June 12, 2023, at 12:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 12:00 PM; it being noted that Mayor J. Morgan was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.1   2023-2027 Strategic Advocacy Framework

2023-06-12 Staff Report - (2.1) 2023-2027 Strategic Advocacy Framework

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023-2027 Strategic Advocacy Framework:

a)    that the attached, revised, 2023-2027 Strategic Advocacy Framework BE ENDORSED, it being noted that specific notation has been included to specific reference to working with Indigenous organizations and the inclusion of the example of the existing Giwetashkad Indigenous Homelessness Strategy in the Framework document; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with implementation of the Strategic Advocacy Framework;

it being noted that specific notation was made by the Committee with respect to advocacy regarding the rent control regime and other actions which would be included in the advocacy outcomes identified in the Report.

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Trosow

That part a) of the recommendation BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“a)  that the attached, revised, 2023-2027 Strategic Advocacy Framework BE ENDORSED, it being noted that specific notation has been included to specific reference to working with Indigenous organizations and the inclusion of the example of the existing Giwetashkad Indigenous Homelessness Strategy in the Framework document;“

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED, including the following:

“it being noted that specific notation was made by the Committee with respect to advocacy regarding the rent control regime and other actions which would be included in the advocacy outcomes identified in the Report.”

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.3   Declare Surplus - City-Owned Property - 652 Elizabeth Street

2023-06-12 Staff Report - (2.3) Declare Surplus - 652 Elizabeth Street

Moved by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to a City-owned property municipally known as 652 Elizabeth Street, being Part Lot 11, Concession 1, in the City of London, London Township, being part of PIN 08279-0210, and to be further described in a reference plan to be deposited (the “Subject Property”):

a)    the Civic Administration be AUTHORIZED to engage the Department of National Defence (DND) to release a restrictive covenant registered against the property, which limits the available uses with the property and complete any other duties as required by the Civic Administration in relation to the restrictive covenant; and,

b)    the declaring surplus the property located at 652 Elizabeth Street and potential associated sale BE DEFERRED to a future meeting the Corporate Services Committee, and upon the completion of part a), above.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Items 4.1 to 4.3, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.1   Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Terry Fox Week

2023-06-12 Submission - Proclamation-Terry Fox Week

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by H. McAlister

That based on the application dated May 19, 2023 from Terry Fox Run London, September 11-18, 2023 BE PROCLAIMED Terry Fox Week.

Motion Passed

4.2   Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Emancipation Month

2023-06-12 Submission - Proclamation-Emancipation Month

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by H. McAlister

That based on the application dated June 2, 2023 from W.E.A.N Community Centre, the month of August 2023 BE PROCLAIMED Emancipation Month.

Motion Passed

4.3   (ADDED) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Pride London Festival (Pride in London)

2023-06-12 Submission - Proclamation-Pride London

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by H. McAlister

That based on the application dated June 5, 2023 from Pride London Festival, July 13 to 23, 2023 BE PROCLAIMED Pride London Festival (Pride in London).

Motion Passed

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Councillor Expense Approval Request

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, notwithstanding current interpretations of the Council Members’ Expense Account Policy, the expense request from Councillor Lewis for a Canada Day Event advertisement, including contact information, in flyers and an on-stage banner in the amount of $300.00, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members only.)

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session to consider the following:

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

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

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

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

6.3  Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to reports, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation concerning labour relations and employee negotiations in regard to one of the Corporation’s unions and advice which is subject to solicitor client privilege and communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

6.4  Litigation/Potential Litigation/Matters Before Administrative Tribunals / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to the security of the property of the municipality or local board; litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

The Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session from 1:15 PM to 1:29 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 1:34 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (1 hour, 27 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the 12th meeting of the Corporate Services Committee. We’d like to begin by acknowledging that the city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, the Haudenosaunee, the Lene Peiwak, and Adawanderan peoples. And we honor and respect the history, languages, and cultures of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit. And as representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon requests. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact csc@london.ca, or phone 519-661-2489, extension 2425.

And I just want to let colleagues know that we have Mayor Morgan and Councilor Raman joining us by Zoom for this meeting. And Councilor Stevenson is not with us today. So far, I do understand she’s been ill. She may join us via Zoom if she’s able, but we’ll proceed without her at this point in time.

So first, I’m going to look for any disclosures of pecanary interest, seeing none from committee members. So we will move along to the consent agenda. I’ve been advised that there is a potential amendment for 2.1. I’ve been asked to also pull 2.3 as Councilors may wish to vote on that separately.

So that pulls everything apart, and we will deal with each separately. 2.2 will be the only one still left on the consent agenda without a consent to pull. So we will begin with that. The Industrial Land Development Strategy Annual Monitoring and Pricing Report.

The two items that I had requests to have pulled will move to the bottom of items for direction, and we will deal with them there. So I’m going to look for a mover and a seconder for the staff recommendation on the Industrial Land Development Strategy, and then we can move on to questions, comments from colleagues. Moved by Councilor McAllister, seconded by Councilor Ferreira. Okay, so that is on the floor.

I think just before we move to any questions or comments, I’m just going to ask Mr. Warner if he wants to provide a really brief, high-level commentary on the meat and potatoes of this report. Thank you, and through the chair. So we’re coming back about approximately a year later to council with a recommendation reporting actually, first of all, on the monitoring of the inventory of the Industrial Land Strategy.

And we’re also coming back with a recommendation for another slight price increase. We’ve been following the market very closely. We’ve had very good years throughout the pandemic and 2021, 2022. And so far in 2023, we have a number of sales and quite a few interested parties.

The industrial market in London and the region is still quite strong, although we are noticing that financing rates obviously are increasing and the stringent guidelines for financing is becoming a little more difficult for some of the purchasers. So we’re kind of monitoring that to see how that goes. The pricing we’re currently recommending as outlined in the report, we’re recommending an increase for Innovation Park for lots that are up to 4.9 acres, increasing the price from 175,000 per acre to 225,000 per acre. And for five acres and upsized parcels, we’re recommending a price increase of $200,000 per acre.

We’re also recommending the same pricing increase for the remaining lot interfog industrial park to 200,000 per acre, as well as innovation, or sorry, an innovation phase five, which is we’re hoping to have released later this year. We’re still in the process of servicing and developing that. We’re recommending a price increase of $300,000 per acre. We expect that to be a premium sought after parcels.

There should be hopefully three 68 parcels or some flexibility there, if necessary, to sever into smaller parcels. As well, there’s surcharges along the 401 exposure of 15% and the Veterans Memorial Parkway of 5%. We have a very healthy inventory at this stage as we reported to you with the update of the refreshed ILDS strategy, which Council has approved, but we are anticipating hopefully a very good year with a depletion of supply, ‘cause we have a strong demand still and hoping to bring forward a number of sales to you in the forthcoming few weeks and months. The effective date of the pricing is recommended for September to give some time to do some marketing and advertising.

Happy to have any questions. Thank you. Thank you for that, Mr. Warner.

Colleagues, I’ll now look for any questions or comments to staff. I’m seeing none from the committee, so I will go to Councilor Pribble as a visiting council. Thank you, sir, the chair to the staff. I have two questions.

The first one is, and I know page 41, it does state clearly that we monitor economic and local market together with the LEDC, but in terms of this pricing, has it been consulting with them this price? And do they feel comfortable with this pricing and also in comparison to the competitive municipalities? Mr. Warner?

Yes, thank you for the chair. Very good question. And yes, Kapil La Coache is part of our ILDS implementation team and we consult on a weekly basis with Kapil and his team at LEDC. We definitely consulted him with respect to this pricing recommendation.

We also canvassed other municipalities and with LEDC’s networking and ours as well. We reached out to compare our prices to the other closest competitive municipalities and those across the region. And we feel that this is a balanced approach that we’re recommending this increase. There’s some municipalities are increasing their prices quite a bit higher than London.

However, they don’t have as a refined, I’ll call it a targeted strategy as what London has. And we’re also being very competitive with St. Thomas and the closer municipalities as well. Councillor Perbeau?

Just to fill out. So the LEDC, they do feel comfortable with marketing these prices, the increase. Yes, students share it, absolutely, yes they do. Councillor Perbeau, anything further?

And one more question. And I know Windsor, I noticed they don’t have any land available right now, but the pricing, it says NA as well. And I was just curious that not available pricing for Windsor, is it because they don’t disclose it? Or what is the reason why we don’t have that pricing for Windsor, Mr.

Warner? Through the chair, I think that’s one of the municipalities that we have some difficulty receiving information. I think that their community improvement plan does cover the entire municipality. So they seem to have a much more competitive basis for offering pricing.

So we’ll have to do some more research with respect to that as a competitor. Thank you, Mr. Warner. Thank you very much, no more questions.

And I would love to see if we do have any update on Windsor, I would love to see and compress to them as well, but they are doing in that region. But thank you very much for all the answers, no more. I have no other colleagues on the speakers list, so I am going to, unless we have anyone for the last moment, I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the vote on this. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, five to zero.

Thank you colleagues, moving along in our agenda. There are no scheduled items under item four. We have three items for direction before we move on to the items that we’ve pulled from the consent. Those items for direction are all related to the issuance of proclamations.

In this particular meeting agenda, all of the proclamations have a connection to London. So I’m wondering if colleagues are amenable if we would have a mover and a seconder to move all three at the same time. Moved by Councillor, trust out, and seconded by Councillor McAllister. Any comments or questions?

Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open a vote on 4.1 through 4.3 inclusive. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, five to zero. Thank you colleagues, moving on. We have deferred matters additional business.

We have the two items that we pulled from consent. So we will start with 2.1, the 2023 to 2027 strategic advocacy framework. I am going to look first for a mover and a seconder to get the staff recommendation on the floor. And then we can entertain any discussion, any amendments and anything that we may wish to hear from further on that.

So I’ll look for mover and a seconder, moved by Councillor McAllister. I will second the staff recommendation so we can get that on the floor. Now we’ll move to questions and comments. Councillor, trust out.

Is somebody, who’s going to respond to who is here? Oh, sorry, Councillor. I will note that Mr. Thompson is with us on Zoom and we have other members of our GR team in the gallery who can respond to questions for us.

Thank you. I appreciate the care that’s been put into this report. I think this is a very important area of our work and I want to express my confidence in our very able staff here. And I guess this is just a question of how much detail we can go into in this framework because there are a few things that I think are very pressing right now.

And I’ll mention two. One is the need to reform our rent control regime. I think the city of London and the residents are suffering very badly because of some of the loopholes that are in particularly the rental eviction part of the act. And I would like to see some attention explicitly targeted to our advocacy on this issue.

And second, of course, we’ve had a lot of discussion about the effects of Bill C23 in terms of our finances, in terms of the effect on our ability to protect the environment, the effect on conservation districts. And I would like to see some, especially since some of these consultations are still underway. I would like to see something more explicit about that. I’m not making a motion at this point.

I want to see if others come forward that deal with this, but I’m wondering if I could get a general response. So I’ll start with Ms. Livingston in terms of how much detail should be in this versus big picture. And then, of course, if Mr.

Thompson or anyone else wants to weigh in, I’ll leave that to you, Ms. Livingston, to indicate that. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

If you look at page five, it lists the broad advocacy areas. These are at the outcome level of the strategic plan. And I think it would be safe to say that we would consider the current work we’re doing and the ongoing work that we would be doing with respect to Bill 23 and forgive me, I don’t recall the name of the act at this time, under the very first one. So that work is underway and ongoing, that it would be there.

The reform of rent control could find its home. I don’t believe that specific strategy under the strategic plan, under the second outcome area. But I can assure you, the first is there for sure. If Council wishes us to have a specific action around reform of rent control, then that’s easy to undertake, we just need that direction.

Thank you, Ms. Livingston. Thank you, that’s helpful. And I’m not sure I want to, I don’t want to disturb the structure of this report, but I’m wondering if it would be possible to get something in the recommendation that we actually pass and send on to Council, even if it’s in the nature of it being noted clause that Councilors expressed particular interest in this issue, this issue, and this issue.

And I think I’ll just yield for now and see what other people have to say. Thank you, Councilor. I’m going to go to Mayor Morgan next. Yes, thank you, Chair.

And thank you to the Councilor for his comments as well. I just want to mention two things about the strategic advocacy framework. First, I want to commend our staff for bringing forward the framework. This was a discussion that we talked about in the previous strategic plan.

And I think tried to do a good job of pulling together our various advocacy efforts in a more coordinated way. And I want to commend our city manager and the GR team for the work that they’ve done to ensure that the advocacy out of the mayor’s office at FCM, at AMO, as well as other organizations that the city has either been involved with at a political level or at a staff level to coordinate our efforts in an effective way. With the respect to the Councilor Trosa’s comments, I actually feel like everything you mentioned falls under points within the framework. And I can tell you on both of those matters, the Ontario big city mayors have been active in our advocacy on both Bill 23, as well as the linkage into the challenges that we face across the province with the changes that were made to rent controls and the types of evictions that the Councilor mentioned that don’t aren’t just occurring within the city of London, but of course, across the province.

So to me, that falls under two to a certain degree, but I wanted him to know that certainly both of those efforts are there and active, at least from the perspective of the work that I’m doing with the other mayors in the province of Ontario, particularly, I’m not sure how we would specifically add in the framework. I see this as a high level piece, but I certainly take his point about understanding better, kind of at that next level down, exactly the work that we’re doing and what that advocacy looks like on the ground. And so, I’m not sure what clarity we would seek at this point, but I think making sure Councillors are well aware of what this means on various issues is probably advantageous to having a wider understanding about how the strategic framework had a very high level of transitions into, you know, on the ground advocacy. Thank you, Mayor Morgan.

I’m gonna go to Councillor McAllister next. Thank you and through the chair. My question relates to, in terms of the wording, we have specific advocacy projects will be identified through the life of the framework that respond to these strategic advocacy priorities. And I do see that we will be receiving annual updates.

And I’m wondering to Councillor Trostow’s point, in terms of where our input can come from, whether we have to wait until the annual report to see what the work that’s being done today to offer some direction in terms of identifying projects or where we see advocacy being beneficial. Thank you. Ms. Livingston.

Through you, Mr. Chair, yes, you would receive the update on this complete document on an annual basis. However, we actually provide updates on advocacy activities on a project by project basis. So for example, you will have seen and will continue to see our advocacy efforts on health and homelessness through our monthly update.

In the recent climate emergency action plan report, you would have seen the advocacy efforts there. So it’s more real time on these various priority areas and then culminates in the annual reporting out. Councillor McAllister, you’re good? Okay, with committee’s indulgence, I’m gonna go to Councillor Hopkins next.

I know that she’s had some discussions with staff and she has an issue she’d like to raise and I think she has support from Councillor Ferreira and myself when she has some language to perhaps suggest as a minor amendment. So Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I wanna thank Councillor Chishol for his comments as well. I know on the AMO board, advocacy around Bill 23 is very important. And the reminder to all of us about the challenges around brain control and how we move forward. I am here today though to speak to an amendment or revised to the recommendation and really hope the committee will indulge me here.

I first of all would like to start to thank staff for bringing this strategic framework forward. It is an important tool. And I know during my time on the AMO board, I really do rely not only on the tool and the strategy but on the work that staff does to help me and support me in that advocacy. It’s really, really important, not only provincially but as well as federally.

I really am very fully supportive of the four strategic efficacy priorities. I know staff just touched upon the first two. I would like to however speak to the community partners section. You can find it on page seven where it talks about community partners and working with our community partners is very important.

And I’d like to speak to it from an indigenous lens as we as a corporation are committed to the truth and reconciliation that it be reflected in community partners. I think it’s important. Some facts Ontario represents about 23% of Canada’s indigenous population. It’s in Ontario and around 85% live in our municipalities.

I would think it’s to ensure our commitment to working alongside the indigenous communities. I would like to ask the committee to revise to add a revision under community partners and there’s two revisions that I’m asking the committee in the first paragraph that you add indigenous community. And in the second paragraph where it speaks to the initiatives that are partnerships that we include the Jefferson Indigenous homelessness strategy. With that Mr.

Chair, I’ll just look to the committee. I think this is an opportunity that we can strengthen this framework and even just add to the work that staff has done. So with that, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Ferrera.

Thank you and through you. I’ll start with thanking Councillor Hopkins for bringing that up and I am going to be motioning that to give that revision. I also wanted to thank staff for putting this together, bringing us this report and I am supportive of it. I just wanted to see those revisions in there as well.

So if I can, I would like to move that to add the revisions to the community partner section for the indigenous community on the first paragraph. Where it would be, you could, I guess I could leave that up to staff’s direction or we could put that right after relationships with community partners. And on the second paragraph, I would like to also see that revision for the indigenous homeless strategy as well, brought there as well. Thank you for that, Councillor and Councillor Hopkins did ask me prior to the meeting and I indicated I’m happy to second that with you.

We’ll move to Councillor Trussow to speak to this. I’m happy to second that. I think that specific language in the framework, whereas the other things which I may offer another amendment for are more of a illustrations. But I am going to second and support this.

Thank you, Councillor. And I’m just going to ask the clerk because this is a little bit policy wonky process in terms of this is a revision to the strategy that’s attached to a staff recommendation rather than an actual change to the staff recommendation. So I just want to give the clerk an opportunity to explain to colleagues before we have any further discussion or vote on this exactly what we are doing here. So, Clerk, can I ask you to just quickly give us an overview of this?

Thank you through the chair. This has been crafted as an amendment, which I will post and is available for viewing in eScribe. It recommends an amendment to Part A to read as follows, that the attached revised 2023 to 2027 strategic advocacy framework be endorsed. It being noted that specific notation has been included to reflect the specific consultation with indigenous organizations and the inclusions of the example of the existing, please forgive my pronunciation.

Georgia Westacad, indigenous homelessness strategy in the framework document. Thank you for that. So I just want to make sure colleagues understand. So we’re not referring this back.

We’re just providing direction to staff to revise the attached framework to this report. Council trust out. Yes, I think that’s wise. Otherwise we could spend a lot of time a wordsmithing a really well drafted document.

As long as we’re treating this as a it being noted clause, could we then also include a it being noted clause that refers to the two issues I talked about before as particular items of interest to council. And would that require a separate amendment or could that just be subsumed in this as a friendly amendment? So I think Councilor, the best approach to this is that we deal with the amendments that’s been put forward first. And then if we want to make some additional changes, deal with those separately.

Mr. Chair, term consultation has a very specific meaning with indigenous First Nations. And I think perhaps the intent of this was to recognize the important partnerships and work we do together. So I would ask that the consultation would not be used.

And also particularly when this work in the example that’s given is indigenous led and we are there to support. So perhaps it should just say specific to reflect working with indigenous organizations. Thank you. Okay, I apologize.

I wasn’t able to be helpful there. If you could repeat it, I can try to be. No, I think that we have heard that so that we would just rework it to say being included to reflect working with indigenous organizations and the inclusion of the example of the Kibhashta CAD indigenous homeless strategy in the framework document. And so we’ll remove that specific consultation and change that language to working with.

Councilor Hopkins. Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you for recognizing me. I agree, I think it’s really important.

This is under community partners. And I think that is where we want to reflect the indigenous community or organization and the work and the strategy that we already have in place. So thank you, Steph. Thank you for that.

And I do apologize. Councilor Ferrer, you were the mover of the motion. I just wanna make sure that you’re okay with that language. Thank you, through you.

Yes, that looks good. Thank you. And thank you to city manager for bringing that up. Mayor Morgan.

Yes, and to my colleagues, I very, very much appreciate the intent and I’m supportive of the intent that the colleagues are looking to add in here. I’m glad the city manager mentioned something ‘cause I was feeling the same thing. The indigenous communities are a combination of community partners and partner organizations as well as other sovereign nations that really don’t fit under the community partners banner. And we collaborate with both those sovereign nations as well as the community agencies representing indigenous work in many different ways.

Much of it is led by those communities. And so as much as I know, colleagues are trying to wordsmith this into the strategic advocacy framework, it may be advantageous given we don’t have to land on a final wording today, is to provide that direction back to staff to bring forward some revised wording so that it can be properly consulted on with our ARA O group and the liaison advisors that we have available to us. Perhaps in time for council in a manner that suits the very, very valid and I think important intent of the colleagues without getting ourselves into some sort of language challenges or not respecting our indigenous communities, their organizations, agencies and sovereign nations in the way that we should in this particular document. So those are just my thoughts for consideration.

I think there’s a way to do this to make sure that we land that intent in the document in a way that works very well and not without any unintended consequences and how it would be interpreted. Thank you, Mayor. So I’m just going to go quickly to Councilor Hopkins because I know she did have some discussions with staff about this. And then I know Ms.

Livingston indicated she has some thoughts on this as well. So I’ll go to Councilor Hopkins first and then to our city manager. Thank you. And I appreciate the mayor’s comments as well.

I would like to go to staff if they’ve got any concerns with the changes that we’ve just made. I am very supportive of this. I understand that I don’t know what we need to do to change this. I think the intent is that we recognize the indigenous community organizations and the strategy that we have already in place.

That’s all we’re doing is adding that to the framework. I think it is important. When we move forward with truth and reconciliation and all the work that needs to be done without getting too much into the weeds, I just want to keep it from at a high level with having it in the framework. Those are my comments and looking to staff for their comments.

Well, let’s get some words of wisdom from Ms. Livingston. Mr. Chair, we greatly appreciate the intent and direction that committee is providing us.

And what I would like to do is take it away and work with Mr. Thompson and his team. Specifically with respect to this section, it may actually even warrant indigenous led organizations section on its own and our commentary like what’s here. So I take the direction, the direction is clear that you wish us to revise it to be able to reflect this appropriately.

And I appreciate that very much and we’ll do our best to turn something around prior to council so that council can see it for your consideration at the next council meeting. I believe it would be a change to what is currently page 13 of the council agenda or page seven of the document. So Ms. Livingston, I just want to check in on what you just said because I want to be respectful of staff’s workload and timing and getting this back to council as well.

So is the recommendation, sorry, I know that that can be a very specific term too. Is the suggestion that the best approach here would be to refer this back for staff to make those inclusions or are these inclusions that you can simply work on before the next council meeting and bring forward a revised attachment when we reach council? Through you, Mr. Chair, that would be our intent.

The direction is quite clear. We know the area of the report. It’s a matter of working with our ARAO team and our government relations team and getting the language correct and submitting the page that would be amended. Okay, so I’m hearing we don’t need to refer this, just provide you direction to revise the framework before it arrives on the council agenda.

So we’ll see if there’s any further speakers to this at this point. Seeing none, give me just a moment while I discuss this with clerk. So I’m just gonna check in Ms. Livingston.

Do you need any specific language in this amendment requiring direction to civic administration? Because right now we have the attached revised strategic framework be endorsed, get being noted that. So do you need language that says be endorsed and civic administration be directed to include? No, I’m seeing us shaking of a head that we’re good with the language we’ve got, okay.

So we have no other speakers on the list at the moment. So I’m going to just ask the clerk to open the vote and this is on the amendment only. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed five to zero. Okay, moving along, I am going to suggest because we still have to deal with the main motion.

I did hear some desire from councilor Trussow to have an it being noted that civic administration heard the concerns raised by councilors with regard to advocacy around rent control and the impacts of bill 23. So councilor Trussow, I’m gonna look to you to see if you want to move on it being noted at this point that reflects those two issues so that it’s included. Yes, I think that would be it being further noted if there’s already an it being noted close, but that would satisfy my concerns. I don’t want to get into a lot of detail about what legislation we’re asking for because number one, this is a broad document and number two, there are a lot of other areas that I think are important that I don’t want to exclude.

So I think exactly what you just said would satisfy council’s interest in this without getting into too much specifics. So I would, if you just move that, I’ll second it. So the clerk has advised that we can include that as it being noted and we don’t have to have a separate vote on that, that can be part of the motion as we’ve now amended it. So we’ll just give her a moment to get that typed up and then that will be reflected in the main motion.

And that was moved by councilor McAllister and seconded by myself. So I’m just gonna check with councilor McAllister to make sure that he’s okay with, and he’s giving the thumbs up that he’s okay with the being noted, being added. So we’ll just give the clerk a moment to get that typed into the system for us. And while we’re waiting for that, I’ll go to councilor Hopkins.

Thank you for recognizing me, I appreciate it. I know I’m not part of the committee, but I just wanted to make sure that staff do not have that pressure of making, getting everything back to the next council meeting, which will be June 27th through you. I just wanna make sure it’s gonna be doable. And I’m seeing a nod from Ms.

Livingston that they can do that. So, Councilor Pribble, you had your hand up as well. While we’re waiting for the clerk, do you wanna offer some comments or questions? Yes, it is to 2.1 and on page 15, which is slide nine, we do have the seven points for the advocacy priorities.

And I was hoping that this committee and staff would consider, we have an era of focus while being in safety and the safety for Londoners and security of property. And as we are doing advocacy with other levels of government, the way I’m steering is the policing supports and more balance solution for Bill C-75 catch and release. And I think that when I went through these current seven points, I didn’t see the safety and security for Londoners’ address. And I would like this committee and the staff consider addition of this point.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Pribble. And I think the clerk has got, are we good to go and eat scribe? No, we still are gonna need a moment there.

So, I appreciate the comment Councilor Pribble. I don’t see anyone looking to make an addition at this point in time. This will come to Council, so, you know, while there is always an opportunity, I think that now is a good time to highlight for members of Council as well. That while this is the very high level advocacy framework, I know that Ms.

Livingston and Mr. Thompson and the team are always open to sitting down and discussing emerging priorities with members of Council. I would share that with regard to this particular priority. I think it’s important to note that we also have a new police chief at the moment and it’d be appropriate to have discussions with LPS as well before starting to add things into the framework right now for advocacy.

I think that staff would need an opportunity to consult with LPS as well. But I’m going to, I saw Ms. Livingston had her hand up, so I’m gonna ask her for a comment on this as well. Through you, Mr.

Chair, the purpose of the seven priorities is this is where we put a lot of our effort, budget submissions, pre-budget submissions, AMO work, OBCM work, FCM work. But it does not preclude issues specific items like the one that the Councilor just raised, where we do a lot of that. This is just to try and give us a roadmap on which we are very focused. This approach has proven to be very effective for us over the last number of years.

But it doesn’t preclude some of these single one-off issues, if you will, which would capture the one that the Councilor just mentioned. Thank you for that, Ms. Livingston. And I think that that’s a very important point is that, well, these are the high-level ones and are aligned with organizations such as FCM and AMO that we certainly keep our staff busy doing other things as well.

It’s not exclusively what’s here. I’m just gonna read out what we have in terms of the language for it being noted to make sure that colleagues are okay with this, it being noted that specific notation was made by the committee with respect to the potential revisions to the rent control regime and other actions, which would be included in the advocacy outcomes identified in the report. And that is an e-scribe now. So if colleagues need to take a look at that and give it some thought for a moment, we’ll just wait a few seconds here while people get a chance to read that.

I’m just gonna let colleagues know, I’ve suggested to the clerk that perhaps stronger or more appropriate language might be with respect to advocacy to the rent control regime rather than potential revisions and taking that advocacy language, advocacy regarding the rent control regime. I think Councilor Trussau’s happy with that language, Councilor McAllister, you’re the seconder, I’m seeing some nodding. I’ll just check in, Councilor Ferreira’s nodding as well on that. So we’ll just give the clerk a moment to make that slight adjustment.

And that is now in there. So it now reads it being noted that specific notation was made by the committee with respect to advocacy regarding the rent control regime and other actions which would be included in the advocacy outcomes identified in the report. Just look to see if we have any speakers to that. Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote.

Opposing the vote, the motion’s passed, five to zero. Okay, so that has been taken care of. We will move on now to item 2.3, declaration of surplus of city owned property at 652 Elizabeth Street. Councilor Trussau, you asked for that to be pulled.

So I will turn to you first to see if you have any questions before we look for a mover and a seconder for the staff recommendation. I’m just going to remind colleagues I’m not going to be entertaining a whole lot of debate. First, we can ask some technical questions. Then we need to get a motion on the floor and debate the motion, so.

But Councilor Trussau, I know you had some questions specific to this report. So I’ll ask, turn to you to ask your questions. Thank you, and through the chair, I just want to verify and make sure that there is not a current danger to public safety by being on the property, by walking on the property, by entering the property, or by putting small structures on the property, and the problem would be if there was major excavation. I just want to get really clear on that.

Mr. Warner. Thank you, through the chair. No, to our understanding, there is no public health safety, or safety issue as it relates to any of the subsurface, potential subsurface substances that may or may not be there.

There was remediation and a number of studies that were done previously, prior to the actual sale of the property. So we are not aware of any safety concerns, or health and safety concerns. Following that to the chair. In that case, this goes back to my ongoing concern that I’ve raised in the past about the level of notice that’s given through the property inquiry liaison report.

And I would like to know specifically if this declaration to declare this property surplus has been discussed with social service agencies and others who provide services as part of our response plan. Mr. Warner. - Yes, through the chair.

No, that would not have been undertaken through the policy and through our inquiry process. We look for, is there a identified municipal use for the property as it’s a municipal asset? Thank you. - Council, trust out.

Further through the chair. I would make, respectfully, I would make the argument that the implementation of our homeless response and other issues that could be using the property like this. Albeit, temporarily, is a municipal issue and that we shouldn’t be too rigid in terms of who we give notice to. So based on that, I’m not going to be supporting this recommendation and I would, I don’t know if a motion is needed or whether it just goes without saying.

I would like to see more inquiry being made on this question before we put this out on the market. ‘Cause I think there are some potential uses. And that’s why I started with my first question, but I’m not comfortable declaring this surplus, given it’s location and given it’s valuable location and given the need that we have right now to identify parcels that could be, that could be, maybe, not necessarily, but that might be of use to our response initiatives. So for that reason, I’m not going to be supporting this recommendation and I’m not going to, at this point, make another motion or amendment.

Thank you, Councillor. If committee will indulge me, I’m just from the chair going to ask Ms. Livingston perhaps with regard to the whole of community response system and the identification of potential locations that might be useful in that response. When I know that we still have to establish criteria around location appropriate facilities, but we would already be, because we are leading this in partnership with all of our community partners, but we would not be asking community partners to identify locations for hubs that we would be helping, like we would be an active partner in that.

There would not be a call out to them to go and find locations and come back to us for approval. Is that correct? I’m just trying to address the Councillor’s concern about other social agencies. With regard to hub locations, that is a process that will be dealt with in a partnership, not exclusively sent out to individual agencies.

Is that, am I understanding that correctly? Mr. Chair, we’re actually just, thank you for the opportunity for a brief commercial. We’re just about to embark on a series of community discussions asking the community for their input around criteria for the location of hubs or not where they shouldn’t be.

So we’re still a bit away from exact locations of where these may be. And that will be done in partnership with the community, also with the development community in terms of any opportunities that they may have that would allow us to move quickly. With respect to this particular property, from our perspective, the building would not be suitable for that kind of purpose. There are many aspects, which is why we haven’t used the building in a number of years where we used to use it.

There are considerable costs to repair or bring the building up to an AODA capability to be able to serve. So there are many, it just wouldn’t be feasible from that perspective, which is why we’re declaring it surplus for our immediate needs. However, to the councilor’s point about could others be available or wanting to use it? That’s the point of declaring it surplus so that others may be able to have access to it.

So just to add those additional comments. Thank you for that clarification there. Again, if community will indulge, I’m gonna ask one additional question. As I see Ms.

Smith is on the line with us. I do know at one point we were using the tea block for storage of different recreation inventory equipment that we didn’t have other places to store at the time. Well, tea block was having some repairs made to it. Is that recognizing obviously that we’re declaring that surplus has recreation and neighbors, I guess I should say neighborhood services ‘cause we’re not parks and rec anymore.

Has neighborhood services been able to find sufficient storage space on other sites? Thank you. And yes, for the chair, we have storage site actually just behind Carling Heights often in this community center. And that’s where we’ve stored all our neighborhood decision making in our outdoor movie kits.

There’s better accents we can drive right up to the front door, load our vehicles and leave again. Thank you, Ms. Smith. I just wanted to make sure you weren’t gonna be asking to store anything in my office because if you’ve seen it lately, there’s no room for anything else.

I’m going to look to see if there is a mover and a seconder for the staff. Oh, we’ve got a question from Councilor Ferreira. Thank you and through you. Just hearing, I guess the comments that were made to tea block and what we’re gonna be doing with it in the future.

And I do remember reading in the report that it was part of the winter response. It was a building that was serving for the winter response initiative that we were doing. I just wanted to know, I am worried just because we’re looking at the locations for the hubs and what locations are appropriate and which locations are not appropriate. And if we do get to that point with consultation with the community and we do happen to find that maybe that was an appropriate place after the fact that we put it up for sale, I just wanted to know, I’m concerned with that.

And I just wanted to know if, is it possible, maybe if we declare it surplus for sale, maybe we give the community for the whole community response, maybe a first right of refusal for the property if it does so it can still be captured within consideration or anything like that. ‘Cause I just don’t wanna to offload it and then find out after the fact that it might possibly be appropriate as Livingston. Through you, Mr. Chair, the building was not used for winter response, the property was used.

So trailers were put on the property, we had lots of learnings, it wasn’t used a second time. However, if count, and I will say that on July 19th, coming to SPPC will be the recommended, the hub table is busy doing the work right now, working hard to bring forward a recommended plan for the first five hubs to get them up and running this year and in that it will include the criteria for the location, not the specific locations because they’ll have to be a process to get to that. If council is concerned about making a decision with respect to this property against that discussion at the risk of upsetting my colleagues here, council could choose to defer until you’ve seen the July 19th plan. Thank you, Ms.

Livingston. The council spoke to the right of first refusal and I think it’s perhaps appropriate to see Mr. Warner. If you can provide us some commentary from a legal realty perspective, I’m not sure that we have anyone from the city solicitor’s office able to answer that, but from a realty perspective, whether or not we even have the opportunity to offer a right of first refusal or whether we have to go out to the market.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do have, I think Mr. Carter or perhaps Mr.

Tardivardi might have been available. I don’t really think this would be a legal issue. I think that the main issue here is the AOD requirements and the feasibility of that. And so council could choose to provide that first right of refusal or option two, whichever organization you’d like to.

Now the policy of sale and other disposition of land does provide for a very open, fair, transparent and competitive process. So that’s one factor to keep in mind as well. Thank you for that, Councillor Trussau. And we’ve asked a lot of technical questions.

So I’m going to be looking for a motion here. And I will just point out one motion is one potential is the staff recommendation go forward and then it be defeated and something else come forward or an alternate motion. Councillor Trussau. Thank you.

I want to make it really clear that I am not in raising concerns about this declaration of surplus. I am not suggesting that the city undertake the presumably enormous expense of bringing this building up to code for purposes of becoming a habitable housing unit. I’m more interested in the land around it right now which might involve some type of use of the building but not as a primary residence for people. I’m wondering out loud and I would like some guidance from other members of the chair or staff.

Would it makes more sense to move an amendment to defer this or would that be contrary and require voting this down? If we vote this down, it would be without, I would want to make it clear that it’s without prejudice to bring this up again if after we go through this process there are no other ideas. My main policy concern here and at some point I will be asking to bring forward amendments to this by-law. My main overriding policy concern here is that more parties than the usual get notice of this process perhaps even a public notice in a media, I didn’t say newspaper, I said media.

So I still am opposed to passing this right now whether that takes the form of voting it down or doing an amendment I will like to hear from others. Thank you. So I’m gonna get some comment from Mr. Warner and then I’ve got Mayor Morgan and then Councilor McAllister on the speaker’s list.

Mr. Warner. Thank you through the chair. So the first comment with respect to opportunities for the land that is being looked at with our municipal housing division alongside with our parks and forestry are working together on a portion of those lands that they think could be identified for a future affordable housing project adjacent to this particular property.

And in regards to advertising as per the policy we do decide to advertise these types of property or declaration of surplus when Council has decided that we do an advertising public notices as well. Thank you and I’m gonna go to Mayor Morgan next but I just want to from a process perspective and Mr. Warner you referenced the affair and transparent the declaration of surplus actually has to happen before we can advertise this is the procedurally that correct. Yes Mr.

Chair that’s correct. Okay so just so colleagues are clear we cannot advertise this around until we declare it surplus. If Councilor Trussow. There is nothing that would preclude us from advertising that we are considering declaring it surplus.

What we would be what we would be precluded from would be offering it for sale if we didn’t declare it as surplus. There is nothing that would preclude our process from being more transparent in terms of our declaration to declare something surplus. Thank you. I’m gonna go to Mayor Morgan next.

Chair I’ll be brief. I think we can move forward with a number of these items getting the authorizing civic administration to engage with DND to release the covenant is probably something that we want to do no matter what happens. So you know whether or not people want to defer the declaration of surplus for now. I think we can move forward with parts of this recommendation irrespective of that.

You know once that covenant is released we can make the declaration then. I will tell you though like I don’t think speculating on the use of the land is particularly helpful. I wouldn’t want to get ahead of the health and homelessness work and start to make people think that we’re starting to look for specific properties in this way when we’re really we’re trying to have a very open and transparent discussion with the public on the criteria around which the hubs would be located. So I know colleagues brought that up but I would be very clear that like no decisions have been made on that nor should we speculate on those pieces.

So if you’re looking for a motion I’m happy to move part B for now and part A and C can come back. You know once we know that the covenant has been released and civic administration can report back to us to say the covenant has been released. You can now declare the land surplus and put it out for sale. Colleagues have a little bit of time and we could do this as a two step process if necessary but if you need a motion I’d be happy to do that.

It seems like a path forward that looks like it’s reasonable for everybody. Now I would say I’m willing to just declare it surplus today but I understand that colleagues might want a little bit of time to understand our processes better. Thank you Mayor Morgan. So I’m just gonna be clear you’re putting a motion on the floor.

So you’re moving staff recommendation part B and you are suggesting that part A and C be deferred until the outcome of part B is obtained. So we’re giving the clerk a moment to get some specifics there. Let’s see if there’s a seconder for that particular motion. Councillor Ferrera is willing to second that.

So we are going to continue now. We’ve got a mover and a seconder while the clerk is getting that language together. That part B be approved and that part A and C be deferred until such time as part B is complete. And I’ve got Councillor McAllister who was on the list to speak to the issue before we had a motion but we’ve got a motion now so Councillor McAllister if we can, if you wanna speak to the motion now that’s on the floor I’ll go to you next.

Thank you through the chair. I don’t know if this would be seen as a friendly amendment but just based off of what I’ve heard today and to Ms. Livingston’s comments in terms of July 19th being when the homeless, the hub locations in terms of the criteria. I understand Mayor Morgan’s comments in terms of not honing in on any locations but in the lead up to that and as we haven’t seen that criteria I would like to keep our options open and I think it would be wise of us to at least push this until after July 19th.

And I’m just looking at the calendar as we’re speaking and I believe the next corporate services after that would be August 14th. So I would ask that we defer that until August 14th. Thank you. So Councillor McAllister, I just wanna check back with you the mayor’s motion is that the declaration of surplus and the offering of the property for sale be deferred until after the D&D covenant is removed.

That may take a while. The federal government may not be interested in moving as quickly as we are. And I see Ms. Livingston had a comment there.

So Ms. Livingston. Yes, Mr. Chair, it may take some time and I would like to strongly reiterate that the building would not be appropriate for the functions of a hub.

And we are nowhere near saying where the locations are. The community is only beginning the conversation of the criteria for where hubs can be located which also are dependent on the populations for the first few. So I don’t wanna presume anything here. The community is in the midst of doing that work and we will be engaging with the community this week to hear their thoughts about it as well.

So yes, I understand the interest and potential connection, but I wouldn’t like the broader community to think that this is the set location, any of that, right? We’re at the very beginning of that work and Council will have the decision on July 19th on the criteria for the first five. Thank you for that. So the motions in E-Scribe now, the clerks typed it up.

So I just wanna make sure everybody’s aware that that motion is now there. And then I will go to Councilor Ferreira. So without reading the whole lot pin number piece, it is that A, civic administration be authorized to engage the Department of National Defense to release the restrictive covenant and B, the declaration of surplus and the potential associated sale be deferred to a future meeting upon the completion of part A. So that’s the motion that’s on the floor right now.

Councilor Ferreira. Thank you and through you. So I feel like this motion is well crafted or just the way it is right now set by the mayor just because I don’t wanna see staff and their work be kind of postponed a little bit more than it needs to be. And I do see the concerns raised by city manager basically saying we don’t want to kind of lock in and say that this is or speculate that this is gonna be an area.

Like I just don’t wanna like, which was discussed, preclude that area from the discussion and it doesn’t necessarily have to be the system response. It could also be for our housing initiative in general as well. So just the way the motion is right now, I see that it is taking that restrictive covenant away which is obviously what we would like to do as a first step or not as a first step, but the declarative or the declaration of surplus I guess would be the first step. But I do see that this shouldn’t push or delay staff’s work anymore and also kind of leave us and leave that property open for discussion or for whatever the initiative might be.

So I just wanted to just confirm that just with staff that you would still be able to move along with the process that you’re moving with and we would still be able to have this open for discussion in the future for whatever the land might be situated for. So I just wanted to make sure that that’s okay on the staff side. Well, let’s just check in with staff on that. Mr.

Warner. Thank you through the chair. No, I don’t believe that’s going to be a major issue. Obviously we’ll continue to property manage and secure the property.

I can say we haven’t had those discussions with the Department of National Defense. I’m not sure where they’re going to go. I think the purpose of that restrictive covenant was in relation to other lands that they have sold since. And so I’m going to be cautionless, cautiously optimistic that we can negotiate that.

And if we can’t, we’ll report back to you as part of item B. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Warner.

I have no other speakers on this. So I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote. Yeah, there’s no amendment. It’s an alternate motion.

Opposing the vote, the motion’s passed five to zero. Thank you, colleagues. We are still on deferred matters, additional business. Chair.

Yes, Mayor Morgan. I just have to let you know, just so you know, I have to leave the meeting now. I’m vice chair of an AMO Finance and Development Committee. And I’m just going to take my leave and depart for that.

But you’re fine for quorum, since I can’t see the room, I assume. We are fine for quorum. And if you can get us any financing supports from AMO while you’re there, we’re happy to send you off to go and get us additional financial supports. All right, I’ll be off doing strategic advocacy.

Thank you, all right. Okay, colleagues, moving on. So we are still on deferred matters and additional business on Friday. Deputy Clerk Korman circulated a communication from me that was unfortunately too late to make the added agenda.

But colleagues did receive that by email. So I’m going to ask Councillor Trussow to take the chair and then I will speak to my additional item. Thank you and I’d like to call on Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Trussow.

So colleagues, you will have received the communication. Many of you are already on the governance working group. So you are well aware that we are reviewing our current language in the council expense policy to allow some more flexibility and judgment on our part. I’m asking for your leave today.

And this is the unfortunately the process we have to do. And it is time sensitive because if I cannot confirm my space, well, basically by the end of the day today, so I’m hoping that if this passes committee, it will continue to have council support because otherwise I will be having to take that expense out of pocket, but I’m asking for your leave that notwithstanding the current interpretations of the council member’s expense account policy, that the expense account request from myself for a candidate event advertisement be including contact information in flyers and in an on stage banner in the amount of $300 be approved. And I will happily speak a little bit more to my ask here if I’ve got a seconder for that. Mr.

  • Are there any other speakers? Councillor Ferrella. Thank you and to you, I would like the Deputy Mayor to speak a little bit more on that if you don’t mind. Louis, Deputy Mayor Louis.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. So colleagues, I did submit this to the clerk. The recommendation came back that it was not consistent with the expense policy language currently because the expense policy language specifically refers to newspaper advertisements.

This is an event publication. It will be distributed throughout the East End at several BIA businesses at our East London Library. It’ll be posted on social media channels as well. So there’ll be digital advertising involved in addition to the print component of this.

There was a, you know, and unfortunately we’re dealing with outside organizations. There was also some language, even though it’s an advertising piece, it was referred to as a sponsorship, which of course our council expense policy has some restrictions on, but really my argument to you in bringing this forward is that this is advertising. This is not a sponsorship. I’m not asking to give $300 for no benefits.

There will be something to the area of about 10,000 print flyers distributed in the ward and in other wards as well. In more, wow, one in ward three, I would expect because this is the first time in three years that a community candidate day celebration is returning. This was a longstanding tradition by the East London Optimists Club. Then we had a pandemic and although last year we had restrictions removed by the summer, unfortunately when you’re booking and planning a large event like this, attendance is often in excess of 10,000 people.

You have to do things like book the mobile stage, book the port of parties, book security as early as January, February, if not even before then. And of course we are still in lockdown protocols last January. And so the decision was made not to advance a 2022 candidate day. So this will be the first one in three years.

We’re really hoping to get a whole lot of people back out. There’ll be all kinds of community activities happening at East Lions Community Center during the day. This is also the first time in for five years that it’s been able to return to East Lions because we did have the construction of a community center happening. So really promoting and advertising that we’re back and we’re back at East Lions is really a key component of this.

Our MP and our MPP are participating as well and I’d really like the opportunity to participate as a counselor. And I will happily say I have no problem justifying this expense on the public reporting of my expense account to my ward residents and I genuinely don’t believe that they would have a concern with me devoting some of my expense account to this purpose. Are there other speakers? Yes.

Thank you through the chair. Thank you to the deputy mayor for giving that information. I just have a couple of follow up questions. So I think you might have answered the first one.

So we’re looking to just give you I guess a case, a temporary ability to use your expense account funds for this type of advertising right now. So it’s not an additional 300. It’s coming out of your 15,000. Okay.

And the next one, okay, so you’re looking for flyers and a banner. I was just wondering, just looking at the expense account policy itself for the flyers in the banner. So what exactly would be, if you can, if you’re able to describe what would be on the banner and the flyers themselves? Absolutely.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. And thank you for the questions, Councillor Ferrera. I’ll just verbally confirm, yes, the 300 is from my existing 15,000 dollar ward expense account.

I’m not asking for an additional amount. What I’m asking the committee to do is interpret this as advertising, not as sponsorship. In terms of the flyers and banner themselves, this is being designed by the Argyle BIA. This is not being designed by myself or by the Optimus Club.

So in terms of what the specific physical items will look like, I can’t speak specifically to the final design of the flyer because I haven’t seen it myself. I’ve only been discussing with them my ability to put an ad in. With regard to the banner, typically this goes on stage below where the MC is, below where the bands and stuff perform. And it typically is the logos, you know, names and photos or logos of the businesses, the public organizations, the elected officials, the community organizations that have been part of organizing and bringing the event together.

In my case, an expense that was approved is I am providing two hours of free swim at East Lions. So that’s my contribution to the community activities that day. So that is a promotional piece underneath the stage in addition to the flyers. And it’s just included as a package.

It’s banner and flyers. There’s no package that’s just flyers ‘cause my understanding is they’re gonna produce one graphic thing and send it off to their print people to get both things done at once. Thank you, thank you. I’d like to make a comment if Councilor McAllister would take the chair for a moment.

We’re running out of people. Recognizing I have the chair, go ahead Councilor Rossell. Thank you very much through the chair. I was very concerned when I saw this request and my initial reaction was no, because I’ve got similar issues in my ward and you could always try putting in the request.

After speaking with the Deputy Mayor in more detail, he addressed my concerns. As you know, I’ve taken the position with respect to the ability of Councillors to have a little bit more latitude, not to ask the taxpayers for more money, but to spend the money that’s already in their accounts. And I think this is something the governance committee is going to have to deal with. Something will come forward to Council, but as it’s been explained to me, to my satisfaction, this is time sensitive.

Therefore, I am going to be supporting the request and I’ll be voting yes on this motion. Do you want to speak again, Deputy Mayor Loose? Okay, Deputy Mayor Loose, go ahead. Thank you.

And I just want one additional point because I just wanted to make sure that Councillors are all aware. This is on the governance working group agenda already. It will be an item for discussion at the June 26th meeting. It is something that we’ve already directed governance working group to Councillor Trussau’s point.

We have to make a decision on this governance working group and forward a recommendation to SPPC. Unfortunately, the process for that means probably we won’t be seeing any changes come forward for final approval until the fall. So it is just a time sensitive matter on this particular item. I return the chair to Deputy Mayor Loose.

I have no speakers on the list. Councillor Ferrera. Thank you through you. I guess I’ll keep this quick.

Thank you to the Deputy Mayor for clarifying some of the things you have spoke to my satisfaction as well. So for the record, and I guess you’ll see it on my vote, but I’ll be supporting it as well. Okay, we have exhausted our speakers list on this. So I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote.

Using the vote, the motion’s passed four to zero. Thank you, colleagues. That concludes the public portion of our agenda. We do have four items for which we need to move into confidential session on.

So I’m going to look for a mover and a second or to move into closed session. Moved by Councillor Ferrera, seconded by Councillor McAllister. Just for the benefit of the public, we will be going into closed session for matters related to land acquisition, client solicitor privileged advice. We will be going into closed session for labor relations and employee negotiations matters.

And finally, litigation, potential litigation matters before administrative tribunals, forceless or client privileged advice as well. So for those reasons, we will be dealing with four items in confidential session. And I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Using the vote, the motion’s passed four to zero.

Thank you, colleagues. We’re just going to need a minute to rearrange things here. Recording in progress, recording stopped. Clerk has informed me we are now up and running to be back in public session.

So I will look to Vice Chair Trussell to report out on our confidential session. Thank you very much through the chair. At the June 12th meeting of the corporate services committee, our 12th meeting, the committee considered six confidential matters. 6.1 was with respect to a land acquisition solicitor client privileged advice, position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations.

And this was a matter of pertaining to ending acquisition of land by the municipality. The second, the second matter 6.2 was also with respect to land acquisition. This was a matter pertaining to the proposed depending lease building by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose. The third matter was a labor relations issue, employee negotiations, including solicitor client privilege.

A matter pertaining to reports, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the corporation concerning labor relations and employee negotiations in regard to one of the corporation’s unions was considered. And finally, 6.4 litigation or potential litigation matters before administrative tribunals. A matter pertaining to the security of the property of the municipality or local board litigation or potential litigation, including matters before tribunals affecting the municipality or local boards, including advice that is subject to the solicitor client privilege. And I will report that progress was made on all four of these matters.

Thank you, Vice Chair Trussow. And that concludes our agenda colleagues. We now simply need a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Ferrera, seconded by Councillor McAllister.

That’s a hand vote. All those in favor? That motion’s passed. Thank you, everyone, and if you haven’t had enough of committee work today, planning and environment committee begins at 4 p.m.