July 19, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

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

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.1   London Community Grants Program Policy Update

2023-07-19 Staff Report - London Community Grants Program Policy Update

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the London Community Grants Policy:

a)    the attached, revised, proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to repeal and replace By-law No. CPOL.- 38-234, as amended, entitled London Community Grants Policy; and,

b)    the report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

Voting Record:

Moved by S. Lewis (Acting Mayor)

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the proposed Community Grants Policy update, BE AMENDED to revise the definition of “Unincorporated grassroots group” to read as follows:

“refers to a group of five or more individuals joined by mutual consent for a common, non-profit purpose…”

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED:

“That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the London Community Grants Policy:

a)    the attached revised proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to repeal and replace By-law No. CPOL.- 38-234, as amended,  entitled London Community Grants Policy; and,

b)    the report BE RECEIVED for information.”

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Master Accommodation Plan - Alternate Work Strategies Update

2023-07-19 Staff Report - MAP-Alternate Work Strategies

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the consideration of the entire matter of Item 4.1 BE REFERRED to the Municipal Council meeting of July 25, 2023 for disposition.

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Voting Record:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the delegation requests of J. Zaifman, London Home Builders’ Association and M. Wallace, London Development Institute BE APPROVED to be heard at this time; it being noted that a communication from C. Butler was also received.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

In accordance with section 33.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, the following motion, with the consent of the committee and at the joint request of the mover and seconder is withdrawn.

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Master Accommodation Plan and alternative work strategies:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate a competitive procurement process to develop and implement the Master Accommodation Plan guiding overall space needs and the redevelopment of the existing City Hall Campus site which will accommodate Civic Administration and governance functions in modernized facilities to support effective service delivery, sustainability, and alternative work strategies;

b)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to immediately conclude any current Alternative Work Strategies in the Planning and Economic Development service area(s), and return to pre-COVID business and work locations;

c)    the implementation of Alternative Work Strategies (AWS) in services areas other than those noted in part b), above, BE CONTINUED.

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That consideration of part a) of the motion BE REFERRED to later in the meeting to be considered following the closed session portion of the meeting.

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the referral BE AMENDED to refer consideration of the entire motion until following the closed session.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the referral, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Master Accommodation Plan and alternative work strategies:

a)    the report dated July 19, 2023, with respect to an update on the Master Accommodation Plan, and alternate work strategies BE RECEIVED;

b)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate the conclusion of any current Alternative Work Strategies in the Planning and Development and Building service area(s), and return to office locations full time by or before November 1, 2023; and,

c)    the implementation of Alternative Work Strategies (AWS) in services areas other than those noted in part b), above, BE CONTINUED.

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the motion BE AMENDED to include the following new part d):

“d)     Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include an economic assessment for downtown local businesses from implementation of flex work from any alternative work strategy implementation, to the fullest extent possible in the timeline provided.”

4.2   Consideration of Appointment to the Eldon House Board of Directors (Requires 1 Member)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Bryan McClure BE APPOINTED to the Eldon House Board of Directors for the term ending November 14, 2026.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Voting Record:

Consideration of Appointment to the Eldon House Board of Directors.

Majority Winner: Bryan McClure

4.3   Consideration of Appointment to the London Hydro Board of Directors (Requires 2 Members)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the following actions be taken with respect to appointments to the London Hydro Board of Directors:

a)  Tim Watson and Cedric Gomes BE APPOINTED to the London Hydro Board of Directors as First Class Members for the term ending the close of the annual meeting of the shareholders to be held in 2025 for the financial year ending December 31, 2024; and,

b)  the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to ratify and confirm the Resolution of the Shareholder of London Hydro Inc.;

it being noted that Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated July 7, 2023 from C. Graham, Chair, Board of Directors, London Hydro Inc. with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Voting Record

Consideration of appointment to the London Hydro Board of Directors.

Majority Winner: Tim Watson; Cedric Gomes

4.4   Request to Amend Current London Transit Commission By-law - C. Roy, Secretary, London Transit Commission

2023-07-19 Submission - LTC By-law Change Request

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the following actions be taken with respect to amending the current by-law A.-6377-206, a By-law to continue the London Transit Commission:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law to amend By-law A.-6377-206, to add two more voting members to the London Transit Commission, using an accessibility lens for the selection of at least one of the proposed new Members, bringing the Commission to a total seven members; and,

b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to begin a recruitment for up to two members of the public, supporting the above-noted proposed new members such that consideration that the additional Commissioners may be in place for December 1, 2023 to allow time for application, appropriate selection and appointment;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated June 14, 2023 from C. Roy, Secretary, London Transit Commission with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.5   2nd Report of the Governance Working Group

2023-07-19 Submission - GWG Report-Complete

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Governance Working Group:

a)   the following actions be taken with respect to the meeting dates for the Governance Working Group (GWG):

i)    the next meeting of the GWG BE SET for Thursday, July 27 at 1:00 PM; and, 

ii)    the Clerk BE DIRECTED to establish monthly meeting dates for the GWG;

b)   the attached 2024 draft meeting calendar BE APPROVED and BE FORWARDED to the Municipal Council for approval;

c)   the current council policies (item 4.1) BE REFERRED to the next meeting of the Governance Working Group; it being noted that the recent legislative changes related to the Strong Mayor implementation may impact changes to these policies;

d)  the following actions be taken with respect to a Ward Boundary Review:

i)    the Memo dated June 26, 2023 and entitled “Governance Working Group”, BE RECEIVED;

ii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward to the next meeting of the Governance Working Group the following:

A)    population projections through to 2026, including post-secondary student enumeration to the fullest extent possible;

B)   a draft Terms of Reference for consideration to commence an independent third-party consultant to undertake a comprehensive ward boundary review for the City of London, with a report back prior to the end of 2024;

C)   a potential addition to the above noted Terms of Reference related to a governance review to accompany the ward boundary review as may be appropriate; and,

e) clauses 1.1 and 2.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.6   Intimate Partner Violence and Femicide - Mayor J. Morgan

2023-07-19 Submission - Intimate Partner Violence and Femicide-J. Morgan

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication from Mayor J. Morgan regarding Intimate Partner Violence and Femicide as an epidemic:

a)   the issues of violence against women and girls in London BE RECOGNIZED as serious to the health and wellness of local families; it being noted that the City of London is committee to engaging with community partners to educate and support our residents about the seriousness and long-term danger of violence in our community;

b)   Intimate Partner Violence and Femicide BE DECLARED an epidemic;

c)   the Mayor BE REQUESTED to advocate the following:

i)  that the Province of Ontario declare, in accordance with Recommendation #1 of the Renfrew Inquest, that Intimate Partner Violence is an epidemic; and

ii)  that the Government of Canada be requested, in accordance with Recommendation #79 of the Renfrew Inquest, to explore adding the term “Femicide” and its definition to the Criminal Code to be used where appropriate in the context of relevant crimes; and

d)   this resolution BE CIRCULATED to The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, The Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, The Honourable Marci Ien, Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth of Canada, The Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, The Honourable Charmaine A. Williams, Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity, The Honourable Parm Gill, Minister of Red Tape Reduction, the London Police Services Board, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and the Ontario Big City Mayors caucus;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication from J. Rodger, LCCEW Co-Chair, Executive Director, Anova and J. Dunn, LCCEWA Co-Chair, Executive Director, London Abused Women’s Centre with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members only.)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee convenes in Closed Session to consider the following:

6.1  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 acquisition or disposition 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  Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

 

A matter pertaining to information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation pursuant to subsection 239(2)(h) of the Municipal Act, 2001 and the subject matter being considered is a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instructions to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality pursuant to subsection 239(2)(k) of the Municipal Act.

6.3 Personal Matters/Identifiable Individual 

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

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee convenes in Closed Session from 6:00 PM to 8:41 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 10:47 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (4 hours, 12 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. I am going to call the 19th meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to Order. It will begin by acknowledging that the City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Bodunashoni, Lene Peiwock, and Adarwanderan peoples. And 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, Meeti, and Inuit residents today. 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. I also want to make note 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 phone 519-661-2489, extension 2425.

Colleagues, I will begin by looking for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, I also want to note that Councillor Hillier and Councillor Palosa are with us virtually via Zoom. And I have been advised that Mayor Morgan will try to join us later in the meeting, pending the schedule with the conference he’s attending and the travel. I do not have any, I have not heard from Councillor Van Merberg and I am anticipating he will be joining us at some point though.

So moving on, we have one item on the consent agenda. This is the London Community Grants Program Policy Update. So I am going to look to see if we have a mover and a seconder for the staff recommendation and then we can entertain any conversation debate amendments moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Ferreira. So that is on the floor and I will look now for any comments or questions for our staff.

Councillor Trussow. Thank you very much and through the chair, London Community Grants Program Policy Update. Thank you for bringing this. I did have several questions about this at a previous meeting and you’ve certainly answered most of them but there’s one outstanding question that I still don’t have and I’m not sure we can deal with it today.

It might be more of a budget question but it’s my position and I’ve expressed this publicly before that we need to provide more resources to this program and I can’t add to the funding today but what I can ask for is without without identifying unsuccessful applicants, would there be a way to show and I’m gonna call it lost opportunities, would there be a way to demonstrate the lost opportunities that we did not get the benefit from because of the level of funding that this program gets and my intention here to be quite honest is I think we need to be putting more resources into this program and I’ve expressed that to you but is there something we can do to show to Council and the public that there are just so many great, without identifying them that there are just so many great unsuccessful applicants that we need to expand this and that’s my question. Well, let’s go to staff and we will start with Miss Smith. Thank you and through the chair, we did a quick analysis of the multi-year funding stream. So the grants that were applied for between 2020 and 2023 and then we also looked at the most recent 2023 innovation and capital applications.

So when we looked at the number of applications that came in and those that were successful and then we looked at the rationale, those that weren’t successful. They may not have lined with Council’s strategic plan, they may have had other sources of funding. There may be many reasons why they were not eligible for the community grants program. And so when we looked at both streams, there’s approximately maybe 25% of those applications that were not successful may have been successful if there was additional funding or resources.

Thank you, Miss Smith. And here’s my answer. Thank you, Councilor Trussow. And just to say also to the chair, I really love what you’ve done here and I think these are going to be very, very useful improvements.

Through the chair, thank you. Any other Councilors? Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you.

I appreciate again the updates that have been provided here and the level of thought that has been put into how to structure these changes so that they meet the needs of the community. I did have two questions. One is on section 4.1 C. It’s specifically around, I see our intent with trying to engage the broader community in and then specifically those that are serving equity denied groups.

But how do we ensure or how do we strike a balance? With funding the organizations that we know and that have established themselves in the community for perhaps some time, but still have a very small base of support in that equity denied group versus the broader population. And so I’ll give you kind of my, just a quick example. In the Northwest, we’ve seen tremendous growth.

We have a lot of diverse communities that are represented in the area. Do they belong to an equity denied group here in town or do they have affinity to an equity denied group? Perhaps not. But when some of these groups are applying, perhaps they’re applying under the guise that they have that stretch and that reach into those communities.

And what I’m saying is how do we ensure that we’re more broadly supporting the entirety of the population versus perhaps some of these groups that are longer established therefore have relationships but may not be reaching some of those newer communities in pockets of the city that are newer and up and coming. Thanks. Ms. Smith.

Thank you. And through the chairs, part of the evaluation criteria exactly for that question, we ask a number of questions and that helps the community review panel understand and you’re correct. The group may not be not for profit organization that is from an equity denied group, but they may like, for example, a neighborhood resource center serve a large population. So the questions are geared towards the projects that they’re applying for funding, the populations that would then participate in those projects and the outcomes that they have to achieve.

So it doesn’t exactly go to the organization. I believe there’s also an evaluation question about the staffing, about the staff who provide the programs and services if they are geared towards equity denied groups, but it’s not about the organization itself. It’s about the project, the programs. Have they engaged with the program participants to ensure that the programs they are doing are meeting the needs of the participants, for example?

Councilor Raman. Thank you and I appreciate that answer in the lens that you’re putting to this work. I’m just wondering if you can speak more to the 50/30 challenge goal that’s in the report specifically on page nine. It’s an ambitious goal.

It is one that I would love to see more organizations strive towards. However, I find it challenging as an organization, as we move forward to do this as a one-off on certain committees and under certain review panels and not consider that more globally across the organization or in other areas. So just wondering if you might be able to speak to some of the thinking around that as part of the review panel composition, whether or not you see this as broader work of the organization. Thank you.

Ms. Smith. Thank you and through the chair, we were directed by council to look at the makeup at the composition of the community review panel. So in doing that, civic administration did research that what are other funders doing, what are other foundations doing in levels of government.

And this is one of the ones that they came forward with the 50/30 challenge. So I’m gonna turn it over to Ms. Pollack, who did a lot of the research on it, and she can speak more to why we’re recommending this. Thank you and through the chair.

Yes, we found that the 50/30 challenge was the most widely used approach. It allowed us to identify targets without becoming very specific about the individuals who are actually participating on the panel. So allowing for 50% gender parity and 30% representation from equity denied groups really lets us set the target. So it will be based on an open call.

People will voluntarily disclose this information and we will do our best to make sure that we are meeting these targets. And I do think that there is a wide range of use of this approach across not only our organization, but other organizations. Thank you. Okay, that satisfies Councillor Ramen’s inquiry.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, I also want to thank staff for this work. As a previous executive director from the nonprofit sector, I accessed these funds when I was running the land environmental network, and I know many charities and nonprofits in the sector rely on this kind of funding to do the good work that we want to see done in our community, and often are able to leverage significant federal and provincial funding to make those projects happen. So similar to Councillor Troisau, I am very open to having a business case come to us for the fall to increase the funding for this, because I know that it’s always oversubscribed and, again, a lot of these nonprofits and charities in our community are relying on this kind of funding to do the work that we’re asking them to do.

To follow up also on Councillor Ramen’s point, about 50/30 challenge, at the land environmental network, we took on that challenge as a charity. So for our board, for our senior level of staff, for volunteers, we were trying to improve our composition. And I also would be interested if perhaps we could make that, I’m not sure if we do that, actually, it’s a question through the chair to staff. Do we have, as the city, have we adopted the 50/30 challenge that the federal government has announced?

Thank you. - Let’s just miss Smith about that first. Through the chair, I am not aware of that. This is specifically what we looked at when Council directed us to how do we diversify the makeup of our community review panel.

So this was based on our research. So it’s something that we’ll be piloting in, and maybe over the next year or two, we can have a conversation about it and see how the outcomes fall. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, I’d be very interested ‘cause it was really helpful for us at the land environmental network in our recruitment efforts.

And in some of the interview questions we were using when we were interviewing people for the board. So I would say I’d love to see the results on that and see perhaps if that could be spread across more of our committees in City Hall in general. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Frank.

Any other speakers on this item? Seeing none, I’m just gonna ask Councillor Lehman to take the chair for a moment so that I can speak as well. Okay, I’ll go to the acting mayor. Thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. I will say I’m really supportive of the grassroots stream idea that is being proposed in this report. I think it does offer an opportunity for new groups to get their foot in the door and try something, whether that works or not. I do have some concerns about them being able to access funding for four consecutive years.

However, understanding that they need to come back each year. And I did take the time to ask Ms. Smith some questions prior to the meeting. So understanding now that they would have to come back each year and that our staff in this area will be working with them to build capacity to look at other funding mechanisms to grow their capacity.

And understanding, you know, having been on a community association board myself that it can take time to grow capacity. I’m not as uncomfortable with the four years as I was when I first read the report. So I appreciate staff clarifying that for me. I am still a little bit uncomfortable with the definition in the bylaw itself under 2.11.

The unincorporated grassroots group refers to a group of three or more individuals joined by mutual consent for a common not-for-profit purpose. Not that I am uncomfortable with a group of individuals who are not registered for incorporation having an opportunity to apply for this. My concern is that three is an extremely low number. Any group of three households in a row or three friends could get together and make a proposal for the city under this program.

Now, whether that gets funded or not would still go before the review panel. But as I said, even having sat in our community association myself, at minimum, we always sought to have a chair, a treasurer, and a secretary, and then two members at large. I would be much more comfortable if this were a group of five or more. I just think that three sets of the bar really, really low to get a whole potentially, and not necessarily, but a whole lot of applications in from very small numbers of people focused on a very small area of interest and not necessarily making best use of dollars.

And I don’t wanna see the number of unfunded projects go up simply because we’ve opened the door so wide that we get an extra 50 or 100 applications. That may not happen, but I’m concerned that three is a little too low. So I am going to propose one small amendment to this. And that would be that the definition for unincorporated grassroots group refers to a group of five or more individuals.

I just think that if you can’t get five people together to agree on a common purpose, there probably isn’t enough purpose to gain some traction there. I don’t know whether colleagues agree with me or not. So I don’t know if I even have a seconder for that. I’m Mr.

Presiding Officer, but I’d like to change it to five if there’s somebody willing to have that discussion. Okay, so we have an amendment proposed to, I have a seconder, Councillor Stevenson. Okay, so we have an amendment on the floor proposed and seconded and I’ll open the floor for discussion. Councillor Ramen.

Thank you and through you. I just wanted to ask of staff where, why they decided to go with that definition. My understanding was there are some recent changes to nonprofit corporation, nonprofit and corporation rules. And I had been looking at the two at the same time and there were some definitional changes and I’m just wondering if that definitional change had anything to do with how the description came about.

Thank you. All good stuff. Thank you and through the chair, actually this came out through the municipal scan. We looked at what other municipalities locally, there’s a grassroots streams of funding for municipalities is new and an emerging.

So we looked at a couple other municipalities who are offering this and their numbers range from two to three. So we took that as a promising practice noting that an unincorporated grassroots organization can apply for funding, but they must do so with an incorporated body, a host agency. The host agency is the one that enters into the grant agreement, is accountable for the outcomes, both financially and the project outcomes that are funded. So in that respect, we would be entering into and the accountability of the municipal funding would be with the incorporated body or the host.

So those were two of the rationales that we chose, two to three, but I’m open to what council wishes on this one. Councilor, any other comments or questions? Okay, we have a motion or amendment moved and seconded. I will call the vote.

Sorry, the clerk is as fast as the acting chair. The clerk advises me that the wording’s complete. You will see that on your voting page. So I will call the vote now.

Opposing the vote, the motion’s passed, 13 to one. No, give the chair back to. Acting Mayor. Thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. I’ll resume the chair and just looking to colleagues to see if there’s any further discussion on the motion now as amended and if Councilor Layman. Thank you and I think this goes to what the acting mayor was talking about. I’d like to cycle back to the four consecutive years of $100,000 as with this whole exercise.

I understand the intent and I agree with it. However, as with the amendment that was just passed, I do believe that certain checks and balances have to be in place. I’m more satisfied hearing the question that came from the acting mayor and what he was able to find out. I’d like to find out what he found out just to, you know, with the staff’s comments regarding annual oversight, I guess.

Which I think is important because we’re encouraging new smaller organization to come forward and I think they will need guidance quite frankly. And I think that’s important part, you know, with any small organization, these things have the ability to grow into much bigger things. So I want to see that they get the necessary guidance that we can offer perhaps through this annual review. Thank you for the question and through the chair.

We know that building capacity takes time and this approach will let groups have the opportunity to gain experience. By going through the application process each year, they’ll potentially, if successful, be developing outcomes, they’ll be reporting on those outcomes. This is an experience that helps organizations grow. So the intention to this approach is to help prepare groups to align for the next multi-year funding stream or potentially other funding streams if available.

So it gives groups more time to leverage the city’s funding to also potentially seek other funding sources, which is important, gain skills and become more established. And we also hope that there will be opportunities for those unincorporated groups to gain skills and be mentored by the organizations that they partner with to host them. Thank you. Councillor Layman.

Well, that’s just terrific. I’m glad to ask the question because that’s important for us to know. I think that’s extremely positive and follows with the spirit of this exercise. Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I just wanted to share an anecdotal story that I think also helped support that. The last community grant that the London Environmental Network got was actually an environmental incubator program where six projects a year were selected.

$1,000 was given to each project and it was administration was provided, accounting for the project was provided, promotional support and essentially like a many, many, many version of what they’re speaking about was provided to specifically environmental projects. And again, with the long-term trajectory, hope of them continuing to build more volunteer base, build their fundraising capacity and many of those projects went on to spin off another successful follow-up. So I think just even hearing that like $1,000, I’ll be honest, did not go very far. Whereas $100,000, you could actually do something somewhat substantial and having that relationship with an existing charity or nonprofit and the staff that worked there, I think was very beneficial to a lot of the organizations that we supported over the last couple of years ‘cause once you know how to write a grant and manage money and run QuickBooks reports, it gets a lot easier.

So again, I think that these smaller grassroots supporters, it’s a good spot to get started, thanks. Thank you, Councillor Frank, any other speakers? Seeing none, the now I will ask the clerk to open the vote on the main motion as amended. We still do need a mover and a seconder because moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Trussa.

Housing the vote, the motion’s passed 14 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. That concludes the consent agenda. We have no scheduled items.

We move on now to section four, items for direction. The first item is 4.1, the master accommodation plan, alternate work strategies update. We have had added requests for delegations from Mr. Safeman from the London Home Builders Association from Mr.

Wallace from LDI. We have an added submission from C. Butler for our review as well. There’s also noted on the agenda clause A, which is a presentation.

So I’m going to ask Ms. Livingston first, if staff wish to provide a brief presentation, and then we will deal with the delegations and submissions. Through the chair, happy to walk through the presentation. If the clerk will allow me to share my screen, I can walk you through very quickly at a high level.

Laura’s yours, Ms. Barbara. Thank you. So just to provide a little bit of context to the report that has been in front of you.

So the master accommodation plan actually initiated in a significant amount of work in 2016. So we undertook the map to initially determine what the most effective and efficient service delivery mechanism for the consolidation of space would be, not only for civic administration, but also for the seat of government. So ultimately through that process, we developed the master accommodation plan, which was provided through numerous reports through the council over a series of years with a public report in November 2017 that provided at a high level what the potential options would be at that time. So that led to the creation of a business case that went forward through the multi-year budget, which was approved and a week later the pandemic hit.

So certainly sufficient to say that that changed the timing of the plans that were ultimately intended to proceed, and by the end of that year, council directed us to look at alternative work strategies in combination for the map. So civic administration undertook that work and updated the master accommodation plan to include what it would look like from the amount of civic space required to also adopt alternative work strategies. So this was the recommendation that was ultimately approved and ultimately the integration of alternative work strategies was adopted as part of the master accommodation plan, and that we were going to look to proceed to incorporate that work as part of a competitive procurement process. So as the pandemic began to go forward, so just to give a little bit of background just on maps.

So this did look at the existing space located at City Hall and other of downtown locations, and really looked at trying to determine what the ultimate proper adjacencies would be to ensure that staff located when it was one stop, shopping for customer service, as well as effectiveness in the consolidation of space so that common areas were not duplicated and ultimately would result in the least amount of space that the multiple municipal government would be paying for. So really that focused on the consolidation of all the space so that we would ultimately achieve the economies of scale and provide the least cost to be able to deliver the services. So as a result, the competitive procurement that was approved for us to proceed never got initiated because we were too busy with staff being forced to go through the not ability to be able to come into the office, changed us in terms of our ability to move forward and required us to, in order to satisfy public health regulations to work remotely. So after the council direction came forward to look at alternative work strategies, really what that encompassed is looking at non-traditional type work practices.

So what kind of locations best suit when staff are in the office versus the work and the space to support people that might not be required to be in the office fully? One of the key benefits when we also looked at this was the overall reduction, not only in space, which has benefits from a utility usage, but as well as the greenhouse gas reductions that ultimately this would be able to achieve through that process. So one of the things was that ultimately, alternative work strategies, we were going to look at that ultimately through the map. COVID required us to implement a form of that automatically to ensure that we could satisfy the public health regulations.

So in 2021, when council asked us to redo that work, when we brought forward in 2022 that, or really get in 2021, sorry, I’m getting my ears mixed up, they gave us the opportunity to move forward. So staff have been moving forward in accordance with that council direction to look at how best we could implement alternative work strategies over the future implementation. So really where we started was with the implementation of pilot projects, so we could test it on smaller groups to identify one, how flexible it was, ensure we had the proper policies and procedures, test all of our assumptions that were identified through the long-term space needs, and ensure that ultimately when we went out through a competitive process, we knew how much space we ultimately required. So in the meantime, City Hall is requiring, and I think as you look, walk into council or come near City Hall, you can see the scaffolding is at the front of this building.

Our lifecycle renewal and asset of this building, noting it’s 50 years old is beginning to deteriorate, and there is a number of work that needs to be completed. So that is something that we’ve been holding off, knowing that we were ultimately going out to look through a more competitive process, but we’re at a point in time where there is work that needs to be done irrespective of that process that cannot wait to ensure the safety and integrity of the structure. One of the other components that we’re also looking at is trying to ensure that City Hall is a municipal space, is fully accessible, so there’s opportunities to look at how we can further ensure accessibility, as well as equity inclusion within the space located that are particularly accessed by the public, as well as staff. So safety certainly is at the forefront of any work that we do.

So as we look at how the lobby is structured, the relocation of our security operations center, and how that all works in terms of ensuring that not only are we complying with public health regulations, but we’re ensuring the security of all staff and visitors to the building. So the functionality has also been something we’ve looked at. So because of the aging building and the footprint, there’s only so much that we can do within the existing space. So it does a little bit to the extent of the ability to ensure the proper adjacencies, noting that we have a large footprint here, as well as throughout the core.

So there is a potential to ensure that we enhance our customer service and have centralized space that we could also do. And a very core piece that was outlined with respect to the implementation of alternative work was sustainability and addressing some of the climate emergency action plans. So not only is there a significant reduced operating cost that we could realize, but certainly reduced greenhouse gas emissions that is a significant benefit to being able to pursue. So one of the other pieces to look at is that certainly when we looked at the implementation of looking at map in conjunction with alternative work strategies, really we kind of focused on the financial, the environmental and the organizational elements to ensure that as we move forward, we’re picking not only the best financial option to ensure that the cost of providing civic space is at a minimum, but ensuring that we’re also in accordance with our climate emergency action plan and trying to ensure that from an organizational capacity, we’ve maximized the ability for service integration between various areas.

So all that to be said that certainly it is council’s decision before you to ultimately to determine how we wish to proceed. So certainly if we’re not going to be pursuing a competitive procurement process, we will continue to lease the space that we’re currently in and there will be work to do to address the lifecycle maintenance on this building and the current space. So certainly something that we believe that ultimately while the staff are still working in it, there is an additional cost just because work has to be done to ensure that noting there is as best as in the building that we take the proper precautions as we move forward. So those are things that we need to take into account through our planning processes.

So we have the recommendation that is before you today to receive the report but to direct us to move forward with a competitive process, to look at maximizing the space on this campus that we already own and to be able to move forward not only to retrofit the existing city hall campus, we have the ability to also look at the broader campus that we have here in addition to city hall. So the other large component is basically given that we have a new council is to seek the confirmation that we would like to continue the implementation of alternative work strategies. So that has been noted separately, noting that we’re seeking the re-confirmation of council’s direction to continue on that process and note that they can be done independently. So we put those before you today.

So in terms of next step, we’re ready at this point, although there has been a delay to move forward with what is the best value for the redevelopment of the city of London’s space. And certainly seeking out partners that would through an RFP potential process and ensuring that those are moving forward with interested parties, that we can evaluate them with the criteria that we’ve outlined in the report. So certainly this would include financial analysis as part of that and ultimately determine what the costing would be as well as the timelines for which that would be implemented. So pending that, we’re looking for councils direction this evening as to how you wish us to proceed and that will dictate the number of projects that we would bring forward and ultimately what we would include in the multi-year budget.

Thank you very much, Ms. Barboon for that thorough, but important overview of that presentation. Colleagues, we do have two requests for delegation on this matter as well as an added submission. I wonder if we might have a mover and a seconder to approve the delegations and receive the submission.

I see Councilor Cuddy will move and Councilor Stevenson has seconded and don’t see anyone raising their hands to discuss. So I will ask the clerk to open the vote on that as soon as she’s got it ready. Councilor Hillier, closing the vote. The motion’s passed 14 to zero.

Thank you, Colleagues. So our first delegate is Mr. Zafeman, London Home Builders Association. I know you know how this works, but welcome Mr.

Zafeman, you have five minutes and I will give you a wave with 30 seconds to go. And the mic is yours. Perfect, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And thank you all members of Council for the opportunity tonight. This item also may, I think it maybe not gotten a certain attention from, certainly from our industry wanted to share this publicly because the alternative work strategy item is probably the number one item I’ve actually heard about from my members since I took on this role over two years ago. And over three years ago, really the norm in the residential construction industry has experience from both building and planning staff in a hybrid form at City Hall as people home 50% of the time and at the office 50% of the time. And now this is currently the most part of the norm across the entire city of London, which if you proceed with staff’s direct commendation tonight, will mean this continues for many years to come depending on how long it may take to redevelop City Hall as it currently is or look at alternative directions.

In my two years of the helm of this organization, I have not heard more from my members about this topic, from the smallest renovator or builder to the biggest builders and renovators to members of the public about the challenges this has presented with the hybrid work format. The challenge from an industry perspective certainly is that public as well. We don’t know who is in the office, which week and who is there for three days, who is in for two days, who is off for three days, who is in for a week and who is off for a week. Let alone that there have been challenges as well that sometimes there are people on vacation and then their backup is also a way causing significant communication challenges.

Over the last few years in this way of operating, we have seen significant communication gaps, missed responses for weeks, different interpretations and deficiencies, depending who is in the office and who is not that week, and overall delays to permit timelines and overall efficiency. The larger concern is that the status quo in this format is kept for many years longer. Our housing supply challenge will only get worse and our target of 47,000 homes will quickly fade from view. And this target is much more than just a target.

If we don’t have enough homes to house those people in our community, they will go elsewhere if they can. But for those that can’t afford to, the cost of housing and the cost to rent will only continue to go up. The other fear shared by industry is that the very positive direction and changes that have been implemented by staff for improvements in building division may be for not if we can’t get everyone on the same team in the right spot in the right building together. We know there’s a very young team in building division with not nearly as much tenure as we used to have within building division.

And we need everyone as much as possible to be on the same page, to be streamlined as much as possible. And we can’t afford to have people in the office on different schedules where they can’t all learn and support from one another. This also has removed the opportunity for joint conversations with multiple staff members here at City Hall and members of the public or members of industry to get questions answered and issues dealt with. The current status quo is not working and it needs to change.

The alternative work strategies, while certainly needed and understandable from the time and the circumstances that were present, times have changed and we are significantly losing out with tremendous costs that aren’t being measured and we need to return a building and planning staff to City Hall as soon as possible. This is our one opportunity and appreciate staff’s heads up to make our points tonight and this evening. And this could be very significant, has been already significant for the industry and will be for many years to come if it’s not addressed today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Safeman. And you are well under your five minutes but I am not going to extend your leftover time to Mr. Wallace.

Mr. Wallace, welcome, good to see you as always. And you have five minutes. So the microphone is now your sir.

Thank you, Acting Mayor and thank you for a committee for seeing me and giving us the opportunity to speak to you on this important item. I’m not going to try not to repeat what Jared just said. Obviously, we are speaking on the same topic from the same voice and some very much the same industry in a related industry. I just want to point out a few things.

One on your executive summary, I think it’s important to notice that the first sentence talks about customer service. And you realize and staff realize that they are in the customer service business. And I know you had about 800 pages to read so I don’t know what page it is in your report. But if you look at the Corporate Service Committee that received the report on November 2017 and the summary of the Master Accommodation Fund, the following key findings were noted at that time.

If you look at the third bullet, it says while not all service areas need to be in the same facilities, customer service and internal processes would be improved by better adjacencies. Now, of course, they’re talking about physical adjacencies that so everybody is in the same building. But those adjacencies mean that there’s people in those desks next to each other, making decisions and making things forward. Your own consultants report supports the majority of people who are providing customer service to the public should be at a desk as they were prior to the pandemic.

Our industry has experienced a number of issues with the system that we have now with the alternative work. And I’m gonna give you one practical example. A new planner is in there. They’ve seen something on a subdivision plan that they have never seen before.

Previously, they would get up from their desk, go three cubicles down to find somebody who had seen it before or could give them an answer. It was much more efficient and effective communication to actually make a difference, to actually move the file forward. Under the system we have now, they may be at home for half the time, they get on the phone, the email, it takes longer to get an answer. We can’t be sitting in the person’s living room seeing that they got up from their desk to go see if they can get the answer to get back to us.

The feedback, as Jared had said, the feedback we’re getting is things are just not moving as efficiently and effectively as they possibly could. When you’re weighing cost savings, the treasurer did an excellent job of talking about what the cost savings would be with less people in the building. But you need to relate that against the costs that are occurring by being less efficient and effective of getting files through and getting money from new revenues from new residents that are developed here in this city. That needs to be, there needs to be a look at the balance.

The 50% time that there are now 50% at home, 50% here, three days, one week, two days the next, it’s too much, it’s not working for our industry. I would say it would be fair to say that if you’re looking at our alternative work systems, the 50/50 isn’t working. Is there other ones that might be more efficient and more effective maybe? But the one that’s currently in place is not working for us.

We would suggest that from a management perspective, you will need to have a more rigorous performance monitoring system of people who are working from home. So you actually know whether they’re on their computer all day when they’re at or doing the work. I know you did a staff survey and the staff survey said, “Yes, we’re more productive at home than we are at the office.” Well, there were a few who said, “No, they weren’t.” I would want to be interviewing them. But who’s gonna say they’re not as productive at home when you’re asked?

You need to do ask the customers, not those providing the service. The reality is, is our industry, and now you can only speak on our industry, is that we’re all back at work. We’re all back in the office. It is hard for us as an industry who provides a lot of office space in the downtown core to talk about getting our clients back to their office space, getting their staff back when City Hall does not provide the leadership of having their staff back in City Hall for downtown.

And finally, this is nothing to do with the alternative work, the piece. But I do think you need to review the building. From somebody who’s been in many many buildings, government buildings, safety, there’s no way I should be able to walk up two sets of stairs to the mayor’s office and have the call to get somebody from six floor to come down and get me at the elevator. Thanks, Mr.

Wallace. Safety is an issue here. You need to work on it. Thank you to both of our delegates for presenting.

And we did receive the submission as part of the motion to receive the delegates as well. So now the floor returns to us colleagues and I have Councillor Layman and Councillor Ferreira on my list, any other Councillors who, Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Trussau. Okay, so we will start with Councillor Layman. Thank you, Dr.

Mayor. Sorry, I’m just going to interrupt you for one moment, Councillor Layman. I just want to let colleagues know that the mayor has joined us remotely. And I’ll return the floor to you now, sir.

Thank you, Chair. I’m going to speak now with two hats. One, first of all, as a Councillor, a Councillor that campaigned on our housing crisis and a Councillor that supported this council’s motion for the commitment to build 47,000 homes. I’m also going to speak with the hat of a chair of planning.

Through COVID, I heard from the community about the challenges with the alternative work strategy that was in place because of the restrictions of COVID. As with a lot of things during COVID, we learned ways to do business differently. Right now, all sectors of the economy are having this conversation. I think it was a good exercise and thank you to staff for taking this on, because we want to work as efficiently as possible as a corporation.

However, I have heard these concerns after post COVID, and especially as chair of planning, I’ve spoken with all sectors of the building community, both large builders, right down to small individual builders as well. There is a significant frustration out there that indicates we have got a bottleneck. We do a great job, I believe, in getting zoning through to allow builders to build, if they so choose and if they can. What we need to see is shovels on the ground.

Once a project is zoned, it can be sat on for years. We need building to happen. So in that regard, I’m going to leave it at that chair, but I’d like to put a motion on the floor and perhaps speak to it after it’s been presented. The clerk has my worded motion.

I’d like to highlight part B of that motion, which essentially says this, that civic administration be directed to immediately conclude any current alternative work strategies in the planning and economic development service areas, and we’re a turn to pre-COVID business and work locations. So I’d like to make that motion. Okay, so Councilor, I just want to understand, are you you’re moving an amendment to part B, or are you moving a motion, a whole new motion? I’m making a motion, and you will see references to the suggested motion, which I conferred with the clerk, and we thought this might be a prudent way to get the conversation started.

So, but I’m highlighting part B as what I’m addressing now. So, we’ll just wait for the clerk to make sure that that language is in E-Scribe, and then I will look to see if there’s a seconder for that, just so that colleagues have a chance to read the actual motion. Okay, the clerk advises if you refresh your screen, the revised motion is now in E-Scribe, and I’m gonna look to see, I will give everybody a moment to read it, and then I will look to see if there’s a seconder for that. Okay, I’m seeing a seconder in Councilor Hillier.

Thank you, Councilor Hillier. Councilor Pribble, okay, thank you. So, we have a motion that’s moved and seconded. I do have a speaker’s list.

I’m gonna work down the speaker’s list first to see if folks wanna speak to the motion, since you’re already on the speaker’s list. If you don’t, I will leave you where you are on the speaker’s list and come back to you when we come back to the main motion in the order that I’ve got individuals recorded in. So, and the motion is in E-Scribe, and it’s up on the screen for folks as well. So, I do have, now the Councilor Lehman has a motion on the floor.

Councilor Ferreira, do you wish to speak to the motion that’s on the floor, or do you wanna wait till we come back to the main? You’re gonna speak to it now? Thank you, through you. I did briefly read this motion, but it does still have the alternative work strategies in the bottom that I do see.

Looks the similar to part C on the staff recommendation. But I just wanted to point out, I read through the report, and my issues also come with the alternative work strategies as well, and what I didn’t see in this report is the potential impact that we would see downtown. Speaking with, in regards to the business community, like I have a lot of calls for people to be on the street, we need our local economy to be boosted, and considering the amount of people that work at City Hall and would be coming in if we didn’t have that, I feel like there could be a significant impact moving forward. So, I’m concerned when it comes to that, I just wanted to know if we could get actual numbers, or if we could maybe bring back a report.

I think it was the May Hughes report. I did see that that came out, I think, in 2021, but I didn’t see any reference on this report of the local economic impacts for the downtown core itself. And I just wanted to know what type of impact would we be expecting because we’re trying to, I’m trying to see if we can get calls for the bigger companies to bring in their people back. And I do understand that FlexWork is the norm, or it is starting to become the norm today, but it still concerns me with the lack of feed on the street, frankly, that we have downtown.

So, I just would like to know if I could maybe get some numbers of how many City Hall workers may not necessarily be coming in with that alternative work strategy, or what the numbers were, and possibly if the mover, or if we don’t actually go with this motion, but I would like to maybe see if we could have an amendment to whatever motion is gonna be voted on, that we could maybe have some type of report of the economic impacts for downtown if we didn’t have with the lower amount of people that I would foresee being downtown with City Hall with the FlexWork strategy. So, those are my concerns. Okay, thank you, Councilor Ferrer. Just before we go to staff, I just wanna correct something I said, which was I can leave you to speak to the amendment, or you can wait until the main motion, but there is no main motion.

The entirety of, so Councilor Lehman has put everything on the floor with an amended part B. So, what is captured in the original report is all here except part B has been changed. So, there is no main motion. So, if you want to speak contrary to the motion that’s on the floor now, this is your time on the speaker’s list, just like any other time would be.

I’m gonna go to Ms. Livingston first, and then if she wants to pass the puck to anyone else on staff to expand, floor is yours, Ms. Livingston. Through you, Mr.

Chair, I need to, I wish I’d known the question was coming because I could have been able to get that information for this evening. Very happy to provide it in time for Council. I do not know the number of employees who are working in a temporary hybrid arrangement this very moment. What I would say, however, is that the vast majority of city employees come into work each and every day.

It is largely your inside workers that are in a hybrid arrangement. And of those, many come in each and every day. I’m an inside worker, I’m here every day. All of the senior leadership team is many of the directors, many other individuals.

So, I’m very happy to provide that information. I would also just like to clarify that we have been moving forward in this direction because of Council direction to do so. So, that is what we have been implementing. In the midst of a pandemic and arising from the pandemic when the clear direction from previous Council was to move forward in this manner.

So, I just would like to clarify that that’s why it is happening. But I’m very happy to get those answers for you in time for Council. Thank you, Ms. Livingston.

I’m gonna go next to Councilor, sorry, Councilor Ferra, did you have any follow-ups to that? Thank you, through you. My apologies for not giving those questions. I know that it probably wasn’t very fair to ask for the numbers specifically.

I do see that this was in motion for a while and I know that was a previous Council to this one. I also see that that report came out in 2021 and just like knowing the times where we are right now, especially ‘cause as we approach the post-pandemic era, I guess, things do seem to be kind of changing and I feel like the applicability of some of the things in this report may not necessarily be appropriate for the time that we’re in. So that’s why I just raised these concerns. So that’s why I would like to see if we could maybe see some type of maybe economic impact or however it would look moving forward just for the downtown area, just because I am concerned with the local businesses in the downtown.

Thank you, Councilor Ferra. I don’t know if Ms. Livingston, if you wanted to expand on that a little bit further. Yes, through you, Mr.

Chair. What I can provide in time for Council next week is the number of staff and I would like to indicate that we were, I think, I believe we were one of the first to return staff to the building. We started that last April. Many organizations and businesses have not yet done that or to the degree that we have.

So we began that but I can readily provide you the number of staff that are in the building and what that schedule looks like. I’m not sure I can deliver on the economic impact of having staff in each and every day in time for Council next week. I would ask that if you would like to have that analysis done, it be considered part of the motion so we can do the work and return it to you. Thank you, Ms.

Livingston. So perhaps that’s something that you might want to think about as an amendment to the motion before we have a vote on that and I’ll leave that thought with you there and I’ll go to Councilor Stevenson next. Thank you and do I have an answer to my question? Oh, sorry, you had, no, you did not.

So if you wanted to ask that now, Councilor Stevenson wants to know if she, I’ll just share what was shared with me. Are we voting on initiating the competitive bid process as part of this motion? The answer is yes, that has been included in Councilor Layman’s motion that’s before us right now. Okay, and I’m confused because there’s a confidential package that directly relates to this that I can’t see voting on this until we have that conversation.

So Councilor, are you looking for, do you want to move in camera for some advice on this? Yeah, I’d like to move in camera. Well, I forgive me ‘cause I don’t know the procedure, but there’s a confidential package here that I want to discuss. So yes, in camera, do you have a conversation?

Okay, give me just a moment to check with the clerk process-wise. Yes, okay, on Councilor Stevenson’s question, I will, without getting it across to be Councilor Trussow, you have a thought to add to that? Yes, it might be more efficient use of our time and keep the meeting going if we come back to this after, we’re gonna have that full discussion without talking about it now. We’re gonna have that full discussion anyway.

I’d rather not start that now for a little piece and then come back to this and then come back to that later. So I’d rather move this till after we do that, if at all. But I don’t like the idea of stopping the meeting that it tracks right now to deal with this in closed session and then have to come back. Okay, before we get any further, I’m gonna ask everybody to just pause for a moment.

I want to confer with the clerk on a process matter. It’s kind of abrupt to get us at the table. I don’t know if this is surplicious, if you ask me. What are the employees think about it?

Okay, some very helpful advice from the clerk here. If colleagues wish to deal with the confidential item that is later in our agenda before making a decision on clause A, then the process is to refer clause A to the after the confidential session. And we would continue our debate right now, just on clauses B and C. So Councillor Stevenson, I’m getting the sense that you wanted to refer clause A to be dealt with after the in-camera session.

And Councillor Pribble, you’re seconding that? I’m seconding that. Okay, Councillor Raman on the referral. Thank you, I would say that the conversations are closely linked though.

I would find it difficult to have the conversations without having all of the conversation. So I don’t think we can do referral on one part of it. That’s just my personal thought. So Councillor Raman, you want to refer the entire, you want to amend the referral to refer the entire discussion until after the in-camera session.

Let me just discuss this with the clerk quickly to make sure that you can amend a referral. Okay, so we would need a seconder for the amendment to the referral, but I see the original mover is happy to second. So Councillor Raman is referring the entire motion that’s on the floor right now to be dealt with after confidential session. Councillor Stevenson is seconding.

So any debate on the referral? Councillor Stevenson. I just want to make a comment that, like I don’t see how the order of this agenda is anything, but so I don’t know if that’s taken into account when we do the agendas, but like I can’t do, I can’t do B before A. That’s, well, that’s fair comment in terms of you needing information on both.

The agenda is just put together the way it’s always put together by the clerks for committee. So that’s just our standing process. But I appreciate your comment in terms of why you feel that you are linked as Councillor Raman indicated as well. Any further discussion on the referral?

Just process-wise, first we have to vote on the amendment to the referral and then the referral as amended. So we’re gonna have two votes in a row here to accomplish one thing, but that’s the way the process works. So Councillor Ferrera. Sorry, through you, I also have an amendment I’d like to put on.

So I just don’t know exactly when I should put that amendment forward considering where we are right now. Okay, so right now we have a motion that puts all of this to be dealt with after the in-camera. So if there’s something that was an amendment to Councillor Layman’s motion, that comes back after we return from confidential session and you could amend it then. Right now we’re only dealing with the referral to put it to the end of the confidential session, okay?

So I’m seeing a nodding of heads. So I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote on the Councillor Stevenson. Through the chair, the current motion that will be voted on first will be that the referral be amended to refer consideration of the entire motion until following the closed session. So it’s expanding the referral.

Okay, and I will ask the clerk to open the vote on that now. Closing the vote, the motion is passed 15 to zero. Thank you colleagues. So now we have to vote on the referral as amended.

The original referral was to only refer part A. The as amended refers the entire motion for consideration following the closed session. And bear with us for just a moment and we’ll get the clerk to open the vote on that. And I just confirm, are we going right away into the camera?

We’re going to finish the rest of the agenda and then go in camera at the end of all these other things. It is my intent as chair that we will finish the rest of the agenda. We will go into confidential session. When we return from confidential session, we will then deal with this item.

And we do, because the referral has now been amended, we do need a new mover and seconder for the referral as amended, Councillor Cudi, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you both, and we’ll ask the clerk to open that vote now. Closing the vote, excuse me, the motion is passed 15 to zero. Okay, thank you colleagues.

So we will come back to the entirety of 4.1 following the conclusion of part six of our agenda, which is the confidential session. We will deal with all of the confidential session, in session, all three items on our agenda before we return to public session to deal with 4.1. Moving on in items for direction. We have 4.2, which is the consideration of appointment to the Eldenhouse Board of Directors.

This requires one member. You have the applications in your agenda package for the four individuals who have put their names forward. And we can proceed with our normal process of a vote or if colleagues wish to pursue another option, putting just one name forward or something like that, I need to know now. Otherwise, I’m gonna proceed with opening the process as regularly proceeds and ask the clerk to open the first ballot unless anyone wants to speak to a particular candidate.

Councillor Trostau, you have a question. Could somebody just take a moment to explain the role and the program and the connection to the historical record in London of Eldenhouse? Just really briefly. I don’t think we have anyone from the Eldenhouse Board with us in the gallery, Councillor.

And I’m not sure that any members of the leadership team would feel that they could field that question. I’m kind of looking at the back to Ms. Smith and she is shaking her head no. And Ms.

Livingston is not able to provide us any comment on that either. So we really do not have anyone here who can speak to that role. I wonder if perhaps our city clerk would like to offer any comment, Mr. Scholthuss.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t have additional details, it would be sufficient. Thank you.

We have the applications colleagues. So with no other options being suggested, I am going to, and no speakers to any particular candidate. I’m going to ask the clerk to open our runoff ballot process with the first four names all being included on the ballot. This is one vacancy, so everybody gets to vote for one candidate.

Closing the vote, and the candidate Brian McClure has achieved 80% support on the first ballot. Thank you, colleagues. I am going to now look for a motion to approve the appointment of Mr. McClure.

We’ve by Councillor Cudi and seconded by Councillor Hopkins, and I will just ask the clerk to open the vote on that when it’s ready. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 15 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. Moving on, item 4.3 under items for direction is the consideration of appointments to the London Hydro Board of Directors.

This board has two vacancies that we need to fill. We also have a recommendation letter from the London Hydro Board of Directors with regard to their nomination recommendations. We also have our representative from Council on the board, Councillor Ramen here with us. So, before we proceed to voting, I’m gonna ask Councillor Ramen if she wants to offer any comments on this process.

Thank you and through you. First, I wanna thank Council for allowing London Hydro to engage in a process and a new process. This term to look at the two new directors positions and look at the complement of the board and what was needed in order to fill that complement. And as you’ll see in the package on page 126 or whatever page it is now that the numbers have renumbered, you have a letter from Ms.

Graham, the chair of the board of directors, again, representing the board in their position. There are two recommendations in front of you and a request from the board of directors to approve the nomination of Tim Watson and Tracy Kostabson to fill the two director positions. And I can tell you that we engaged in a very thorough, fair and equitable process in order to arrive at this conclusion. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Ramen, do colleague Councillor Frank? Thank you, yes. I’m wondering, I just had a one process question to Councillor Ramen if you’re able to answer.

I’m just curious, did everyone in the board participate in the recruitment process? I guess that would be my first part. And I will turn to Councillor Ramen for some comments on that. Thank you, so the process was implemented by the Corporate Governance and Risk Management Committee.

Councillor Frank, can you follow up? Yes, and I’m just curious as to know who sits on that committee on the board. Well, let’s ask Councillor Ramen and we’ll just give her a moment there as she’s making her notes. I wanna make sure I wrote down everybody’s name first before just making sure I have everybody’s names correctly too.

Hold on, there we go. Okay, so the chair for the Corporate Governance and Risk Management Committee is Guy Holburn and he was part of that process, Connie Graham, who is the board chair in the Dr. Andy Heyermek. It was also present and Tanya Gudain and myself.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, and last question, I’m just wondering today on the board declare any conflicts of interest in the final vote before it came to us at council. Yes, Councillor Ramen, if she recollects any— I know one on the board declared a conflict of interest. No, my recollection.

Thank you, Councillor Ramen, Councillor Frank. Thank you, that’s it. Okay, colleagues, so we have a recommendation from the board. We have a list of candidates who have been submitted applications for these positions.

So unless there’s any further speakers, we will go to our balloting process and I will ask the clerk to open the first round of balloting. And just to remind everybody, you get two votes on this vote because we are filling two vacancies. Opposing the vote and after the selection process, Cedric Gomes and Tim Watson received the majority support. Thank you, colleagues.

So we have two candidates who have received the majority support. I’m gonna look for a mover and a seconder to appoint those two individuals. Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Cuddy, thank you. And we’ll just get the clerk to open the vote for that.

Yes, you may certainly speak to that, Councillor Ramen. Thank you, and through the chair, I’m just wondering if colleagues would like to have further discussion about the candidates and the choices that were provided, names provided by London Hydra. Councillor Trussow. I think the appropriate time to do that would have been before we called the vote.

Well, we are on our appointment process so we can still have discussion about the two names that have been recommended. But I am not seeing any colleagues raising their hands on this. So we will ask the clerk to open the vote. Councillors, Ramen, Frank, and Hillier, closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 14 to one.

Thank you, colleagues. Moving on, the next item on the items for direction, 4.4 is a request to amend the current London Transit Commission by-law, a communication from the Secretary of the London Transit Commission. You have that before you with their request, which is essentially to add to more voting members to begin a recruitment process and the being noted that the communication was received. I am going to actually go if he’s live on Zoom to Mayor Morgan first, because we did have at CivicWorks yesterday, another motion that has already directed staff to undertake a review of the London Transit By-law.

So that was supported unanimously at committee. I’m going to go to Mayor Morgan to see if he would like to comment on this additional request from the London Transit Commission. So can you hear me okay? Yes, sir.

So first off, I appreciate the committee yesterday supporting directions that I put forward, particularly with a review of the by-law. It seems to me, whatever council would like to pass today, these things are going to come into alignment at the council meeting where they’re both approved. And this sort of item could be considered in that review of the governance by-law that oversees London Transit. So, you know, whether the committee wants to combine those processes now or at council, I think that there’s given the committee earlier this week supported a review of the governance.

You know, this seems like it rolls into that quite well. So I’m supportive of looking into this, happy to do it, but I think it’s part of that overall governance review. So, you know, that would be my suggestion for colleagues to consider is perhaps add these two pieces together and, you know, take some thoughtful deliberation about how to approach the overall governance of the Transit Commission. Thank you, Mayor Morgan.

So just to expand on that from a process consideration, we could deal with this specific request tonight or we could refer this to the Civic Works item that was passed yesterday so that this be referred to be considered with the comprehensive by-law review that was directed at Civic Works. So I am in your hands, we can deal with this separately or we can deal with this as a referral to direction from the motion that’s already been given at Civic Works. Councillor Pribble, well, sorry, Councillor Hillier, did you have your hand up to you? I just, I’m gonna start with Councillor Pribble, but I will come back to you, Councillor Hillier.

I wasn’t sure if you were waving or turning on your volume. So Councillor Pribble, we’ll start with you and then I’ll go to Councillor Hillier. My question is procedural timeframe and if the extended motion direction from the mayor yesterday, if it would delay this process, then I would like to deal with this now. So we have this representation on the Board of Commission for LTC and I don’t know if there’s anyone who can answer that question in terms of the timeframe.

Well, let’s see if Ms. Share, I’m wondering, I know this is a review of the by-law, but this was at Civic Works with regard to the MMP, sorry, the master mobility plan for the public, not to get into too many acronyms. And I’m wondering if you have any thoughts in terms of from your work on the MMP, what the timeframe might be related to this. And I know I’m maybe asking you to speculate wildly.

And if that’s the case, by all means, let me know that that’s the case. Thank you, Mr. Acting Mayor. I wanted to check in and see if I don’t, I’m trying to pull up a copy of the motion from yesterday.

I don’t have my Civic Works agenda with me. Was there a timeframe attached in the mayor’s motion? I’m afraid I don’t recall. So if we can confirm that in the meantime, I will think about how long it would likely take.

So there was a timeframe for London Transit to report back with a work plan in October, but I do not believe and Chair Raman is shaking your head that there was not a timeline attached to the comprehensive bylaw review. Thank you. My thoughts are that likely given the committee cycles and the time that it takes to get a report forward and the number of players that would be involved, we probably would be looking to closer to your end for a comprehensive review of the existing LTC bylaw. It is somewhat aged and probably requires some expertise outside of my own area, particularly from legal clerks and other experts within the city.

So I would hope to report back by your end. So from a master mobility plan perspective, a report back by year end, Mr. Card, I know you’re with us via Zoom. Did you want to provide any comment from your position in terms of comprehensive bylaw review from the legal position?

Acting Mayor, we are prepared to pursue the council’s instructions with respect to any changes to the bylaw, but I am not presently proposing any such changes. So this would follow a review process. Thank you for that, Councillor Pribble. So I would like to recommend if we can deal with this now as we had a meeting and there were various Councillors who are part of this group as well with big concerns about specialized service.

And one of the main reasons of adding two members that one will be representing the individuals using specialized service. So I would like to deal with that now. So we have this representation on the commission as soon as possible. Okay, and I’ll just share with colleagues, the clerk’s advice is as we often hear our city manager say and both.

So we could make this change now, but it would not preclude us from making future changes to the board composition through a comprehensive bylaw review if we wish to do so. So we could deal with this tonight. Now I will also, I’m also gonna draw to colleagues attention that it says adding two more members of the public to the London Transit Commission. The way the bylaw currently reads is that the commission is five members and up to three of those could be members of council.

We currently have two members of council and three members of the public, but you could add two members and you might also consider whether you wish one of those to be from the public and one of those to be from our complement of colleagues as well. So there are a couple of options in terms of adding to based on the existing bylaw. So I just wanted to draw that to folks attention. And I’ve got Councillor Hopkins on the list now.

Yeah, thank you for giving that extra information. I did have a question maybe to my colleagues who do sit on the commission on why they are asking for two. I understand one having the accessibility lens, but what is the board looking for and why did they pick two members from the public? Just wanting to know that conversation.

So there’s not even number, there’s not even. Okay, I’m gonna go actually ‘cause Councillor Ferrera raised his hand to answer that as Councillor Hopkins was speaking. So I’m gonna go to Councillor Ferrera as he’s also a member of the commission. And I do apologize Councillor Hillier.

I skipped Councillor Hopkins ‘cause I saw her stick her hand up, but I had you on the list too. So after Councillor Ferrera responds from a commissioner perspective, I will go to you, sir, Councillor Ferrera. Thank you and through you. Councillor Pribble is correct.

It was, we did have that discussion. So we don’t have the possibility of a split vote for even numbers. So we kept it at an odd number ‘cause right now it’s at five. So if we were to add the member from the accessible community, make it six, we could find ourselves into finding, having a tie and then yeah.

So that’s why we did the seven. Thank you, Councillor Ferrera and corporate services certainly experienced the challenges of an even number of votes this week. So Councillor Hillier, I’m gonna go to you next. Well, I was gonna move it ‘til we discussed it with the acidic works from yesterday, but I think I’m gonna sit and listen to the rest of the discussion for now.

Thank you. Great, thank you. And I’m gonna go back to Councillor Hopkins to know what the follow up. Yeah, thank you.

And just it’s two public members that were suggested that the board realized that a Councillor could, we’ve got this information before us. So I’m trying to direct our conversation here if we’re gonna do an appointment, what is the board looking for and would the board be open to Councillor and at a Councillor just as because the direction is to have two from the public. So I’ll go to Councillor Pribble and then I’ll see if Councillor Ferro wants to add anything. That’s news that I just found out a couple of minutes ago, but I gotta tell you that for us, I think it’s the decision of the Council.

If there is an additional Councillor that would be interested to be a commissioner, I think it would be very much welcome. So I would leave it if there is no interest on this horseshoe then open it up to the public. But there’s not really, our preference was certainly the one, the second one as well, so it is said, it’s just because you have a number. So I would leave it if there is an interest from this room, great, we can do that.

But if you are gonna do it, I don’t wanna just do it, have one Councillor and then we are gonna be looking around who is interested of doing it. So I would say this, if there’s anyone interested, please speak up and let’s make the motion that there’s gonna be a third Councillor. So I’m going to see if Councillor Ferro wants to add anything to that, but I think Councillor Pribble raises a very valid point. We have had some workload challenges filling some Board and Commission’s appointments.

So if we want to keep the up to three members that the by-law would allow, somebody should indicate this evening that they would be interested in taking on that additional work, but I’ll go to Councillor Ferrer now for any additional thoughts. Oh no, thank you through you. Yeah, that was actually the first that I heard that we were able to put a Councillor, a third Councillor on it as well. It is interesting, I didn’t have too much time to mull it over, but originally I was hoping to get two members from the accessible community on it.

But however, it’s up to council how we decide. And if we do have, if Councillor decides that they want to be on it and council as a whole here decides that we should have three Councillors on the board, I feel like we could probably make some impacts on the board further with extra hands on deck, I guess. So I would leave it up to you on that too. So I would concur with Councillor Pribble.

So Councillor, I will say with the intent that you expressed from your own point of view, that the clause A of the motion reads using an accessibility lens for the selection of at least one of the proposed new members. If there was a desire to amend that to say both of the new members, that would be in order as well. So I’ll leave that with you for your thoughts. And I’m gonna go to Councillor Trussard, did you have your hand up?

‘Cause Councillor Stevenson has hers up too, so I’ll go to Councillor Stevenson first and then I’ll come back to see if you wish to speak, Councillor. Thank you, it looks like the by-law already says two or three members of the commission could be from Council, so that may already be there. So this opening, I don’t think we need to put it into this by-law, it could just be two people, and we could choose to make one of them a Councillor based on the current by-law, does that make sense? The by-law says two or three Councillors already.

The thing is that the direction that’s before us right now says two voting members of the public. So I’m gonna go to Councillor Trussard next. Yes, through the chair, we don’t have a direction. We do not have a direction from London Transit.

We have a request. London Transit does not make directions to this council. So it’s our prerogative. We could amend the by-law if we wanted to.

Now, I think it’s a matter of urgency that we get somebody who is a parrot transit user or a caregiver on this board immediately, as soon as possible. I’m less concerned about the other one, but I hear what members are saying about the tie, especially since it’s such a small group. And the more people you add to a body, the less likelihood there is of a tie. Although a tie’s not the end of the world either, because if there’s a tie, then the matter doesn’t pass.

Having said that, I would be willing to take this on, but I do think that’s not a matter of urgency right now, as much as having a transit user is. But if you need to wrap this package up at once, I would be willing to take that on. Being that I only have two external appointments, and that’s been pointed out to me. So bear with me for just a second.

I’m just gonna ask a question of the clerk. Okay, as always, some great advice to the clerk. So we have, and I see Councillor Palosa has her hand up, so I will go to you right after I share what the clerk has advised. So if colleagues wanted an opportunity for a Councillor to fill one of those positions, we would simply change clause A to say, to add two more members, two more voting members to the commission.

And we would just delete the of the public. Using an accessibility lens could stay in, that would be fine, where we would need to make a change is in part B of a recruitment process for the above noted proposed new members. And we would be directing the clerk to only pursue a recruitment public recruitment process for one spot if we wish to put a Councillor on. So that’s something to consider in terms of, as we’re having this discussion about what we want to do is even if we want to add a third Councillor, we have to change the by-law to move the commission from currently five to seven members.

And I’m gonna go to Councillor Palosa next for her thoughts. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And for me, I’m not as much interested in having another Councillor seek this opportunity to serve on this board.

I’d be interested in the public who uses and relies on the system, definitely the lens of accessibility as we’ve discussed. And as earlier tonight, we’ve discussed the 50/30 of some boards and what we’d like to see. This could be an equal, a wonderful opportunity to start implementing some of that and recognizing that there’s equity underrepresented and equity seeking individuals in the city who would be underrepresented. And we know that women are the primary users of transit and they use it and rely on it with their children.

We know if we’re getting to work in daycare and schooling that transit’s not always running on time. And daycare, some of them charge late fees when you pick up your kids. So having that lens and that lived experience of those who use and rely on the system, for me, is important when making these decisions and recommending appointments. So I’m supportive of two members from the public.

Getting some advice from the clerk here colleagues and Councillor Hopkins, you wanted to speak. So I’ll go to you while I’m reviewing what the clerk has here. Thank you for recognizing me again and filling in the gap here. I just want to follow up on Councillor Palose’s comments about the ability to have two appointments from the public, one accessible for sure.

But even though we can have a Councillor, I haven’t digested that yet. And if I was going to support a Councillor, I think we would have to go back and allow all Councillors to submit their names. And I think doing it right now would be, unless Councillors are already committed to sitting on this board, I think we do need a little bit of time and space. So that part, if the committee is, once a Councillor should be referred back, but definitely I’m very supportive of having to one, the accessibility lens position on the board for now.

Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. So once again, the clerk’s wisdom on process is very helpful because we have to direct civic administration to amend the by-law. They would bring back an amended by-law to us, which we would then have to approve before the recruitment process can even begin. So we do not, even if we were to choose third Councillor, we would not be making that appointment tonight.

That would come back after we’ve approved the new by-law. So the clerk actually has come up with some language that leaves the opportunity for us to consider both options, a member of the public or a member of council to be that seventh member. And I’ve asked her to just put that in eScribe so everybody can read it. If you’d like to refresh your screens.

And so the, and I’m just gonna highlight the changes here so that those watching and those on Zoom can hear as well. So clause A would say that civic administration be directed to bring forward a by-law to amend the London transit by-law to add two more voting members to the commission using an accessibility lens for the selection of at least one of the proposed new members bringing the commission to a total of seven members and that civic administration be directed to begin a recruitment process for up to two, up to two members of the public supporting the above noted proposed new members such that the consideration that any additional commissioners may be in place by 2023 to allow time for the appropriate application selection process. But that leaves the door open in terms of the by-law coming back to us where as Councillor Stevenson pointed out the by-law already says two or three. So we can make that decision when the revised by-law comes back to us on what direction we want to go that way.

So I hope that’s helpful. Nobody has moved or seconded either the original or the clerk’s revised motion. So I will also point out we don’t actually have a motion on the floor yet, although we’ve had some great discussion and I’ve got Councillor Ferreira on the speakers list next. Thank you, through you.

So I see the change here is up to two members of the public, that’s the change just from a quick little glance from my side. There’s through the chair, there are two revisions in the second motion that is available in ESCRIBE for your consideration. Sorry, I need to open the original one first. Removed from the second proposed motion is from part A, where it says to add two more voting members.

It’s of the public has been removed from that part of the clause and then in part B, it references the recruitment for up to two members of the public and that would allow council to make a decision at a later date as to whether or not there would be an additional council member appointed at that time as has been previously indicated, it’s not necessary to amend the bylaw to provide for an additional Councillor appointment but there is a need to provide for additional commissioners on the board. Councillor Ferreira, thank you through you. Thank you, Ms. Westlake Power.

I would move this, the second amended or the second motion in ESCRIBE here, I’ll move that. Do we have a, I see Councillor Pribble, I’m gonna go to you as the seconder as the other member of the commission currently. So now, is there any further discussion on the motion that’s being proposed? Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote on that.

Opposing the vote, that motion is passed 15 to zero. Thank you colleagues and a special thanks to Deputy Clerk Westlake Power on the really helpful wordsmithing to get the language right for us there so that we can review this when it comes back. Moving on, item 4.5 on items for direction is the second report of the governance working group. We are not at council so I don’t have to call on Councillor Frank as the vice chair to stand and report out since I’m chairing.

You do have the report in front of you. There is a motion that we can move in second. If colleagues are comfortable moving in second in that and then we can have some discussion if there’s any discussion falling out of that motion. Councillor Stevenson moving and Councillor McAllister seconding.

So that motion is on the floor and that is the entirety that you can see in eScribe and we’ll look to see if there’s any discussion on that. See Councillor Frank. Thanks, yes, I had one question. I was just scanning it again ‘cause I don’t think I noticed it.

I’m just wondering are we going to have a deferred matters list at the end like how some of the other committees do eventually? We actually, so in this report we do not have that because we referred incomplete items to the next agenda. If we want to create a deferred matters list at governance working group, then we would have to create that at governance working group which would then be reported into SPPC as well. Okay, thank you.

And I’m just gonna ask Ms. Westlake power to provide an additional comment there. Thank you through the chair. We do track what’s outstanding so it will not be problematic for us to put together that list for the committee to review.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I appreciate that because my memory can be leaky some days. So just to remember what we’re working on would be great.

Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Frank. And I have no one else on the speakers list. So I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the vote on that.

Councillor Van Merebergen. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 15 to zero. Thank you colleagues. Moving on item 4.6 in your agenda is a communication from Mayor Morgan regarding intimate partner violence and femicide and an added communication from Ms.

Roger on the executive director of ANOVA and Ms. Dunn, the executive director of the London Abuse Women’s Center. And I will note that these are also the co-chairs of the London coordinating community to end woman abuse. So we have their communications.

We have Mayor Morgan with us via Zoom. So I am going to go to Mayor Morgan for an opportunity to address his communication to us. Yes, thank you, Chair. And I’ll just keep my camera off just as I have a questionable internet connection that has been a little bit choppy.

So just interrupt me for some reason you can hear me. First off, I’m happy to put the motion on the floor and have you look for a second or first before I introduce the rationale for the motion if you’d prefer, Chair. Well, let’s see if we have a seconder for your motion. Councilor Raman was first out of the gate.

So she is your seconder on this motion. Okay, then I’ll speak to the motion. And I want to say to colleagues, like this is not only something that is happening or being considered by our council. There are other councils who are actively moving forward with responding to the recommendations of the run through inquest and in that inquest.

There are two important recommendations that I had us consider today. The first is that the province of Ontario declare intimate partner violence an epidemic. And I am not gonna go through the statistics. They speak very much for themselves, both in the letter as well as in the phenomenal support letter that was written by partner agencies in our city.

But one of the ways that municipalities can support that effort of the province doing it is to do it themselves. We know that municipalities are on the ground. We are the ones who have and see our citizens face the consequences of intimate partner violence. We are the ones who support agencies and develop strategic plans with specific pillars to try to address these challenges in our community.

So it is important for us, although not directly asked to by the inquest to add our voices on this important issue. The second piece is the inquest also asked the government of Canada to explore adding the term femicide in its definition of the criminal code. And for those who don’t know what femicide is, it is basically the killing of women and girls because they are women and girls. And this happens way more often than is tolerable in an advanced society.

And it is something that we should add our voice to the calls of the inquest recommendations to ask the federal government to do that. So you see before you a series of clauses, I know we don’t always do clause motions like this, but I wanted to align it as closely as possible with work that is being done in other cities so that we are as much as we possibly can speak with one voice across the province. I’ll just finish by saying, this is a very, very difficult issue for so many in our community who have either experienced violence by their intimate partner or know someone who has. And I just wanted to say, there are motions and there are actions that we can take from this issue.

For everybody who might listen in or who might follow the work that we’re doing on this, I want them to know that their voices are heard, their calls for action are heard. And that we as a council will do what we can. And that includes the actions that we are taking in a very comprehensive strategic plan approach, but as well as call on other levels of government to take the actions that they can to support these important issues. So colleagues, I hope you support this.

I go forward to any discussion or questions you might have. Again, I could have gone through all of the statistics in this document, but they very much speak for themselves. And of course, we have advocates in the community who speak with a much, much more articulate voice than I do on this. And I know you’ve seen their letter too.

And I would ask you to consider that as you vote today as well. So thank you for your consideration colleagues. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. I have Councillor Frank on the speakers list next and then Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you. And I want to thank the mayor for bringing this forward. I’ve been chatting with some other members of the Federation of Community Municipalities who are on the board and they’ve brought this to their various councils. And I think it’s really important that given that we have a strategic pillar for a safe city for women and girls, that we need to be moving forward with actions like this.

And I think it’s incredibly important that as municipality, we continue to advocate to the province on various matters. Because I think that adding our voice to make changes. And while people might say maybe this isn’t in our lane, I think stuff that the province does impacts our local city and our residents of our city. So I think it’s important that we continue to do this kind of advocacy work.

So thanks to the mayor for this. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, and I too want to give my thanks to the mayor for bringing this forward. I am pleased to see that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario is on the list to receiving this recommendation.

I understand the intent is to bring those pressures to the provincial government in particular, but also to the federal government on the safety of women and girls in our community. And to me, this also adds to the renewal of our pillar and our strategic plan. Brings that focus back. It also creates a leadership in our municipality as well, that we can take on that role.

But more important, it also commits us as a council to engaging with community partners, educating and supporting our residents about the seriousness of long-term damage, of violence in our community. And again, thanks very much to the mayor for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Any other speakers to the motion?

Seeing any Councillors on Zoom with their hands up. So with no other speakers, I will ask the clerk to open up. My hands been up. Oh.

  • Mr. Acting Mayor. Sorry, Councillor Palosa. I did not see your hand up on Zoom, but I will go to you now.

Thank you. I just want to say the opportunity to thank the city’s partner organizations for doing this work, for bearing the trauma of the frontline work that’s done and advocating for these things, for our first responders who respond to these calls and having known through the pandemic and having met with them, that the frequency and severity of the violence they’re seeing against women and intimate partner violence has drastically escalated in severity, knowing that sometimes the summer is the most dangerous time for women or extend against them. This is work that needs to be continued and elevated. This council started this as a strategic pillar in our priorities in 2018 and have recommitted to that in 2022 for this term of council.

And grateful for this council’s commitment to furthering making this a safe city for all women, regardless if they’re residents of the city here as students or visitors coming in. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Palosa. And I have no one else on the speakers list.

So I will ask the clerk to open the vote now. Councillor Van Meerbergen. Opposing the vote, the motion’s passed 15 to zero. Thank you, colleagues.

That concludes our items for direction that we have not deferred until the end of the meeting. So our next item on the agenda would be to move into confidential session. It is 558, it was my intention as we would normally do to take a break at 630. I expect that there may be a fair amount of discussion on some of the items in camera.

So I’m going to suggest that we motion to go in camera. We may, while we are in camera, depending on the length of the discussion, potentially recess from in camera, but ideally we will finish all the items in camera before we take our break. And then we will come back for public session and deal with the remaining item. Unless we get through confidential session really fast in our back out in a few minutes and then proceed from there.

So I’m going to look for a motion now to move into confidential session, moved by Councillor Frank and seconded by Councillor Cuddy for the benefit of the public. The reasons for which we are going into confidential session are with respect to a land acquisition disposition and solicitor client privilege advice position plan or procedure or instructions to any negotiations to our city staff. Two is position plan procedure criteria or instructions to be applied to any negotiations with respect to information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. And the final reason is personal matters, identifiable individuals matters pertaining to an identifiable individual employee related matters, advice or recommendations to officers of the corporation with respect to those items.

So the motion has been moved, seconded, and I will ask the clerk to open the vote. And I will advise colleagues we will not be moving rooms for this one. We will be remaining in chambers for confidential session. Councillor Bamirbergen, closing the vote, the motion’s passed 15 to zero.

Okay, colleagues, I am going to call the 19th meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee back to order in public session. And I am going to call on Councillor McAllister to report out on our confidential. Thank you through the chair, reporting that progress was made on all three items that we went in camera for. Thank you, Councillor McAllister.

Colleagues, resuming our public session. We have one item left, which we deferred from our items for direction until we return from our confidential session. So we are back to the master accommodation plan. I have been advised as we were preparing to return.

So I’m going to go to Councillor Lehman first as he would like to address the motion he made before we went in camera. Thank you, Chair. Based on the information and discussion in private session, I would ask to withdraw my motion and I am planning to replace it with a revised motion. So I’m going to look to see if there is any objection if we have consent to allow the prior motion to be withdrawn and a new motion to be put on the floor because of the information that was received in confidential session.

So I see a lot of, so I’m going to look to see if there’s any objections. Councillor Hillier, you’re lifting your thumb to indicate you will, as the seconder, confirm your withdrawal as well. So I appreciate that. Seeing none, consent has been given, Councillor.

So you are clear to put a new motion on the floor. Thank you. The clerk has new wording, which I’ll ask her to circulate. Essentially, it’s a similar motion regarding main intent for planning and building staffing to address the concerns that we heard today and the concerns I addressed and when I originally put forward the motion.

And I’ll leave it at that for now and look to Councillor Hillier has indicated you would second that, Chair. Okay, and I’m just going to give us a moment to see if the clerk is able to put the new wording. Okay, so if we refresh, we should be able to see it in eScribe. And that would be motion number seven.

And I will ask the clerk to read it out just so that we can share that with everybody. Thank you through the chair. The motion reads as follows. That the following actions be taken with respect to the master accommodation plan and alternative work strategies.

The report dated July 19th, 2023, with respect to an update on the master accommodation plan and alternative work strategies be received. Part B, the civic administration be directed to initiate the conclusion of any current alternative work strategies in the planning and development and building services areas and return to office locations full time by or before November 1st, 2023 and Part C, the implementation of alternative work strategies in service areas other than those noted in Part B above B continued. Okay, if that’s there for everyone’s that’s in eScribe, we’ve got a motion moved and seconded and now we can begin discussion on that motion. Councilor Frank.

Thank you, yes. Just a couple of questions for staff through you. Just wondering what the impact of this motion would be for staffing levels and for the budgets. Ms.

Livingston. Yes, Mr. Chair, if I could in response to that question, say a few additional things, if that would be okay. So we are very well aware of the concerns of the industry.

Mr. Mathers meets with them regularly as do I and we understand very well there’s concerns that staff perform better than at home, poor response times and the need for better collaboration and training. Council will know very well that Mr. Mathers brought forward a report on June 19th to PAC that outlined a number of steps that are being taken to address these concerns and in working with the industry around process improvements, enhanced customer experience and increased capacity and capability.

We’re also looking forward on how we can track staff performance with respect to customer responses, including baselines and targets. So I just want to be clear, it’s not like we’ve done nothing in response to the concerns of the industry. We’ve done many, many things and we’ll continue to do that. In terms of impacts, there are several I would like to highlight.

The first is logistical and if you wish to have more detail about this, I’ll refer it to Ms. Barbon, but one of the things that we were asked to do was to consolidate planning and development onto one floor at City Hall, in one place at City Hall, move people from 201 Queen here. The reason we were able to do that within our existing footprint is because of hybrid work arrangements. That is why we were able to do that.

We are also, as you know, brought forward a report recommending the additional of 11 new building staff members, which was supported and that was made possible because of hybrid arrangements. With this direction, there will be significant staff space impacts, both for planning and development and for building, we will need to find additional space either in this building or in other buildings that we will likely have to lease to have that space. So either we disrupt other staff that are currently in the building in order to accommodate all these staff here full time or we would have to split up these areas. Those are some of the things that we would have to work through in advance of a November first timeframe.

Additionally from a retention and attraction perspective, we are, and I also just wanna be clear ‘cause I’m not sure everyone understands what the current arrangements are, so I’d like to just clarify that. So for both of these divisions, there are staff in the building every day. There are staff in the building every day and there’s counter and phone coverage Monday to Friday, 830 to 430. So it’s not like the offices are sitting empty, there are staff in the building.

For building staff, they all staff work 50% remotely. For building it’s five days in, five days out. For planning it’s two, three, three, two. The reason for building that it is five in and five out is we have a number of staff who work a significant, who live a significant distance from London.

And so from a retention perspective, that arrangement works better to be able to accommodate where they live and coming into work. With respect to retention and attraction, we’re currently aware of approximately six to 12 staff members in both building and planning that would likely, we would anticipate likely leave the city prior to coming back into the office full time. This is a combination of significant distance to travel, but also we have not very recently lost approximately six staff to the GTA municipalities where permanent full time remote work is available for planning staff, as well they garner greater salaries than we are able to pay here. So we anticipate that if we proceed with this direction, we’ll deal with the space issues, they will be not insignificant, and we will certainly have retention and attraction issues for both building and for the planning and development areas.

So I just, as Council is making this decision, I just wish you to have that perspective. The other thing I would highlight is that while all the other service areas will remain in the alternate work mode, I would anticipate that this would be an impact to the morale of both of these heavily worked staff areas. So lots of things to think about, which is why I’m, if you’re proceeding, grateful for the time to introduce change management, bring as minimal disruption as possible, and try and manage some of these impacts that we will, we know will happen, and some of them that we hope won’t, but expect they will. Councillor Frank.

Oh, hang on, we’re gonna hear some additional information from Ms. Barbara on first. Thank you through the chair. So in addition to Ms.

Livingston, one of the comments is that we will need additional space. So at a minimum, we anticipate it’s approximately 25% greater than what we currently have, although we’ll need to assess that based on needs. One of the, so certainly, whether it is the existing staff moving from the building to consolidate them on another floor or we will need additional space. So whether that is approximately a floor or a floor and a half in this building, we would need to either locate those staff in new premises that are leased, and/or relocate the staff that we would, from City Hall to that new premises.

So one of the concerns is we would need some time to procure that, so certainly we’d have to go out and typically we do that through a competitive process, but we would review our current space requirements to see if there is any room to look given some of the alternate work strategies in place if that availability is there, but certainly we would go out through an RFP is typically how that’s done. There is no budget for additional lease space, so that would be a financial impact that we would need to bring through the multi-year budget ‘cause that certainly capacity does not exist. The other thing I would note is with respect to furniture and equipment that we would need to order to outfit the staff coming in every day, it’s about a 10 to 12 week lead time for any furniture. So noting November 1st, it may be problematic that we won’t have given the supply chain challenges, desks and equipment for the staff by that date, so we would need a little bit of leeway, potentially to be able to ensure that we have that available, and it will likely take longer than November 1st.

Thank you, Ms. Barbara, and Councillor Frank. Thank you, and I had one follow-up question. I think that it probably won’t work, but some of the discussion we heard from the delegates was that when we got off, when we got on three days in, three days out, is there any way to try to get everyone like four days on, like still have hybrid, like you get Fridays off, or would we still run into all the same problems that you just answered?

‘Cause I’m just, it sounds more like they wanna just be able to come in and go to the sixth floor and talk to a staff person, but they don’t know when they’re in and when they’re out, so if there’s some of that alleviated, while still allowing for hybrid, but just perhaps in a more consistent schedule, I’m just wondering if we’d run into the same problems with that idea. Ms. Livingston. Through the chair, we do have a consistent schedule.

It’s two, three, three, two for planning, and it’s five in, five out for building. We can certainly improve from a communications perspective on where you can find what staff where, and those are some of the things that Mr. Mathers is working on. There will still be implications, even if we went to four in one, there’s still perhaps the staffing concerns might be less, but the space concerns I’d have to assess.

So I take the point, I’m just not sure I have the answer for you. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, I appreciate that. Based on the information I won’t be supporting this, I think that we could continue to have maybe a report back at a later date to see what else staff can bring to us that would recognize the concerns from the customer, as well as try to accommodate any issues we have financially and with the workforce.

So at this point, I think it’s, personally for me, it’s too hasty to make this decision without understanding how it would negatively impact our staff and our budget. Thank you, Councillor Frank. I’m gonna ask Councillor ramen to take the chair ‘cause I have myself next on the speaker’s list with a quick question. Thank you, recognizing that the chair and I have acting mayor Lewis on the speaking’s speaker’s list.

Thank you. So first question, having heard what Ms. Barbon was saying with regard to simply material supplies, I’m a little bit concerned about the November 1st date, if we go this route. And I know the answer from staff is always through you, Madam Chair, we will do what Council directs, but realistically, if we were to go this route, would a longer lead time to get there be more helpful to you, you know, whether that’s the 1st of 2024 or even by the end of the 1st quarter of 2024, just recognizing that if we don’t even have desks or a chair for them, that becomes a little more challenging than whether or not they are driving into a job five days a week.

So would that change in timeline assist? Ms. Livingston. Through you, Madam Chair, the longer the better in terms of, and it’s hard to give an accurate date on when everything could be done.

So trying to be helpful in terms of what people are looking to do, but from my perspective, the longer the better from a space consideration from a supply and, you know, having staff, but also, frankly, from a change management perspective and respecting that we’re talking about people, people who work hard every day all the time and deal with complaints all the time. So I would, that extra time would assist with that. It also may help to give us a better understanding of where we might see recruitment or retention concerns. So from my perspective, the longer the timeframe, the better to try and manage what is not an insignificant change for about 170 staff.

Thank you, follow-up? Yes, so two very quick follow-ups. First, would anything in this direction, from your perspective as a city manager, Ms. Livingston, prohibit you from allowing special accommodation in an instance where, and I’m not suggesting that they should on day one when they come home, but say an employee, for example, had an accident and broke their leg.

And they didn’t want to be off, you know, six to eight weeks, but they were willing to, you know, after two weeks being at home with their cast on and starting to feel a little better, they were willing to remote work. Would you still be able to, would you still have the authority to provide special accommodations in those unique circumstances? Ms. Livingston?

Through you, Madam Chair, regardless of this direction, I have complete authority to address accommodations for staff depending on what their needs are. That’s a standard approach that we take in our organization, and we would deal with individuals on a case-by-case basis for that. Follow-up? Yep, very last one.

I just want to make sure, ‘cause I heard Councilor Frank say four days in and one day off, and I will say, I share concerns about people being away for five full days. If it were three, two, three for both divisions, I would even there be more comfortable, although I share some of the concerns about people being away a long time. But I just want to make sure, when we’re talking about, if we were going to a three, two, they’re not off for two days, they’re just working remotely. And in that example, it’s not that they were off on Fridays, it’s that they would be working remotely on Fridays.

I just want to make sure that I’m correct in my understanding there. Ms. Livingston? Through you, Madam Chair, the expectation of what we call temporary hybrid remote work is that you are working.

Some days you are working in your remote space, and other days you are working in the office. For some of these employees, particularly in building, they’re never in the building. They’re out inspecting. They might touch base here.

So the expectation is you’re working. The approach that we took, and this might be helpful, particularly for folks that didn’t live through the pandemic with us. When we shifted to temporary remote work last April, the you have to recall that we were dealing with staff that had worked entirely remotely, and many had been working remotely for the entirety of the pandemic. So this was a significant change to bring people back into the building.

And we asked service areas to develop a schedule, either two, three, three, two, or five in five remote based on a couple of things. One, the expectations of how the service needed to be delivered, but two, also what worked best from a team and staff development perspective. There are many ways to have team development that don’t require you to be in the building, together, physically. We are currently piloting through the alternate work strategy a fully remote team.

And the initial evaluations have come back, significant satisfaction both from the customers and from the staff that are participating in it. So there’s lots of ways. I absolutely accept the point that we need to improve the customer service approach in these areas and many things are being done. I just trying to flag some of the issues with changing work arrangements.

So I hope that kind of answers the question on the four one. It’s still going to have space concerns, but it may lessen it. Thank you. Is that your final question?

Okay, thank you. Returning the chair to you, noting that Councilor Trossa is on the speaker’s list. Thank you. We’ll go to Councilor Trossaal and then I’ve got Councilor McAllister next.

Thank you very much and through the chair. And sorry, I’ll just acknowledge Councilor Palosa is also on the speaking list. Okay, I want to indicate my strong, adamant opposition to this request. I think it is very unfair to our, not just staff, but our management to have to accommodate this type of change after everything you’ve been through over the last period of time.

I think that pushing the date back may help you in the ordering furniture department, but I don’t think it’s going to help at all in terms of the serious effect that this is going to have on morale. And when I’m talking about morale, this cuts across all levels of where you stand in the hierarchy of this organization. I’m very, very concerned that an interest group can come in here and even come close to moving this Council to make this type of consequential change. If we are going to make this type of change, we should be reviewing it system-wide and we should be applying the same types of rules to people in different departments and different units.

And I think what we’re doing here is we are privileging, and you know how much I hate the term customer, but I guess I have to say ‘cause that’s the word we’re using today, we cannot be privileging a certain class of customer about it to people who are like, it’s an example. Well, I’ll leave that there without an example. But I think that you’ve got a lot of accumulated experience and a lot of accumulated learning in terms of how to best allocate the difference between remote and off and off learning. And the demand that is being placed on you in number B, I think is unreasonable, I don’t think it’s warranted, I think it really smacks of special privilege for a particular client group, and I think it will have devastating impacts on the credibility of this corporation to continue the way we are on the good road that we are, given some of the challenges that you’ve faced over the last few years.

So I really wanna urge everybody to reject, resoundly reject B. And if you wanna change that to say, to initiate further study, that would be fine. And I think that that would at least move things in the direction, but we can’t have interest groups coming in here changing the way we operate our city workflow, it’s outrageous. So I just wanna illustrate my very clear opposition to this, and I really hope that counselors really think about the implications of what they’re doing if they adopt B.

Thank you. Councilor Palosa is next, and then Councilor McAllister. Thank you, just trying to get my video going as I don’t have access to start it. That’s okay, you already know what I look like.

We can hear you loud and clear, no matter whether we can see your smiling face. My only voice, just know I’m smiling. Question three to staff to begin with. When staff are doing the five on, five off, is it a shared workplace desk for each employee, or does each employee come into their normal setup in the office?

Ms. Livingston. Through you, Mr. Chair, it is a shared space.

Thank you. So it seems we’re already maximizing the space we have available to us that that one space already services to employees. I’m grateful for this conversation for Councilor Layman to bring it forward, recognizing we’ve heard longstanding issues. You know, it’s not just this term of Council, it spans twice, at least two terms that I’ve been here, knowing we don’t have the budget for it, and knowing we’re already having difficulties with employee retention, worried about the loss of talent this decision could have, and knowing that some employees have reached out throughout the pandemic that we’ve been through, that honestly and sincerely did claim that once they started working remotely from home, environmental factors and impacted them at work that they weren’t even aware of, diminished.

They had a higher quality of life, a reinvigoration in their job, and more productivity. So always mindful of those who wanna be of service and love the city of London, and their jobs, but just the office isn’t the right place for them full time. So those are my concerns, and I won’t be able to support that one motion at this time. Thank you, Councilor Palosa, Councilor McAllister.

Thank you, through the chair. So I just wanna start off with a question, in terms of, I believe it was 11 staff, that were, I’m not sure if they started, but when are they going to be brought on board, and if not, do we have a date for that? Maybe we’ll go to Ms. McNeely for that, or Ms.

McNeely. Thank you, through the chair. We haven’t actually, we’ve just reported out on those 11 people, so it will be posting, we’re actively posting now, and as the positions come available, so it’ll be over time. Councilor McAllister.

Okay, and thank you. And that was something that came to mind as we were having this discussion, and I think a lot of employers are facing this, because I view this issue differently in terms of, I think, a lot of the time, it’s actually staffing levels. I think with bringing 11 new people on board that will alleviate a lot of the issues that were brought up by our delegation. And personally, I don’t think we’ve given enough time, because these people haven’t even been on board yet, we haven’t posted for those jobs, and I think that we have to allow some time for new staff to be brought on board, ‘cause I see this more as a volume issue, and I know, again, the hybrid model, a lot of people have experienced in the last few years, but in a lot of cases, the argument was being made, well, the service has gone down, but I think in a lot of cases it’s because of staff, and we’re talking a lot about retention, and I think that is a big problem as well, because I think by doing this, it makes us a less competitive employer, and we heard that there’s potential for staff to leave, there are other municipalities that can offer higher wages, and so I think it takes away from that, and it makes retention even harder.

And so for all those reasons, I won’t be supporting this. And sorry, just to add to my last point, I think the cost of living needs to be factored into this as well. A lot of people are now looking at the working remote as a way to save. When salaries aren’t gonna necessarily skyrocket, but people are looking at employers to offset those costs, and I think that that’s gonna be a factor when people are looking at a place to work.

So again, for the reasons I mentioned before, I won’t be supporting it. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, and through the chair, just some comments that last summer, when I was canvassing and these eight months in office, I hear consistently that it’s not working for the development and the construction industry, and the delegates who came before us have really thoughtfully considered, and they understand that there is likely to be some short-term pain, and they realize that and they have weighed that and come and still made the request, because they feel that in order to meet our housing commitment, that that is what they need. And so when we talk about privileging a certain customer, I think it’s more about listening to our partner in solving this housing crisis that we’re in.

They are our partner, without them, we don’t have houses. So I think we get to listen to their request and honor it if we’re serious about meeting our housing targets, they are very aggressive. And if we think that things are gonna change without changing things, it’s just not gonna happen. And it’s gonna demonstrate a commitment from this city to meet those targets, both to our development community and to the people of London, because we can say, this is how committed we are.

We are willing to make these changes to partner up and to address the crisis. So, and when we talk about shared space, that doesn’t help the businesses who are coming in with their relationship, because it’s the wrong person at the desk who doesn’t have their file. So just because there’s a body at the desk doesn’t necessarily help with continuity of transactions. And when we say we don’t have the budget and we’re worried about loss of talent, we have to have the budget.

I mean, if we’re committed to doing this, we are gonna have to invest and spend money. And we’re gonna need the talent that is effective, unfortunately, if our partner in housing development says they need this, then we need people who can do the job. And if they can’t be here to give the service that our housing partners say they need, then we don’t have the right people, unfortunately. And I’m compassionate in terms of impact and change and it’s difficult and everyone’s been through a difficult time.

But what I heard at the door loud and clear and the commitment that I made to the residents of Ward 4 and to the city was that housing, housing, housing. It has to happen and I will be supporting this. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Ferreira. Thank you and through you.

I am listening to the debate here. I understand the concerns that Councillor Layman is bringing to the floor. But I do hear what Councillor Frank Traso Palosa and McAllister has said, specifically McAllister, he has pointed out a different way to address this issue with the volume, see? And I do see that if there is an issue here, there’s obviously different ways to address it.

And if we hastily get into looking into taking away the alternative work strategy for that specific area of the city, and we just do that now, we will not be able to look at other options that could also solve this issue as well. So I do feel like maybe it would be wise to go back to staff and ask staff to report and assess. I have a motion that I’d like to put in as an amendment considering the local business is downtown with the alternative work strategy, but I’m not just saying let’s bring everybody back to work. My motion is gonna be looking towards staff to assess and see the impacts because I feel like more information is needed and I don’t want to move on such a big significant change just on the fly.

I don’t feel comfortable with that. I feel like it would be more wise to ask staff for an assessment and to see the impacts considering space, considering employee relations, considering morale. From all the points that I saw brought up here, I feel like that would be a smarter way to move forward. So I wouldn’t be supporting this motion the way it is written at the moment.

I would like to hopefully see maybe have some language here that would have staff look into this and report back. I feel like that would be wise. Thank you, Councillor Ferrera, Councillor Pribble. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, to the staff. So we had two delegates today and I consider them kind of our clients, our customers, right? Because we work together, we have the 47,000 homes, a huge target. If I look at the last report for last three quarters from the building division, let’s hope we pick up the pace.

If we can be a little bit closer, get to the 47,000. And I think positive and I believe we’ll get there. But there’s a struggle for all the organizations and certainly North America. But when there is an issue is there are two things that everyone tries to address.

And that’s the productivity measures and service delivery. And I would love to see, I like this motion, but I would be okay to change it and we can, by end of August, if we can have these two things, we know that there is something and our clients are not happy with something. And we are not coming up with service delivery. There’s the change, there’s proposals.

How can we address it? How can we address it with this three, two, three? Are we going to have a service desk? Are we going to have whatever it is?

And then the measures of, it will be much easier for us as a Councillor’s. This was the productivity measures before, even though before pandemic, these are the numbers that each inspector, each person delivered. And they are still delivering it on the three, two, five, five schedule. But I think that this is the thing that I’m okay to change it, but I want certain first step to guarantee me that we are on the right track and we are going to satisfy the needs of our clients, of our customers.

So my question to the staff is, would we be able to receive the productivity measures proposed and service delivery change? I don’t know whether, I know Ms. McNeely has a work plan up on a wall upstairs, but I’m not sure if she has Ms. Livingston wanted to respond to this one.

I apologize, Mr. Chair, Mr. May, there’s is a way. So Heather and Ms.

McNeely and I are trying to manage this conversation as best, as best we can. So there’s a couple of things I’d like to say, and then I’m going to refer it to Ms. McNeely. The June 19th PEC report articulated a number of the steps that we are taking to try and improve both our process pieces, the customer experience.

It included the addition of staff. We are creating a desk. We’re creating a special file manager, if you will. There are a number of things that were included in that report as well.

Mr. May, there’s this indicating that he’s moving forward to create specific performance measures for staff and how we will track that. I’m not in a position today to tell you the timing of that. I will, Mr.

May, there’s returns on Monday, and I can ask him then when he’s anticipating to bring that forward. So I’d just like to reiterate that Mr. May, there’s has been working very closely. We have a customer process and improvement table where many of these things are being worked on together with the partner industries that we have.

And so it’s not like we’re not doing anything to try and respond to the concerns and the expectation of such increased volume over the next number of years. We have that shared commitment to be able to deliver. I would like to just refer it to Ms. McNeely, though, to talk a little bit about some of the data in terms of our broader performance measures, not the specific staff ones, but the broader ones on what these two areas are designed to achieve.

Thank you through the chair. I just wanted to add a little bit more about the performance measure. It’s the development application, development planning application tracker. And so there’s two parts to that.

With that one, we have to build the layers. We’re working with our ITS folks, trying to build that strong foundation so that then anybody that wants to know where their application is, where it’s in the queue. We’re actually gonna be putting a committed staff person from our team on that project with a dedicated ITS person as well, because that’s how important this project is. With that, that will take about another year, at least, before we actually have something that we can test and start piloting.

Having said that, we’re also working on something that helps the industry understand where they’re at and as Livingston mentioned, it’s the constant communication. It’s the streamlining elements that we’re trying to build in. The communication being more quickly in terms of turnaround, in terms of responses. But the volume is the volume, and the volume is quite heavy.

So it’s very difficult to respond to inquiries in five minutes when she receives an email. So we do have a standard of 48 hours. When applications, we have our standards. So when they’re the two week time, there’s an escalation.

So there are measures in place. And so we may have to work closer to those standards and work closely with the industry to remind them of those standards. But having said that, some of the data that I’m gonna share with you, relates to what was in the annual development report back in February, and it relates to the comparison between 2021 and 2022. And it also has some that were pre-pandemic versus post.

And we certainly would be happy to do a deeper dive if this was referred back. But having said that, our site plan, that was our first pilot project that we did through streamlining. And you will hear from the industry that it’s pretty much, it’s really good now. You’re not hearing the complaints about those ones because we actually spent a considerable amount of time on that.

We are well under the 60 day statutory requirement. We are in 2018 and 2019. So those were pre-pandemic. We were about 22 days.

Well under that 60 day statutory timeline. In 2020, 2021, we’re about 21 and 20 days. So we’re still meeting that general standard in the same in 2022 and so far in ‘23. We are still meeting the, around the 2022 days.

Under the zoning bylaw applications, our applications increased from 38 applications in 2021 to 50 applications in 2022. That’s showing you the volume. With that, we actually had a 12% improvement in terms of that turnaround time for those processes. Consent applications, we’ve improved from 74% in 2021 to 100% in terms of meeting the timelines.

So again, in 2022, we met all applications for consent within the 90 day statutory timelines. For minor variance applications, they range from about 140 to 170 applications. And as we continue to have the zoning bylaw, the current zoning bylaw in place, we’re gonna continue to see more minor variance applications because they don’t meet necessarily the policy framework. The zoning doesn’t meet the policy framework.

We need to get that rethink zoning project completed. But having said that, we’re still maintaining our turnaround times for those. The same with plans of subdivision and plans of condominium times. There was an increase in applications in 2021.

Eight applications, that’s not really standard for a lot. You usually get maybe one or two a year. But having said that, we’re maintaining our standards that we had pre-pandemic in terms of those applications. But certainly we’d be happy to go into a little bit more detail on that.

In person, we can tell you that in person counter inquiries, we, from January to June 2023, we had, for planning and development, we had 288 countering cars. Staff were here to accommodate for that. In building, they had over 1,051 in person counter inquiries. We offer, as part of our standards, in terms of when we report out for consultations, meetings, we have what we call pick up meetings with the applicants, we offer those in person, we offer hybrid because a lot of consultants are out of town, and they don’t wanna make the trip to London.

So we offer the hybrid, and so at the end of the day, most of those are virtual meetings. Very few, there’s very few uptake in terms of having those in person, but we do offer that. Committee of Adjustment, the preference of the committee themselves is to have the virtual meetings. And again, we offer that in person, to make it well-rounded from a public perspective.

But again, in terms of that, through the committee and the consultant community, they prefer to have that virtual. It just makes it, they can go to many meetings. They could go to a meeting in Sudbury in 15 minutes after their meeting in London without actually having to physically travel. We do have staff available, as Ms.

Livingston mentioned. The expectation is that staff, if there’s a meeting for them to come into the office, even if it’s not their scheduled date, we have touchdown spaces. And it may be only for the hour, hour and a half, or whatever for that in person meeting. But we do have our standards, and we do have expectations.

And as Ms. Livingston mentioned, we do need to work more better on our communication. And certainly, we can take a look at the 3223. But at any time, we’re available by phone, we’re available by email.

They can call and make an appointment. And we will make ourself available. Staff will come in and meet with the industry. Council approval.

Thank you very much for those numbers, and from the chair to the staff. Couple of things. And I’m very glad that we are, of course, making the statutory deadlines. But the other thing is, those are kind of the, those should be our really honest, our maximum, right?

And I don’t know if these maximums, they’ll get us to 47,000 to sort of faster the better. But we all know that I’m not saying anything new. But one thing is that I was concerned, you did say that it’s gonna take us about a year where you’re talking about the tracking track, because that’s actually a bigger concern for me right now. Excuse me, Ms.

McNeely. Thank you through the chair. Yes, that’s the digital application tracker. It’s, as you can appreciate, it’s a very involved system in terms of, we’ve done a lot of the legwork in terms of getting the data.

But now it’s how do you build that data? How do you put that in, making sure that the milestones, and then also creating the elements that then is user-friendly at the end. And it’s making sure all those nuances of each step have been checked, rechecked, and that’s what takes the time. And so right now we’re in the discovery phase.

That may not mean anything. It certainly didn’t mean anything to me. But I just know that it’s going to the next progression. And so now it’s full throttle and coming forward with that evaluation, the review, and hopefully we’re piloting by this time next year.

So this one, just to make sure, are we talking about our famous Amanda? Are we talking about the same thing? Thank you through the chair. It’s using the Amanda database as the input of the information, but it’s taking that and applying it in a way that is user-friendly.

So I just want to make sure, sir, the chair, thank you. I just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing because when we started in November here, this project was supposed to be completed before summer and the input was supposed to be done over the summer and in the fall, we were supposed to be on this tracking. And actually, it was one person sending an email that London Free Press covered in 2005 or 2007 that City of London is going to have this within 12 months. But this is a word for me because, again, this tracking, I really thought we were going to be in place, but I will ask more questions, why such a delay?

Because, again, when we started, it was supposed to be in place before summer and over the summer input and fall, we were supposed to be on the tracking. So this part is disappointing, no doubt. Going back to the motion, thanks again for the numbers. I know sorry about that because I know Mr.

Mathers is not here right now, but I will speak to him about this as well as the service desk, because I know there was the proposal, again, the service desk, I thought it was a good idea. But, again, I really think that I actually tell everyone whoever asked me, how do I like it? I say, I’m loving it. The thing is, I feel like we are on a better track, but we are not spinning the wheels fast enough.

And this would be exactly the thing that we feel that the service desk would be good. We could eliminate the two delegates that were here today, but where is it, right? And we talked about this, this few months before. So again, I’ll be positive beyond the right track, but I really hope that we can start working on these things and making the decisions, making implementing these plans much, much faster, because we need it.

Doesn’t matter if it’s the building, if it’s the housing, if it’s whatever. So, anyways, thank you very much to the staff, and I will talk to Mr. Mathers when he comes back. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Pribble. I have Councillor, I’m just gonna advise folks, the speakers list currently, is Lehman, Lewis, Hopkins, McAllister, Stevenson. So I’ll go to Councillor Lehman next. Thank you, I’m gonna reiterate 47,000 homes.

The delegates that spoke today, we’re not special interest groups. They represent the people that are gonna build those homes. I speak to their members. I’ve speak to independent contractors that build one or two homes a year.

I speak to large contractors. And it’s the same message. The incredible frustration they have in getting the work done. No one is suggesting that our staff aren’t anything, but hardworking wanna get the job done.

It’s the nature of the work. You know, when we look at remote work, there’s areas, and that’s why in my motion, I recognize areas that can work remotely, efficiently, with no effect to the end result. There are some areas of work, though, that require people to be together. People need to collaborate.

People need to be mentored. You mentor someone when you have an issue on your desk and you go down the hall and you talk to a senior person that’s seen this before, or they can send you in the right direction, as opposed to making a phone call, leaving a message, organizing a Zoom call. Days pass, weeks pass, projects don’t get underway. We heard about employee retention.

People leave for various reasons. Will the people leave because of this? Maybe. People have left when we’ve had remote work.

They’ve left for other reasons, and they will continue to do so. But what you will get, you will get a culture that is collaborating and getting things done together. You know, it’s been a collaboration. We all are familiar with staff that do that on a regular basis.

Our staff, our admin staff, do that all the time. They don’t work remote. And I asked them, ‘cause I knew this was coming up. How would you feel about working remote?

Could you get your job done? They said, “Not as effectively.” And I see that when I’m in here, talking to them. I have questions, I go talk to them. They have someone in the phone.

The question, they talk to someone else. I talk to other counselors when we’re here. I talk to staff who happen to be on our floor because something came up that didn’t need me to get on Zoom to make an appointment, to go down and go, “Oh, by the way, what about this?” Blah, blah, blah. A two-minute conversation saves hours.

This is needed. It’s needed desperately. We have to, if we want to get to where we’re going, I really, I wouldn’t be bringing this up if it wasn’t as important, ‘cause I realize the applications, as do the folks that address us today. They wouldn’t be here addressing this if they didn’t think it was so important to get to our goal.

‘Cause I’ll tell you what will happen. They’ll get frustrated. They’ll sit on zoning. And they’ll go to other areas where their stuff is getting through faster.

We want to get stuff built in this town. Let’s help them do it. Let’s help them build. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Layman. I will ask Councillor Ramen to take the chair again. Thank you, recognizing that I have the chair and I have Acting Mayor Lewis on my speaker’s list. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer.

So I’m going to first say, I recognize everything that we heard from both the city manager and the city treasurer absolutely have an impact here. They do. And to Councillor Stevenson’s point, if we are going to go down this road, there is going to be a cost, absolutely. I also want to pick up on something that Councillor Stevenson said, which I think is really important, the continuity piece.

And whether that will be addressed or not in the new software, the digital file management, I don’t know, but I have heard that myself. Yes, and not a special interest group, even an individual constituent who has called in, looking to get an update on the permit for their garage and they wait 10 days, two weeks. Then they call me or email me and say, why haven’t I heard back yet? Because if the person is not in and they’re not reaching the person, and they have reached other people, they’ve called the service London desk and been told all the person is working remotely.

They’re not getting that remote person answering the phone the same way that they’re getting the person in the building answering the phone. And for whatever reason that is, that causes them, our residents, our constituents, great frustration. And look, the big guys, and we heard some representatives from the big guys tonight, as much as they’re frustrated by it, they also have a voice here that they’re working with trying and make some process improvements. The little guy, the guy who’s building a garage or a carport or a deck, that they are feeling this and they are, ‘cause I heard it when I was knocking doors too.

That’s the frustrating part. I had a person last year who wasn’t able to put in their swimming pool because they couldn’t get staff to respond in a timely manner and they lost their booking slot. So that meant no pool for their kids that summer. So there is an issue here.

And I do not, for a moment, disregard the fact that staff are working on continuous improvement measures, ‘cause I know they are. I’ve been up and sat in an office with Miss McNeely and Mr. Corby and seen the whole wall all the way around covered with a continuous improvement flow chart that they’re working on. So I know that they are trying to improve some things.

But I said earlier, I have a real, real challenge with the five-five. I don’t think that is working. So on that alone, I’m inclined to be supportive of this direction and Councilor Layman’s right, lots of our staff are back full-time. And I remember, and I’m going to, I’m having lunch with her next week, so I guess I’m gonna have to buy, ‘cause I’m gonna channel Councilor Cassidy and quote something she said when we started to bring people back in the first place.

And there was debate about whether or not it was the right time to do that. And she said it loud and clear, and this has stuck with me ever since. You can’t have a workplace culture if you don’t have a workplace. And I recognize that we have staff who are coming in.

I do. I recognize that they’re not remote the whole time. If you’re disconnected from the physical workplace, though, for an entire week, I see that as a problem. And I also acknowledge, by the way, Ms.

Livingston’s point, building inspectors, I don’t want them in the building at all. I want them out inspecting sites. Just like I want municipal bylaw officers out following up on bylaw issues. So there will be people who are always out in the cars, but they’re in the community.

They’re inspecting things in the community. They’re seeing the community on the ground with their own eyes. And Ms. McNeely offered some really good statistics about the statutory requirements that we are meeting.

And I think that staff deserve kudos for meeting those statutory requirements. One of my concerns, and through you, Madam Chair, I do wonder if Ms. McNeely can share. And I know that I haven’t shared this question in advance, so she might not be able to give me an indication on this.

But one of the concerns I hear is not the applications that are meeting the statutory deadlines, but the applications that are dropping off the clock, because a deficiency has been identified. And then they’ve got to go back and start over again. And that, I think, is where Councillor Layman’s point about somebody who could walk down the hall and ask a senior level person how to best deal with this deficiency. Instead, just marks it as a deficiency.

It drops off the clock. And then when they get the opportunity to ask a senior level person how to deal with this, then it gets dealt with, but that may be days. So I’m wondering if, through you, Madam Presiding Officer, Ms. McNeely has any data information she can share with us about files that drop off the clock.

Thank you, Ms. McNeely. Thank you through the chair. Actually, I do not have that information on the building permit, but those are the things where they are off the clock.

And that’s what we also emphasize in terms of creating these standards is quality submissions. And so if it’s 100%, it goes through. And ideally, we would like to get back to the three-day permits once we get our staffing back up, and we can actually get to those levels with, depending on the volumes that we’re dealing with as well. But that’s the pressure that the building division is under, is if it’s not correct, if it’s our deficiencies, let’s get the next one through that does meet 100%, we can get that one through.

And that’s the priority system. Ms. Livingston. I would just like to add that that’s exactly a perfect example of the kind of initiative that Mr.

Mathers is undertaking and working with the industry on. So we know very well that off the clock piece is huge, and so he is seized with it and working with the industry on how we can actually measure it, show people the change in process to make it shrink the time. So it’s not like nothing is being done about it. It’s a specific project that’s being tackled amongst a number of the other ones as he works to try and improve the process times.

We understand that needs to happen. Many things are in place to try and move that forward. That’s an example of one that is underway right now. Follow up.

Just very briefly, so I guess what I’m hearing and seeing in addition to some of the items I shared already is, and I’m gonna use this example because it happened yesterday. So a developer, a new subdivision being developed, actually a wonderful project ‘cause they’re developing purpose built homes with ARUs. So I went and toured the site with the alternate residential or alternate rental unit in it. So purpose built, cranny flat in the home.

So you can have that adult child or that or renter or whomever. And they even, I was told they even submit the rental unit license permit as part of the sales agreement. So I think it’s first of all a great project but on a sidebar because the exact same home, because what happens in these neighborhoods, right? You build house number one on one plan and then you build house number two on a different plan and then house number three on a different plan.

But then house number four is the exact same carbon copy as house number one was ‘cause that’s how they realized some deficiencies. House number one signed off no problem. House number four, 80 deficiencies identified in the exact same house, different inspectors, different building compliance inspectors. So the, again, it’s that learning, it’s that collaboration, it’s that ability and I’m not pointing to any specific individual, just that that was an example that I experienced for myself yesterday.

And it seems to me like if there was an opportunity to simply address that with a more experienced person in the moment rather than the setup of teams meeting, we’ll talk about it, we’ll send an email, we’ll wait till the email gets replied to that, like that’s the kind of thing that even on the complaints I get, frankly just drives me up a wall because it just seems like we’re adding time for no good value and if we can get those units sold and those rental units going as well, that’s such a benefit to adding to our housing inventory. So I want to listen to what others have to say, there’s still a significant speakers list, but I do reject the notion that we’re picking and choosing because there are many staff who are here five days a week, many, many staff who are here five days a week and they do a fantastic job. And that’s not to say that the folks doing a remote work aren’t working hard too, but it’s a different reality and when we had the pandemic change our lives three years ago, seems like it was yesterday in some ways and then it seems like it was 30 years ago in others, we didn’t know when it was going to end or when things were going to start shifting back, but we’ve seen the impact and we’ve certainly seen the impact in Ward 13 and the businesses there where there used to be a lot of folks who would go out for lunch and now that number’s not as many and that’s not just here, that’s not just our staff, that is in office buildings across the core and I know that the councilors acknowledge that that’s a challenge for his businesses and what that foot traffic would mean could be a lot of different things, doesn’t mean they’re going to go back out to lunch either, but there has been a significant reduction and we do hear that this is another 170 people that this would be impacting. Now all 170 of those people are not out every day, there’s a work share landing pad situation going on, but they are customer facing, just like many of the people who are here five days a week.

So I’m inclined to support this, but I will share, I have a real concern with the runway November 1st, I think that’s really, really asking a lot if we were starting in the new year in 2024 after people have come back from a Christmas break, I might be a little more supportive, but I find the runway to be really, really challenging and asking a lot of people to do for that. So I’m going to wrap up my comments there, Madam Presiding Officer. Thank you and returning the chair to you with a very long speakers list, which you have. One which I now have to unlock my iPad for because it blanked out while I was talking.

Councilor Hopkins. Thank you and I’ve been listening very intently and really appreciate all the comments from everyone so far, in particular from delegation and also from staff. I want to just start off with why we’re here and having this conversation about having planning and building division coming back full time, it is because of the alternative workspace that we need to understand. And when I was reading the report, there was a number of pilot projects going on, IT for example, it’s going through a pilot project where all staff are working from home.

There’s a second pilot project that’s going on in wastewater management where they’re using that hybrid model. And I want to speak to be now as we’re directing staff to bring these two departments back full time. As reading the report, I thought, given there are all the concerns that we hear from the community on how can we better implement not only planning, building permits, the list goes on and on. We’ve all heard the concerns from the community.

Would it be possible to even do a pilot project on that? That was my thought. I thought it would be something that we could address. And Ms.

Livingston spoke to the communication part because I think that is the biggest thing that I have heard and that we need to do a better job of. 47,000 housing units, staff are confident that we’ll get there. I’m confident in them. Regardless of how we do things, that we will get there.

But for me, it was the communication. How can we do a better job? And can we look at other alternatives to do a better job? The fact that Mr.

Mathers is not even here and not able to speak to us to give us more information right away gives me concern with the motion and with the strict timelines that I don’t think I think we need to know more if we’re gonna go down this route. I am grateful in a way that Councillor Layman brought this forward because it is a conversation that we need to have. But if we’re gonna do something, we really need to understand what we’re doing. And when I hear, we are going to be affecting 170 employees by this decision tonight.

And when it comes to morale, I’m not there yet to make that decision. I am there that we need to do something though and to get that information. So I have, to me, it’s almost, it’s too fast, it’s too quick. And I don’t all have all the facts in front of me.

And I sit on the planning committee. So I need to do that. I also need to know we need to do a better job. And I’m all there for how we do that.

But I think we all have to come together. And I’m not sure we’re all together with this motion. So I would be happy to refer it back at another time to get more information. That timeline, Mr.

Chair, you nailed it. November 1st, it’s not too far. And there’s a lot to be done to make that happen. But I am definitely there in Councillor Layman’s desire to wanna do a better job.

And for me, in the planning, in the building the vision, but for me, it’s all about the communication and how we can all interact with one another in a better way. And I’d like to know a bit more about how that is gonna happen to get to where we need to go. So with that, I won’t be supporting B that I would like to get more information, the referral back, and really address the communication problem that we heard from the industry. We hear from our residents how we can do a better job.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, Councillor McAllister. Thank you, and through the chair. And I do appreciate all the comments that we’ve said.

I mean, this is something that will affect 170 employees. And I mean, if I was in that department, I’d be watching this meeting intently because this directly impacts me. And I just wanna paint a picture. Like if I was in their position and we decided, you know, November 1st, we’ll go back to work.

I mean, tomorrow I probably put in my papers and say I’m looking for a new job. And it speaks again to why I think like, we’re in a very competitive job market. We have to really acknowledge that. And for a lot of the reasons I’ve heard tonight, I think you’re just gonna decimate the department because people have alternatives.

It’s an employee market right now. And I don’t think that this is gonna encourage people to stay. I think it’s gonna encourage them to leave quite frankly. And I think a lot of what I’ve heard tonight, I just wanna summarize in terms of scheduling processes, systems, service standards, experience training, and staffing to handle the high volume and communication.

Those are all things that can be addressed remotely. I don’t personally think it’s the environment. I think we need to get a handle on the things I just listed. And to me, that doesn’t matter about where you’re doing it.

I think those are things that need to be addressed. And it’s not just us. This is something that across the country, employers are dealing with. So I just personally think that doing this will decimate the department.

I think it’s actually, it would make things worse from my perspective. And I haven’t heard anything tonight that would sway me to the other side. I just don’t think that this is going to get the results we want. I think we can get the results by improving the things I listed.

I think staffing, improving those processes, the systems. A lot of what I’ve heard, those things can be improved upon without going back to everyone in the office all the time. So thank you. Thank you, Councilor McAllister.

Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. Without sounding too sassy, when I hear too fast, too quick, and don’t have all the facts and deferring to the, I hope I’m gonna hear some of those on Monday. And when we talk, and in that we talk about, no, on Monday when we’re talking to the whole community, ‘cause too fast, too quick, and don’t have all the facts.

I said I was being sassy. And we also talk about deferring to the experts. We had come speak before us tonight, the London Home Builders Association and the London Development Institute. And when we talk about we have confidence in staff in terms of hitting our targets, I have all the confidence in staff too, but staff will say they aren’t building the homes, right?

We, nothing gets built without those two delegates and their partners. And so they have come and they have said, “This is what we need.” And I think it’s honoring and respectful to give them what they need, seeing as we are counting on them. And when we talk about watching this video and people’s lives being impacted, how many of us spoke to people last summer who can’t afford rent, who are nervous about, you know, get receiving a letter that says they’re gonna need to switch apartments, that can’t find a home. All of those people too should be watching this to see what is their city council gonna do.

Are they gonna follow through with actions? When it’s tough, it is tough. The runway is challenging, but the runway is challenging on the 47,000 units too. And I can’t go back to the residents and say, “We can’t do this now “because there’s no furniture coming.” I mean, surely that is not gonna be the obstacle that’s gonna keep us from meeting the needs of the housing development community.

I mean, I’m sure there’s some used furniture stores in London that would love to have City of London’s business. And the people who came before us, they followed this really closely and they’re involved in municipal politics. So they know about the February annual development. They’ve read the June 19th PEC report.

And honoring this request does not solve things. We still need all of the things that City administration is doing to correct things, to improve things, to make them better. It’s not one or the other. All we still need all of that.

And the 170 people, our local businesses, would absolutely love to have 170 more people in this building running down for coffee or for lunch. And in terms of the deputy city manager not being here, my understanding is he will be back for council on Tuesday. So if by chance this really does not work for him, we would absolutely be open to hearing from him and make an appropriate change. So we’re not doing this while he’s off on holidays.

We’re making one step and then bringing it to council. This is a recommendation to council. So this was homelessness and housing were the two top issues that I heard when I went door to door. Londoners are expecting us to act.

They’re expecting us to make the hard decisions to do this. It’s not gonna be easy. None of this is easy. But I really think that this honoring their request could have a lot of goodwill to it.

It could be something that we could leverage because we are not the only city with an aggressive housing target. And most of them have properties just outside of the city and in other cities that they can go to. So we need them. They’ve made an ask and I am gonna be saying yes.

On behalf of all Londoners, those who are need housing and those who know people who need housing, I’m voting yes. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. She’s been very patient and filled the chair twice for me. So it’s her turn, Councillor Robin.

Thank you and through you. And I appreciate the opportunity to fill those big shoes. So thank you. I’ve been trying to sit back and listen to this debate and think about this from a number of perspectives.

I wanna start by saying I acknowledge the challenges that our delegations shared today. I’ve heard them previously from those delegations and heard them speak of those issues and other delegations at PAC as well. And I think that we heard from Ms. Livingston an acknowledgement that this has been heard by our staff.

And I know in conversations with Mr. Mathers, there is that acknowledgement as well that these are issues. And I have to say before listening to all of the comments tonight, I thought similarly, yeah, this would be just as simple as moving everybody back here and doing that in a, I wasn’t thinking in the short of a timeline, but at some point. But as I’m listening and as Councillor McAllister has just articulated so well, that list of challenges with that have been shared over the course of this conversation, HR planning is not something we do with, within one motion.

It’s, you know, again, a broader impact. It is a larger discussion. When this alternative work strategy was considered initially, there was a report, there was considerable dialogue, there was a plan and an action that had to be taken and it wasn’t, and I’m not saying during the pandemic when it had to be done, but going forward, that’s why it was piloted. It was, it’s why it was done in such a thoughtful way.

I think from a morale perspective, we’re talking about the morale and the impact to 170 employees, it’s actually a lot greater than that. It’s morale to the entire organization. It’s morale for leadership when we make a decision with one member, very important member, not here to be able to discuss this department, but also as we’re making that decision after much careful thought and planning from our staff, I would be really challenged tonight if this became one of those decisions, which I think if we have 14 of us right now that are attending this meeting right now, and this became a split decision. So, and I’m not predicting the way it’s going to go, but I’m saying, I think that we owe the organization further consideration.

I think we owe the delegation further consideration because we’re hearing tonight information that they may not have had when they were looking at this decision. We had heard that we were in the process of hiring 11 new staff. We heard today of the implication of potential losses to our complement based on the fact that we have employees that are currently not living within our city and are commuting in or have other arrangements that may be jeopardized by this move. So, we are talking about a significant possibility of losing experienced employees, and then we’re also talking about the morale impact.

And now try going and hiring 11 new people when you have a moral impact and you have a workplace disruption at the same time. That’s a difficult sell to people in an industry that’s already struggling in terms of planning issues in terms of the ability to find workers for these positions. So, I really do think that we need more information to make this decision. Ms.

Livingston brought up the fact that the city of Toronto currently has completely remote work environment for their planning staff. That’s something I heard at FCM as well from their planning staff. And I did understand that it was quite the perk for them. And so, we have to consider the environment now.

Where are people expecting to be now? So, I personally would like to see us defeat this motion, but I’d like to see us then ask civic administration to report back on the concerns that were addressed today in buyer delegations, on how they’re going to address those concerns outside of bringing everyone back. So, what other steps can we do? What can we, we have to acknowledge, this is a problem.

I know I personally have heard from the public the similar concerns, I’m dealing with a number of them right now, especially when it comes to building. And so, I hear it, I want to acknowledge it. I’d like to give our staff time to report back on what we’ve heard today and provide us with some solutions that maintain our current workforce, allow for us to attract and retain 11 new employees, as well as address the concerns that are on the table. So, I implore my colleagues to consider not supporting this motion, thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Robin, I, Councilor Stevenson. Just a quick, I don’t know if everyone else had the same information, but I spoke with the delegates today and they were aware that it could mean the loss of staff and they have weighed that and still come and made the ask, realizing it might be a short-term problem, but they really believe so strongly in this, that they’re still saying it. And I don’t know for sure, but I’m assuming that with Toronto having the fully remote that they have the technology that we’re looking forward to. And I think we could maybe be open to something like that in the future, if we felt that it wasn’t going to be a customer service issue, but we’ve got a current urgency here and so it is an urgent request.

Councilor Perbal, not directly to the motion what we are looking at, but this has to do actually, which I believe that if we were more prompt, more efficient that we wouldn’t be at this place. And I, we heard a few times already that both planning and hopefully building is gonna start streamlining the processes, the Lean Six Sigma. We are, I think we had a couple of people that were, that started to work on it down in different departments. If I, if my information is correct, we are over 12 months.

When we are talking about building, I ask, it’s gonna be 12 months, about 12 months again. In the, if I call it the real world or real corporate world, a lot of corporations, if they were to attack it this way, potentially they wouldn’t be, they certainly would be competitive, they could be potentially out of business. I’m asking the city manager to dedicate someone to both of these projects. And we really need to get this done within month.

And normally these projects, even in large corporations, they take four to six months. We need a dedication of someone who is gonna spare this project and deliver it. And I really would like to see in next pack meeting, SPPC meeting proposal with the timeframes, is the accountability because we need to get this done. So again, not directly with this motion, but I believe that potentially those two gentlemen, if we had the streamlining done and services attached to it, we couldn’t, we wouldn’t have to be in this situation.

So I really don’t, I don’t know if we need a motion or not, but I really would like to bring this, bring this back. I know Mr. Mater’s, he’s not here. That’s why I’m asking the city manager to take this up and I would love to hear her feedback.

Thank you, Ms. Livingston. Mr. Chair, I’m happy to go back to Mr.

Mater’s and understand what would it take to make that, if I understand which project you’re referring to to go faster, we understand the concerns. It’s not like we’re not working on them. I’m happy to go back and talk to him about what it would take. In addition to the things that he’s reported out on, I’m happy to, if I receive that direction, to go back and work with Mr.

Mater’s on what additional things we can do to try and address the communication concerns, all of those pieces. So we’re with you on wanting to improve the situation. My job tonight was just to highlight the concerns with respect to the particular motion. Okay, I have no more speakers on the speakers list at the moment.

However, I’m going to use the chair position to provide some good for thought for counselors as we deal with this last item on our agenda tonight. I’ve heard a number of you suggest that you’re not ready to make this decision now, but that you want more information. If this motion is defeated, then we would need an alternate motion on the floor. I think we’ve heard a lot of counselors say they’re also not happy with the status quo.

We could have a second motion that goes back to the original that also gets defeated on the floor. And then we are left with no direction and have to come up with a third option. So, and I’m aware that we have 50 minutes before we have to extend past 11 p.m. So, I would like everybody, I’m encouraging everybody to take 30 seconds or a minute to give this some thought in terms of whether you want to potentially, and I would point out that this is related to the master accommodation plan.

So, before staff can make long-term decisions on how we accommodate staff, they also have to know what sort of work strategy we want staff to be pursuing. So, with those things in mind, I am open to seeing if counselors have, if anybody wants to simply make a referral that gets more information back to a certain date, I am also looking for, you know, if we’re not prepared to do that, if this motion does not pass, as it sounds like it might not, then we are going to have to have something else to put on the floor. So, I want to provide you with the realities of where we are in terms of a decision point. Councilor Ferrer, you had your hand up, sorry, I’ve also got, sorry, I’m getting multiple messages at the same time.

Councilor Ferrer, you’ve spoken once. Councilor Raman, you’ve spoken once, and you both flagged me at the same time. So, I’m not going to make you do rock paper scissors. I did get text for a written motion from Councilor Raman.

So, Councilor Ferrer, are you? I have an amendment to one of the motions, whichever one comes up, I’ve just been holding off, listening, but they do have that amendment that I did speak to before the in-camera session when we first spoke about this. Okay, let me hear if you want to put yours and then I will share what Councilor Raman has suggested, well, I’ll let Councilor Raman share what Councilor Raman has suggested. So, go ahead with your amendment to the motion.

My amendment’s actually a part D to the original motion and it would fit into this one if we were to change the direct staff to just begin with removing the alternative work strategies and bringing the planning and development back and looking into more information as I have spoke to and I see other Councils have spoke to, but my amendment would be in addition part D and its civic administration be directed to include an economic assessment for downtown local businesses from implementation of flex work from any alternative work strategy implementation to the fullest extent possible in the timeline provided. And I have to have sent that to the clerk. So, the clerk does have that language. Okay, so let’s get that first ‘cause you’ve sent that to the clerk as well.

Let’s just make sure that that’s available in the scribe as an amendment so that everybody can read that. Councilor Ferreira, could you read that out again while the clerk is getting it ready in the scribe? Yes, thank you through you. Civic administration be directed to include an economic assessment for downtown local businesses from implementation for implementation.

That’s a typo, I think we should fix that. Implementation of flex work from any alternative work strategy implementation to the fullest extent possible in the timeline provided. I see there’s a couple of implementations there. The spirit of the motion I think is clear.

It was not clear to me. Okay, I’ll read it one more time. I heard it, I just, it wasn’t. Sorry, just through the chair please.

Let’s just let the clerk get in writing so that everybody can read the text. Also, as the hour grows late, my brain slows down to the clerk reminded me that there is another option. This could simply be forwarded to council with no recommendation from committee. So we could potentially defeat this motion and we don’t even need to put another motion on the floor.

We could simply send it to council without a recommendation. Councilor Ferreira. I feel we’ve been debating this for just over two hours. I think we should go and vote or at least have a decision coming out of this ‘cause we had a pretty lengthy debate and I feel like if we go to council, we’ll have the same debate all over.

Well, we do have a motion. So we will be voting on that and that will either pass or fail. Should it fail? We do not have to necessarily word Smith an alternative.

We could forward the staff report without a recommendation from committee and then make a decision when it comes to council or do something else when it comes to council. I will point out that while he is not going to have all of the information available, we would have Mr. Mathers with us at council. So there may be a little bit more information available there.

Hate to put pressure on him while he’s not here. And I see Miss McNeely making notes while I say that, but he’s not likely to have everything that we want to hear by council, but we could just send it to council without a recommendation. The part D is in eScribe. Sorry, I’m doing two things at once here.

So I wanna just ask everybody to refresh. They’re eScribe so you could read the text of the amendment. We will deal with councilor Ferreira’s amendment first, and then we will deal with the other motion. So, okay, your council trust I was seconding the amendment, councilor Perbal.

So to chair to the staff, I would actually like to know the feedback from the staff when they read D, if they actually know what they should be working on, if it’s understandable and if it’s doable from your end, I would like to know clarity from you. Miss Bubble. - Thank you through the chair. So as I read the motion and if I understand it correctly, perhaps the councilor can correct me, is that you’re looking for an economic assessment for alternative work implementation in the timeline.

So I think the timeline referring specifically to the November 1st date, because if it is, that’s a very tall order to do that work in that period of time, we would need to go out to get some expertise to do an assessment. The challenge we would have with actually doing an economic assessment is we haven’t implemented fully alternative work. We’re still doing pilots to assess what that means, but staff are still coming into the building through that model. So, and particularly because we’re not exactly part of the downtown core, we’re outside of it a little bit, I don’t know to the extent that we would be able to assess what that impact would be, not knowing how often staff are in or out of the building or what council’s direction is.

So I think that’s the challenge when I look at this is we would need to go out to request someone to do this and to try to look at that, not knowing specifically what alternative work strategy implementation means, given we don’t have a full direction and have not fully implemented it as we’re doing pilots to assess the space. There’s still work to be done in terms of fully identifying the number of staff that would ultimately be in because those models for alternative work do still involve staff coming into the office, just perhaps not to the full extent depending on the kind of work that they do. The entire purpose for alternative work strategy is to look at how best to provide space to accommodate the kind of work that is done within the office versus outside of the office. So we build space to accommodate collaboration and the kinds of things that staff would come into the office.

So even though someone may work all through alternative work strategies fully remotely, they would still come into the office to have collaborative work to look at some of the ways that involve customer service and things like that. So to actually look at this and identify what an economic assessment would be, there are many unknowns that would be a real challenge to identify what that is in terms of fully remote. If you were looking at an economic assessment of alternative work on the core, I mean, the number of staff we’re talking about with respect to city of London civic administration staff are quite small in terms of the economic assessment when you’re looking at all of remote work for all of the large businesses that are part of the core that have probably a far greater impact noting the number of staff and businesses that are working remote versus the number of staff that we have, and certainly that’s one of the things we’re going to be looking is to confirm what the number of remote, we just don’t have that information today, but all of the remote is still only 50% of the time. So it’s very specific to a very limited impact, but noting the broader strategy is not necessarily going to be a 50% strategy, there’s going to be work identified that needs to be still done in the office versus alternatives that we’re looking through the pilot to see what those particular models could look like.

So perhaps that is a little bit helpful, but it’s as it’s worded will be a very challenge to try to identify and perhaps give you what you’re looking for. Councillor Ferrer. Thank you through you. I see your comments, I see where you’re coming from.

What I was intending with this is like, I understand that there’s other big businesses in the downtown core that also have flex work and a lot of workers are not here and we don’t have as many feet on the street as we did pre-pandemic. What I was looking for with this is because I don’t necessarily know how many individuals may not be at City Hall working here during the day that could go out to lunch or have breakfast and go to one of the local restaurants around here or maybe even buy some flowers for their spouse on their way home or anything like that. What I’m looking for is the amount of individuals on the flex work strategy, on the alternative work strategy that we would not have here, which we may, that would not be coming into the office on a particular day. So maybe a calculation or what I was thinking was like a calculation of how many individuals they are and then like an average like $20 is spent on lunch per individual and just to see what that impact would be of how much money would not be spent at a local restaurant or something like that in the downtown area.

Ms. Burpong. Through the chair, I’m not sure and certainly I would have to look into it to identify if there are metrics based on how much spend could potentially be done by an employee on a given day. I’m sure there’s an average calculation that an economist may perhaps know.

It’s certainly not data that we have available at this very moment to be able to answer that question. I don’t know if there’s a correlation that is there to be able to provide the answer. It’s certainly something we could look into to see that would certainly be something we would seek an outside party to provide some assistance with. Elsa Ferrera, thank you through you.

See, I’m not sure either and I just wanted to know if there is some type of significant impact that we should be aware of with the flex work strategy. It’s just because, you know, as the city and having the number of employees that I know we have, I’m not sure how many employees may not be here at the time and because we should be leading by example, especially in the downtown core, trying to bring people and bodies here just to support the local businesses here. That’s why I’m looking for that information. So that’s really all I’m asking for.

I’m not sure, I know that maybe the wording is not to the best of what I’m trying to say. So I could maybe reword that or work with the clerk to make it a little bit better or clearer. But from what I’m trying to find is I just wanna see, is there a significant potential economic impact for the local businesses where they would feel the effects, especially during this time of recovery? And I just wanna know just to have that information before we move forward.

That’s what I’m basically asking for. Ms. Livingston. Mr.

Chairman, I suggest that perhaps we start with the number of employees that we’re talking about. That we can provide to you by council. If that number is meaningful to you, maybe it gives some time to think about what this motion might actually wind up looking like. So what I would propose to be able to provide to you is how many people are here on any given day.

And I’m only going to focus on the downtown. We have folks that work in remote work arrangements in other parts of the city, but I’ll focus on the downtown so you understand the numbers. And then perhaps that can help in terms of where you might wish to direct us around assessing some sort of impact. I will just recognize Ms.

Barbone’s comments that for us to undertake an economic impact analysis, that that’s gonna require us to get some help, some expertise help. That’s not something we can turn around inside. But perhaps if we start with the numbers of employees, that gives you a place to formulate your thoughts, which we can certainly provide in time for council. I also just wonder, Ms.

Livingston, if the councilors, any of the councilors interested might want to, and I don’t know whether you think that this may have be of assistance or not, but whether perhaps downtown London or the Chamber of Commerce might have general numbers around an individual’s impact, not necessarily a city staffer, but I think the numbers would be really good, but that perhaps, perhaps it could, there could be an ask of staff to reach out to see if the Chamber or downtown London has any ballpark numbers, but I don’t know whether they would have those or not, and I don’t know whether through any of our interactions, staff would know whether they might have them or not, but there may be a very, very generic source of numbers about the economic impact of an individual working in a core area. Councillor Ferrera. Thank you for that, Deputy Mayor, or Acting Mayor, sorry. So yeah, I was thinking, like my frame of thought of this motion started with how many employees we have here coming in daily, and then the difference between how many employees we would have here from a full alternative work strategy compared to no alternative work strategy.

And if we had some average numbers, I guess from the Chamber of Commerce on what an individual may spend downtown, I guess you could add that too. I understand you’re not, this is not gonna be perfect science. I’m just trying to see if we can get a good gauge of potential impact that we might have moving forward with this on the downtown businesses. I do know that I think every Councillor here is concerned with businesses downtown.

So this is why I’m asking for this information just so we can have that information before we start making a significant decision like that. Thank you, Councillor Ferrera. Councillor McAllister. Thank you, through you.

Just a quick point of clarification. I think what’s confusing me on this is, even if you’re looking at a hybrid model, as we’ve heard, everyone’s on a different schedule. I think in terms of the math, again, I have a hard time figuring out the true number, ‘cause everyone’s on a different schedule. There’s some departments that are piloting this right now.

I think it’s gonna be hard to get a real picture. I think that’s what I’m struggling with with this. I understand the intent, I totally get it. I just don’t think you’re gonna get a good number out of it.

Thank you, Councillor McAllister. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I appreciate the Councillor’s concern about downtown local businesses and the support and trying to get those numbers. I do think it’s gonna be challenging.

I know other municipalities that have done the hybrid model or gone out of the downtown core, regardless of where they’re working, the municipality themselves are still trying to promote supporting downtown businesses and going to lunch, even if you’re not working downtown. So the strategy, I think, you can build upon the strategy. It’s maybe not so much the numbers, but how we’re gonna implement that process going forward. I just wanted to make those comments.

Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, Mr. Stevenson. I just wanted to say that if the first motion is supported, it would bring 170 back. That number we know ish.

Thank you, other speakers. Right now, we are just on the amendment. Councillor Trussow. I am a little confused procedurally because we have the amendment that we’ve been debating.

It’s still on the floor. And we’re putting an alternative amendment on the floor under the assumption that that fails. So it might make sense to vote on that amendment first and then proceed to this. Maybe here, Councillor ramen’s idea and maybe they can be integrated.

But I think it might make sense for us to dispose of the motion that’s already on the floor. ‘Cause now you’ve got two seconded motions on the floor. So no, actually what we have, Councillor, is a main motion on the staff report. And then we have an amendment to the main motion.

So Councillor Ferra has put forward a motion on the motion that’s on the amendment to the motion that’s on the floor. Councillor Ferra. Thank you, through you. So speaking to the different types of alternative work strategies that Councillor McAllister spoke to, this is why I’m asking for this ‘cause I don’t really know what the different hours would be or how many people would be in on certain hours.

So that’s why I was hoping that we could maybe get those numbers. I don’t know exactly how the numbers would look. That’s why I thought if I directed staff like this, staff might be able to start at what I was thinking with how many employees we have. And then maybe go to the Chamber of Commerce and look at a generic number for employees and just kind of take in some average numbers like that and just give us some type of look into the potential impacts that this strategy might have.

Thank you, Councillor Ferra. Any other speakers to the amendment? Seeing none, then if the committee will indulge me just from the chair very quickly, I will say I understand why you want to get this information, Councillor Ferra. I’m not sure that our staff, well, I know that our staff cannot in a reasonable timeframe turn around that kind of numbers, but I don’t think it hurts if some outreach is done to organizations like our downtown London, like our Chamber, to see if they have some generic number for an employee, John Smith, what the economic impact of John Smith working downtown is.

So in terms of timeline, if that’s what staff can return to us with, with some outreach, that’s fine. But if the staff return to us and say they don’t have any information because they haven’t had enough time, I would be accepted of that too. So I understand why you want the information. So I’m going to support it, but I’m going to support it with a caveat that says if staff return with partial or even, I’m sorry, but we don’t have data to provide that information, I’m going to accept that answer from them too.

So I just wanted to share that because I want to do express, I’m going to support it, but I’m supporting it with a caveat that if the response to us is, we just can’t pull that information together, that’s going to be a response that will be sufficient for me. Councillor Trussa. So I guess where I’m confused then, is the motion, I thought that Councillor Ferrer’s amendment that I seconded did not include the clause B to initiate the conclusion of the alternative. No, Councillor Ferrer added a clause D, and that was his language that he was adding a clause D to the main motion that was on the floor.

So that’s what we have in the system. And what we have right now before us is an amendment that has to be dispensed with. I misunderstood what he was proposing then. And I think it would have been clearer if we would have voted down the, up or down the amendment that’s on the floor and then proceed.

So, ‘cause I would, if this included the language in B, I would withdraw my second, yeah. Okay, so again, and I’ll come right back to you, Councillor Ferrer, I promise. We can do what we did earlier. And what we’ve done a couple of times tonight, if the committee consents, then the motion to amend can be withdrawn, but what was communicated was a motion to amend and add a clause D.

So that’s what’s before us now. We can then proceed to deal with the main motion. I am going to remind colleagues that in 25 minutes, there is going to be a requirement for a motion to extend past our policy sitting time. And we have been at this for a while.

So, another alternative, if you want, is to refer it to a future meeting, or to refer it to Council without a recommendation. So first, I am going to look to see if committee consents to the motion, the amendment being withdrawn. He hasn’t said that he wants— Oh, sorry, I haven’t gone and checked with you, Councillor Ferrer. I see my brain is shutting down.

Councillor Ferrer, your thoughts, ‘cause if Councilor trust I will wish us to withdraw his second, we can see if there’s another seconder, if you want to leave your motion on the floor. And thank you, my intention was not to add that motion to the motion that was on the floor, ‘cause I don’t support, be either. Yeah, I don’t want that to, I won’t be supporting clause B anyways in the motion that we discussed earlier, but I did want to add that amendment too. So if they are attached, I don’t want to withdraw the motion, but is there a possibility we can vote on A, B, C, and D separately?

Yes, we can leave your amendment on, we can add your amendment, and then we can call the clauses separately, that is also procedurally correct. First, we have to approve adding your D though. Okay, thank you. Okay, so you want to leave it on and see if there’s another seconder, and then we can call them each separately?

Procedurally, I’m not too sure. I don’t support B, I do want that motion on. If I withdraw this motion and I get consent from the committee, and then the first amended motion fails, would I be able to attach that motion to the staff recommendation if we went there? Okay, yes, you could reintroduce an amendment to the staff recommended motion if this motion failed.

Hang on, I’m going to check with the clerk here on something. Okay, at the clerk’s request, before we do anything else, we are going to look for a motion to extend past 11 p.m. The clerk has requested this procedurally to deal with the fact that if this debate continues, we are going to end up potentially going past 11 p.m. I am going to respect the clerk’s wishes.

Before we proceed any further, we need a motion to extend past 11 p.m. Okay, I am seeing no motion to extend past 11 p.m. So when the clock strikes 11 p.m., the meeting will adjourn, and this Councillor Layman. I’d like to seek a referral to Council on the whole matter.

Okay, a referral takes precedent, so we have to deal with a referral first. So I am going to ask that Councillor Trussow. So Councillor Layman, I want to make sure that you are asking for a referral on the motion you put forward. Are you including a referral on the amendment that Councillor Ferrer put forward?

You are. So that all four of these clauses be referred to Council without a recommendation from committee. Correct. Do I have a seconder for that?

Councilor Vameer Bergen beat everybody to the punch by Zoom. Okay, we have a motion moved and seconded that would refer all four clauses that are before you and E-Scribe. So the main motion and the amendment to the motion to the Council meeting next week without a recommendation from SPPC. Any debate?

Councillor Trussow. Why are we not submitting the original staff motion to Council without a recommendation? This would privilege that. It does.

So I can’t support that. Thank you through the chair. The wording of the referral would be that consideration of the entire matter, item 4.1 be referred to the municipal council meeting of I’ll have to look up the date. I believe it’s July 25th for disposition.

There is, there will be no motion accompanies this. There will be the voting record of all of the procedure that we have been through to date or to this period in time, but there is no consideration other than the referral that will be for the council’s disposition. So at council, any motion can be put on the floor at that period. And if I understand what you just said, I just wanna make sure I understand this ‘cause the language that’s in B would not be sent to council under what you just said.

Through the chair, that language would be part of the report because it is a motion that is currently on the floor. If this referral motion would were to fail, that’s what the committee would then be left with considering. But there will be no recommendation other than this referral if it is passed. I’m sure- I’m sure- Through the chair, I’m still not clear whether if this referral passes, B is part of that referral.

So perhaps I can assist in that the report to council from SPPC will have item 4.1 that would reflect a motion was put on the floor that we did not dispense with. It does not preclude that motion passing at council. It does not preclude the original staff recommendation from being put on the floor at council. It is a no recommendation from committee.

It’s a referral at that point, and I’m just gonna turn to the clerk to see if she has any other wisdom to add to that. She is shaking her head no. So everything goes, but when it gets to council and this item is put on the floor, which will be me presenting, it will be nothing other than the committee did not reach a decision. And then it will be open for anyone on council to put something forward to address it.

Councilor Ferreira. Thank you through you. So it says though, there’s no motions on the floor right now. And we’re starting from a fresh, it seems, if you look at it from that way.

No, I’ll let the clerk reiterate. Through the chair, the motion that is required to be dealt with first by this committee is the referral. If the referral is to fail, then the next motion that would be considered would be the motion to amend previous, the item before the committee to add the new part D. And then after that amendment is dealt with, you would be back to the main motion moved by Councillor Layman and seconded by Councillor Hillier with the part A, B, and C.

Councilor Ferreira. Thank you. Can I remove my motion? I would like to vote on the original motion.

And I guess if we could do that really quick, I would also motion to go past a level. No, it’s too late for that because we have a referral on the floor and the referral takes precedence over everything else. So we have to deal with the referral. Okay, I don’t see a speaker’s list.

I am going to ask the clerk to open the vote on the referral. It has been moved and seconded. So please turn to your e-scribe for that vote. Councillor Trozzo, Councillor Ferreira.

There is a motion to refer. So you do need to vote one way or the other. Closing the vote, the motion to refer is passed 10 to four. Thank you, colleagues.

That concludes the items on our agenda. I’m looking for a motion to adjourned. Yes, moved by Councillor Vameer-Vergen, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. All those in favor by hand, we are adjourned.