or a new role for themselves in the delivery of the hubs and the highly supportive housing. So as Mr. Dickens has said, I think we need to do the work and then who will do what will emerge as we start to see the specifics of it.

I’m hopeful that we’re gonna be able to work with what we’ve got in the system, along with the new resources, and then build to the 600. Thank you, that’s good to know. And I continue to think about this. And I think that the same question might be asked of getting the hubs up and running, but I think you’ve already answered in response to the supportive housing as well.

I do wanna loop back to the encampment strategy as well. And a couple of both questions and comments around this. First of all, I know that the word in endorse is kind of typical of language that we see in motions coming forward. I just want to encourage the use of the word, of the language encampment management rather than the endorsement piece, because I don’t think any of us truly see encampments as a solution and that we would endorse them.

We recognize that it’s just something that we’re dealing with right now that we don’t have an immediate solution for. And that’s just a little bit of feedback for the future. I understand why the language is there. I just wanna share that thought.

I will say in regard to Councillor Stevenson’s point to the report in the media last week by one outlet that there was certainly some speculative numbers in there. I do hope, and I appreciate, by the way, that the article being corrected and the quick response on that, because certainly from a council perspective, we’re often the frontline in terms of the people who have read it in their morning paper and jumped on Facebook and messaged us or jumped on email or whatever and reached out. So I do hope that the communication has gone back to members of the implementation group for that, just to not speculate in the media on what that might look like until we’re ready to bring something forward, ‘cause it does get the public a little bit concerned. And I know that that message has been heard.

I just think it’s important to underline. But my question comes around, and this is a tough one, and it’s one that really wasn’t on my radar either until this past weekend. And I know I’ve shared this with staff and they may not have had a lot of time to consider it, but I had a situation in my ward on the weekend where there was an encampment on a private property and things led to a fire that threatened the neighboring properties. I know we have limited tools, or fewer tools at our disposal, when it comes to private property, then we would have one public municipal property.

But certainly, I also empathize with the immediate neighbors who felt that their homes were put in danger by the actions of some folks on the weekend. So I don’t know if any thought has been given, and I guess through the chair, I would ask our staff if that is part of the discussion as well in terms of how we’re managing encampment engagement, aside from what we do on our municipal property, our discussions happening around how encampments that crop up on private property also occurring. Thank you and through you, your worship. So that work does happen now.

It happens often in relatively real time, where we’re able to engage with private property owners and be able to enter into agreements that allows us to go on to their private property to engage with those encampments and address those encampments as appropriate. I’ll just add a note as it relates to fire, is that part of our immediate 30-day, 60-day, what are we going to do to keep people safe? Members of the London Fire Department have been a part of those conversations as they have in the past around fire safety, fire education, fire prevention. ‘Cause we look at this from a holistic standpoint in that staying warm or the use of fire has different purposes, and that the fire department has an active role in that.

To educate people, but also keep people safe and free of harm. Be it the person living on shelter or the neighboring property. So to answer both of those threads, yes, we engage with private property owners around access agreements that allow us to do different things on their property. Really appreciate hearing that, and I know that that’ll be well received by folks in the community as well.

And I’m just gonna take a moment to say and to express my thanks to Acting Chief Hayes and all of his staff, the frontline firefighters who responded to that situation on the weekend, as always, professional, fast, and really put the adjacent property owners at ease, having them there as quickly as occurred when that situation arose. So I know we’re gonna be recognizing their 150th anniversary later this week. I just wanna take the opportunity to say to them, thank you for your quick response in Ward 2 on the weekend. Councillor McAllister.

Thank you, your worship and through you. I first off wanna start by congratulating Mr. Dickens and your staff for the presentation you gave at AMO. It was very well received.

I had a lot of people coming and asking me questions. We ran out of all the pamphlets that were provided, so there’s a lot of interest, and I applaud you for that well organized presentation. And to that point, I do think we have a golden opportunity in August to keep our municipal and provincial partners in the loop with the AMO Annual Conference coming in August to our VC place. I think it’s a great opportunity to update them as well, because one of the takeaways that I had from that symposium was that there is that real interest, and many of our municipal partners applaud us for leading the way, just to keep them in the loop and maybe do a panel in terms of working with our, whether it be county partners, some of the southwestern Ontario cities that might also be looking at implementing these strategies.

And I know in discussions I’ve had with other councillors and the mayor that there really is a desire to take this and have a provincial approach. And whether that’s, you know, looking at the resources we applied or data sharing, I do think that there’s an opportunity for us to have a concerted effort here to address homelessness, not only for London, but for the province in general. Thank you. Those sounded like great comments.

I will just add to your comments in chatting about the opportunity that AMO presents. It isn’t just the opportunity of having thousands of our municipal colleagues come to our city, it’s also the opportunity of having the entire provincial cabinet coming to our city as part of that activity. And that has not been lost on our advocacy efforts or plans, so I will let you know that as well. I have councillor Ferreira next.

Thank you, your worship in through you regarding the existing system that we have in place right now. So we have the existing system and then we’re bringing in the whole of community system response. And I just wanted to know, just because we are considering the standards of care and we’re trying to standardize the whole space as it is, for certain organizations that exist right now, is there any component in the whole community response that will assist organizations now that would most likely have to adapt to new services or the new standards that they might need to provide to just bring it up to the par that we’re trying to set or just trying to adapt just for how the new system will look ‘cause I’m assuming that existing organizations will have to have make some changes, not saying all of them, but I would assume that some would have to be making some changes just to fit into the system. So do we have anything within the system that would assist those organizations?

Mr. Dickens. Thank you and through you, your worship. The standards of care discussions will be the mechanism in which the community agencies that are involved in this process will define, clearly define, what those standards of care are, as it relates to standards of care for hubs, standards of care for housing, standards of care for encampments and so on.

So there’s not a shutting off and a turning on of the system. This is really, we have to maintain the bridge. Well, we walk across it, right? We’re build this bridge.

So the standards of care will really be the driver for what those new standards of care are in this new model. And I think you’ll see organizations that have been actively participating at these tables from day one, continue to be actively at these tables and informing this process. Councillor Pribble. Sure to chair to the staff.

Last week’s meeting, we were talking about it since we were told that by May June, we will have kind of the report with the initiatives coming out from the summit. Then first initiatives would be in place during the fall of this year. And one of the questions was how can we bridge the time from now till the fall first, when the first initiatives are in place because the numbers in the encampments and on the street in the core are really drastically increasing. Besides having potentially this additional care in the encampments for the individuals, are there any other initiatives in the pipeline that either us as a city or through the agencies, are we planning to do to bridge this time?

Thank you. I’ll give it a go and then Mr. Dickens can come along behind. I think the focus here is to try and maintain services and keep people as safe as possible.

So I know Mr. Dickens has received a number of requests for additional financial resources of our current system in order because every organization is facing emerging pressures. So I think that’s just trying to keep the current system as stable as possible along with the work surrounding encampments, which is focused on health and safety. The other major focus is how do we get this transformed system stood up as quickly as possible?

My concern would be that if we introduce, continue to introduce new elements all the time, we will never get to that. We will never get to the system response where we need resources and focus. So I think we’re trying to support the current system to respond to the increasing pressure and deal with people as best they can. Focus on health and safety for those that are in encampments and those that are serving encampments while we try and stand up the new hubs and increased highly supportive housing as fast as possible.

That’s really the focus underway right now. Your worship through you, if I may add, there’s a lot of interest and appetite in the community to try new initiatives, to launch new programs, to open new spaces. And to Ms. Livingston’s point, we are trying to corral that enthusiasm into this process and use this process to establish what those new initiatives are.

Otherwise, we’ll be opening new spaces that are temporary in nature, that do not have the standards of care that we would like to see and that draw resources away from the whole of community’s response. So plenty of interest, plenty of appetite to do new and innovative things. And we’re funneling that through this process so that we can do it in a calculated and strategic manner, making the best use of resources that are available with the highest possible standards of care possible for individuals. Councillor Per goes.

Just to follow up, and again, I’m not saying anything new to you or the community. The numbers are really increasing. And since we finished in March, the winter response, the people have nowhere to go, then we do have the issues. So I hope if there are certain short-term, feasible, financially feasible solution, they will consider it.

Because again, a lot of these things we are experiencing increased crime, increased time from the police attending these matters. And I think we should revisit it, look at a big picture that if you look at the time, police is spending, EMS is spending on these issues that potentially allocating certain amounts of money to bridge this time might at the end be actually cheaper for our community and for the taxpayers. And certainly safer and better. Thank you.

I’ll make a comment, just Councillor Per be able. Exactly what you said at the end is exactly why we’re trying to move towards a system response. Not only is it a better system for helping those who need the assistance, but taking pressure off of land ambulance emergency rooms, policing, that is exactly part of the pitch and the lobby effort that we’re making when we ask other levels of government to fund this. We know that if we invest in this space, we’re going to free up capacity and resources elsewhere.

So I think what our staff are describing is like, where we need to get to, where we are now, that we’re gonna have to take some interim measures, but creating a whole bunch of new systems in the middle is not going to help land us where we need to be. We need to basically shore up what we have now in a meaningful way to get us to where we need to be and continue to keep our focus on that. But I think, you know, I’ve seen a staff that is very committed to trying to find a way to bridge that gap really effectively. I know with the recent announcement of provincial money, the flexibility that comes with that money allows for some of it to be deployed to bolster agencies in the short term while still having some resources to stand up some of the hub-based and get a whole of community response supports that we have at the end.

So I just wanted to add that context for you because I think a lot of people are thinking what you’re thinking and, you know, it is center to the work that we’re doing. Other speakers. Okay, so this report is for receipt. So I need a mover for that receipt.

Councillor Trostas, seconded by Councillor McAllister. If there are no further questions, I will open that for voting. All those votes, yes? Opposing the vote.

The motion’s passed 15 to zero. Great to have you back. Councillor Close, I know you’re digital now. I’ve got a motion if you’d like to make it for something that we missed the loop on that you raised earlier.

I’ll read it for you and then see if you’re willing to move it. It’s that notwithstanding the current council policy audio recordings for municipal council and standing committees in closed session meetings policy, the audio recordings of the London Police Services Board interviews be made available to any member of council who is unable to attend the meeting upon request. That addresses the concern that you raised. Are you willing to move that?

I am and just thoughts on unable to attend in person. Like what if the council member wanted to go back and see it again? ‘Cause it was so good or they want to make sure they heard something correctly. Just that it could be available to any member of council.

We could do that. A recognizing that we’re not trying to make it like this is an exception to the policy for a very specific reason. So we’re trying to- Fair enough. I’ll move it as written.

Okay. All right. Seconder, Councillor Stevenson. Any discussion?

I think we discussed this before. Oh, Councillor Ferrer, go ahead on discussion. Thank you. Thank you.

Your worshiping through you. Just a point of clarification. Did you say audio or video recording? We only record audio.

So it would be an audio recording they would have to listen to. Hence the value of being in person, I might add. So if that is what we record, that’s only only thing that would be available. Okay.

Thank you. If there are no other questions, we’ll open that moved in seconded motion for voting. Close the votes, yes. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 15 to zero.

Okay, thank you for that. So this loops us back to the consent item that was pulled and we put at the end of items for direction. Item 2.1, the 2023 Industrial Land Development Strategy. Given it was pulled, I wouldn’t mind if our staff made just some introductory comments on what’s being done here.

I know that a couple of Councillors have a number of questions. And so maybe you can just introduce the report briefly for us and then we can proceed with some question and answer. Go ahead. Good afternoon, your worship and mayors of the committee.

My name is Michael Thomas-Incick and I’m a manager with the Economic Services and Support Division. I would also like to introduce to you Darcy Vanderprite, a planner in my area who played a large role in the preparation of this strategy. And I’d also like to acknowledge the support of Stephen Thompson, who’s the Director of Economic Services and Supports, as well as Scott Mathers, who is very familiar to the members of this committee. Also in attendance here is Bill Warner.

There we go, Bill Warner, the Director of Realty Services, Adam Ostrowski, the Manager of Realty Services Finance Supports, and Chris McIntosh, who is the Manager of Strategic Land Engineering. And together we formed the Industrial Land Development Strategy Implementation Team, and they’re here to answer any questions that you may also have related to their areas of expertise. I’d also just like to give you a quick introduction to the Industrial Land Development Strategy, or as I refer to it as the ILDS. The purpose of the ILDS is to guide the city’s course of action for our inventory of industrial land, and in the pursuit of the following five goals.

It’s one of the goals is purchasing and selling of future industrial lands for development, servicing those lands to get them shovel ready, marketing and attracting to targeted industries to get them to the city, supporting business retention and expansion opportunities, and attracting and retaining the skilled workforce necessary to sustain those targeted industries. So the ILDS has been broken down these five goals into 13 priority actions, and those priority actions are basically bite size initiatives in order to help us achieve our goals. These priority actions also identify the staff lead in order to assign accountability to the implementation of those actions. Now, given that you have the ILDS pendant to your agendas, I won’t go into the priority actions individually, but I just wanted to highlight that the goals and composition of the strategy that’s laid out in front of you.

The last one I’d like to present, though, is that it’s important for the city to continue to play a role in the development of shovel ready industrial sites. There are relatively fewer industrial developers in the city compared to commercial and residential, commercial and residential developers. And this is likely due to the length of time that it takes between the acquisition, the development, and the sale of industrial lands, not to mention that the buyer of those lands are more specialized and less predictable given their specialized needs. So without the city playing a role in the development of industrial lands, there may not be a healthy inventory of shovel ready industrial properties that are capable of attracting those targeted industries.

The long-term benefits to the city in terms of a consistent tax base and jobs for residents are too important to leave in the fate of others by not playing an active role. But I should mention that the ILDS complements the efforts of the private sector industrial developers by attracting strong industries that then generate spin-off jobs which are located on the privately owned industrial lands that service our industrial clients. So there is definitely a mutual benefit between the city development actions and those of the private sector. So thank you for allowing me to briefly present the goals, the actions and the importance of the ILDS and I would welcome any comments and questions that you may have.

Okay, I have Councillor Hopkins, then Councillor, okay, I’m gonna start a list. Go ahead, Councillor Hopkins, voice over the list. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I do have just a couple of questions for staff.

First of all, thank you for bringing this forward. It’s always an interesting conversation. Nothing gets my phone going when it comes to the urban growth boundary. So I do have a question about how do we bring lands into the urban growth boundary?

For example, what is in and what is out if you could just expand on that? Go ahead, thank you, and through you, Your Worship, this strategy though doesn’t presume the expansion of the urban growth boundary. So I just wanna throw that out there. This is what we do with our city owned industrial lands, but you’ll see that clause number four does request that staff be directed to initiate an employment land review, so that is upcoming.

And so the question was, what lands get added to the urban growth boundary? And first of all, we need to determine what the demand and the supply is for those industrial lands. And once we determine that, then we determine what’s the shortfall, how much do we need to add? And if the demand and supply demonstrates a need to expand.

Once we know how much land we need to add to the urban growth boundary, we then identify the features which industries are attracted to. So things like proximity to transportation corridors, highway, rail, airports, proximity to utility infrastructure, electrical, gas, high speed internet. And then once we identify properties that meet all those criteria, and we know how much we need to add to the urban growth boundary, we then consider matters such as, are there ecological constraints on those lands that shouldn’t be developed? Are there any land use compatibility concerns that would make this not a good site for industrial development?

Are there any agricultural impacts? And what’s the ease of servicing those lands? So there’s a whole list of criteria and a matrix that we used to evaluate. And then once we gather the best candidate sites we presented to this council for your decision and after public consultation has occurred.

Thank you for that. I know we’re doing a comprehensive review of the urban growth boundary. So I would assume the strategy will move forward with that review and then be reported back to us. Thank you through you, your worship.

My colleagues in planning and development are doing that comprehensive review right now. And the clause, the recommendation in clause four, which is to initiate the employment lands review will go hand in hand, dovetail with that. So we’re working together on evaluating the land needs for the entire city. Thank you.

And just a follow-up question around the industrial lands that already exists within our urban growth boundary. Will they be reviewed as well? And I’m asking that question because we just had a long conversation about the need for housing in our city. And how does this strategy look at the inside industrial lands?

I believe that there’s a meeting upcoming through your worship. There’s a meeting coming up in June about the conversion of employment lands to non-employment uses. So in other words, the conversion of existing industrial lands to residential uses or commercial uses as part of the comprehensive review being done by planning and development. The benefit of that is we do have some legacy industrial sites in the city that might not be attractive to industries anymore.

They’re from yesteryear and some of the characteristics that they look for now, they just don’t have. And these lands might be better suited for other uses because they have services and amenities like commercial and public transit that are attractive to residents in that area. And should lands be converted from industrial to residential or other uses? It lessens the supply of industrial land, which means it may require us to expand the urban growth boundary for new industrial land.

But the benefit of that is those lands might be better located to attract industries near the airport and highway and reels. Yeah, so that is a big part of the strategy that we’re undertaking right now. So thank you for that. One last question, I guess.

Servicing of lands, Bill 23, what are the impacts of that? Do we know now or how we move forward or how it’s gonna be reported back to us through the chair? Through your worship, anything that would impact development charges related to providing servicing, would impact our industrial strategy because the funding that we portion of the funding that’s used to be able to support these new developments is development charges funding. So any impact that comes out of Bill 23 would have an impact on our industrial strategy.

At this time, we haven’t characterized in the industrial values specifically, but there would be an impact. And just a follow-up through you, your worship, will that be taken into account as you come up with a strategy or does it just, getting back to what Mr. Thomason said, you look in lands that are of need and importance and have value, it’s the strategy, but will that be taken into account because we can have industrial lands, but if we can’t service them or if we need lots of money to service them, then what? Through the chair, absolutely, that’s a very important component of this discussion is the pacing of the work that we’re going to be undertaking and the actual resources and financing.

So this strategy very much highlights identifying what the needs would be. Then through a multi-year budget process, council will have to make the decisions balancing it against the other needs, what you’ll want to do as far as the pacing and how much funding should be applied to with the industrial strategy. Yeah, I think that’s it. Thank you very much for the report.

Councillor Trossa. Okay, my first procedural question is, I see that there was an amendment that was circulated through the clerk would it be in order to second that? I don’t even have the motion on the floor, but when I get to the council, who circulated the amendment, certainly. Okay, so I’ll start with my questions and I did have a very good conversation this afternoon through the chair.

I thank you for that. I’ve really spent a lot of time going through this and trying to go through the previous reports. So my understanding is that we have not really updated this since 2014 and it’s also my understanding that so much has changed since then. And I want to just start by highlighting the fact that I’m very appreciative that we’ve tried to really focus in on the types of industries that we’re trying to get.

And when I see things like life and health sciences, information and digital media, and research and development, it really makes me feel as if we’re making a lot of progress as the city and we’re really coming to understand what some of our competitive advantage is in this city since we’re the home of a very research intensive universities and hospitals and industries. But my first question is this goes to the target of 200 hectares. And this is a carryover from what I would call the industrial days when the strategy was based on large floor plates for very large factories. So I just want to be sure that we’re not necessarily tied to the 200 figure, but we’re using that just as a starting place and that could really go down depending on the types of uses that we need because when you’re thinking about life sciences, information and digital media, which I understand is going to include things like filmmaking, games production, software development, including a variety of different software packages, that those might be less intensive in terms of the kinds of spaces that they need.

And in fact, a lot of these activities could probably take place in offices that already exist. So I just want to start my first question with how tied are we to the 200 figure? Right, through your worship. So where the 200 comes from is that historically we’ve started with an amount of land that we want to provide.

In other plans that we complete, we might have a year or a 20 year horizon for industrial land. We start with the 200 hectares. It may take you five years to fill that in, likely. It might take 10, 15 years depending on the sale and the type of development occurring.

So this is really our starting point as far as saying, this is we want to create a plan ‘cause it makes a lot of sense that if you’re going to create a plan, it’s not just for 10 hectares, it’s for a substantial amount of property. Then as far as how it progresses, it would really come up to council’s direction as far as the timing and the importance of this priority. Am I making a miscalculation or a misassumption when I suppose that some of these especially digital activities could be accommodated, not necessarily in new factories, but in existing floor plates? Go ahead.

Through you, your worship, I’ll start and then perhaps if Bill Warner wants to add something given his knowledge of who we sell to, that would be great. But we are seeing a wide variety of property being for sale and I think the recent Volkswagen announcement is quite relevant because they would be one of our targeted industries and you look at the size of development that’s going on there. So it’s really predictable, our strategy could land a massive industrial complex like that that could take up a huge part of our 200-actor inventory or we also accommodate the smaller needs. So there really is a wide variety whereas residential development is more uniform.

Industrial development is more targeted to that need and I’m not sure if Mr. Warner has anything else to add. Through your worship, the 200 hectares is also to provide a flexibility. We are looking to have flexibility in the size of parcels to suit the targeted industry.

The digital film most likely could go into, as you suggested, into existing other facilities, most of which would be privately owned. And the digital industry may not actually have the financial background to actually do a startup on a new build on land. So that would most likely be a strategic recruitment to have that in those existing types of legacy type of industrial locations. But the 200 hectares was developed in 2014 through the leadership of the city planning at the time.

And it was divided between lands to the north of the Thames and to the south of the Thames. What we have found is absorption rates do fluctuate and we targeted about 30, sorry, 10 to 15 hectares of land to sell per year that does fluctuate in some years. You could have in fact, since 2020, we’ve had significant sales. Our inventory has depleted to about 120 hectares.

We’re recommending that we’d like to have an inventory brought up at least another 60 hectares we’d like to target to purchase in this year to be ready into 2024 to start our design planning and development of those lands. So that by 2025, 2027, as we’re forecasting our absorption of the sales of land will have enough to be competitive and to be flexible with a different size of parcels. Thank you, I’ll move on. Regarding workforce shortages addressed in 0.2, 0.3, 0.2.

How are employers going to be able to recruit and retain the qualified workers that we’re going to need to make this work given that there’s a gap of over 23,000 jobs right now? Through you, your worship, the London Economic Development Corporation are charged with attracting those workers. They work through the university and the college and job fairs and marketing to attract residents of the city through initiatives such as the London Plan as well that through planning and development envisions a wonderful city here with great amenities and a wonderful quality of life. Those are the ways we attract quality residents and quality workforce to the city as well.

One thing I noted during the recent Volkswagen announcement was when people were looking for sites, they were looking for sites in regions that would be attractive to their executive and the executive family and the families of the executives. So developing a beautiful city like we’re doing through the London Plan is also another way to attract residents. So there’s a direct way and the indirect way. And of course, there’s also getting the industries here that provide the jobs for those employees.

Thank you. And I think I’m going to ask one more question and then maybe yield to Councilor Frank who may want to talk about the environmental considerations. But does this report adequately deal with the issue of providing housing for the new employees we are trying to attract? Because I think you’ve correctly identified a lot of the strategies that we have in terms of job fairs and looking at the university and the spin-offs from the university.

But the fact of the matter is unless we specifically address the housing gap and I don’t think we can just say, well, we’re already planning on building a lot of housing. So that’s going to take care of that. I think we really need to address it specifically with respect to the types of employees who we’re trying to attract. And for me, one of the weaknesses of this strategy and where I would like to see more attention given in the upcoming study is the question of the types of housing opportunities that we want to be providing for the types of employees who we want to attract here.

And I’ll go ahead. Through your worship, the need for housing, absolutely it’s extremely precedent and it’s something that’s enshrined in the new strategic plan. Part of that new strategic plan also does speak to the strategic land development as well. So in providing this strategy for you, we’re trying to align those two pieces.

There’s absolutely a huge need for housing and to have people to come to London for jobs and not have a house for them or housing for them is not appropriate. So we need to have that balance. As part of the multi-year budget process, they’ll be able, the ability, the council of the ability to start making some of these tough decisions as far as where we’re going to put our resources. So there will be opportunities to further discussion on this and do not want to understate that there is a huge need for housing and in providing new industrial development.

Ideally, we can do both of those things in a really mindful and positive way. Thank you, thank you on that. I’ll pick a break. Okay, so I have a speaker’s list.

Councilor Raman, Councilor Stevenson, Councilor McAllister, Deputy Mayor Lewis, myself and Councilor Frank so far. So you can jump back on later if you like. Oh, you’ll jump off now? Or okay, Councilor Stevenson then.

Thank you and through the chair. I just have a couple of questions. Thank you for this presentation. In the one section where it talks about the sale of industrial lands to targeted industries, it states while prohibiting sales to non-targeted uses, including warehouses, transportation and logistics, truck terminals, businesses that store and process data for retrieval, or speculative development to the private sector without verification that the end user will be a targeted industry.

So for me being new to this, my understanding is that when we sell land as industrial and companies build, not only do we get jobs, but we get increased property tax revenue, quite substantially, I believe. And the word prohibit there is pretty strong. And so I just wondered if there was, if you could explain why that strong language, which might preclude us from an opportunity we don’t even see coming. Through you, Your Worship.

First of all, that’s a direct response to a council resolution from, I believe it was May of last year, and if I need to recall that for any members of the community, I’d be happy to do so. But the other reason is that there’s a substantial investment that goes in time and money that goes into the purchase and the development of the infrastructure and the time that it takes to do that. And some of the prohibited industries might be land intensive, but very job less intensive, for lack of better terms. So the return on investment and that infrastructure and the time that it took to develop it just isn’t there.

And so we have a list of targeted industries and we really support these industries coming to London, but that’s where we rely on our private sector, industrial developers to accommodate the needs of those supplier firms. Thank you, and just as a follow up, is there enough flexibility there to seize opportunities that might come our way? Through you, your worship. But I just want to make sure I’m understanding the question.

Is it to consider flexibility if one of the non-targeted users then did want to purchase land? Was that the question? Yes. I believe that the resolution there is, should council adopt it is intended to prohibit that from happening?

Go ahead, I need your microphone if someone has one on it. Thank you, and I would be interested in seeing that resolution from last year where council made that direction and just wondering if you could just explain why staff still supports that? Or is it strictly because it was council directive? Through your worship, just to get back to some of the primary principles and feeding off some of the comments and even from some of the other counselors.

London does have a competitive advantage when it comes to industrial lands. And we want to seize that. We want to get the most value out of whatever we’re investing in. So what we have is a huge advantage is we do have lands that have very close linkages to either the airport or to the 400 series highways.

We have the ability to have highly serviced lands from a water, from a sewer perspective that can allow for the developments that can’t occur outside of London. So with that kind of valuable asset, we want to ensure that we get the most for the city of London. That includes jobs that are secure, that ensues as many jobs as possible with that provide that mixture of employment opportunities, high tech, and also opportunities for everyone else who might be able to have that would need a job. For those other industries that have huge footprints and very few jobs, those are, there’s an opportunity for that.

And we’d like that to be in a place other than London ideally because we want to have the highest value for our investment. Okay, are you good? Okay, Councilor McAllister. Thank you, Your Worship and through you.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t bring this up as we’re talking about industrial land. And I’m sure there’s not a person in this room that has not got an email or a phone call about River Road at some point. So my questions are going to kind of center around that part of my ward and it’s a huge geographical area. It’s especially with Scanlon, it’s one of the older industrial parts of the city.

And I’m just wondering, ‘cause I don’t see much in this plan in terms of that area, maybe perhaps redeveloping it. A lot of it is zoned for industrial. I know with the rethink zoning, there’s an opportunity to look at some of those lands. But in the past, they have been utilized for that purpose.

And I’m just wondering if staff can maybe speak to that area and maybe future uses that have been considered. Go ahead, through you Your Worship. There is, it’s on our work program to review that site for its highest and best used potential. But any decisions on that or any recommendations on that would be on a site specific basis that we would bring to likely planning committee, where this strategy is more broadly intended for the inventory of all city owned lands.

Should that parcel be zoned for industrial purposes, it would then become part of our inventory and this strategy would guide how we dispose of it. But it’s on my work plan and it’ll be coming to a committee meeting in the near future. Thank you. And through the chair again, just as a follow up, are there any plans then to say redevelop the Scanlon Park?

I know it is the older one. There’s not a huge amount of land left per se in that, but it does shoulder on to Veterans Memorial. And perhaps revisiting that site, and I know there’s obviously that forthcoming report, as you said, but specifically looking at that, ‘cause I do view it as an underutilized area. I do recognize also that River Road has its limitations, and I know I’ve spoken with Ms.

Share about this, in terms of suitability for industrial, whether that area wouldn’t be able to have greater servicing ‘cause that it would be a concern in terms of the area not being serviced properly for an industry. Through the chair, that area is under review. We don’t have a lot of information to be able to provide you tonight, but if that’s something that Council have more information or we can touch base with the Council specifically about it, but we don’t have a lot of information that we can provide to you tonight on that. Definitely, Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’m gonna share a couple of thoughts, and then through you ask a question. And first, I’m gonna start back with the digital media and information, and in particular on the digital media side of things. I think that folks may have a little bit of a misperception about digital media production.

Some of that does need actually new facilities. A lot of digital media today is actually produced with live human actors, 3D modeling, gaming simulations and things like that. So they need sound stages, they need video stages. So post-production might occur at a keyboard in an office, but a lot of the actual production itself is not that dissimilar to a live action filming now, which does require a controlled environment and can require a fairly large footprint.

So I am very appreciative of seeing that as a targeted industry to be attracting. I think there’s lots of opportunity for us to do that. Of course, I think that the work that the London Film Office and others are doing can tie into that as well. So that ability for recognizing that that is a targeted industry I think is valid.

I do want to pick up on the, first of all, I will say, I absolutely support the staff recommendations in terms of the targets and moving forward where we’re looking at acquiring some hectares to attract some new employers. I want to pick up a little bit on what Councillor Stevenson was suggesting around the prohibited. And my concern with the prohibition is not that I just want to throw the door wide open, but where there may be an integration of a transportation and logistics with a manufacturing facility. And I think about the great job that the LEDC and others have done, particularly in attracting food processing, transportation can be a real key for that just-in-time delivery of some of those products.

So like I said, I understand we don’t want to throw the door wide open, but I think there’s also a situation where a notwithstanding our strategy, there might be a recommendation that would come forward because it is a support mechanism for an industry that we do want to land. And if they say to us, well, we’re not coming to London because you cannot provide the transportation network that we require, that would be a problem for me. So through you to our staff, I want to ask how you would approach a situation like that, where there is a clear tie to a non-targeted, to a targeted that could put both at risk if we’re prohibiting the use of some of that land. Thank you and through your worship.

I think we have actually been before you as a council with offers that include targeted industry with the support of warehouse and logistics with the facility. So with through the zoning and through the interpretation of the development charges by-law, we I think you do have that flexibility. And then when we are marketing property and looking at offers and recruiting new industry and supporting retention of industry, we’re cognizant of that. And I think that there is flexibility in the strategy to do that.

I think the point that or the recommendation from staff is to prohibit non-targeted industry that is like 100%. And because it is the ratio of employment is like one to three per acre versus 10 to 15 per acre. They don’t need the level of servicing, the amount of quality water. And we have a competition now for the land, for the municipal land.

Competition, it’s a very strong market. It’s been exceptionally strong since 2020, across the country and the region, Ontario and the city of London. The availability rate of industrial buildings is less than 1%. So new construction is going to be critical.

And targeted industry will create much more employment and better spin-offs than the non-targeted. We’re not trying to be critical or biased. We definitely try to work with those clients and try to facilitate relationships with the private sector and with private lands ‘cause they are available for that type of industry. And we have definitely observed a number of sales in the last three years of private land for non-targeted industry.

Thank you. Thank you for that, Mr. Warner. And I was pretty sure I had recalled a notwithstanding purchase that had come through a committee that I was on.

So I just wanted to confirm that my memory was accurate on that matter. So the other question I have around the acquisition of this property. And this is more, quite honestly, a question that I’m asking for the benefit of the public and some people who have some concerns around the industrial land acquisition. What steps do we take to ensure that new lands that we’re bringing in for industrial land development are properly buffered from residential developments so that neighbors are not being woken up by transport trucks at 3 a.m., pulling into loading bays, not too far from them.

So just, if you can just give us a brief comment on what we do for buffering. Through your worship, there is a provincial guideline called D6 and it’s a bit dated but still relevant. And what it does, it provides guidelines to the separation between three classes of industrial so small, medium, large, and the separation distances that they need to adhere to sensitive land uses like residential or schools or that sort of thing. And so when we’re evaluating lands for industrial zoning, that’s something that we take into account because it could have an impact both ways.

So the industry could impact the residential amenity and nearby residents but it could also work the other way. If the residents are there, you might impact the ability of the industrial land to fulfill its industrial purposes because they have to put noise reduction or hours of operation and things like that. So it’s everyone’s best interest that we separate them. And the quick answer is we use the provincial D6 guidelines to determine what those distances are.

Great, thank you. I just wanted to make sure that that was out there so that people are aware there are a set of guidelines that we do use, they’re not even our guidelines. They come from the province. So it’s something that I think members of the public, certainly those, the two folks who approach me on the weekend from out around Veterans Memorial Parkway, we’re concerned about that.

So I wanted to ask on their behalf. That’s all my questions for now, your worship. Thank you, I have myself next on the list. So I’ll turn the chair over to Councilor Lehman.

Thank you and I’ll go to the mayor. So I just want to ask a couple of questions, actually just one. Given what we saw in the St. Thomas area with Volkswagen, and I know that’s a megasight in and has some special circumstances around it.

But what we saw was a partnership between the provincial government and the municipality, which involved potentially some financial supports for some of the processes of land acquisition and servicing and even supports for infrastructure, leading in and out of the facility from the provincial government. It seems like there’s a government that is looking to try to attract these sorts of large industries to the province and all of the supportive industries and supply chain benefits that go with it. So given that the industrial land development strategy is contemplated, I know one of the things is referred this to the multi-year budget. So I’m happy to be supportive of us investing money and developing our own industrial land.

I’m even more supportive of someone else paying for it. So how do we take our industrial land strategy and does this allow for the proper flexibility to partner with the provincial government on opportunities that may be found at a province wide level and looking for a place to land and not just necessarily homegrown from the city of London’s perspective, because although we’re doing our work to recruit through LEDC, there’s obviously at a provincial level, a provincial government who’s trying to attract international businesses to land here. And I know sometimes that involves not just financial support for the organization landing, but financial support in the processes that otherwise would fall upon the municipality to fund. Through the chair, just to begin, any kind of a large industrial development that like what happened in St.

Thomas definitely would be a partnership between the province and the municipality. So as far as from a staff perspective, like we are very willing to work with and we are undertaking, undertaking advocacy efforts to be able to, for folks to know that London is a place where this can happen. We’ve had a very successful strategy in the past and we’d be very welcome to be able to roll that out into a much more significant way if the province would like to work with us. So what we’re suggesting today definitely is on a smaller scale than what would happen in St.

Thomas. So St. Thomas was about 600 hectares. We’re talking about 200 hectares.

So if we’re looking at a very significant investment, that is gonna go above and beyond this, our current strategy, but I think the principles that Council has laid out previously and what’s in the strategy would be able to be applied to any kind of more significant investment as well. So just to reiterate, like we are very open to a different approach and working with the province and if those opportunities arrive, we would work very closely with them to be able to bring forward that for London. Okay, put it on there. Yes, that’s helpful to know.

I also make a comment based on the discussion. I’m actually supportive of the restrictions that’s in the strategy. I remember the debate of the last Council and I think Mr. Warner outlined the consequences of taking up what is, we don’t have an unlimited supply of land for all the things that we need and that involves like taking up land that is not uncontroversial for changing into a different use.

So I think being as strategic as we possibly can with the land that we have available in the city to attract the types of businesses that take, move us to the highest and best use, given our competitive nature in the market, I think is a smart strategy. There are other municipalities who supply un-serviced land or lightly serviced land that can accommodate those sorts of uses in the region and I’d rather us focus on those sorts of industries that align with our competitive advantage and the highest and best use that we can achieve here in the city of London for the supply that we can bring online. So that being said, overall, I’m very supportive of the strategy. I, you know, eventually we’ll get a motion on the floor but I think that this is well thought out and positions as well for continuing what has been a successful strategy in the past and modernizing it based on what we’ve learned and the realities of today as well.

And I want to add one last comment. Councillor Trozau’s comments about housing, I think are very astute. You know, these are things that go hand in hand. So as we modernize and develop our industrial land strategy, I know the LEDC is talking about workforce development but that obviously links back to housing availability for people and where they need to live.

So these strategies, although maybe separate on paper are certainly inherently linked, I think, in the way that we approach them strategically. I’ll give the chair back to the Mayor. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes.

I’m hoping to put a motion on the floor that I had circulated previously. And the clerk has helped me out a little bit as we could put the full motion. So A to E at A to D, which was already drafted by staff including the report and then my additional comments. So a little bit added to amendment D and then E and F.

So those are circulated just before this meeting. Sorry for the lateness, but maybe you guys had a chance to read through it the evening. They’re specifically looking more at environmental impacts regarding the strategy. So as was outlined in the report, there was discussion about workforce and then also a section about transportation and the lack of to the areas that we’re talking about in question.

And I know it’s been at council many times before, but the concept of having public transit, taking workers out to the industrial areas so that they don’t all need to own a car, which as we know is about $11,000 a person a year to own a car. So if you’re making about 50 or 60,000 at one of these factories, you’re already spending about 11,000 of that on a car. So trying to reduce the affordability issue for people getting to their workplace as well as the climate impacts, because by 2030 we do have in our climate emergency action plan trying to reduce the number of in-town automobile trips per person in London by 30 to 50% from 2019 levels. So if we’re trying to achieve that by 2030, I do think that people need to have a viable option in order to get to their job.

And if we’re trying to add 5,000 jobs to the bottom of the city and we don’t have public transit, it’s gonna be very difficult for these people to get there. So part of the motion, I’m hoping that we can communicate to the London Transit Commission that we wanna see sufficient public transit to existing developed and future developed industrial land. I put a goal of end of 2024 because I know this has been talked about for multiple years and I’m hoping it’s at the front burner on the oven. And the other parts of part F, I’m hoping that we can see more clearly as again in the strategy we did see a one-pager about how the climate emergency and climate impacts are being addressed through the strategy.

I’m hoping we can more clearly tie it to the work of the Climate Emergency Action Plan as there are multiple sections within the plan that deal with fossil fuel use in buildings, specifically again, trying to reduce fossil fuel use by buildings to 50% from 2019 by 2030. So if we’re talking about that in this Climate Emergency Action Plan, I think if we’re looking to have industry in this area, I wanna understand how they are planning to transform their buildings as well as again, get their workers to their locations. And of course, looking at the circular economy and seeing how that can be worked into some of the strategy. So that is pretty much what I’m hoping to be included.

Oh, and the last part is I did add on section D using the climate emergency screening tool and our industrial land needs assessment. So happy to chat, see what people think, but I am hoping moving forward we’d be able to address some of these environmental issues with this strategy. Thanks. Okay, I know Councillor Trost, South City is willing to second that.

So there is like the full motion ‘cause there’s nothing on the floor yet within the piece here. So colleagues are clear because anybody can put any motion on the floor, so I can allow you to put the staff recommendation as modified on the floor. So colleagues can understand the differences between the two when you look at the motion, the difference between what staff recommended in your package and the additions is a piece on the end of D and then the entirety of E and F, which would be new. So Councillor Trost, are you still willing to second that?

Okay, so that is moved and seconded. I have Councillor Pribble, Deputy Mayor Lewis wants to put his hand up on this and Councillor ramen. Okay, let me just add you to the speaker’s list, but now that that’s moved and seconded, I’ll go to Councillor Pribble. Through the staff, but I didn’t have a, it has nothing to do with this motion, it had to do with the questions, so I don’t know if you want to— Okay, you can still ask questions, yeah.

No, this is just having the staff recommendation with the additional components that Councillor Frank allowed for is now put on the floor. We can obviously vote on components of the separate or amend them or do anything we want, but if you still have questions for staff about the strategy, you can still ask those questions. Okay, it’s actually part of, to be honest with you, it’s actually, I had three questions, but two were already answered, third one to the staff through the chair. In the MDB Inside London’s Community Economic Roadmap, which was 2015 to 2020, they showed us our biggest weakness is quality of the local transportation, and even though this part of the proposed motion, do you know from the employers, are we still in the same situation in terms of the transportation going to the industrial parks and the need for improvement?

Thank you, through your worship. Unfortunately, Kapil Akoshay couldn’t make the meeting with LEDC, but I know that there’s been a tremendous amount of efforts trying to have discussions with LTC to provide that level of service out to the industrial parks. And I do know from him as well that definitely the business community and many of the facilities have endeavored over the several years now to see if they could accomplish a better service. So it’s definitely on the radar of LEDC, I’m sorry, I’m not speaking on behalf of them, but I’m just letting you know what my observations have been in dealing with him.

Thank you. No more questions? Okay, Deputy Mayor Lewis, then Councillor Ramen. Thank you, so I’m gonna speak to the motion on the floor, and I’ll say I have no problem with the slight change in language in section D, that’s pretty straightforward.

With regard to the addition of E, certainly I can support forwarding a communication to the little London Transit Commission, and I say this with no disrespect to our LTC commissioners who are here at the horseshoe. At some point we may need to direct some action to LTC on this because we’ve been promised this for a while, and I’m gonna say I’m a little tired of waiting, but I know that our commissioners have felt some frustration about that as well. So, but the end of 2024 should provide us some information back on the proposed app booking that’s supposed to launch this fall to at least one industrial area to see what the uptake on the pilot project is, so I can support that. Where I’m concerned is on subsection F, and so I’m gonna wanna vote on this separately, ‘cause I don’t think I can support this, and when we get into things like transforming building and development and addressing new developments with new industrial land, I think that’s separate from an industrial land strategy in terms of where we’re acquiring land.

Quite frankly, I see that as a planning issue and a site plan issue for our planning department more so that I see that as an industrial land strategy matter, so I can’t support that piece. I think that looking at item four, I come back to, at some point, we may have to direct LTC rather than ask, and until we’re willing to take that step, I think that implementation of word plan number four is something that’s a bit out of our control, honestly, and again, I’m not going to forgo acquiring industrial land for development. I think that there are things that we can look at in terms of how we look at the transportation and traffic flow that are related to this, but I’m really concerned that three and four tie our hands. I’m gonna be honest, I don’t have an opinion about item five, ‘cause I not had a chance to read into that item yet, ‘cause it was late, and I appreciate Councilor Frank acknowledging that, so I didn’t have a chance to dig into that one, but certainly being well aware that we are running out of landfill space, that we have some strategic plan components that are devoted to developing the circular economy a little bit more.

I’m less concerned about item five, because I would like to know in our industrial land strategy, if we are going to be in a position where this might result in us shipping waste out of the city, because we don’t have enough room, and I don’t know what the answer to that is, and I don’t know if staff have an opinion on that or not. I would welcome any thoughts that they have, but I know that this is kind of an 11th-hour thing, and so it might be something that requires some more thought. But through you, if staff have any comments, I’d be happy to hear them, but I guess if we— This might involve a couple of staff, ‘cause I see several hands go out at once, but it looks like, Ms. Sherry, you seem fastest on the microphone, so you can go first, if you’d like.

Reflexes are at killer reflexes, so your worship. With respect to the idea of shipping waste out of the city, that is not something that is on the radar staff, or something we would entertain, the commitment to a circular economy is important. We are in the process of pursuing final approval of our environmental assessment for the W-12A expansion, and you’ll be seeing more and more from us on the waste file related to both green bins, and producer pay transition, circular economy is a benefit to support those things in that it can create value added, experiences, employment, GDP in the area, but the idea that we would be in that exporter of waste is not on staff’s radar or something we’re entertaining. Okay, so that’s helpful, and as I said, I know that was very 11th-hour, so I appreciate even a crystal wallowling of where we might be on that, and I know Mr.

Stanford’s doing a lot of work on the W-12A expansion, so that’s my thoughts. I can support D&E quite easily. F, I think we’re getting into the weeds when we’re really talking about the empowering our staff to go and acquire 200 hectares of land for industrial development. I think that all of those things that are listed, three, four, and five, are items that come after.

They’re not about where we purchased the land or how much land we’re purchasing. It’s about what we do with the land after the fact, so I’m not gonna be supportive of F. Councillor Roman. Thank you, and through you, I have two questions.

My first is related to the CIP review that’s mentioned in the strategy. I’m just wondering if you can comment on how this work will impact the CIP review and whether or not it impacts the timeline at all. Go ahead. Through your worship, but there’s a CIP review that’s undertaken currently.

Actually, it is scheduled to come to the next Planning Environment Committee meeting at the end of the second one in this month, so get ready for it, it’ll be very exciting. And it will highlight the recommendations related to all the CIPs in the land, and we have some that are very much directed towards industrial and brownfield redevelopment as well, so that’ll provide the whole context, and that’ll be an opportunity to make some of those decisions, so just address the question again. It’s not gonna impact the timeframe of implementing the industrial strategy. Thank you.

My second question pertains to the additions to the motion, specifically around D and furthering that with F, around the climate emergency screening tool. I’m just wondering if staff can comment on how they foresee that enhancing, or if they see it potentially having other impacts to the industrial land needs assessment. I personally felt that there was a good context in the report in terms of how the climate emergency plan, action plan has been thought about in reference to that, but I’m just wondering if there’s more specifics that perhaps the tool will give us. So through the chair, I’m gonna start off and then throw it off to Ms.

Chair. So interested to the plan, as you’ve seen, is that the consideration for the climate emergency and the action plan. So there is a reporting components of the action plan, so there could be a couple of different ways to do this. One would be to do like a one-off and provide some additional strategy as suggested by this resolution.

Another way to do it would be to align with the reporting for the climate emergency action plan that’s already exist, so centralizing it to that mechanism. So I’ll let Ms. Chair just add as far as providing the context of how that would happen. Thanks, Mr.

Mathers. So staff from the climate emergency action plan team have been working with ILD team, the industrial land development team on climate action. That work would continue regardless of the direction in terms of the motion. I think it’s really a question of order of operations and how we report.

So there are things that we need to consider from the broad perspective related to the industrial land development strategy that I think are assessed well in the report at this time. And then there are pieces that would come forward later as individual developments come forward, as individual industrial applications are considered, where you could screen more specifically around the specific needs and opportunities or challenges related to climate change on that particular industry type at a given location. So I think the work will continue regardless and whether we report out separately here on the industrial land development strategy or that is strictly reported through the regular metrics that’ll be part of your annual, or potentially twice a year view of the climate work is I think to staff a bit of material. That’s more whether what’s valuable to you as decision makers as that information is built and developed.

Thank you, okay. So I’m trying to envision what this could look like. And so I guess maybe my thought process is a little premature around that ongoing supply of the 200 hectares and then the potential groups, companies, businesses, whatever that are thinking about the 200 hectares. I think personally I’m satisfied that LEDC and our real tea folks are looking at specific targeted industries that have a climate focus to them already.

So I’m not certain that this needs to be again, reiterated in this way. I’m just trying to find why that’s a benefit now. Since it’s already being addressed in the report, it’s already being addressed in terms of the industries we’re talking about. So why do we need this again?

I’m just trying to understand what are we gonna get that’s different right now with this? Through your worship. I think that’s the, sorry if I didn’t articulate it well. I think the work that staff are capable of doing in terms of the climate emergency framework and the specific climate emergency screening tool right now would be the same.

The information we have is around the area of land and that is contained in this report. If there’s the ability to provide more detail about the specific use of those lands, should council approve this, would actually come as developments come into the city? So I think it really is a question of timing in order of operations and I think the work’s gonna happen regardless. So if you would prefer to see a summary report specific to industrial lands as those applications are processed in advance and show how that tool is specifically applied to each development, then that can be pulled out separately or it can be part of the metrics through the larger climate emergency action plan.

But there, at this point you apply the full screening tool to the land decision would probably not result in any new information because there is no new information that staff has at hand to assess and provide to council with an evaluation. Thank you, that answer was very helpful for me. I wanna make sure that when we’re looking at our climate goals, when we’re looking at our action plan and when we’re looking at how we’re going to apply this lens to the work that we’re doing as well, that it doesn’t feel like greenwashing if we’re not going to be benefiting from the information in the end. So I see the value of, again, further on in the process, but I’m not sure how this fits in right now.

It seems like this is something our staff have considered that they’ve brought into this process already and I’m amfully satisfied with the way that’s presented, thank you. Okay, so it sounds to me like we’re moving towards voting on F separately anyways, so people can provide their commentary on that. Yeah, oh no, it’s okay. I’ve got a speakers, let’s say, Paul, I got you on it, but first, Councillor Hopkins is first and you’ll be right afterwards.

Yeah, thank you, your worship and thank you, Councillor Frank, for always an interesting conversation around how we use climate lens. On D, I appreciate the comments that we just received from Ms. Shear. I think we’re already doing the climate emergency screening tool on applications that come to planning.

For those of you who do not know that, you could see that screening tool on applications that we receive at planning committee. I’m not sure how this changes anything to what we’re already doing. I don’t think it does. We’re already looking at the metrics from the climate emergency plan as well.

So I’m not sure about supporting D, I can do it, but I can just, I don’t see what we’re doing differently by supporting D. On E, I appreciated a comment that I heard about directing London Transit Commission on delivering sufficient public transit. And through you, your worship, I’m just wondering, can we direct LTC to deliver sufficient public transit to existing development industrial lands? That’s a question that involves the discussion about a by-law related to LTC.

So I don’t know who wants to take that, but kind of looking, go ahead. Oh, Mr. Carter, you could also jump in. Mr.

Carter’s on the call, but he would probably have the best advice in terms of procedures related to that by-law and Council’s ability. Mr. Carter is on the call. So Mr.

Carter, under the current by-law with LTC, our ability to direct them to do something. Your worship, we’re not in a position to direct them to do anything in particular. We are in a position to direct LTC with respect to policy matters. And that is preceded by a request and a discussion.

And then ultimately, if necessary, a policy that, for example, with respect to transportation to industrial areas, it could be somewhat specific about the nature of that service. It would be up to LTC then to implement that policy. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you.

I just wanted that for clarification. So I appreciate your response, Mr. Carter. So I will be supporting E just forwarding right now.

I have no problem with 2024. I know the strategy sort of looks at 2025, but I don’t want to get too much into the weeds here. On F, heard a few comments about maybe we are getting a little bit too specific here in the strategy. If we were to bring F forward, where would through your worship to staff, where would be the better plan or process to have F go forward?

Sorry, Councillor, just for clarification, as I see some people, are you asking if not here, how would F proceed forward elsewhere? Are you asking, like, what are you asking? Yes, yes, if this— So maybe elaborate a little more on this idea of reporting as part of this strategy or reporting as part of the climate emergency action plan and what that might look like, it sounds like. Thank you, Your Worship.

So the components of F that relate to industrial land would relate to any industrial development, including on non-city owned parcels. So they would apply to grow throughout the city and we would report back on that through either, whether we’re, staff are working on right now as either an annual or twice a year update on the progress on the climate emergency action plan and you’ll be seeing our first one of those at the end of the month, actually. We could easily within that report highlight where it has been applied to the industrial lands that are part of this portfolio we’re discussing. Alternatively, if there’s a desire for some separate mechanism or strategy, I would refer to Mr.

Mathers and his teams to how they would like to handle that as the owners of the work with support from the technical team on climate emergency. And for further clarification, since— Mr. Mathers had some more context for you first. Through Your Worship, of course we are always happy to provide counsel with any additional information or reports that are required and just whether you feel like this is something that should be using a consistent of approach, including it in the existing reporting relationship or if you want something separate.

So it really is just that discussion around additional reports and where you want to see that information. Okay, good. Yeah, just as a follow up, I’m just trying to understand what we do already and what we can do going forward. What we’re doing right now, we can expect through the climate emergency updates that will come to us pretty soon.

Looking forward to that, would this be included? Just want to make sure I understand that. Through Your Worship, there’s probably two ways that counsel will see information related to progress on the climate emergency action plan. One of them is then going to be in an omnibus report that’s prepared annually and is measuring overall progress across the enterprise and throughout the community relative to the goals that are in that plan.

You will also see where there’s specific decisions to be made, things coming forward for consideration. So for example, if we were talking about making a change in the vehicle fleet for city-owned vehicles, that would come as an independent item but would also be reflected in that omnibus report. What staff are debating right now on my team is how frequently that report ought to come. Should we do sort of a bit of a mid-year sort of quick check-in and then follow up with the omnibus report?

So we generally do not intend on the climate emergency to have one-off reporting on various aspects of the plan. The content of that report will vary from year to year as things are completed, as things become business as usual, as new things are ramped up and brought into the emergency action plan work. So you haven’t seen these reports yet, but the first one is coming now. It’s a partial year report prior to multi-year budget fully funding the plan but that can evolve to make sure that it’s meeting your information needs as decision makers.

Okay, thank you. Councilor Vamirovergen. You mayor, this report to have to thank staff because I thought it was presented quite accidentally is so vitally important to the future prosperity of our city, the future prosperity of London because it will be the underpinning for tomorrow’s jobs. It’ll be underpinning for the wealth creation of tomorrow.

We sit basically in the midst of an automotive revolution that’s occurring right before us, right in plain sight. And we stand to be huge beneficiaries if we take the right steps. The fact that the world’s largest vehicle manufacturer, Volkswagen pinpointed our part of Ontario as where they wanna locate tells you everything. And we wanna be able to pick up on the stems of that because it’s such a massive investment.

They will be massive stems and if we can’t capture that if we don’t have an Apple supply of service, industrial lands, the fact that we have the NAFTA highway going right through our city and NAFTA super highway, followed with two additional 400 series highways were an hour from the world’s largest economy. We have excellent railway degrees with CP and CN. CP is now connected right through into Mexico from Canada through the United States. We have an international airport with an unlimited capacity to lend the largest aircraft.

All of these things are employed. Time, you old saying that hay is made when the sun shines. Well, the sun is shining right now and we have to make sure that we capitalize. And to do that, we have to push this forward.

Time is of the essence. Decisions are made very quickly in the business world. And if we don’t get on the train before it leaves they’re the same on us and they’re all supporting us. Thank you, Councilor.

I have Councilor Frank and then myself on the list. But thank you, yes. I just wanna follow up ‘cause I am appreciating this discussion. I do know that there is a climate emergency action plan update coming shortly this spring.

I think I wanna maybe explain kind of the backstory but why I was hoping to see more specifically tied to the actions that are in the climate emergency action plan. So in the ILDS strategy, there is one page that kind of talks about high level. We need more transit there. That’s consideration for climate change.

We need to be making sure that the industrial businesses that are coming either hopefully might work in the green energy sector, perhaps, or maybe the buildings might be green just like we believe voluntarily chose to become net zero in their development. So I think that these are great things. I think it’s fantastic that we’re tracking it as well as the natural channel restoration work. I do think these are great things and I’m glad that they’re included in this report.

I just don’t see the direct tie to the climate emergency action plan. And I see in many of our strategies, no direct tie to the climate emergency action plan. And in my opinion, given that it’s an emergency, I think that we should be using this plan whenever we’re doing new strategies, updating strategies. We should be looking at this plan.

I think all departments should and pull out the things they’re responsible for. So for example, I pulled out those three area items because one of the actions for Focus Area 3 is review and provide options to reduce, restrict, or phase out fossil fuel use as the primary source of heat in all new buildings in London as of 2030. So if we’re doing this plan is 2023, this plan’s probably gonna last us another four or five years. And we’re planning to phase out fossil fuel, ideally phase out fossil fuel use in some of these locations.

Why are we gonna put natural gas in the ground? So I think that we’re missing out on some opportunities where we’re creating these strategies, not looking at the climate emergency action plan in the specific actions that are outlined here and moving forward with the strategy and kind of like adding environmental things that are really nice in that kind of align to the climate emergency action plan but are not actually directly outlined in it. So that is what I was kind of hoping to get towards when I specifically pulled out these implementation work plans because the actions that are included in the climate emergency action plan are very specific. And I don’t see the direct tie into this strategy or many of the others that we’ve been receiving.

And that is what I was really trying to do is we might be doing good work but it’s not showing up as a direct link to the SEAP. And that’s where I’m struggling to see us execute on the SEAP in order to achieve the targets that we’re trying to set. Many of them are being trying to be achieved by 2030. So that is why I wanted to include F because I think that every strategy we do needs to have the basis of looking at this and included into the strategy.

And that’s what I’m hoping for. With homelessness, we’ve been seeing monthly reports now coming and with climate emergency. I appreciate that it takes a while to do all the work in compilation but we’re gonna see our first report on the climate emergency at the end of this month. And we’ve been in our role since November.

And so just again, for me, this is one of the reasons why I ran, I’m really passionate but I think that that’s why I don’t wanna wait once a year to see what we’re doing. I wanna see it everywhere all the time, all at once because I’m greedy but also I just wanna see the climate emergency action plan executed in every strategy we have. So that is what I was trying to get at but I hear staff, there will be an overlap in my opinion. I can see why but I wanna see directly the links for the actions that are in the plan and how they’re showing up in the strategies we’re doing.

So I just wanna provide that clarity of why I included in. Thanks. I’ll hand the chair with the Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you.

And I have Mayor Morgan on the speaker’s list. Thank you and Councilor Trostow’s after me, just so you know. So I appreciate the discussion so far. And again, I would compliment the good work of staff on putting this strategy together and the partners that it involves but more importantly executing the strategy, both the previous one and the modernized one.

The, with respect to the changes, the, I think the change in D is fine with me. I think that that’s a good addition as we do the Industrial Land Needs Assessment. I’ll be pretty frank on E. I think I share the frustration of a number of Councillors with the speed at which and the relationship on our ability to direct the Transit Commission.

This has come up multiple times even this term of council, whether it be Para Transit, Industrial Land Use or other things. And so, you know, I don’t mind the addition. Frankly, the end of 2024 seems like a really long time to me. I can tell you, I met with the good people at Maple Leaf on the 1,000 people who already worked there to talk about the 600 more people that they want by the end of this year.

600 more people by the end of 2023. One of the challenges they have is they built their facility with the ability to have a bus loop right in their facility so their employees could be dropped off there. And instead, they’re dropped off over a kilometer or a half away and then they walk. And in the winter, you know, without sidewalks along those roads, like that’s not the safest thing to do.

That’s not really a great employer experience. And so, their call to me was anything you can do to help convince the LTC that these are important initiatives for job creation, for job attraction, and to fill those 600 spots that they want is pretty important. So, I’m not really interested in waiting till the end of 2024. I think we need to be very clear that industrial strategy and industrial strategy is important.

It’s been directed to be developed in the past. And this is something we should be talking about this multi-year budget, not at the end of 2024. So, I don’t mind supporting the motion, but that’s not going to stop me from continuing to engage with the transit commission on behalf of employers and our industrial areas on the importance of this. I do want to commend them for working to bring forward the pilot project for on-demand service.

I think that on-demand service is a good innovation. I would love to see it roll out as quickly as possible and then be expanded once proven successful. But this is really critical to us attracting the jobs that our employers have. There’s a very first-hand relationship here with a large employer, like Maple Leaf, who wants to attract 600 people by the end of the year.

And that’s just one employer. On F, I think F is a preference thing, as you’ve heard our staff, if you want to have it within the land strategy, that that’s one way. If you want to have this within the regular climate emergency action plan reporting, that’s another way. It doesn’t seem like it’s going to make a difference.

It’s a preference. I know Councillor Frank has a strong preference. To me, I actually have the same preference that I think Councillor Ramen expressed, and that’s keep it consolidated within the climate emergency action plan. So we’ll vote on F separate.

I don’t think I’ll support it here. It doesn’t mean that it’s not going to happen, but I wanted to make those comments on the other aspects of the motion. Again, I’ll support everything probably, but F, but E, and the transit commission piece, is yet another example of us desiring to have a little more influence and direction over, over the services being provided, based on the feedback we’re hearing from both constituents, transit riders, and industrial employers. Thank you Mayor Morgan, and I was almost hoping you were going to suggest a friendly amendment to the end of 2023 there, but we’ll leave that— I figured Councillor Frank was going to do that anyway, so.

Well, I think we have another speaker on the list who might want to do that anyway, Councillor Truss, I was next on the list. After him, I don’t have anyone else. Oh, Councillor Cudi, after Councillor Truss, I’ll hear your worship, and I’ll return the charity. Thank you, go ahead Councillor Truss.

Well, okay, I don’t know if I can make a friendly amendment if I’m the seconder, but I’m hearing sentiment that there’s a taste for changing 2024 to 2023, so if it’s okay with the mover, I’ll make that as a friendly amendment if I can do that. Okay, there’s thumbs up there, so we’ll make that adjustment in the— But I just want to do an overview here. We’re not terribly divided on this as a Councillor. I mean, I was listening to Councillor Van Mierbergen, and I didn’t disagree with anything he said.

He put it very forcefully. He emphasized different industries, and I would have emphasized, I’d probably be more emphasizing film and digital, but it’s all in there, it’s all in there. So I don’t think there’s a huge division on this Council, on this Council. I think it was useful to bring forward the amendments, ‘cause it reminded us that we have a transit issue.

I did not put an amendment on housing, ‘cause it would have been difficult to operationalize that, but I think my point was well taken. But I am very, very pleased that there’s support for at least two of the three amendments, and I want to reiterate my support for the last one. And the reason is, it is a preference, and I don’t think it does any harm, and it’s just really a question of, do we really need it at this time? And the reason why I think we really need it on this time, at this time, is we need to demonstrate to the public.

But these were not just empty promises, about the climate emergency, and the action plan, and we do intend to incorporate this into all of our work. Even something as important as the land development plan. And by the way, I don’t think there’s anything, I don’t think there’s anything being put forward here, that is inconsistent with moving forward with the staff report. So I am going to maintain my support for the last part of the motion, and I will urge people to vote for it.

And I think if you’re on the line, and you can’t decide, let’s just send another signal to the public that we were really serious about this. And with that, I think I’ve made my points. Thank you for hearing me out. And thank you for answering all the questions you answered for me this afternoon.

Councillor Cuddy. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you. I want to thank staff for bringing this forward. This is a tremendous puzzle.

I’m going to support it fully. And I also want to thank Councillor Van Mirberg and for his comments, and just to echo what he said. And I’ll be very brief. You know, we’re in the precipice of seeing some really revolutionary industrialization in this area.

He talked about automotive and with the Volkswagen plant. And that is one. And one thing about industry, it attracts more industry to the same area, and we’re going to see more of that. Plus, we’re going to see the download of supplies and management and supply chains.

But as the mayor referenced about Mayfully Foods, we’re going to see more food companies come to this area as well. And one thing food companies need, they need land, and they need water, and we have both. And I want, again, I want to thank you for the fine work you’ve done for this, because this is going to attract more and more business. And Mayor, the 500 to 600 jobs that Mayfully Foods is looking for now is going to be a drop in the bucket for what we’re going to need going forward.

Because that type of industry requires a lot of labor. And we’re in a great position to supply it. Thank you again. Any, go ahead, Councillor Frank.

Thank you, yes, just one tiny little addition. And I think I’m hearing a lot about people saying, we’ll get this report for F either at the end of the month, or we could get it included here. I guess I see it differently. When I talk about strategy, that’s where I see staff sitting in a room, talking to other staff, thinking about it at the beginning, saying, here are all our action items, and here’s how we’re going to accomplish them.

So it’s future thinking, it’s including in the work plan that they’re going to be doing into the future. When I hear the word report, it’s, here’s what we’ve done in the past, and here’s what we’ve already accomplished, which, again, I appreciate what we have to do both. But I think that’s more what I was looking for that I felt was missing. We got a report saying, here are the things that we’ve done for the industrial land area.

Again, fabulous. Love them, they’re great. I hope we continue doing them. When I hear the word strategy, I’m hoping that they’re going to flip through this, the climate emergency action plan, pull out the relevant actions and say, here’s how we’re going to achieve them all.

Again, we have all these 20, 30 targets, like reducing car trips, reducing embedded emissions in our new buildings, reducing the fossil fuel use for operational, for buildings to operationalize. So how are we going to implement that? And that’s why I use our strategy and not report. So that’s how I see the difference, is I was actually looking for staff to create like a five page thing saying, here’s how we’re going to operationalize SEAP within the IDLDS, not here’s a report on what we’ve done.

So I think I just want to add that for clarity, ‘cause I don’t think people were talking about it in that manner. So that’s why, again, I kind of personally would like to keep F, ‘cause I don’t see it as the same amount of information. I see it as future looking, not here’s what we’ve done. I just, I’ll take a cherished prerogative here.

And one of the most important things I can realize as a counselor is when I bring a motion, like knowing what, like figuring what’s going to happen with it, how it’s operationalized. I think you have a counselor who’s looking for some information about how SEAP is integrated within the industrial plan in a slightly different way. Is that something that you need like this specific direction from us, or is that something that can be provided to council as an information piece so that we understand if that’s what’s happening? ‘Cause what I don’t want to do is have people divide vote based on what they think staff’s going to do, or what you think it should do, and we’re not on the same page.

So if we can just cut through, and just go right to staff, you hear what the counselor is asking for. Is that something that can be provided without the need for this particular direction? So if I may, your worship, I’ll start, and I’ll flip it over to Mr. May, there’s after that.

For each of the areas that own implementing parts of the Climate Emergency Action Plan, because it is not just our small team that is the technical support to that, they have to look at how they’re going to operationalize each of those work plans and strategies that is relevant to the work they do. If in some cases there’s value in that coming to council for pre-consideration, or even for information as that owner of that subject matter expertise, that certainly would be the prerogative of each work area. For bigger pieces, for example, a master facility plan change, major changes to fleet, we would probably want council to see those. For small things that we’re just integrating into our day-to-day operations, perhaps that’s going to be simply reported out on the strategy stays with staff.

If this is when the council feels value in seeing in advance of the work starting that would ultimately be reported out on as part of our omnibus report, then certainly between the owner of the work, which is planning and active, and council, that’s a decision that’s with the two of you. I don’t know if that helps, or not, with (laughs) go ahead, Mr. Mathers. Yeah, just to build on that as well.

We’ve just, as we’re talking here, we’re kind of going through the seep and looking at how this would interact with it. And I think there’s actually even like a bit of a feedback loop, like the purpose of the action plan isn’t to be like a one and done document, it’s a living document. So there actually might be some integration between updates to our components of that plan, along with the industrial work too. So happy to bring that forward in any way that council is most digestible, if it is, I guess, a separate strategic document talking about that would be in the form of a committee report, (laughs) that it would be happy to be able to provide that to you, or we can just do it as we would our normal business.

Councilor, I was just trying to get you some information because there’s a misalignment between your, I think intent and what it will produce based on how it’s wording, and whether you want to take the opportunity to go back and craft a direction that might achieve more of what you’re asking for, based on the staff’s answer, or whether you want to proceed with the vote this way. Like it’s up to you, but I’m desiring to try to cut to your intention rather than the interpreted intention of your motion. I don’t have words right now to make that change, ‘cause my baby woke up twice last night, and words escape me at this moment, but I do see the difference. I see the value in trying to, wordsmith, a better intent.

I do want to change then to 2023, though. Okay, so can I endeavor to say, what if F was taken off now between now and council? You worked on some language that may be clearer, and perhaps garner wider support based on the way it’s interpreting. We can change, we’ve already changed 2023 if you refresh your screen.

There’s nothing precluding you from going that route. Of course, a voted council is a definitive vote, so it’s not with some sort of risk, but what I desire to do is not pass a motion or defeat a motion that may not even be achieving the intent that you’re going for. I think I actually prefer that, if I’ll see with my seconder, if he’s okay with that, because I would like to apply this to all strategies. So you have just opened up a can of worms, where I personally like any strategy that’s coming to us to very clearly pull out how it is aligned to the climate.

Then another option for you is to have that debate when the first climate emergency action report comes forward, and we can have a discussion as a council on whether or not that’s something we support rather than doing it as a one-off here, so. Yes, this did feel piecemeal, so I do like this resolution moving forward that all strategies will have maybe a very specific section. I think you could deal with that at the time that the report comes forward on how we want to be reported on. I mean, you’ll have to convince your colleagues that we all want to do that, but if you want to do that, I guess I need to know if you want to proceed with F, or do you want to take it off for now and pursue the general kind of incorporation, as was mentioned, and you’d have some time to talk with staff about what that might look like in the workload.

I think I’m okay to drop F, given the discussion, and given that I think what will be returned to us will also show up in the June report that we’re going to be getting. So to reduce workload, I’m happy to drop F, but I will be coming back with a more comprehensive, motion that looks at all strategies. I just do, does the seconder consent to what this accounts for? Yes, I do, I mean— It would be very valuable, I think, to have some, to have the unanimous counsel on this.

And I think if we can do that, I mean, I’ve stated the reason why I want to see this now. I’m very happy to put it off to the next council meeting, but I would go along with the maker of the motion on this. So I just want to check to make sure I have the general consent of community to allow for the withdraw of the move of F. I see everybody nodding, no one objecting.

Okay, then by consensus, we’ll drop F for now, knowing the council will work on some language related to the intended actions that she was pursuing. So that means we have, everything is in the staff report, except D with a little addition on the end, and E as was contemplated with end of 2023 attached, I have Councillor Roman on the speaker’s list. Thank you, and through you, I guess, I understand the desire to communicate to LTC this need for sufficient public transit to exist to our industrial lands, and the need for that to happen like yesterday. But I also think that I want to be fair, and I want to respect the fact that they have their own plans, and they’ve also struggled with getting ridership back up and other challenges.

So I just want to ask my colleagues that are on LTC about forwarding a communication that sets a target for 2023, and especially around the word sufficient, because what we feel is sufficient versus what LTC feels is sufficient, versus what the data shows is sufficient, is it even doable? Or are we basically saying, you know, we think this should have been done yesterday, and so we’re trying to communicate the urgency, and that’s why we’re saying 2023. But ultimately, you know, they are a partner, I do, and I want to make sure that we’re being respectful of the ability to meet that timeline, or to continue those conversations within a reasonable timeline. So I’d like to ask our LTC members about that.

So to share through staff and to the other councilors, to be honest with you, for this one, I wasn’t going to support, because I do want to talk to them. I certainly hope we can do it by the end of this year. I hope we can do it even sooner. But again, first of all, legally, I don’t think we have the right to do it, 0.1, 0.2.

I do want to talk to them, and I hope that the decision will be even made prior to it, because we need the transportation there, no doubt. Thank you. So let me interject, because this is where my intent might be different with my comments and I want to align, ‘cause I think the motion could be read in two different ways. It could be forwarded to the London Transit Commission, requesting service updates to deliver sufficient public transit to develop industrial areas of land.

So do we get the service updates by the end of 2023, or you could read it as the intention is, provide the service by the end of 2023, which I think I would agree would be unreasonable, and I read it a slightly different way as, we need to have a dialogue. They need to start to be articulating what the service updates would be to provide sufficient transit to industrial lands. So I just, that was, now I’ve got my own intent to like, ‘cause I made you change your motion, and maybe I’m reading it different from the way it would be interpreted, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yeah, I’m gonna come back to what I said in some of my comments.

There is a pilot project supposed to start in September. I, frankly, want the data from that pilot project at the end of the year. I want to see the first quarter results from that pilot project to assess how it’s going, and whether or not we are, from our own council perspective, an LTC will have their own perspective on things, but so we can start to assess whether we feel it is sufficient for our needs out there. Yes, we are making a demand of them really into that timeline.

But given we have seen goalposts move on this industrial service repeatedly, I’ll be blunt, I’m out of patience. I want to see the first quarter numbers, and I want to be able to myself absorb those and think about how that impacts our industrial land strategy moving forward. So I’m very supportive of that motion because I think there will be data for the end of 2023. So let me just get back to council’s intent ‘cause I see the mover.

Our intent here is to have the opportunity to have that discussion with data in hand by the end of 2023, and this should not be read as, you need to have all the sufficient public transit to industrial lands by the end of 2023, right? So let’s just wordsmith it to be clear about that. Councilor Frank, go ahead. I love we’re having this discussion ‘cause I meant I want to see sufficient public transit to all of the locations.

So that’s why she was end of 2024 ‘cause I thought a year and a half was quite nice. But I hear now maybe we want to have the discussion and the data maybe by the end of this year and then look at 2024 for some increased investment and actually operationalizing it. So an approach here is we could request, on industrial transit, we could request LTC to present to council at a time around that end of 2023, maybe early 2024 timeframe on this subject. So perhaps we want to amend the wording, but I’ll go to a commissioner who’s wearing his council hat was he here but could certainly provide information.

I just want to make sure one thing after I said that I wouldn’t support it after you read your proposed motion, I do agree with it. I personally, so I would support it. I don’t want to do 2024 at all because I hope that we are going to do it prior. And if you put there 2024, there’s going to be again that there’s 18 months ahead.

So I would prefer not to do 2024 again at all. Let’s support the motion that’s on the floor right now. And let’s do the dialogue and let’s challenge for the better earlier days than 2024 and this too late. Okay, so E, if I hear everybody’s intent, it possibly could be changed to say a communication be forwarded to the London Transit Commission, requesting information, including a presentation to the appropriate standing committee related to developing a sufficient industrial land strategy transit plan following the completion of the first quarter pilot program servicing the area.

So that is first quarter pilot program done, the first quarter of their pilot program done, gets to the strategy, gets them before us. We can ask some questions, have a dialogue, kind of aligns with what you’re saying, Councillor Frank, it’s still your motion. It is less than I wanted, but I’m eminently reasonable and I personally will accept that and I’ll see if the seconder will accept that. Yes, I’m also eminently reasonable, although I must say I am losing my patience with it.

Okay, so that’s in there. Is there any other debate on, you can refresh and see what that says now. Is there any, I guess there’s are any items that Council wants pulled separately as we move towards a vote on this? ‘Cause I don’t have a further speaker’s list.

Any items dealt with separately? Councillor Vame-Avergan. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor.

I’m looking at D. Maybe this is a question for the clerk. Is there a way to separate D with caps or have the first part as a small I in the second part as a double I, which would start right at which shall include the use of the climate emergency screening tool? ‘Cause I’d like to vote separately on that last bit that was added.

Is there a way to do that or a small A and a small? No, it’s already, we’d have to go in the eyes, I think. So that’s complicated to do. Why don’t you just try to make a motion to strike which shall include the use of the climate emergency screening tool and see if there’s support to do that as an amendment.

That way we can actually, ‘cause otherwise it’s a very awkward thing to try to divide the vote out. And the clerk says that that’s just not viable. It’s a natural separation point. It’s all part of one direction that is continuous.

So I think if you don’t like the second part of the direction, just try to make an amendment to strike it and see if you have a seconder. Yeah, I mean, I would like to move an amendment to strike that portion of it if there’s a seconder. Okay, is there a seconder to strike that portion of it? Yeah.

Within D to strike, which basically, Councilor Frank’s addition. So. Sure, comma. Okay, so that’s moved and seconded to strike that piece, Councilor Troso.

Well, that’s sort of the essence of what we were all trying to do. And I think we’ve been very accommodating in terms of looking at compromises here, but which will include the use of the climate emergency screening tool. You don’t want to do that, really? I mean, that’s something we’ve already agreed we’re gonna do on everything.

So I just don’t think that can be taken out unless you just wanna sort of render all of the amendments that we’ve been really working on under short notice in a reasonable way as just moved. So I really hope that people don’t support that because the Councilor Frank can speak to this, but I think that was one of the main points of why we undertook to make these amendments ‘cause we thought this needed to be more explicitly stated. Yes, what I will say is the amendment is in order. It does realign it, but you don’t have to support it, though.

Like we’ll have a vote on it. So that’s the next speaker I can go to, Councilor Vamirberg and then I’ll go to Councilor Raman. Well, I mean, the fact of the matter is we’re sitting here in a democratic institution and if one of us or several of us have a different viewpoint than so be it, it doesn’t have to always have unanimity. That’s not how local governments operate.

I don’t like that addition on that particular section of the motion and I will vote against it. Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you. Can I just clarify with staff again that each of the individual proposals that is brought forth for the use of land that is in this strategy comes forward with the climate emergency tool being applied?

Through your worship, it would be our standard practice to apply the climate emergency screening tool to all these types of activities. Okay, thank you. So here’s where I feel like we’re just picking words right now to go along with what we’re doing. I think we’re doing this.

I think we’re doing the climate emergency screening tool when we are absolutely needing to, which is when these proposals are coming to us as to how we’re going to use these hectares of land. What we’re trying to do right now in D is we’re trying to direct the undertaking of the industrial land needs assessment. So the assessment is one part of the strategy and then how we then based on the assessment, use the land is then where the tool is applied. That’s to me, the understanding of how that flows as a process.

I’m not sure what the benefit is of it being applied to the industrial land needs assessment as well as when we review the applications on the hectares of land. Like, I just need somebody, if it’s possible to explain to me where that benefit is, then I’d support it. But I see that we’re already doing this. I feel like I don’t want to add anything into this process that creates additional work for staff.

I think the recommendation in front of us, I think the work that’s been done has been great. I think this is incredibly important to our economy here in the city. And I want to see us move lightning speed on doing this. So that’s just where I’m at.

I just would like a better understanding of how this gets us further ahead. Your worship, I will try to provide some clarity on that. The climate emergency screening tool is part of the climate assessment framework. And it would apply to the industrial land’s needs assessment as a project unto itself, as well as to future development applications, the screening tool itself, to future development applications that come forward once that work is done.

So I think it’s actually both and, and I don’t think the nature of the work for staff will change. Having it in here reinforces that it’s being done. If we were to remove it from here, it would still be done as because we have direction from council on that. The only way we would not do it is if you were to direct us specifically to omit it on the industrial land’s needs assessment or on future planning applications associated with that outcome.

For clarity then, does this taking it out of the wording then remove it as an action that has to be done because it’s already council directed? So in turn, we’re kind of being redundant in the motion. I just want to make sure that if it’s already being done, it’s being done in great, but we’re not in now entertaining a motion that now takes it out. No, this is our method of separating, because the thing can’t be separated.

The only recourse for the council to vote against is part is to move an amendment to take it out. As staff have said, whether it’s in or it’s out, the same thing is happening because the previous council direction is there. If you want something different directed, you direct them not to do something. This is simply an amendment to remove that wording from the text of the motion, but it is not a direction to staff to take a different action.

Thank you. Go ahead, Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes, I just want to follow up on those comments because to me, the land needs assessment is a one time thing that we’re doing. And I really wanted to ensure that we’re using climbergency screen tool because I know that it has not been used on every single thing.

So I do think that I want to either, maybe perhaps I want to see the clarity that it has been thoroughly used with the land needs assessment. We’re going to be looking at, you know, what parcels of land makes sense to have industrial land. I think using the climbergency screen tool to understand these ones are not serviced by any transportation. So, you know, that’s probably not a great spot to put them or vice versa, we should swap out this residential land.

Like using the climbergency screening tool to me on this one time process and seeing the work of what considerations went into it is important for me to understand why we’ve chosen what industrial lands to develop and why we haven’t. So that’s why I want to include it. And I do appreciate that in the last couple of months we have been seeing screening tools being applied to the planning applications, that is new. And I have yet to personally, I don’t know, maybe I missed it, but yet to see it being used on an industrial application that’s come into us at PEC, although I am excited to see it, but I’ve mostly just seen it on residential planning applications.

And that’s in the last month and a half. So it is very new. And I think that until I see it consistently and I see the work included in the applications and in strategies, I’m gonna continue to add it pretty much everywhere because I don’t see it necessarily when I’m reading these documents. So that’s why I continue to add it in, because maybe it’s being done, but maybe it’s not included in the report.

So that is why I want to see it included very blatantly on this land needs assessment. Okay, that’s who I have for speakers on the amendment, just so I’m clear. Councilor Van Meerberg and his amendment is to remove the language. So if you vote for the amendment, you’re taking the language out.

It’s just a vote on the amendment, okay? If you want the language to stay in, you vote against the amendment. So we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, the motion is lost, six to nine.

Okay, so the language stays as is, I’ve got the whole motion before us. Can we vote on the whole motion now that everybody’s got their votes on the record on pieces of it? Yeah, I’d like to vote on D separately. Sure, we can vote on D separately.

So we’ll deal with A, B, C and E first, and then we’ll vote on D. So is there, I’ll see if the same mover willing to move A, B, C and E and seconder? Yes, okay, yes, okay. So same mover and seconder for just those pieces then.

So D is excluded on this vote. I’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, the motion is passed, 15 to zero. And now D, same mover and seconder, okay, yes.

Okay, so just on D, I will open that for voting. Councilor Pribble, closing the vote. The motion is passed, 12 to three. Okay, that concludes all of the components.

We’ve got all the motions we need on that. Good for everything else. Okay, that means we have completed the items for direction as well as the pulled consent item, deferred matters and additional business. I see none, a motion to adjourn.

Moved by Councilor McAllister, seconded by Councilor Stevenson. But we can do this by hand. All those in favor of adjournment? Motion’s passed.

Okay, we’re adjourned, thank you very much.