July 25, 2023, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:02 PM; it being noted that Councillors P. Cuddy, S. Lehman (at 7:42 PM), P. Van Meerbergen, E. Peloza (at 1:27 PM) and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no disclosures of pecuniary interest were disclosed.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Council rise and go into Council, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering the following:

4.1    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. (6.1/19/SPPC)

4.2    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. (6.2/19/SPPC)

4.3    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. (6.3/19/SPPC)

4.4    Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations        

A  matter pertaining to reports, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation concerning labour relations and employee negotiations in regard to one of the Corporation’s unions including communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing instructions and direction to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.1/14/CSC)

4.5    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice        

A matter pertaining to advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, and advice with respect to litigation with respect to various personal injury and property damage claims against the City. (6.2/14/CSC)

4.6    Personal Matters/Identifiable Individual        

A matter pertaining to personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees, with respect to the Awarding of the 2023 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships. (6.1/12/CPSC)

Motion Passed

The Council convenes, In Closed Session, at 1:09 PM, and reconvenes in public session at 1:25 PM.

5.   Confirmation and Signing of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting(s)

5.1   12th Meeting Held on June 27, 2023

2023-06-27 Council Minutes - Full

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Minutes of the 12th Meeting held on June 27, 2023, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the communications, with respect to the following, BE RECEIVED and BE REFERRED as noted on the Council Added Agenda:

6.5    Master Accommodation Plan - Alternative Work Strategies Update

6.6    599-601 Richmond Street

6.7    Comprehensive Review of The London Plan Update

6.8    39 Carfrae Street

6.9    Housing Stability Services 2023-24 Contract Amendments

6.10    Primary Care Recruitment, Transition into Practice, and Retention Program Funding Request

6.11    London’s Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Proposed Hubs Implementation Plan

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.1   Expropriation of Lands - East London Link Project - Phase 3 (As the “Approving Authority”)

2023-07-25 - Council - Expropriations - East London Link Project - Phase 3 - Approving Authority

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Trosow

That Council convene as the Approving Authority pursuant to the provisions of the Expropriation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.26, as amended, for the purpose of considering Communication No. 1 from the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with respect to the expropriation of the lands as may be required for the Project known as the East London Link Project.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the expropriation of lands as may be required for the project known as the East London Link Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as Approving Authority pursuant to the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended, HEREBY APPROVES the proposed expropriation of lands, as described in Schedule “A” appended to staff report dated July 25, 2023, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, it being noted that the reasons for making this decision are as follows:

i)    the subject lands are required by The Corporation of the City of London for the East London Link Project;

ii)    the design of the project will address the current and future transportation demands along the corridor; and,

iii)    the design is in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study recommendations for the East London Link Project approved by Municipal Council at the meeting held on May 21, 2019; and

b)    subject to the approval of (a) above, a certificate of approval BE ISSUED by the City Clerk on behalf of the Approving Authority in the prescribed form.

it being noted that no requests for Hearing of Necessity were received.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the meeting of the Approving Authority be adjourned and that the Municipal Council reconvene in regular session.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

6.2   Expropriation of Lands - East London Link Project - Phase 3 (As the “Expropriating Authority”)

2023-07-25 - Council - Expropriations - East London Link Project - Phase 3 - Expropriating Authority

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the expropriation of lands as may be required for the project known as the East London Link Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2023 as Appendix “A” being “A by-law to expropriate lands in the City of London, in the County of Middlesex, the East London Link Project: BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take all necessary steps to prepare a plan or plans showing the Expropriated Lands and to register such plan or plans in the appropriate registry or land titles office, pursuant to the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, within three (3) months of the Approving Authority granting approval of the said expropriation;

c)    the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign on behalf of the Expropriating Authority, the plan or plans as signed by an Ontario Land Surveyor showing the Expropriated Lands; and

d)    the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED to execute and serve the notices of expropriation required by the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26 and such notices of possession that may be required to obtain possession of the Expropriated Lands.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

6.3   Expropriation of Lands - Wellington Gateway Project - Phase 3 and 4 (As the “Approving Authority”)

2023-07-25 - Council - Expropriations - Wellington Gateway Project - Phase 3 and 4 - Approving Authority

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Council convene as the Approving Authority pursuant to the provisions of the Expropriation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.26, as amended, for the purpose of considering Communication No. 1 from the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with respect to the expropriation of the lands as may be required for the Project known as the Wellington Gateway Project.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the expropriation of lands as may be required for the project known as the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as Approving Authority pursuant to the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended, HEREBY APPROVES the proposed expropriation of lands, as described in Schedule “A” as appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2023, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, it being noted that the reasons for making this decision are as follows:

i)    the subject lands are required by The Corporation of the City of London for the Wellington Gateway Project;

ii)    the design of the project will address the current and future transportation demands along the corridor;

iii)    the design is in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study recommendations for the Wellington Gateway Project approved by Municipal Council at the meeting held on May 21, 2019; and

b)    subject to the approval of (a) above, a certificate of approval BE ISSUED by the City Clerk on behalf of the Approving Authority in the prescribed form.

it being noted that two requests for Hearing of Necessity were received by the City Clerk’s Office.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the meeting of the Approving Authority be adjourned and that the Municipal Council reconvene in regular session.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.4   Expropriation of Lands - Wellington Gateway Project - Phase 3 and 4 (As the “Expropriating Authority”)

2023-07-25 - Council - Expropriations - Wellington Gateway Project - Phase 3 and 4 - Expropriating Authority

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the expropriation of lands as may be required for the project known as the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2023 as Appendix “A” being “A by-law to expropriate lands in the City of London, in the County of Middlesex, the Wellington Gateway Project: BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take all necessary steps to prepare a plan or plans showing the Expropriated Lands and to register such plan or plans in the appropriate registry or land titles office, pursuant to the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, within three (3) months of the Approving Authority granting approval of the said expropriation;

c)    the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign on behalf of the Expropriating Authority, the plan or plans as signed by an Ontario Land Surveyor showing the Expropriated Lands; and

d)    the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED to execute and serve the notices of expropriation required by the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26 and such notices of possession that may be required to obtain possession of the Expropriated Lands.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   19th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2023-07-19 SPPC Report 19-Complete

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 19th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee  BE APPROVED, excluding Items 3 (4.1) and 5 (4.3).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) London Community Grants Program Policy Update (Relates to Bill No. 234)

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

8.1.4   (4.2) Consideration of Appointment to the Eldon House Board of Directors (Requires 1 Member)

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (4.4) Request to Amend Current London Transit Commission By-law - C. Roy, Secretary, London Transit Commission

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

8.1.7   (4.5) 2nd Report of the Governance Working Group

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

8.1.8   (4.6) Intimate Partner Violence and Femicide - Mayor J. Morgan

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

8.1.3   (4.1) Master Accommodation Plan - Alternate Work Strategies Update

At 2:55 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair.

At 3:13 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Master Accommodation Plan and Alternative Work Strategies:

a)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to amend the current Alternative Work Strategies in the Planning and Development and Building service area(s), and develop a new model where employees are in the workplace 4 days a week and remote work one day a week no later than the end of Q1 2024; and,

b)   the implementation of other Corporate Alternative Work Strategies (AWS) in services areas other than those noted in part a), above, and as outlined in the staff report dated July 19, 2023, BE CONTINUED.

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Trosow

That pursuant to section 2.3 of the Council Procedure By-law the rules of the said by-law BE SUSPENDED for the purpose of allowing members to speak more than once, and potentially in excess of five minutes, with respect to this matter.

Motion Failed (8 to 7)

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion BE AMENDED by adding the following new part c):

“c)     the Civic Administration return to a future meeting of the appropriate standing committee regarding possible recommendations for recruitment and retention of Planning and Development and Building staff.”

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That parts a) and b) of the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Master Accommodation Plan and Alternative Work Strategies:

a)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to amend the current Alternative Work Strategies in the Planning and Development and Building service area(s), and develop a new model where employees are in the workplace 4 days a week and remote work one day a week no later than the end of Q1 2024; and,

b)   the implementation of other Corporate Alternative Work Strategies (AWS) in services areas other than those noted in part a), above, and as outlined in the staff report dated July 19, 2023, BE CONTINUED.

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That part c) of the motion as amended, BE APPROVED:

c)     the Civic Administration return to a future meeting of the appropriate standing committee regarding possible recommendations for recruitment and retention of Planning and Development, and Building staff.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The motion, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Master Accommodation Plan and Alternative Work Strategies:

a)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to amend the current Alternative Work Strategies in the Planning and Development and Building service area(s), and develop a new model where employees are in the workplace 4 days a week and remote work one day a week no later than the end of Q1 2024;

b)   the implementation of other Corporate Alternative Work Strategies (AWS) in services areas other than those noted in part a), above, and as outlined in the staff report dated July 19, 2023, BE CONTINUED; and,

 

c)    the Civic Administration return to a future meeting of the appropriate standing committee regarding possible recommendations for recruitment and retention of Planning and Development and Building staff.

8.1.5   (4.3) Consideration of Appointment to the London Hydro Board of Directors (Requires 2 Members) (Relates to Bill No. 225)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That consideration of the appointments by the Municipal Council to the London Hydro Board of Directors BE DEFERRED to the August 29, 2023 meeting of the municipal council, at the request of London Hydro.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Council recess at that this time, for 10 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 3:35 PM and reconvenes at 3:48 PM.

8.2   12th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2023-07-17 PEC Report 12 - Full

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 12th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee  BE APPROVED, excluding Item 16 (3.10) and 19 (4.3).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 7th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 7th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 15, 2023:

 

a)    the Working Group comments relating to the property located at 1176 Crumlin Sideroad BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration consideration;

b)    the Working Group comments relating to Kensington Bridge BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

c)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to provide the Ecological Community Advisory Committee (ECAC) with the existing definitions of the OS4 and OS5 Zones as these zones relate to environmentally significant areas when the staff presentation is to be heard; it being noted that the Notice of Planning Application dated June 5, 2023, relating to the Notice of Application – ReThink Zoning, was received; it being further noted that the Civic Administration will provide a presentation on this matter at a future ECAC meeting;

d)    the Committee Clerk BE DIRECTED to send a communication to S. Miklosi indicating that attendance has been an issue and that, unless the City Clerk is provided a reason for the extended absence, the Ecological Community Advisory Committee will be asking the Planning and Environment Committee to rescind the appointment; and,

e)    clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.4, inclusive, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1 to 5.3, inclusive and clause 5.5 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Byron Gravel Pit Secondary Plan - Draft Preferred Land Use Plan

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to draft Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to commence a public engagement process to gather further community and partner feedback;

it being noted that the feedback received through this consultation process, and the outcome of supporting studies will inform the Final Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan and implementing an Official Plan Amendment that will be prepared for the consideration and approval at future Planning and Environment Committee and Council meetings; and,

b)    the draft Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2032-D05)

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) Proposed Amendments to the Business Improvement Area By-laws (Relates to Bill No.’s 226, 227, 228, 229 and 230)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to proposed amendments to the existing Business Improvement Area by-laws:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend By-law No. A.-6873-292, Argyle Business Improvement Association Board of Management By-law;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend By-law No. CP-2, The London Downtown Business Association Improvement Area By-law;

c)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend By-law No. C.P.-1528-486, A by-law to designate an area as an improvement area and to establish the board of management for the purposes of managing the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area;

d)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend By-law No. C.P.-1519(a)-11, Hyde Park Business Improvement Association Board of Management By-law; and,

e)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “E” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend By-law No. CP-1, Old East Village Business Improvement Area By-law;

it being noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2023-C01)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.4) Application for Exemption from Part Lot Control - 1525 Chickadee Trail (Relates to Bill No. 231)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by Jaime Crncich (2555212 Ontario Ltd. o/a Magnus Homes), for lands located at 1525 Chickadee Trail, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as included on the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023 to exempt part of Block 70 Registered Plan 33M-814, more particularly described as Parts 1 to 12, inclusive, on Plan 33R-21649, from the Part Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, for a period not to exceed three (3) years;

it being noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2023-D25)

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.5) Building Division Monthly Report - April, 2023

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Building Division monthly report for the month of April, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information.  (2023-A23)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (3.1) Request to Remove the Properties at 2 & 3 Kennon Place from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the properties located at 2 Kennon Place and 3 Kennon Place BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter;

it being further noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2023-R01)

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (3.2) Request to Remove the Property at 689 Hamilton Road from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the property located at 689 Hamilton Road BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Resources;

 

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter;

it being further noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2023-R01)

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (3.3) 1474 Kilally Road (Z-9605) (Relates to Bill No. 245)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 1216571 Ontario Incorporated, relating to the property located at 1474 Kilally Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-6) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-4(_)) Zone; and,

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process:

i)    at the time of Site Plan Approval, the building design and site layout is to be similar to that which was considered at the time of the Zoning By-law Amendment Application;

ii)    recommendations of the Geotech analysis toe of slope and top of slope be implemented through the Site Plan Approval process; and,

iii)    ensure enhanced tree planting is provided;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communication with respect to these matters:

  •    the Project Summary from J. Smolarek, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

 

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

  •    J. Smolarek, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies;

  •    the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood;

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates an infill development on an underutilized site and provides a broader range and mix of housing options within the area; and,

it being also noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2023-D14)

Motion Passed

8.2.10   (3.4) 165-167 Egerton Street (Z-9608) (Relates to Bill No. 246)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Elgin Contracting & Restoration, relating to the properties located at 165-167 Egerton Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R2 (R2-2) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-5(_)) Zone; and,

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process:

i)    consent to remove any boundary trees is required prior to final Site Plan Approval; 

ii)    fencing and/or landscaping be provided along the perimeter of the site to ensure adequate buffering is maintained between the subject lands and adjacent properties;

iii)    details surrounding garbage storage and collection be finalized;

iv)    at the time of Site Plan Approval, the building design is to be similar to that which was considered at the time of the Zoning By-law Amendment application; and,

v)    staff be directed to discuss short-term bicycle parking;

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

  •    N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

it being noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type and Key Directions; 

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site within the Built Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development that provides choice and diversity in housing options; and,

it being further noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters   (2023-D14)

Motion Passed

8.2.11   (3.5) 146 Exeter Road (39T-22502) (Relates to Bill No. 247)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 1103125 Ontario Inc., relating to the lands located at 146 Exeter Road (Richardson North Subdivision):

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR6) Zone and Holding Light Industrial (h-17LI3) Zone TO a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision R1 (hh-100R1-13(7)), Holding Residential Special Provision R4 (hh-100h-198R4-4(2)), Holding Residential Special Provision R5/R6 (hh-100h-198*R5-4(  )/R6-5(  )), Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision/ Arterial Commercial Special Provision  h/RSC1/RSC2(  )/RSC3(16)/RSC4(14)/RSC5(16)/(AC4(  )), Open Space (OS1), Open Space (OS5), Open Space Special Provision (OS5(   )) and Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision;

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised through the application review process for the property located at 146 Exeter Road:

i)    concerns with the single-family home sprawl as that area as has 20% fewer units than the medium density area but takes up nearly twice as much space;

ii)    believing this is an inefficient use of space;

iii)    indicating that sprawl incentivizes driving and disincentivizes active and public transit;

iv)    believing that sprawl costs the City more money to maintain and service;

v)    indicating that sprawl is financially unsustainable;

vi)    indicating that the staff report indicates that green space is provided as the focal point and central gathering area; noting there are two greenspaces at opposite ends;

vii)    advising that the greenspace at the top is Open Space 5 where a park cannot be established and the Open Space 1 greenspace is down near the single family homes where there are backyards;

viii)    stating that there is a park in the neighbouring community which is good for anyone who does not have to cross Bradley Avenue; noting that the residents in the medium density area who want to go to a park with a playground will have to cross four lanes of traffic;

ix)    pointing out that the nearest higher priced grocery store is a twenty-two-to-twenty-seven-minute walk and the nearest budget grocery store is a thirty-one to thirty-seven minute walk along Wonderland Road;

x)    wondering what indoor bicycle parking will be provided for the medium density units who do not own garages; noting that they have lived in a building without proper bicycle storage and it is a very big disincentive to try to bicycle anywhere;

xi)    providing bike paths is great but consideration needs to be given to where people can store their bikes when at home;

xii)    believing that if the single-family units were to be replaced with more dense options such as townhouses, three storey walk ups, mixed use buildings, it would increase the number of homes in this area;

xiii)    requesting a review of the major road alignment; and,

xiv)    indicating that there is not a central gathering point in the development and if the development was denser, there could be a gathering space in the middle of the development;

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision, submitted by 1103125 Ontario Inc., (File No. 39T-22502), prepared by Monteith Brown Planning Consultants, Project No. 20-20801, dated May 18, 2022, which shows 307 single detached lots; sixteen (16) low density townhouse blocks, four (4) medium density residential blocks; one (1) commercial block; (2) open space/drainage blocks; twelve (12) road widening and reserve blocks, serviced by six (6) new local streets (Street Q, R, S, T, U and V), SUBJECT TO the conditions appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “B”;

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

  •    J. McGuffin, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants; and,

  •    J. Lalonde;

it being noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the proposed amendments and plan are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 which promotes a compact form of development in strategic locations to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, provide for and accommodate an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of housing type and densities to meet the projected requirements of current and future residents;

  •    the proposed zoning amendments conform to The London Plan and the Southwest Area Plan;

  •    the related plan of subdivision, under review by the Approval Authority, supports a broad range of low and medium density residential development opportunities within the site including more intensive, mid-rise apartments and townhouses along the Bradley Avenue West corridor and commercial/industrial uses along Wharncliffe Road South.  The red-lined Draft Plan has been designed to support these uses and to achieve a visually pleasing development that is pedestrian friendly, transit supportive and accessible to the surrounding community; and,

it being further noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2023-D14)

Motion Passed

8.2.12   (3.6) 725, 729, 735, 737 Dundas Street, 389, 391, 393 Hewitt Street, a portion of 700 King Street, 400 Lyle Street and Other Properties (SPA22-057)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by East Village Holdings Limited, relating to the property located at 725-735 Dundas Street, 389-393 Hewitt Street, a portion of 700 King Street, 400 Lyle Street and other properties:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval to permit the construction of a mixed-use, 24-storey apartment building:

i)    enquiring about the Unity Project access to the garbage which is historically and grandfathered into the previous development agreement for the site;

ii)    wondering where the Unity Project access door is located; is it possible to keep the access door where it is currently located;

iii)    enquiring whether or not the Unity Project will have access to the driveway during construction;

iv)    requesting the removal of the non-conforming use parking lot and the inclusion of the pedestrian walkway that appears in Appendix “A” in section 4.2;

v)    wondering what assurances city staff can provide that the parking lot removal and the pedestrian walkway development will be done in this phase of the development;

vi)    advising that the current garbage location is not secured and personal garbage and large furniture is strewn around the site;

vii)    asking if staff can explain if the existing system noted in 4.3 will still be used once this new building is rented and more clearly outline where additional garbage will be stored and managed;

viii)    requesting that the issues that have already been identified in the staff report are dealt with at the same time as the current process;

ix)    advising that there is limited greenspace in the area and wondering if more trees can be planted as a number have been removed to facilitate rapid transit; and,

x)    wondering if commercial development will be occurring on Hewitt Street; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council does not have any issues with respect to the Site Plan Application, and that the Council supports the Site Plan Application;

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

  •    A. Brown, Stantec Consulting; 

  •    S. Langer, Unity Project;

  •    J. Pastorius, Old East Village Business Improvement Area;

  •    F. Felice;

  •    S. Merritt;

  •    AM Valastro; and,

  •    Y. Somalingam;

it being noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the proposed Site Plan is consistent with the PPS 2020, which directs growth to settlement areas and enhancing main streets;

  •    the proposed Site Plan conforms to The London Plan, and the Old East Village Dundas Street Corridor Secondary Plan including, but not limited to the policies of the Old East Village Core and King Street Character Areas;

  •    the proposed Site Plan complies with the regulations of the Z.-1 Zoning By-law;

  •    the proposed Site Plan meets the requirements of the Site Plan Control Area By-law; and,

it being further noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2023-D04/D02)

Motion Passed

8.2.13   (3.7) 159 Clarke Road and 1900 and 1902 Trafalgar Street (Z-9604) (Relates to Bill No. 248)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2323225 Ontario Inc. c/o Candevcon Limited, relating to the property located at 1900-1902 Trafalgar Street and 159 Clarke Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R3 (R3-2) and Convenience Commercial (CC3) Zone, TO a Special Provision Neighbourhood Shopping Area (NSA3(_)) Zone; and,

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following items through the site plan process:

i)    fencing and/or landscaping be provided along the perimeter of the site to ensure adequate buffering maintained between the subject lands and adjacent residential properties; and,

ii)    reduce parking to provide space for outdoor amenity areas at the rear of the building, as well to incorporate landscape islands, drive aisles and to facilitate on-site maneuvering;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type and Key Directions;

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site within the Built Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development that provides choice and diversity in housing options; and,

it being also noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2023-D14)

Motion Passed

8.2.14   (3.8) 38 Exeter Road (Z-9582) (Relates to Bill No. 249)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd., on behalf of 13709159 Canada Inc. (c/o Dr. Raj Khanuja), relating to the property located at 38 Exeter Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Restricted Service Commercial (h-17*RSC1/RSC4) Zone TO a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (NSA4(  )) Zone; and,

b)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law;

 

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

  •    S. Rasanu, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

it being noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), which encourages long-term economic prosperity to be supported by promoting opportunities for economic development and community investment-readiness (1.7.1.(a));

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and the Shopping Area Place Type policies;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the Wonderland Road Community Enterprise Corridor policies in the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP);

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a vacant site with a within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of development; and,

it being further noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2023-D14)

Motion Passed

8.2.15   (3.9) 46 Elmwood Place (Z-9583) (Relates to Bill No. 250)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Zelinka Priamo Ltd on behalf of Veranda Property Investments Inc., relating to the property located at 46 Elmwood Place:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Community Facility (CF3) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(*)) Zone;

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process:

i)    ensure the minimum standards for the site plan control by-laws are addressed regarding, walkways and fire route design;

ii)    ensure that there is an adequate amount of amenity space for the anticipated number of residents;

iii)    provide easily accessible temporary bicycle parking facilities on-site;

iv)    incorporate landscape areas for screening, visual amenity, and to assist with stormwater management and reduce the heat island effect throughout the parking lot; and,

v)    provide an Environmental Management Plan to address protection of the Coves ESA, Restoration Plan for the area of parking lot removal and installation of chain link fence to prevent encroachment into the ESA; and,

c)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communication with respect to these matters:

  •    the staff presentation;

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

  •    C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  •    M. Balch;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies;

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site with a vacant building within the Built-Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development; and,

it being also noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2023-D14)

Motion Passed

8.2.17   (4.1) Comprehensive Review of The London Plan Update (O-9595)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Comprehensive Review of The London Plan:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to close the Section 26 Comprehensive Review file;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue work related to the Land Needs Assessment background analysis to inform future recommendations related to housing and non-residential demand and the supply of developable lands;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to circulate the staff report dated July 17, 2023 to interested parties for consideration of potential conversion of employment lands from an Industrial Place Type to another Urban Place Type in The London Plan; and,

d)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that a revised Terms of Reference for the amendment application to review The London Plan will be presented to a future meeting of Council, following Provincial approval of a new Provincial Planning Statement policy framework;

it being further noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a request for delegation status dated July 12, 2023, from M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

  •    a communication dated July 13, 2023, from J. Fleming, City Planning Solutions, on behalf of 1803299 Ontario Inc.;

  •    a communication dated July 10, 2023, from S. Copp, Copp Realty Corp.;

  •    a communication from A. Soufan, York Developments;

  •    a communication from C. Brekelmans, C-Cubed Holdings; and,

  •    a communication from J. Fleming, City Planning Solutions, on behalf of C.-Cubed Holdings;

it being also noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-C08)

Motion Passed

8.2.18   (4.2) 221 Queens Avenue - Temporary Zoning By-law Amendment (TZ-9598) (Relates to Bill No. 252)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development and on the direction of Planning and Environment Committee, based on the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the property located at 221 Queens Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), by extending the Temporary Use (T-69) Zone for a period not exceeding three (3) years;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  •    the revised staff report;

  •    a request for delegation status dated July 13, 2023, from A. Haasen, Sifton Properties Limited; and,

  •    the draft conceptual landscape enhancement plan;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    that in the opinion of Council, the recommended amendment is in conformity with the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Temporary Use Provisions policies contained in Our Tools;

  •    the request to extend the temporary zone for a period of three (3) years, representing the maximum extension permitted. If upon expiration of the Temporary (T-69) Zone, there must be an enhanced landscaped plan incorporated with the next extension application. The owner is advised that no extensions to the Temporary (T-69) Zone shall be granted without the submission of an enhanced landscaped plan; and,

it being also noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2023-D14)

Motion Passed

8.2.20   (5.1) 8th Report of the Community Advisory on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 8th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on July 12, 2023:

a)    the following actions be taken with respect to the Notice of Application, dated June 14, 2023, from S. Wise, Senior Planner, with respect to Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments related to the property located at 50 King Street and 399 Ridout Street North:

i)    a Working Group BE CREATED to review the above-noted Application and the Heritage Impact Assessment Phase II, dated March 10, 2023, from York Developments, and report back to the August meeting of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP); and,

ii)    the applicant for this matter BE INVITED to the August meeting of the CACP for a discussion related to this application; it being noted that the above-noted Notice of Application and Heritage Impact Assessment Phase II, were received with respect to this matter; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.3, inclusive, 4.1, 5.1 to 5.4, inclusive, and 6.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.16   (3.10) 599-601 Richmond Street (Z-9607) (Relates to Bill No. 251)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Westdell Development Corporation, relating to the property located at 599-601 Richmond Street:

a)    the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Business District Commercial Special Provision Bonus Zone (BDC(1)*B-87) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(_)) Zone; and,

b)    the Civic Administration, including but not limited to the staff of the Municipal Housing Development team, BE DIRECTED to work with the applicant to provide for affordable housing units in the above-noted proposed development; it being noted that any such units could be a part of the Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units, as well as assist with Council’s Strategic focus to increase access to a range of quality affordable housing options;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication dated July 8, 2023, from C. Butler;

  •    a communication dated July 13, 2023, from l. Meddoui President, Westdell Development; and,

  •    a communication from A.M. Valastro;

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

  •    M. Poddar, Westdell Development Corporation; and,

  •    A.M. Valastro, North Talbot Community Association;

  •    P. Cullimore; and,

  •    G. Mitsis;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020; 

  •    conforms to the in-force policies of the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, including, but not limited to the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type, City Building Policies, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies in the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016;

  •    facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of new development; and,

it being also noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2023-D14)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion BE AMENDED by adding the following new part c):

c)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back with a status update on the affordable housing agreement for 599-601 Richmond Street when discussions between the Applicant and Municipal Housing Development begin, and when they have concluded.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Clause 3.10, as amended, reads as follows:

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Westdell Development Corporation, relating to the property located at 599-601 Richmond Street:

a)    the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Business District Commercial Special Provision Bonus Zone (BDC(1)*B-87) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(_)) Zone; and,

b)    the Civic Administration, including but not limited to the staff of the Municipal Housing Development team, BE DIRECTED to work with the applicant to provide for affordable housing units in the above-noted proposed development; it being noted that any such units could be a part of the Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units, as well as assist with Council’s Strategic focus to increase access to a range of quality affordable housing options;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back with a status update on the affordable housing agreement for 599-601 Richmond Street when discussions between the Applicant and Municipal Housing Development begin, and when they have concluded.

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication dated July 8, 2023, from C. Butler;

  •    a communication dated July 13, 2023, from l. Meddoui President, Westdell Development; and,

  •    a communication from A.M. Valastro;

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

  •    M. Poddar, Westdell Development Corporation; and,

  •    A.M. Valastro, North Talbot Community Association;

  •    P. Cullimore; and,

  •    G. Mitsis;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020; 

  •    conforms to the in-force policies of the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, including, but not limited to the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type, City Building Policies, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies in the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016;

  •    facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of new development; and,

it being also noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2023-D14)

8.2.19   (4.3) 39 Carfrae Street - Application Pursuant to Heritage Easement Agreement

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application pursuant to the Heritage Easement Agreement under Section 37, Ontario Heritage Act, for the property located at 39 Carfrae Street:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with the applicant to resolve outstanding concerns with Schedule “C” and Schedule “D” of the Heritage Easement Agreement and bring back an update within 6 months on the status; it being noted that staff are directed to suspend enforcement measures on the existing fireplace matters until further direction from Council on the Heritage Easement Agreement; and,

b)    the heritage alteration application to install asphalt shingles or an alternate composite material for the roof replacement of the property located at 39 Carfrae Street BE APPROVED;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  •    a request for delegation status dated July 8, 2023 from J. Gard;

  •    The Ontario Cottage Tour, October 1, 2000;

  •    a communication from B.L. Hiddleston, Hon. Archivist and Historian to The Queen Elizabeth Castle of Mey Trust relating to the Thistle Finial;

  •    Carfrae Notes dated October 4, 1987;

  •    a request for delegation status dated July 13, 2023, from G. Hodder;

  •    a communication dated July 13, 2023 from W. Kinghorn, President, ACO London Region Branch; and,

  •    a request for delegation status dated July 14, 2023 from J.H. Beck; and,

it being further noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2023-R01)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the motion, excluding part b), of the clause BE APPROVED:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application pursuant to the Heritage Easement Agreement under Section 37, Ontario Heritage Act, for the property located at 39 Carfrae Street:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with the applicant to resolve outstanding concerns with Schedule “C” and Schedule “D” of the Heritage Easement Agreement and bring back an update within 6 months on the status; it being noted that staff are directed to suspend enforcement measures on the existing fireplace matters until further direction from Council on the Heritage Easement Agreement; and,

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  •    a request for delegation status dated July 8, 2023 from J. Gard;

  •    The Ontario Cottage Tour, October 1, 2000;

  •    a communication from B.L. Hiddleston, Hon. Archivist and Historian to The Queen Elizabeth Castle of Mey Trust relating to the Thistle Finial;

  •    Carfrae Notes dated October 4, 1987;

  •    a request for delegation status dated July 13, 2023, from G. Hodder;

  •    a communication dated July 13, 2023 from W. Kinghorn, President, ACO London Region Branch; and,

  •    a request for delegation status dated July 14, 2023 from J.H. Beck; and,

it being further noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2023-R01)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That part b) of the motion, BE APPROVED:

b)    the heritage alteration application to install asphalt shingles or an alternate composite material for the roof replacement of the property located at 39 Carfrae Street BE APPROVED;

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

8.3   14th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2023-07-17 CSC Report 14

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 14th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Items 9 (4.1) and 14 (2.5).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 2022 Investment Portfolio Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the 2022 Investment Portfolio Report, providing a summary of the performance of the City of London’s investments, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members 2023 Remuneration

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report dated July 17, 2023, entitled “Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members 2023 Remuneration” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) 2022 Emergency Procurement - Forestry Operations

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the report and source of financing for purchase orders issued under Section 14.2 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy BE RECEIVED with respect to the Forestry Operations emergency procurement in response to storm damaged trees in May 2022 at a total price of $209,143 (HST excluded).

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) Delegation of Authority By-law: Environment and Infrastructure Approvals and Agreements (Relates to Bill No. 215)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed Delegation of Authority by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to:

a)    delegate the authority to bind the Corporation of the City of London to members of Civic Administration in a specific list of circumstances; and,

b)    authorize the execution by the applicable delegated member of the Civic Administration of any contract, agreement or other documents, as required, to give effect to the delegated decision, as indicated in Appendix “A”.

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.6) Freedom of the City - HMCS Prevost

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, and in response to the request of the HMCS Prevost, the HMCS Prevost BE AUTHORIZED to exercise its previously granted Freedom of the City of London on Saturday, September 23, 2023, to mark the Centennial of the Naval Reserves.

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (2.7) City of London Days at Budweiser Gardens - United Way

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk and in accordance with Council’s City of London Days at Budweiser Gardens Policy, the request from the United Way Elgin & Middlesex to host the annual Stairclimb on November 2, 2023, BE APPROVED as a City of London Day at Budweiser Gardens.

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (2.8) Update on Association of Municipalities of Ontario Board Advocacy

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the communication dated July 17, 2023 from Councillor A. Hopkins regarding the Update on Association of Municipalities of Ontario Board Advocacy BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Blood Cancer Awareness Month - Leukemia and Lymphoma Society of Canada

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated June 30, 2023 from Leukemia and Lymphoma Society of Canada-London Ontario, the month of September 2023 BE PROCLAIMED Blood Cancer Awareness Month-Leukemia and Lymphoma Society of Canada.

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (4.3) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Arthritis Awareness Month

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated July 6, 2023 from Arthritis Society Canada, the month of September 2023 BE PROCLAIMED Arthritis Awareness Month.

Motion Passed

8.3.12   (4.4) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Freedom of the City

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated July 6, 2023 from His Majesty’s Canadian Ship (HMCS) Prevost, September 23, 2023 BE PROCLAIMED Freedom of the City.

Motion Passed

8.3.13   (4.5) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - National Coaches Week

That based on the application dated July 5, 2023 from Coaches Association of Ontario with respect to the National Coaches Week, the proclamation request BE RECEIVED.

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated July 5, 2023 from Coaches Association of Ontario with respect to the National Coaches Week, the proclamation request BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the City Clerks Office will follow up on the application, in advance of the Council meeting of July 25, 2023.

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (4.1) Consideration of Appointments to the London Community Advisory Committees

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Community Advisory Committees:

a)  that the following actions be taken with respect to appointments to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee:

     i)     the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee for the term ending February 2024:

  •    Nicole Karsch

  •    Steve Ryall

     ii)     the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to have the application for the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee remain on the City website in order to receive additional applications for appointment;

b)  the consideration of appointments to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning BE FORWARDED to the Municipal Council for a decision; it being noted of the following voting record from the Corporate Services Committee:

Mark C. Ambrogio - 4 votes

Sarvarinder Singh Dohil - 4 votes

Danalynn - 2 votes

Jeff Gard - 2 votes

c)  the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee for the term ending February 2024:

  •    Saleme Atieh

  •    David Godwin

  •    Margot Stothers

  •    Nandini Syed

d)  the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee for the term ending February 2024:

  •    Becca Amendola

  •    Russell Duvernoy

  •    Amy Ford

  •    Mary Ann Hodge

  •    Allison Pert

e)   the consideration of appointments to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee BE FORWARDED to the Municipal Council for a decision; it being noted of the following voting record from the Corporate Services Committee:

Emily Poirier - 4 votes

Anuar Issa - 3 votes

Christopher DeGroot - 2 votes

Amanda Pfeffer - 2 votes

Appointment to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Majority Winner: Mark C Ambrogio; Sarvarinder Singh Dohil; Jeff Gard

Appointment to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Majority Winner: Emily Poirier; Amanda Pfeffer; Anuar Issa

Motion made by S. Lewis

That parts a), c) and d) of the clause BE APPROVED:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Community Advisory Committees:

a)  that the following actions be taken with respect to appointments to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee:

     i)     the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee for the term ending February 2024:

  •    Nicole Karsch

  •    Steve Ryall

ii)     the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to have the application for the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee remain on the City website in order to receive additional applications for appointment;

c)  the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee for the term ending February 2024:

  •    Saleme Atieh

  •    David Godwin

  •    Margot Stothers

  •    Nandini Syed

d)  the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee for the term ending February 2024:

  •    Becca Amendola

  •    Russell Duvernoy

  •    Amy Ford

  •    Mary Ann Hodge

  •    Allison Pert

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

b)  the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning for the term ending February 2024:

Mark C. Ambrogio

Sarvarinder Singh Dohil

Jeff Gard

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lehman

e)   the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee for the term ending February 2024:

Emily Poirier

Anuar Issa

Amanda Pfeffer

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The clause, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Community Advisory Committees:

a)  that the following actions be taken with respect to appointments to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee:

     i)     the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee for the term ending February 2024:

  •    Nicole Karsch

  •    Steve Ryall

     ii)     the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to have the application for the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee remain on the City website in order to receive additional applications for appointment;

b)  the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning for the term ending February 2024:

  •    Mark C. Ambrogio

  •    Sarvarinder Singh Dohil 

  •    Jeff Gard

c)  the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee for the term ending February 2024:

  •    Saleme Atieh

  •    David Godwin

  •    Margot Stothers

  •    Nandini Syed

d)  the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee for the term ending February 2024:

  •    Becca Amendola

  •    Russell Duvernoy

  •    Amy Ford

  •    Mary Ann Hodge

  •    Allison Pert

e)   the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee for the term ending February 2024:

  •    Emily Poirier

  •    Anuar Issa

  •    Amanda Pfeffer

8.3.14   (2.5) Council Policy Manual Review 2023 (Relates to Bill No.’s 216 to 224, 232 and 233)

At 5:32 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan places Councillor S. Lehman in chair 5:32 PM.

At 5:34 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the “Policy for the Establishment and Maintenance of Council Polices”:

a)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices B1 and B2 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to provide for the following new Council Policies:

  1.    Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy

  2.    Municipal Compliance Service

b)    the following items, related to the Council Policy Manual Review 2023, BE REFERRED to the Governance Working Group for consideration: 

the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices C1 to C49, to make the specified amendments to the following Council Policies:

 

  1.    Accountability & Transparency to Public Policy 

  2.    Assessment Growth Policy 

  3.    Assumption of Works and Services 

  4.    Audio Recording of Municipal Council and Standing Committee In Closed Session Meetings Policy 

  5.    Benefits for Survivors of Employees Killed on the Job 

  6.    Capital Budget and Financing Policy 

  7.    Child Care Policies 

  8.    City of London Records Management Policy 

  9.    City-Owned Residential Properties 

  10.    Collective Bargaining Activities 

  11.    Community Arts Investment Program 

  12.    Corporate Asset Management Policy 

  13.    Corporate Plaques and Recognitions Policy 

  14.    Corporate Sponsorship and Advertising Policy 

  15.    Debt Management Policy 

  16.    Dedication of Fire Stations 

  17.    Demolition Control 

  18.    Employee Service Recognition Program 

  19.    Financial Assistance for Program Activity Fees 

  20.    Grants to Centennial Hall 

  21.    Hiring of Employees Policy 

  22.    Investment Policy 

  23.    Land Dedication 

  24.    Lessee Protection and Non-Competitive Clauses

  25.    Mayor - Contracted Staff 

  26.    Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Policy 

  27.    Members of Council Public Registry Declaration of Interest 

  28.    Multi-Year Budget Policy 

  29.    Naming Renaming or Dedication of Municipal Property, Buildings and Park Elements Policy 

  30.    Naturalized Areas and Wildflower Meadows 

  31.    Policy for the Establishment and Maintenance of Council Policies 

  32.    Procurement of Goods & Services Policy 

  33.    Promotion of Corporate Products and Services to City Staff 

  34.    Public Access During Council and Standing Committee Meetings 

  35.    Public Art Monument Policy 

  36.    Public Notice Policy 

  37.    Public Registry Declaration of Interest for Local Boards 

  38.    Reduced Rental Rates for Non-Profit Groups

  39.    Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy

  40.    Rental of Lands for Billboards 

  41.    Request to Waive or Reduce Facility Rental Fees

  42.    Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy

  43.    Retirement Dinners for Service Area Leads

  44.    Rzone Policy

  45.    Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy

  46.    Special Events Policies and Procedures Manual

  47.    Surplus Deficit Policy

  48.    Use of the City Hall Cafeteria Policy

  49.    Using Centennial Hall for City Sponsored Events

c)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices D1 to D9 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to repeal the following Council Policies:

  1.    Athletic Travel Grants

  2.    City of London Race Relations Anti Racism Policy (to be replaced by Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy)

  3.    Diversity and Inclusion Policy for the City of London (to be replaced by Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy)

  4.    Enforcement of City Personnel Policy

  5.    Gender Equity in Recreation Services

  6.    Inclusion in Recreation Facilities, Parks and Services

  7.    Landing of Helicopters Policy 

  8.    Protocol for Unapproved Aboriginal Burial Sites

  9.    Siting of Cannabis Retail Stores in London.

Motion made by S. Lewis

That parts a) and c) of the motion BE APPROVED:

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the “Policy for the Establishment and Maintenance of Council Polices”:

a)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices B1 and B2 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to provide for the following new Council Policies:

  1.    Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy

  2.    Municipal Compliance Service

c)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices D1 to D9 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to repeal the following Council Policies:

  1.    Athletic Travel Grants

  2.    City of London Race Relations Anti Racism Policy (to be replaced by Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy)

  3.    Diversity and Inclusion Policy for the City of London (to be replaced by Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy)

  4.    Enforcement of City Personnel Policy

  5.    Gender Equity in Recreation Services

  6.    Inclusion in Recreation Facilities, Parks and Services

  7.    Landing of Helicopters Policy 

  8.    Protocol for Unapproved Aboriginal Burial Sites

  9.    Siting of Cannabis Retail Stores in London.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

At 5:28 PM, Councillor P. Cuddy leaves the meeting.

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That part b) of the motion BE APPROVED:

b)    the following items, related to the Council Policy Manual Review 2023, BE REFERRED to the Governance Working Group for consideration:

the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices C1 to C49, to make the specified amendments to the following Council Policies:

 

  1.    Accountability & Transparency to Public Policy 

  2.    Assessment Growth Policy 

  3.    Assumption of Works and Services 

  4.    Audio Recording of Municipal Council and Standing Committee In Closed Session Meetings Policy 

  5.    Benefits for Survivors of Employees Killed on the Job 

  6.    Capital Budget and Financing Policy 

  7.    Child Care Policies 

  8.    City of London Records Management Policy 

  9.    City-Owned Residential Properties 

  10.    Collective Bargaining Activities 

  11.    Community Arts Investment Program 

  12.    Corporate Asset Management Policy 

  13.    Corporate Plaques and Recognitions Policy 

  14.    Corporate Sponsorship and Advertising Policy 

  15.    Debt Management Policy 

  16.    Dedication of Fire Stations 

  17.    Demolition Control 

  18.    Employee Service Recognition Program 

  19.    Financial Assistance for Program Activity Fees 

  20.    Grants to Centennial Hall 

  21.    Hiring of Employees Policy 

  22.    Investment Policy 

  23.    Land Dedication 

  24.    Lessee Protection and Non-Competitive Clauses

  25.    Mayor - Contracted Staff 

  26.    Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Policy 

  27.    Members of Council Public Registry Declaration of Interest 

  28.    Multi-Year Budget Policy 

  29.    Naming Renaming or Dedication of Municipal Property, Buildings and Park Elements Policy 

  30.    Naturalized Areas and Wildflower Meadows 

  31.    Policy for the Establishment and Maintenance of Council Policies 

  32.    Procurement of Goods & Services Policy 

  33.    Promotion of Corporate Products and Services to City Staff 

  34.    Public Access During Council and Standing Committee Meetings 

  35.    Public Art Monument Policy 

  36.    Public Notice Policy 

  37.    Public Registry Declaration of Interest for Local Boards 

  38.    Reduced Rental Rates for Non-Profit Groups

  39.    Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy

  40.    Rental of Lands for Billboards 

  41.    Request to Waive or Reduce Facility Rental Fees

  42.    Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy

  43.    Retirement Dinners for Service Area Leads

  44.    Rzone Policy

  45.    Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy

  46.    Special Events Policies and Procedures Manual

  47.    Surplus Deficit Policy

  48.    Use of the City Hall Cafeteria Policy

  49.    Using Centennial Hall for City Sponsored Events

Motion Failed (4 to 10)

At 5:41 PM, Councillor S. Franke leaves the meeting

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

b) the attached proposed by-laws (Appendices C1 to C49) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to make the specified amendments to the following Council Policies:

  1. Accountability & Transparency to Public Policy

  2. Assessment Growth Policy

  3. Assumption of Works and Services

  4. Audio Recording of Municipal Council and Standing Committee In Closed Session Meetings Policy

  5. Benefits for Survivors of Employees Killed on the Job

  6. Capital Budget and Financing Policy

  7. Child Care Policies

  8. City of London Records Management Policy

  9. City-Owned Residential Properties

  10. Collective Bargaining Activities

  11. Community Arts Investment Program

  12. Corporate Asset Management Policy

  13. Corporate Plaques and Recognitions Policy

  14. Corporate Sponsorship and Advertising Policy

  15. Debt Management Policy

  16. Dedication of Fire Stations

  17. Demolition Control

  18. Employee Service Recognition Program

  19. Financial Assistance for Program Activity Fees

  20. Grants to Centennial Hall

  21. Hiring of Employees Policy

  22. Investment Policy

  23. Land Dedication

  24. Lessee Protection and Non-Competitive Clauses

  25. Mayor - Contracted Staff

  26. Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Policy

  27. Members of Council Public Registry Declaration of Interest

  28. Multi-Year Budget Policy

  29. Naming Renaming or Dedication of Municipal Property, Buildings and Park Elements Policy

  30. Naturalized Areas and Wildflower Meadows

  31. Policy for the Establishment and Maintenance of Council Policies

  32. Procurement of Goods & Services Policy

  33. Promotion of Corporate Products and Services to City Staff

  34. Public Access During Council and Standing Committee Meetings

  35. Public Art Monument Policy

  36. Public Notice Policy

  37. Public Registry Declaration of Interest for Local Boards

  38. Reduced Rental Rates for Non-Profit Groups

  39. Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy

  40. Rental of Lands for Billboards

  41. Request to Waive or Reduce Facility Rental Fees

  42. Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy

  43. Retirement Dinners for Service Area Leads

  44. Rzone Policy

  45. Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy

  46. Special Events Policies and Procedures Manual

  47. Surplus Deficit Policy

  48. Use of the City Hall Cafeteria Policy

  49. Using Centennial Hall for City Sponsored Events

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

The motion, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the “Policy for the Establishment and Maintenance of Council Polices”:

a)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices B1 and B2 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to provide for the following new Council Policies:

  1.    Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy

  2.    Municipal Compliance Service

b)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices C1 to C49, to make the specified amendments to the following Council Policies:

1.    Accountability & Transparency to Public Policy

2.    Assessment Growth Policy

3.    Assumption of Works and Services

4.    Audio Recording of Municipal Council and Standing Committee In Closed Session Meetings Policy

5.    Benefits for Survivors of Employees Killed on the Job

6.    Capital Budget and Financing Policy

7.    Child Care Policies

8.    City of London Records Management Policy

9.    City-Owned Residential Properties

10.    Collective Bargaining Activities

11.    Community Arts Investment Program

12.    Corporate Asset Management Policy

13.    Corporate Plaques and Recognitions Policy

14.    Corporate Sponsorship and Advertising Policy

15.    Debt Management Policy

16.    Dedication of Fire Stations

17.    Demolition Control

18.    Employee Service Recognition Program

19.    Financial Assistance for Program Activity Fees

20.    Grants to Centennial Hall

21.    Hiring of Employees Policy

22.    Investment Policy

23.    Land Dedication

24.    Lessee Protection and Non-Competitive Clauses

25.    Mayor - Contracted Staff

26.    Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Policy

27.    Members of Council Public Registry Declaration of Interest

28.    Multi-Year Budget Policy

29.    Naming Renaming or Dedication of Municipal Property, Buildings and Park Elements Policy

30.    Naturalized Areas and Wildflower Meadows

31.    Policy for the Establishment and Maintenance of Council Policies

32.    Procurement of Goods & Services Policy

33.    Promotion of Corporate Products and Services to City Staff

34.    Public Access During Council and Standing Committee Meetings

35.    Public Art Monument Policy

36.    Public Notice Policy

37.    Public Registry Declaration of Interest for Local Boards

38.    Reduced Rental Rates for Non-Profit Groups

39.    Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy

40.    Rental of Lands for Billboards

41.    Request to Waive or Reduce Facility Rental Fees

42.    Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy

43.    Retirement Dinners for Service Area Leads

44.    Rzone Policy

45.    Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy

46.    Special Events Policies and Procedures Manual

47.    Surplus Deficit Policy

48.    Use of the City Hall Cafeteria Policy

49.    Using Centennial Hall for City Sponsored Events

c)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices D1 to D9 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to repeal the following Council Policies:

  1.    Athletic Travel Grants

  2.    City of London Race Relations Anti Racism Policy (to be replaced by Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy)

  3.    Diversity and Inclusion Policy for the City of London (to be replaced by Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy)

  4.    Enforcement of City Personnel Policy

  5.    Gender Equity in Recreation Services

  6.    Inclusion in Recreation Facilities, Parks and Services

  7.    Landing of Helicopters Policy 

  8.    Protocol for Unapproved Aboriginal Burial Sites

  9.    Siting of Cannabis Retail Stores in London.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Council recess at this time.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 5:43 PM, and reconvenes at 5:53 PM.

8.4   12th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2023-07-18 CPSC Report 12

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 12th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Items 5 (2.3), 6 (2.4) and 8 (4.2).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 4th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 22, 2023:

a)    the attached presentation, from K. Al Tarhuni, MyGREEN Taxi, with respect to Accessible Taxi Cabs, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review and a report back to a future meeting of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee and the Community and Protective Services Committee with options related to vehicles for hire and accessible transportation; it being noted that the above-noted presentation, as well as the communication, as appended to the Agenda, from K. Al Tarhuni, with respect to this matter, was received; and,

b)    clauses 1.1 and 3.1 to 3.7, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) Active Transportation Fund for Stoney Creek Pathway Connection to the Thames Valley Parkway - Contribution Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 213)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 18, 2023, related to a Contribution Agreement for an Active Transportation Fund for Stoney Creek Pathway Connection to the Thames Valley Parkway:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to:

i)    approve the Contribution Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between His Majesty the King in right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and The Corporation of the City of London, for the provision of funding under the Active Transportation Fund, substantially in the form as appended to the above-noted by-law;

ii)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Contribution Agreement; 

iii)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, or their written delegate, to approve any amending agreements to the above-noted Agreement, provided the amending agreements do not increase the indebtedness or liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London under the Agreement;

iv)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute any amending agreements approved by the Deputy City manager, Environment and Infrastructure; and,

v)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, or their written delegate, to execute any financial reports required under the above-noted Agreement and to undertake all administrative, financial, and reporting acts necessary in connection with the Agreement; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this matter. (2023-T10)

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.5) Municipal Contribution Agreement for Vision SOHO Alliance (Relates to Bill No. 214)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report, dated July 18, 2023, BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to: 

a)    approve a Contribution Agreement to be entered into between The Corporation of the City of London and each member of the Vision SOHO Alliance, as appended to the above-noted by-law;

b)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development to approve amendments to the above-noted Contribution Agreement;

c)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development to approve and execute the Tenant Placement Agreement prior to first occupancy of each building development by the members of the Vision SOHO Alliance; and,

d)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development to execute the above-noted Contribution Agreement, as may be appended by the Deputy City manager, Planning and Economic Development, pursuant to their authority under section b) of this by-law. (2023-S11)

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (4.1) Revised Process for City Board Representative on Museum London Board

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the matter of a City of London representative on the Museum London Board BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration of an appointment; it being noted that the members of Council will be advised of the opportunity; it being further noted that a verbal delegation from S. Padfield, Board Chair, Museum London and the communication, as appended to the Agenda, from J. Bevan, Executive Director and S. Padfield, Board Chair, Museum London, with respect to this matter, were received. (2023-C05)

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (5.1) 7th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 7th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on July 6, 2023:

a)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to provide the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee with an update on zoning for zoos and mobile zoos, at its next meeting;

it being noted that the Notice of Planning Application, dated June 14, 2023, from the ReThink Zoning Project Team, related to Zoning By-law Changes for the New Comprehensive Zoning By-law - ReThink Zoning, was received;

b)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend the next Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee meeting to update the committee on Green Week, including but not limited to the following, as it may impact migratory and nesting birds: 

i)    how they plan yard waste schedules;

ii)    what the process is for determining the schedule; and, 

iii)    is it possible to look at different times or days for Green Week; and,

c)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 5.1, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (4.2) Thames Pool Condition Update and Repair Options

At 6:14 PM, Councillor P. Cuddy enters the meeting.

At 6:15 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair.

At 6:17 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following actions with respect to the Thames Pool:

a)    proceed with the process to decommission Thames Pool;

b)    undertake a community consultation with respect to implementing potential new amenities in Thames Park, including but not limited to, pickleball courts, basketball courts, or other amenities;

c)    undertake a review of the feasibility of a new spray pad installation in Thames Park or in Wortley on the Village Green, in consultation with the community on preferred location;

d)    undertake a feasibility study for the location of a potential new indoor pool opportunity including; Murray Park, Rowntree Park, and other appropriate city owned properties within the same general geographic service catchment area as Thames Pool;

e)   continue to work with the community to provide transportation opportunities to other aquatic facilities; and,

f)    parts b), c), d) and e), above, not exceed a combined budget of $1.92 million, consistent with the lowest cost temporary repair option for the current Thames Pool location outlined in the staff report, dated July 18, 2023;

it being noted that any costs associated with part a), related to any required demolition of decommissioning the existing pool, are not included in the $1.92 million noted above;

it being further noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from M. Boyle and D. Keilholz, with respect to this matter, were received. (2023-R05C)

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

8.4.5   (2.3) Housing Stability Services 2023-24 Contract Amendments

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 18, 2023, related to Housing Stability Services 2023-24 Contract Amendments:

a)    the contract amendments BE APPROVED, at a total estimated cost of $2,098,650 (including HST), for the period of April 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024, to administer Housing Stability Services programs, as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e) ii) to the service providers outlined in Schedule 1 of the staff report, dated July 18, 2023:

b)    the matter of a one-time funding allocation of up to $374,210 to London Cares Homeless Response Services BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to provide information as to how the concerns raised as part of the neighbourhood engagement are addressed and the security staffing rationale during off-hours, at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to this project; and,

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with each program. (2023-S11)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the recommendation BE AMENDED by adding the following new part e):

e)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide a report to a future Community and Protective Services Committee (CPSC) to identify options and the associated costs to address the safety and security concerns identified as well as the safety and security concerns of the agencies’ staff, volunteers and those accessing services.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the motion BE FURTHER AMENDED by adding the following new part f)

f)    a one-time funding allocation of up to $374,210 from the Social Services Reserve Fund for London Cares Homeless Response Services to support security services for 602 Queens Avenue and 448 Horton Street locations as outlined on the Schedule 1 of the staff report dated July 18, 2023;

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the amendment, as amended, BE APPROVED as follows:

That the motion BE FURTHER AMENDED by adding the following new part f)

f)    a one-time funding allocation of up to $200,000 from the Social Services Reserve Fund for London Cares Homeless Response Services to support security services for 602 Queens Avenue and 448 Horton Street locations as outlined on the Schedule 1 of the staff report dated July 18, 2023;

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

The main motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The clause, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 18, 2023, related to Housing Stability Services 2023-24 Contract Amendments:

a)    the contract amendments BE APPROVED, at a total estimated cost of $2,098,650 (including HST), for the period of April 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024, to administer Housing Stability Services programs, as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e) ii) to the service providers outlined in Schedule 1 of the staff report, dated July 18, 2023;

b)    the matter of a one-time funding allocation of up to $374,210 to London Cares Homeless Response Services BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to provide information as to how the concerns raised as part of the neighbourhood engagement are addressed and the security staffing rationale during off-hours, at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to this project;

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with each program;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide a report to a future Community and Protective Services Committee (CPSC) to identify options and the associated costs to address the safety and security concerns identified as well as the safety and security concerns of the agencies’ staff, volunteers and those accessing services; and,

f)    a one-time funding allocation of up to $200,000 from the Social Services Reserve Fund for London Cares Homeless Response Services to support security services for 602 Queens Avenue and 448 Horton Street locations as outlined on the Schedule 1 of the staff report dated July 18, 2023. (2023-S11)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Council recess at this time.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 7:17 PM, and reconvenes at 7:41 PM.

8.4.6   (2.4) Primary Care Recruitment, Transition into Practice and Retention Program Funding Request

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 18, 2023, related to the Primary Care Recruitment, Transition into Practice and Retention Program Funding Request:

a)    the Middlesex London Ontario Health Team - Primary Care Recruitment report and presentation, as appended to the Agenda, BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review opportunities through the Rethink Zoning process to facilitate the establishment of Team Based Family Care facilities, not withstanding our policies locating major office uses in the downtown core, and consistent with the new provincial guidelines expecting physicians to set up in groups of six or more for Team Based Care. (2023-S08)

Councillor P. Cuddy leaves the meeting.

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the motion BE AMENDED by adding the following new parts c) and d):

c) the City’s financial contribution BE APPROVED from the Economic Development Reserve Fund in the amount of $80,000 per year for 1 year; it being noted that the program will be re-evaluated after the one-year contribution; and,

d) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to the Middlesex London Ontario Health Team – Primary Care Recruitment Program.

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the new part c) BE AMENDED by replacing the contribution amount of $80,000 with the amount of $28,500.

Motion Failed (7 to 7)

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the new part c) BE AMENDED by replacing the contribution amount of $80,000 with the amount of $50,000.

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

The motion, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 18, 2023, related to the Primary Care Recruitment, Transition into Practice and Retention Program Funding Request:

a)    the Middlesex London Ontario Health Team - Primary Care Recruitment report and presentation, as appended to the Agenda, BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review opportunities through the Rethink Zoning process to facilitate the establishment of Team Based Family Care facilities, not withstanding our policies locating major office uses in the downtown core, and consistent with the new provincial guidelines expecting physicians to set up in groups of six or more for Team Based Care;

c) the City’s financial contribution BE APPROVED from the Economic Development Reserve Fund in the amount of $50,000 per year for 1 year; it being noted that the program will be re-evaluated after the one-year contribution; and,

d) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to the Middlesex London Ontario Health Team – Primary Care Recruitment Program.  (2023-S08)

8.5   11th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2023-07-18 CWC Report 11

At 8:20 PM, Councillor E. Peloza leaves the meeting.

Motion made by C. Rahman

That clauses 1 to 14,  the 11th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) 7th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 7th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 7, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) 7th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 7th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 21, 2023:

a)    the Municipal Council BE ADVISED that the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee recommends Alternative 2: Signalized Intersection A, from the Hamilton Road and Gore Road Intersection Improvement Environmental Assessment;

it being noted that the presentation, as appended to the Agenda, from V. Pugliese, MTE Consultants, with respect to this matter, was received; and,

b)    clauses 2.2, 3.1 to 3.9, 4.1, 5.1 and 5.2 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.3) RFP-2022-224 Green Bin Processing Services

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated July 18, 2023, related to the Request for Proposal (RFP-2022-224) Green Bin Processing Services:

a)    the proposal submitted by Convertus Canada Inc., 307 Commissioners Rd W, No. 8, London, Ontario, N6J 1Y4, for Green Bin Processing Services to manage food waste and soiled paper BE ACCEPTED at their quoted processing unit rate of $89.75 per tonne (excluding HST); it being noted that this is being reported as an irregular bid as per the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Section 19.4 (c) as only one (1) bid was received for this Request for Proposals, and that:

i)    the quoted processing unit rate of $94.50 per tonne (excluding HST) be accepted as submitted in 2023 to manage pet waste and/or food waste contained inside plastic bags should City Council wish to make Green Bin Program adjustments in the future;

ii)   the proposed annual rate be adjusted annually for inflation by the Consumer Price Index;

iii)  the term of contract be for four (4) years, with three (3), one (1) year renewal options at the sole discretion of the City; and,

iv)  the minimum amounts of Green Bin materials that must be delivered to Convertus’s processing facility are 15,000 tonnes (in 2024), 15,750 tonnes (in 2025), 16,540 tonnes (in 2026) and 17,360 tonnes (in 2027);

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this work; and,

c)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, having a purchase order or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.4) Western Road and Sarnia Road/Phillip Aziz Avenue Corridor and Intersection Improvements Detailed Design Appointment of Consulting Engineer

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated July 18, 2023, related to the Western Road and Sarnia Road/Philip Aziz Avenue Corridor and Intersection Improvements Detailed Design and the Appointment of a Consulting Engineer:

a)   AECOM Canada Ltd. BE APPOINTED as the consulting engineer to complete the detailed design and tendering services at an upset amount of $1,645,435.00 (excluding HST);

b)    the financing for this assignment BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this assignment;

d)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the work; and,

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents including agreements, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (2.5) Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated July 18, 2023, related to the Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program:

a)    the following consulting engineers BE APPOINTED to carry out consulting services for the identified Infrastructure Renewal Program funded projects, at the upset amounts identified below, in accordance with the estimate on file, and in accordance with Section 15.2(e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:

i)    Development Engineering (London) Limited as the consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, and detailed design of Contract 1, Florence Street from Eleanor Street to Ashland Avenue, and Eleanor Street from Dundas Street to Frances Street reconstruction, in the total amount of $354,937.00, including contingency (excluding HST);

ii)   Stantec Consulting Ltd. as the consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, detailed design and construction administration of Contract 3, Cavendish Crescent East reconstruction, and Greenway low level trunk sanitary sewer relocation, in the total amount of $767,672.40, including contingency (excluding HST);

iii)  Archibald, Gray & McKay Engineering Ltd. as the consulting engineers to complete the pre-design and detailed design of Contract 7, Sterling Street from Oxford Street East to Salisbury Street, Salisbury Street from Sterling Street to Quebec Street, and Mornington Avenue from Sterling Street to Quebec Street reconstruction, in the total amount of $294,800.00, including contingency (excluding HST);

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; and,

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2023-T04)

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (2.6) Contract Award - Request for Proposal RFP-2023-141 Design, Fabrication, Delivery, Installation and Maintenance of Signage for Downtown Wayfinding Plan Phase 1 Sign By-law Amendment (Relates to Bill No. 235)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure and the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated July 18, 2023, related to the Contract Award Request for Proposal (RFP-2023-141) for the Design, Fabrication, Delivery, Installation and Maintenance of Signage for Downtown Wayfinding Plan Phase 1 Sign By-law Amendment:

a)    Everest Signs BE APPOINTED to undertake detailed design, fabrication, installation and maintenance at an upset limit of $125,350.00 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 12.2(b);

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with Everest Signs for this work;

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations; and,

f)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend By-law No. S.-5868-183, entitled “A by-law prohibiting and regulating signs, and regulating the placing of signs upon highways and buildings”.

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (2.8) Appointment of Consulting Engineers for Contract Administration Services - Vauxhall Wastewater Treatment Plant Refurbishment Stage 1

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated July 18, 2023, related to the Appointment of Consulting Engineers for Contract Administration Services for the Vauxhall Wastewater Treatment Plant Refurbishment Stage 1:

a)    the following consulting engineers BE APPOINTED to carry out consulting services for the identified wastewater treatment operations infrastructure project, at the upset amounts identified below, in accordance with the estimate on file, and in accordance with Section 15.2(g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:

i)    Dillon Consulting Limited as the consulting engineers to complete part time inspection and contract administration of Vauxhall WWTP Refurbishment Stage 1 in the total amount of $133,515.00, including contingency (excluding HST);

ii)   AECOM Canada Ltd. as the consulting engineers to complete part time inspection and contract administration support to Dillon for Vauxhall WWTP Refurbishment Stage 1, in the total amount of $40,000.00, including contingency (excluding HST);

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project; and, 

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2023-E03)

Motion Passed

8.5.9   (2.9) RFP-2023-097 Streetscape Master Plan for Dundas Street Appointment of Consulting Engineer- Irregular Result

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated July 18, 2023, related to the Request for Proposal (RFP-2023-097) Streetscape Master Plan for Dundas Street Appointment of Consulting Engineer Irregular Result:

a)    Dillon Consulting Limited BE APPOINTED as the Consulting Engineer to complete the Streetscape Master Plan for Dundas Street – Argyle Core Area in the total amount of $159,899.30 (excluding HST), in accordance with Sections 15.2 (d) and 8.10 (a) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this assignment;

d)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the Consulting Engineer for the work; and,

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents including agreements, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.

Motion Passed

8.5.10   (2.10) Contract Price Increase - 2022 Sewer Lining Contract

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated July 18, 2023, related to a Contract Price Increase for the 2022 Sewer Lining Contract:

a)    the 2022 Sewer Lining Contract (RFP-2022-120) contract value with Insituform Technologies Ltd. BE INCREASED by $33,795.70 to $4,407,511.80 (excluding HST) in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for these projects BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report; 

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with these projects; and,

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2023-E01)

Motion Passed

8.5.11   (2.11) Comments Provided to Federal Government on Recycled Content, Labelling Rules, and Registry of Plastic Products

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated July 18, 2023, related to Comments Provided to Federal Government on Recycled Content, Labelling Rules and Registry for Plastic Products, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.12   (2.7) Adelaide Street North Improvements Environmental Study Report, Notice of Completion

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated July 18, 2023, related to the Adelaide Street North Improvements Environmental Study Report, Notice of Completion:

a)    the Adelaide Street North Improvements Environmental Study Report BE ACCEPTED;

b)    a Notice of Study Completion for the Project BE FILED with the Municipal Clerk; and,

c)    the Environmental Study Report BE PLACED on the public record for a 30-day review period.

it being noted that a corridor widening of Adelaide Street North be subject to the recommendation of the Master Mobility Plan and future Development Charges By-laws.

Motion Passed

8.5.13   (4.1) 8th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 8th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on July 5, 2023: 

a)    that consideration of clause 5.1 BE DEFFERED to a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee for further review; and, 

b)    clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.4, 6.1 and 6.2 BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from B. Samuels, Chair, Environment and Action Community Advisory Committee, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

8.5.14   (4.2) London Transit 2022 Annual Report

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the London Transit 2022 Annual Report: 

a)    the London Transit Commission BE REQUESTED to include Accessibility as a key component in their next Strategic Plan; and, 

b)    the London Transit 2022 Annual Report BE REFERRED back to the London Transit Commission to: 

i)    re-evaluate the grading components of the report identified by the Municipal Council, with respect to the grading of the key elements of the evaluation; and, 

ii)   submit a revised report to the Civic Works Committee at a future meeting; 

it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from J. Preston, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

8.5.15   (4.3) Mobility Master Plan Update Strategies, Mode Share Target Options and Project Evaluation Frameworks

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated July 18, 2023, related to the Master Mobility Plan Update on Strategies, Mode Share, Target Options and Project Evaluation Frameworks:

a)    that, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to remove item 2.4.1 Mode Target Share Option 1 from the above-noted staff report;  

c)    that the London Transit Commission BE REQUESTED to:

i)    develop a detailed 2023 to 2027 work plan providing clear information on how LTC will implement Council’s 2023 to 2027 Strategic Plan, with particular focus on the Mobility and Transportation Strategic Area of Focus and its Outcomes, Expected Results and Strategies, but also on other Strategic Areas of Focus that are associated with LTC and its operations;

ii)    report back to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with the results of a) at its meeting on October 31, 2023; and,

iii)    provide, at minimum, semi-annual reports to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee starting in January 2024 and through the term of the Strategic Plan to allow for continued consultation with Municipal Council on local transportation system policy and on general administration and affairs in relation to general municipal policy as per the current Bylaw;

iv)    that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the current bylaw and report back with any recommended changes to reflect the necessary collaboration between LTC and the City of London in delivering on Council’s 2023 to 2027 Strategic Plan;

it being noted that the presentation from S. Grady, Traffic and Transportation Engineer, with respect to this matter, was received; and,  

it being further noted that the verbal delegation from M. Wallace and the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from A. Hunniford, A. Loewen Nair and C. Evans, with respect to this matter, were received.

Motion made by C. Rahman

That part b) of the motion BE APPROVED:

b)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to remove item 2.4.1 Mode Target Share Option 1 from the above-noted staff report;

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the motion BE APPROVED, excluding part b)

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated July 18, 2023, related to the Master Mobility Plan Update on Strategies, Mode Share, Target Options and Project Evaluation Frameworks:

a)    that, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

c)    that the London Transit Commission BE REQUESTED to:

i)    develop a detailed 2023 to 2027 work plan providing clear information on how LTC will implement Council’s 2023 to 2027 Strategic Plan, with particular focus on the Mobility and Transportation Strategic Area of Focus and its Outcomes, Expected Results and Strategies, but also on other Strategic Areas of Focus that are associated with LTC and its operations;

ii)    report back to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with the results of a) at its meeting on October 31, 2023; and,

iii)    provide, at minimum, semi-annual reports to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee starting in January 2024 and through the term of the Strategic Plan to allow for continued consultation with Municipal Council on local transportation system policy and on general administration and affairs in relation to general municipal policy as per the current Bylaw;

iv)    that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the current bylaw and report back with any recommended changes to reflect the necessary collaboration between LTC and the City of London in delivering on Council’s 2023 to 2027 Strategic Plan;

it being noted that the presentation from S. Grady, Traffic and Transportation Engineer, with respect to this matter, was received; and,  

it being further noted that the verbal delegation from M. Wallace and the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from A. Hunniford, A. Loewen Nair and C. Evans, with respect to this matter, were received.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.5.16   (4.4) Councillor S. Franke - Climate Emergency Action Plan - Phase Out Gas

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the communications included on the Added Agenda from Councillor S. Franke, related to Climate Emergency Action Plan - Phase Out Gas, BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for review.

Motion Failed (5 to 8)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Climate Emergency Action Plan:

a)    the Mayor of the City of London, Councillor C. Rahman and Councillor A. Hopkins BE DIRECTED to submit a letter to AMO to develop a position and advocate on behalf of Ontario municipalities to request the Government of Ontario to develop and implement a plan to move Ontario to a net zero-carbon electricity grid by 2035, consistent with the 2035 date of the proposed Federal Government Clean Electricity Regulations (CER), to help Ontario and London meet our climate targets and that this resolution be sent to all local MPPs and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to reach out to London facilities currently reporting emissions publicly though the joint federal/provincial Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program to request details on their greenhouse gas reduction plans to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and include in a future Climate Emergency Action Plan update; and,

c)    the  Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to contact Enbridge and London Hydro to discuss the implementation requirements, roles, responsibilities, and potential impacts of CER in London and area.

Motion Passed (10 to 3)

9.   Added Reports

9.1   11th Report of Council in Closed Session

At 8:47 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair.

At 8:48 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lehman

  1.    CUPE 101 – Tentative Agreement

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager and the Director, People Services, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the attached Memorandum of Agreement dated June 28, 2023, and Agreed to Items dated February 6 and 28, 2023 concerning the 2023-2026 Collective Agreement for Local Union No. 101 (Canadian Union of Public Employees) (“CUPE Local 101”) BE RATIFIED.

  1.    Awarding of the 2023 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, and in recognition of achieving the highest scholastic achievement in their graduating year, the following students BE AWARDED the 2023 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships, in the amounts shown:

Angelina Lam -  London Central Secondary School: 99.33% - $2,000

Amaris Peng - Sir Frederick Banting Secondary School: 99.17% - $2,000

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

9.2   (ADDED) 20th Report of the Special Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee Meeting

2023-07-24 SPPC Report 20

9.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no disclosures of pecuniary interest were disclosed.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

9.2.2   London’s Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Proposed Hubs Implementation Plan

At 9:18 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair.

At 9:23 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the London’s Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Proposed Hubs Implementation Plan report dated July 24, 2023:

a)    the London’s Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Proposed Hubs Implementation Plan as appended to the staff report dated July 24, 2023 as Schedule 1 BE ENDORSED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a competitive procurement process to select the Lead Agencies and their corresponding locations for the implementation of the first five Hubs and report back with the results and sources of financing for approval;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to secure sources of financing to support the implementation of the first five Hubs including a request through the London Community Foundation for access to the Health and Homelessness Fund for Change; 

d)    the staff report, dated July 25, 2023, with respect to this matter BE RECEIVED for information;

e)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to defer Community Improvement Plan loan repayments, on an interest-free basis, from August 1, 2023 to August 31, 2026, where the applicant has requested a deferral in writing; it being noted that the impact of deferring loan repayments will require an additional contribution to the Community Improvement Program Reserve Fund of up to $1.97 million subject to the number of requests for deferral, with funding to be sourced from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve from funds set aside to offset the financial impacts of COVID-19;

f)      the Mayor and Government Relations staff be directed to undertake advocacy to work with the Government of Ontario to secure a provincial addictions rehabilitation site(s) for London;

g)      the Mayor and the Budget Chair BE APPOINTED to represent the Municipal Council at the Strategy and Accountability table, for the Whole of Community System response, with the Deputy Mayor to serve as an alternate for either, if required; and

h)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to complete the following:

i)    initiate a continuous public feedback loop as part of the Communications Plan on all aspects associated with the Hubs Implementation Plan and the overall System response, both now and into the future, while also ensuring that the Get Involved portal hosts the most up to date documents and has a continuous public input option; and,

ii)    initiate and host a series of public engagement sessions regarding the Hubs Implementation Plan;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a presentation from the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, C. Lazenby, Unity Project and S. Warren, London Intercommunity Health Centre with respect to this matter;

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

  •    a communication dated July 21, 2023 from N. Thuemler, Regional Manager, Indwell;

  •    a communication dated July 21, 2023 from Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, Councillor S. Stevenson and Mayor J. Morgan;

  •    a communication dated July 21, 2023 from Councillor C. Rahman; and

  •    a communication from Mayor Morgan;

  •    a verbal delegation from M. Wallace, London Development Institute; and,

  •    a verbal delegation from J. Herb.

At 9:25 PM, Councillor P. Cuddy enters the meeting.

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part a) of the motion BE APPROVED:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the London’s Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Proposed Hubs Implementation Plan report dated July 24, 2023:

a)    the London’s Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Proposed Hubs Implementation Plan as appended to the staff report dated July 24, 2023 as Schedule 1 BE ENDORSED;

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part b) of the motion BE APPROVED

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a competitive procurement process to select the Lead Agencies and their corresponding locations for the implementation of the first five Hubs and report back with the results and sources of financing for approval;

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That parts c) through h) BE APPROVED

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to secure sources of financing to support the implementation of the first five Hubs including a request through the London Community Foundation for access to the Health and Homelessness Fund for Change;

d)    the staff report, dated July 25, 2023, with respect to this matter BE RECEIVED for information;

e)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to defer Community Improvement Plan loan repayments, on an interest-free basis, from August 1, 2023 to August 31, 2026, where the applicant has requested a deferral in writing; it being noted that the impact of deferring loan repayments will require an additional contribution to the Community Improvement Program Reserve Fund of up to $1.97 million subject to the number of requests for deferral, with funding to be sourced from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve from funds set aside to offset the financial impacts of COVID-19;

f)      the Mayor and Government Relations staff be directed to undertake advocacy to work with the Government of Ontario to secure a provincial addictions rehabilitation site(s) for London;

g)      the Mayor and the Budget Chair BE APPOINTED to represent the Municipal Council at the Strategy and Accountability table, for the Whole of Community System response, with the Deputy Mayor to serve as an alternate for either, if required; and

h)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to complete the following:

i)    initiate a continuous public feedback loop as part of the Communications Plan on all aspects associated with the Hubs Implementation Plan and the overall System response, both now and into the future, while also ensuring that the Get Involved portal hosts the most up to date documents and has a continuous public input option; and,

     

ii)    initiate and host a series of public engagement sessions regarding the Hubs Implementation Plan;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a presentation from the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, C. Lazenby, Unity Project and S. Warren, London Intercommunity Health Centre with respect to this matter;

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

  •    a communication dated July 21, 2023 from N. Thuemler, Regional Manager, Indwell;

  •    a communication dated July 21, 2023 from Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, Councillor S. Stevenson and Mayor J. Morgan;

  •    a communication dated July 21, 2023 from Councillor C. Rahman; and

  •    a communication from Mayor Morgan;

  •    a verbal delegation from M. Wallace, London Development Institute; and,

  •    a verbal delegation from J. Herb.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

At 9:28 PM, Councillor P. Cuddy leaves the meeting.

At 9:30 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

9.2.3   July Progress Update - Health and Homelessness Whole of Community

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)    the July Progress Update – Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Report BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Request for Proposal (RFP-2023-174) submitted by 2190876 Ontario Inc. - Sagecomm www.sagecomm.com 117 York St, London ON N6A 1A8, at the cost of $125,000, plus H.S.T. BE ACCEPTED;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to this project; and,

d)    the approvals hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

At 9:36 PM, Councillor S. Stevenson leaves the meeting.

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 212 to 252, excluding Bill No.’s 225 and 251, and the Added Bill No.’s 253 and 254, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 212 to 252, excluding Bill No.’s 225 and 251, and the Added Bill No.’s 253 and 254, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

At 9:37 PM, Councillor S. Stevenson enters the meeting.

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 212 to 252, excluding Bill No.’s 225 and 251, and the Added Bill No.’s 253 and 254, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 251, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Second Reading of Bill No. 251, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 3)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 251, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 3)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 255 to 303, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 255 to 303, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 255 to 303, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

The following are enacted as By-laws of The Corporation of the City of London:

Bill No. 212

By-law No. A.-8383-150 – A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 25th day of July 2023. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 213

By-law No. A.-8384-151 – A by-law to approve and authorize the execution of the Contribution Agreement between His Majesty the King in right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities (“Canada”) and The Corporation of the City of London for the provision of funding under the Active Transportation Fund (2.2/12/CPSC)

Bill No. 214

By-law No. A.-8385-152 – A by-law to approve a Contribution Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Vision SoHo Alliance members, to authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development to approve amendments to the Contribution Agreement, the Tenant Placement Agreement and execute the Contribution Agreement and Tenant Placement Agreement. (2.5/12/CPSC)

Bill No. 215

By-law No. A.-8386-153 – A by-law to delegate the authority to bind The Corporation of the City of London in defined instances to identified positions within the Civic Administration. (2.4/14/CSC)

Bill No. 216

By-law No. A.-8387-154 – A by-law to repeal By-Law No. CPOL.-16-212, as amended, being “Athletic Travel Grants”, as the funds for this initiative were eliminated in 2022. (2.5c/14/CSC)

Bill No. 217

By-law No. A.-8388-155 – A by-law to repeal By-Law No. CPOL.-369-375, as amended, being “City of London Race Relations Anti-Racism Policy”, as the Policy has been replaced by the new policy “Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy”. (2.5c/14/CSC)

Bill No. 218

By-law No. A.-8389-156 – A by-law to repeal By-Law No. CPOL.-119-371, as amended, being “Diversity and Inclusion Policy for the City of London”, as the Policy has been replaced by the new policy “Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy”. (2.5c/14/CSC)

Bill No. 219

By-law No. A.-8390-157 – A by-law to repeal By-Law No. CPOL.-78-310, being “Enforcement of City Personnel”, as the Policy has been replaced by the new policy “Municipal Compliance Services” (2.5c/14/CSC)

Bill No. 220

By-law No. A.-8391-158 – A by-law to repeal By-Law No. CPOL.-139-391, as amended, being “Gender Equity in Recreation Services”, as the Policy has been replaced by the new Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Framework. (2.5c/14/CSC)

Bill No. 221

By-law No. A.-8392-159 – A by-law to repeal By-Law No. CPOL.-141-393, as amended, being “Inclusion in Recreation Facilities, Parks and Services”, as the Policy has been replaced by the new Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Framework. (2.5c/14/CSC)

Bill No. 222

By-law No. A.-8393-160 – A by-law to repeal By-Law No. CPOL.-109-361, as amended, being “Landing of Helicopters Policy”. (2.5c/14/CSC)

Bill No. 223

By-law No. A.-8394-161 – A by-law to repeal By-Law No. CPOL.-186-438 and subsequent amendments, being “Protocol for Unapproved Aboriginal Burial Sites”. (2.5c/14/CSC)

Bill No. 224

By-law No. A.-8395-162 – A by-law to repeal By-Law No. CPOL.-382-26, being “Siting of Cannabis Retail Stores in London” (2.5c/14/CSC)

Bill No. 225

REFERRED – A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London Hydro Inc. (4.3/19/SPPC)

Bill No. 226

By-law No. A.-6873(b)-163 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6873-292, as amended, entitled “A by-law to designate an area as an improvement area and to establish the board of management for the purpose of managing the Argyle Business Improvement Area”. (2.3a/12/PEC)

Bill No. 227

By-law No. CP-2-23004 – A by-law to amend By-law CP-2, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for the Improvement Area to be known as the London Downtown Business Association Improvement Area and to establish a Board of Management therefor.” (2.3b/12/PEC)

Bill No. 228

By-law No. C.P.-1528(c)-164 – A by-law to amend By-law No. C.P.-1528-486, as amended, entitled “A by-law to designate an area as an improvement area and to establish the board of management for the purpose of managing the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area”. (2.3c/12/PEC)

Bill No. 229

By-law No. C.P.-1519(b)-165 – A by-law to amend By-law No. C.P.-1519-490, as amended, entitled “A by-law to designate an area as an improvement area and to establish the board of management for the purpose of managing the Hyde Park Business Improvement Area”. (2.3d/12/PEC)

Bill No. 230

By-law No. CP-1-23004 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CP-1, as amended, entitled “A by-law to provide for the Improvement Area to be known as The Old East Village Business Improvement Area and to Establish a Board of Management”. (2.3e/12/PEC)

Bill No. 231

By-law No. C.P.-1582-166 – A by-law to exempt from Part-Lot Control, lands located at 1525 Chickadee Trail, described as part of Block 70 Registered Plan 33M-814, and more particularly described as Parts 1 to 12, inclusive, on Plan 33R-21649, in the City of London, County of Middlesex. (2.4/12/PEC)

Bill No. 232

By-law No. CPOL.-409-167 – A by-law to enact a new Council policy entitled “Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy”. (2.5a/14/CSC)

Bill No. 233

By-law No. CPOL.-410-168 – A by-law to enact a new Council policy entitled “Municipal Compliance Services”. (2.5a/14/CSC)

Bill No. 234

By-law No. CPOL.-38(b)-169 – A by-law to amend By-law CPOL.-38-234, as amended, being “London Community Grants Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A” (2.1a/19/SPPC)

Bill No. 235

By-law No. S.-5868(d)-170 – A by-law to amend By-law S.-5868-183 entitled “A by-law prohibiting and regulating signs, and regulating the placing of signs upon highways and buildings”. (2.6f/11/CWC)

Bill No. 236

By-law No. S.-6236-171 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Wonderland Road North, south of Sunningdale Road West)   (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes pursuant to the Vista Wood Phase 3 project)

Bill No. 237

By-law No. S.-6237-172 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Evans Boulevard; as part of Karenana Road; and as part of Fairfield Road)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of 33M-818 and 33M-831 requires 0.3m Reserves on abutting plans 33M-756 and 33M-818 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access through the subdivisions)

Bill No. 238

By-law No. S.-6238-173 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Burbrook Place)  (Chief Surveyor – transfer of lands for the Rapid Transit project requires 0.305m Reserve on Registered Plan 471(c) to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 239

By-law No. S.-6239-174 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Wharncliffe Road South, north of Devonshire Avenue)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant SPA20-079)

Bill No. 240

By-law No. S.-6240-175 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Sarnia Road, east of Chapman Court)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to SPA22-027)

Bill No. 241

By-law No. S.-6241-176A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Southdale Road East, east of Millbank Drive)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to SPA22-112)

Bill No. 242

By-law No. S.-6242-177 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Hyde Park Road, north of North Routledge Park)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to SPA22-023)

Bill No. 243

By-law No. S.-6243-178 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish, name, and assume lands in the City of London as public highway to be known as Avenue Road.  (Chief Surveyor - for road dedication purposes, pursuant to B.055.18)

Bill No. 244

By-law No. S.-6244-179 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Fanshawe Park Road East, east of Highbury Avenue North)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to SPA19-072)

Bill No. 245

By-law No. Z.-1-233124 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1474 Kilally Road (3.3/12/PEC)

Bill No. 246

By-law No. Z.-1-233125 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 165-167 Egerton Street (3.4/12/PEC)

Bill No. 247

By-law No. Z.-1-233126 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone lands located at 146 Exeter Road (3.5/12/PEC)

Bill No. 248

By-law No. Z.-1-233127 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1900 & 1902 Trafalgar Street & 159 Clarke Road (3.7a/12/PEC)

Bill No. 249

By-law No. Z.-1-233128 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 38 Exeter Road (3.8a/12/PEC)

Bill No. 250

By-law No. Z.-1-233129 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 46 Elmwood Place (3.9a/12/PEC)

Bill No. 251

By-law No. Z.-1-233130 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 599-601 Richmond Street (3.10/12/PEC)

Bill No. 252

By-law No. Z.-1-233131 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to extend a temporary zone located at 221 Queens Avenue (4.2a/12/PEC)

Bill No. 253

By-law No. L.S.P.-3510-180 – A by-law to expropriate lands in the City of London, in the County of Middlesex, for the East London Link Project - Phase 3. (Director, Realty Services)

Bill No. 254

By-law No. L.S.P.-3511-181 – A by-law to expropriate lands in the City of London, in the County of Middlesex, for the Wellington Gateway Project - Phase 4 & 5. (Director, Realty Services)

Bill No. 255

By-law No. A.-6151(ai)-182 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “F” - “Accountability and Transparency to the Public Policy”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 256

By-law No. CPOL.-47(b)-183 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-47-241, as amended, being “Assessment Growth Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 257

By-law No. CPOL.-164(a)-184 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-164-416, as amended, being “Assumption of Works and Services”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 258

By-law No. CPOL.-74(b)-185 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-74-306, as amended, being “Audio Recording of Municipal Council and Standing Committee In Closed Session Meetings Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 259

By-law No. CPOL.-153(b)-186 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-153-405, as amended, being “Benefits for Survivors of Employees Killed on the Job”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 260

By-law No. CPOL..-52(b)-187 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.- 52-248, as amended, being “Capital Budget and Financing Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 261

By-law No. CPOL.-204(a)-188 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-204-456, as amended, being “Child Care Policies”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A” (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 262

By-law No.  CPOL.-128(c)-189 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-128-380, as amended, being “City of London Records Management Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 263

By-law No. CPOL.-179(b)-190 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-179-431, as amended, being “City-Owned Residential Properties”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”.  (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 264

By-law No. CPOL.-159(b)-191 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-159-411, as amended, being “Collective Bargaining Activities”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 265

By-law No. CPOL.-51(a)-192 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.- 51-247, as amended, being “Community Arts Investment Program”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 266

By-law No. CPOL.-389(a)-193 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-389-123, being “Corporate Asset Management Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 267

By-law No. CPOL.-49(b)-194 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-49-245, as amended, being “Corporate Plaques and Recognitions Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A” (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 268

By-law No. CPOL.-129(a)-195 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-129-381, as amended, being “Corporate Sponsorship and Advertising Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 269

By-law No. CPOL.-48(b)-196 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-48-244, as amended, being “Debt Management Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 270

By-law No. CPOL.-80(b)-197 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-80-312, as amended, being “Dedication of Fire Stations”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 271

By-law No. CPOL.-165(a)-198 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-165-417, as amended, being “Demolition Control”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 272

By-law No. CPOL.-151(b)-199 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-151-403, as amended, being “Employee Service Recognition Program”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 273

By-law No. CPOL.-140(b)-200 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-140-392, as amended, being “Financial Assistance for Program Activity Fees”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 274

By-law No. CPOL.-29(b)-201 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-29-225, as amended, being “Grants to Centennial Hall”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 275

By-law No. A.-6151(aj)-202 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “B” - “Hiring of Employees Policy” (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 276

By-law No. CPOL.-39(c)-203 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-39-235, as amended, being “Investment Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 277

By-law No. CPOL.-205(a)-204 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-205-457, as amended, being “Land Dedication”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 278

By-law No. CPOL.-33(b)-205 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-33-229, as amended, being “Lessee Protection and Non-Competitive Clauses – Centennial Hall”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 279

By-law No. CPOL.-156(c)-206 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-156-408, as amended, being “Mayor – Contracted Staff”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 280

By-law No. CPOL.-18(f)-207 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-18-214, as amended, being “Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 281

By-law No. CPOL.-386(a)-208 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-386-93, being “Members of Council Public Registry Declaration of Interest”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 282

By-law No. CPOL.-45(c)-209 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-45-241, as amended, being “Multi-Year Budget Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 283

By-law No. CPOL.-26(b)-210 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-26-222, as amended, being “Naming/Re-naming or Dedicating of Municipal Property, Buildings and Park Elements Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 284

By-law No. CPOL.-172(a)-211 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-172-424, as amended, being “Naturalized Areas and Wildflower Meadows”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 285

By-law No. CPOL.-231(b)-212 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-231-555, as amended, being “Policy for the Establishment and Maintenance of Council Policies”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”.  (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 286

By-law No. A.-6151(ak)-213 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “C” - “Procurement of Goods and Services Policy”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 287

By-law No. CPOL.-123(c)-214 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-123-375, as amended, being “Promotion of Products or Services to City Employees”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A” (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 288

By-law No. CPOL.-273(a)-215 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-273-251, as amended, being “Public Access During Council and Standing Committee Meetings”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A” (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 289

By-law No. CPOL.-295(a)-216 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-295-286, being “Public Art / Monument Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 290

By-law No. A.-6151(al)-217 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “E” - “Public Notice Policy”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 291

By-law No. CPOL.-387(a)-218 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-387-94, being “Public Registry Declaration of Interest for Local Boards”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 292

By-law No. CPOL.-30(b)-219 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-30-226, as amended, being “Reduced Rental Rates for Non-Profit Groups”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 293

By-law No. CPOL.-70(b)-220 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-70-302, as amended, being “Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 294

By-law No. CPOL.-182(b)-221 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-182-434, as amended, being “Rental of Lands for Billboards”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 295

By-law No. CPOL.-145(b)-222 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-145-397, as amended, being “Request to Waive or Reduce Facility Rental Fees”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 296

By-law No. CPOL.-368(b)-223 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-368-372, as amended, being “Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”.  (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 297

By-law No. CPOL.-370(a)-224 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-370-379, being “Retirement Dinners for Service Area Leads”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 298

By-law No. CPOL.-144(a)-225 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-144-396, as amended, being “Rzone Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 299

By-law No. A.-6151(am)-226 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A” - “Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 300

By-law No. CPOL.-142(d)-227 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-142-394, as amended, being “Special Events Policies and Procedures Manual”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 301

By-law No. CPOL.-46(c)-228 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-46-242, as amended, being “Surplus/Deficit Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 302

By-law No. CPOL.-371(a)-229 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-371-452, being “Use of the City Hall Cafeteria Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 303

By-law No. CPOL.-32(a)-230 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-32-228, as amended, being “Using Centennial Hall for City Sponsored Events”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5b/14/CSC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 9:44 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 (8 hours, 48 minutes)

You’d be able to see that now, Mr. Schultes. Task vote, concerned, confirmed, thank you. Okay, BC, thanks.

Okay, welcome back colleagues. I know we were just here yesterday, but the great news is we get to do it again today. So more great time with each other. I’ll call the 13th meeting of city council to order.

I wanna start off by saying we acknowledge we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adwondron. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant chain, the Beaver Hunting Grounds of the Haudenosaunee Nanfant Treaty of 1701, the Key Treaty of 1790, the Lene Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabak, and the Dish With One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak and Haudenosaunee. Three indigenous, excuse me, the three indigenous nations that are neighbors to the city of London are the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs.

The city of London is also 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 council agenda at London.ca, or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. And now for one of my favorite parts of the meeting, the introduction of our guest singer of O Canada, Justin Mackey is a flirtatious jazz pop artist out of London, Ontario. He is the F.L.

F.C.M.A., F.C.L.M.A., the Four City London Music Awards. I should just spell it out. 2021 pop artist of the year, and 2022 contemporary singer songwriter of the year. Born in Japan, but Canadian bread, Justin’s music carefully draws on influences from R&B, soul, funk, and jazz, and packages it all in accessible pop format.

The imagine blending of Alan Stone, John Mayer, Bruno Mars, and Robin Thicke. Justin aims to inspire joy through his music creation and performances by curating a memorable music experience. He’s played over 1,000 gigs from Halifax to Prince George to Mexico, and has shared the stage with the sheepdogs, neon dreams, Olivia Lenny, and many more. From bars to concert halls, backyard parties, weddings and festivals, and of course, London City Council Council Chambers, Justin has been entertaining hundreds of thousands of people for the last 18 years.

You can follow him on social media at Justin Mackey Music to trace his journey as it unfolds and check out his music on all streaming and downloading platforms. Please welcome Justin to single Canada. ♪ Canada, home and native land ♪ ♪ Patriot law ♪ ♪ In earth, glory, sweet sea rise ♪ ♪ The true north strong and free ♪ ♪ From far and wide on Canada ♪ ♪ We stand on guard for thee ♪ ♪ God keep our land ♪ ♪ Lord, free stand on guard ♪ ♪ For stand on ♪ I’ll start with disclosures of pecuniary interest. I’ll look to any disclosures the colleagues would like to make.

Okay, seeing none, we actually don’t have any recognitions today. Review of confidential matters to be considered in public. We have none, which means we have council in closed session. There are six items on the agenda for which the reasons for going into camera are listed.

We will be going to committee room five once we approve the motion. So everybody in the gallery gets to stay here. We’ll be the ones who shift locations. So I’ll look for a motion to go into camera for the reasons presented.

Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Ferrera. Any discussion? That’ll open for voting. Mr.

Mayor, with apologies from remote attendance. If you could do a hand vote on this, I’d appreciate it. I need to sort out some attendance before I can open a vote in the e-scribe. Thank you.

Sure, okay, I will do a hand vote and I’ll have the clerk just monitor those who are remotely, all those in favor, any opposed? Motion carries. Okay, so colleagues were in committee room five and we’ll do our in-camera session and then we will return here afterwards. No.

Okay, please be seated. Okay, colleagues, that completes the confidential session. We have confirmation and signing of the minutes of previous meetings. We have the 12th meeting held on June 27th, 2023.

I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for the minutes of that meeting. Councillor McAllister, seconded by Mr. Raman. Any discussion on the minutes?

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Caddie. Councillor Caddie, you can— - Yes, thank you. Thank you, voice vote registered.

That motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, so the next option or the next item on the agenda is under communications and petitions, we have some expropriating authority work to do. As colleagues will recall, all the council is the expropriating authority. We have to convene as the expropriating authority, make a decision there and then have that recommendation come back to council.

So I’m gonna walk us through the steps. We’ll be doing this two times because we have expropriations for both the East London link as well as the Wellington Gateway project. So I’m gonna start with the East London link and this relates to items 6.1 and 6.2. So on item, okay, so item 6.1.

I’m gonna look for a mover and a seconder for council to convene as the approval authority pursuant to the proper sections of the act and on the recommendation of our staff. Mover and a seconder. Councillor or Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Troso moved and seconded, I don’t think we need any discussion on convening as the authority. So I’m gonna open that for voting.

Councillor Cutty. Deputy votes, yes. Thank you. Those in the vote, motion carries 13 to two.

Okay, so next I need a mover and a seconder to on the recommendation of our staff. Do a number of the options that you’ll see in that section, which is essentially approved, the proposed expropriation of lands as described in schedule A. And I would note that there were no requests for hearings of necessity received by the corporation. So I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for those items under A, one through three and B, moved by Councillor Troso, seconded by Councillor Ferrera.

Any discussion on this? Okay, we’ll open that for voting then in the system. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to two. Okay, now, despite the fact that we’re gonna do the expropriating authority thing, again, these have to be separate for the two different projects.

So now we’re going to look for a motion to adjourn as the approving authority under the expropriation rules. So I’ll look for a mover and a second or two to adjourn that session that we just had. Councillor Ferrera, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed, yes.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay, so now that we’ve received the advice from the expropriating authority as council, I need a mover and a seconder to take the required actions as recommended by the approving authority. So I need a mover and a seconder for the actions outlined in step four mover and seconder. Councillor Ramen, seconded by Councillor Trozau.

Any discussion on that? Okay, I’ll open that for voting. Ready votes, yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

If you like that, you’re gonna love the next one. Now we have to do the Wellington Gateway project. So we are going to now convene as the expropriating authority for dealing with matter under that project. So I’ll look for a mover and a seconder to convene as the approval authority.

Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor McAllister, we’ll open that for voting. Ready votes, motion carries 14 to one. Okay, and now sitting as the approving authority, there is a recommendation I need a mover and a seconder for to authorize the various expropriation acts. And I will note that there were no requests for hearings of necessity received for these expropriations.

We’ll look for a mover and a seconder. Councillor Palosa, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Any discussion? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Ready votes, yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay, and now a motion to adjourn as the approving authority. Mover and a seconder, please.

Moved by Councillor Pribble, seconded by Councillor Ferrera. I’ll open adjournment of the approval authority for voting. Ready votes, yes. Close in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, and now as municipal council, we have advice from the expropriation approving authority. I need the mover and a seconder for the introduction of the by-law and direction to the staff to complete that expropriation process. Moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Ferrera. Any discussion on those steps for this motion before us?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Ready votes, yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay, we have other communications.

There’s a lot on the added agenda. So 6.5, all the way through 6.11, refer to different points of our agenda throughout the different committee reports. There’s a motion prepared to refer all of those items to the relevant committee reports based on the items. So unless someone for some reason wants something dealt with differently, I’m gonna look for a motion to make all of those referrals the appropriate parts of the agenda.

So no one wants anything differently. Okay, I’ll have it moved by Councillor Ramen and seconded by Councillor Layman. Any discussion on referring all of those to the different points of the agenda? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Ready votes, yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Complete the communications and petitions. We have no motions of which notice is given.

So on to all of our reports. First report we’ll deal with is 8.1, the 19th report of SPPC. I will have Deputy Mayor Lewis present this particular report. Thank you, Your Worship.

I’m gonna pull item three from the agenda. That’s 4.1 on the committee agenda. That’s the master accommodation plan alternate work strategies update. I’m not aware of any other items that colleagues would like to have dealt with individually.

So if we want to campus council now to see if there are any other items to pull, Councillor Ramen. Thank you, I’ll look to pull item five. Others who would like something dealt with separately. Okay.

  • Seeing none, I will move the entire 19th report excluding item three and item five of the SPPC 19th report. Okay, so that’s moved by the Deputy Mayor. All of the items in that particular report with the exclusion of the item on the master accommodation plan and the appointment to Len and Hydro is on the floor, any discussion on any of those items? Seeing none, then we’ll open that package of items for voting.

Any votes, yes? The motion carries noting that items five and three were not indicated in the motion, but will be pulled. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Your Worship.

So item three, the master accommodation plan alternate work strategies update. Colleagues will recall that this meeting debated this issue for a long time. We in fact reached our cutoff time. We did not have a motion to extend.

This was referred to municipal council for disposition without a recommendation as it was clear at the committee level that council was dead, lock seven, seven at the time. I will, through you, Your Worship draw to your attention that Councillor Layman has circulated a potential motion to put forward that I’ve indicated to him I’m willing to second. So if you would entertain a speakers list on this item starting with Councillor Layman, that motion was circulated a little bit earlier today. Okay, so you’re right.

There’s no decision yet, but Councillor Layman, if you have a possible path forward, you could present that now. Thank you, Your Worship. And Deputy Mayor is correct. There was no direction given from committee.

So I’ve crafted a new motion for council to consider and I’d just like to read that out. Clerk has circulated it. The following actions be taken with respect to the master accommodation plan and alternative work strategies. A, the civic administration be directed to amend the current alternative work strategies in the planning and development building services area and develop a new model where employees are in the workplace four days a week and remote work one day a week, no later than the end of Q1 2024.

In part B, the implementation of other corporate alternative work strategies and service areas other than those noted in part, it should be part A, clerk, I think it’s part of B, above and as outlined in the staff report dated July 19th, 2023 be continued. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder for that motion. Deputy Mayor is willing to second it. I’ll let you start if you want to provide a rationale for the motion and then I will start a speaker’s list.

Thank you. So I spoke to this reasoning behind it at committee for quite a while during COVID when we did remote work. I’ve spoken to many developers and builders about the challenges they’re facing in getting homes built in London. This particular item was constantly being referred to in the frustration that was felt in not, I want to make it very clear.

It was not the efforts of our staff. Our staff have been terrific. They’ve been overwhelming a number of permits and rezoning requests. They’ve been great.

This is the process I’m speaking to here. The process requires face to face. It requires consultation with others in the office. It requires mentoring with available management.

It’s frustrating to organize Zoom calls, telephone tag, emails, and a lot of times it’s very visual. The plan is there. Here are the three things we need to do. How can we do them?

Because building is complex. There’s issues that require give and take to get to where they need to go. I spoke to the fact that it wasn’t just large developers that were reaching out to me. It was developers and builders of all sizes.

From an individual person who has maybe a couple of people on the crew to larger companies that build in our city. It was the same message that I was given constantly. We need to get back to face to face. We’ve seen since that meeting, communication from those builders, and we’ve seen communication from all different types of builders as well.

We’ve also seen communication from representatives from downtown London and Covent Garden Market. And that was discussed at well committee. The impact this will have on those trying to keep their businesses going. I want to speak a bit to the folks down at the market because I was on the board there during COVID.

They were at their stores and their booths, sometimes seven days a week, mom and pop. They don’t have the advantage of staying home. And the reason they were there is because that job required them to be there. They couldn’t do that job remote.

In that respect, because I know it’s been raised with concerns by the downtown councilor, I want thought to be given to those folks. They’re there because that’s how they have to do their business. I’m asking our staff to be here because that, in my opinion, and for those that are building London’s opinion, that’s how we can build this town efficiently and get it as to 47,000 homes and units as quickly as possible. I’ve made a few changes to four days a week to try to get some more support from those at council and those that work here, and also to provide flexibility staff to get them time to prepare the workplace and for employees to prepare for their change in their work schedule to the end of Q1 2024, which I believe is seven months from now.

It should be plenty of time. So I would appreciate your support today. And let’s get building our 47,000 units. OK, I have Councillor ramen next.

Thank you and through you. I’m wondering if we actually— I’d like to request of council that we suspend our rules. Oh, thank you. Sorry, I’m a little dizzy.

So that’s what I was saying. If you’re a little— you could sit down if you’re a little. No, it’s perfectly fine. So I’m asking of council if we can suspend our rules to allow for a full-sum discussion on this topic.

Looking to exercise item 2.3. In order to allow for more debate, I understand that it will require at least 2/3 of the whole council in order to have that discussion. But as you may know, that in the discussion that we had at SPPC, Mr. Mathers was not in attendance because he was on a much needed vacation, I’ll say.

So I wanted to be able to ask some questions of Mr. Mathers and give everyone else the opportunity. I think we owe the public the opportunity to hear some of those questions and have further dialogue on this, asking my colleagues to consider allowing for more than one question by each Councillor, by way of suspending our rules. OK, so I’m going to take that as a motion under section 2.3 of the procedure by-law to suspend the rules.

Councillor Trostall, you’re willing to second it. OK, so I’ll just let colleagues know, suspension of the rules requires 2/3 consent of council. So this is not a majority vote. This is a 2/3 threshold to do so.

And I’ll look for— yeah, and there’s debate on suspending the rules. So I’ll look for anybody who wants to speak on the movement and second of motion to suspend the rules. Deputy Mayor Lewis. So respectfully, I won’t be supporting the motion to suspend the rules.

I understand the Councillors desire to have more discussion on this. But as someone who chaired the meeting, I’m well aware that we had almost three full hours of discussion on this at the committee level, the committee of the whole. So with the exception of the mayor who was away and not able to participate in that, the rest of us had three hours to debate this. And while I absolutely grant that Mr.

Mathers was away, we had Ms. Livingston providing us responses, we had Ms. McNeely providing us responses. We had some comment from Ms.

Barbone on the procurement side. So I think that we’ve heard already a lot of the information that we need to make this decision. I understand that there may be some new questions because an alternate direction has been posed today. But I think that we have heard overwhelmingly from the community in the last few days, our customer side of the community, those who are here using these services on a daily basis.

We’ve heard from downtown London and Covid and Garden Market. And I think that we could spend another three hours potentially discussing this again if everybody is just going to speak for as many times as they wish. Committee work ideally should be done at committee. We did our committee work at committee, and we did not reach a decision.

So I think today we are at a point where we need to make a decision. So I’m not going to be supporting us spending the rules here. I think people need to make their points and then make their decision. I have Councillor Layman and Councillor McAllister next.

I’ll follow up in the deputy mayor’s remarks. I agree with those. I want to point out that the rules allow you to ask questions in five minutes. Question answered does not come into your five minutes.

So you can ask as many questions as you can in that five minutes. And can you confirm that, Chair? Yes, that’s correct. That’s how I’ve been doing it except the few times where I forget to start the timer in which case sometimes you get a little bonus time.

So you’re done? OK, Councillor McAllister. Thank you. And I would support having more false some discussion, recognizing that there are a lot of questions that I do believe that the deputy city manager will probably be asked.

And I think that he deserves the chance to speak to a lot of the questions that we may have of him and a decision which ultimately will affect his staff. Yes, I’ll just note, Keith, under both scenarios, colleagues are able to ask our staff question. I think the intent of this suspension of the rules is to give colleagues the time to speak multiple times and maybe potentially ask more questions. But I don’t count the staff’s response in the timing of your five minutes.

Councillor Chaucer. Yes, well, I seconded it. So I’m in favor of the motion to suspend the rules. I do want to point out, though, that even if we suspend the rules, if it seems to the chair that we’re going back and forth and just repeating ourselves, you do have the inherent authority to say notwithstanding the fact that we’ve suspended the rules, we’re going to stop, and the question can be called.

So I think that there is still a built-in protection against this going too long. And I’m not really sure when we make the claim that the committee did its work, we did, because we weren’t able to resolve the matter. Maybe if we had another two hours, we would have. But I think this is a very important question, and it really impacts the welfare of our staff.

And I’m not going to make this— I’m not going to make this without giving it full consideration. And that may involve Councillors wanting to come back for a reasonable second time, which, again, is not some of the back and forth that we’ve seen at committee, but you can control that. That’s everybody who I have who wants to speak on the suspension of the rules. For your worship, I had my hand up.

Okay. Sorry, Councillor Cady, I missed that. I had you on the main list. I didn’t realize you wanted on this list, but you can go ahead right now on the suspension of the rules.

Thank you. And through your worship, I’ll be opposing this motion. I agree with Deputy Mayor Lewis. We’ve had plenty of opportunity.

We actually went to 11 o’clock the other night, and we had three hours of discussion, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Majors was not there, we did hear from senior members of staff. I think we’ve had members of the industry weigh in this week, daily phone calls and emails. And I think this is time to vote on it.

And I don’t think we need to suspend the rules. And thank you very much. Other speakers. So that’s everyone.

The motion is moved and seconded. This is to suspend the rules to allow for Councillors to ask more than one question, requires 2/3 to pass, so I’ll open that for voting. How do you vote to know? Councillor Van Merebergen.

Who’s in the vote? Motion fails eight to seven. Okay, so we won’t be suspending the rules, but given Councillor Ramen, given the rules were suspended, I’ll see if I can come back to you, given you still had more time to see if you’d like to weigh in. Yes, Councillor Frank.

‘Cause 2/3 of council have to support it. So if 10 people didn’t vote for it, it doesn’t pass. Supermajority, okay, all right. Councillor Ramen, I could give you four more minutes if you’d like on this topic.

Just given the way that went, so, right. Thank you, and through you, just a question chair, would that not be a separate time that I was speaking? Yeah, okay. I see people nodding.

I’m gonna take a little bit of leeway as chair. If you don’t like it, we can count it as a separate. Thank you, much appreciated, and through you. First, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all those that had the, wherewithal descendant letters, and to share your thoughts and concerns.

Very much appreciated. This, to me, is a broader and bigger conversation than we’re having in one department. And so, I have some questions that I wanna make sure that I have addressed before making my decision. So, I wanted to ask of Mr.

Mathers, as the current arrangement is today, and with being staffed at the additional 11, do you feel confident that we have the staffing in order to meet our obligation and commitment to the province? Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so, we’ve done a lot of work and brought a number of different reports to council, highlighting some of the challenges we’re having, highlighting what we need to be able to be successful.

And what we have so far for you is a recent report that came forward and suggested 11 more staff to be able to support the building area. We also have, as part of our strategic plan in a multi-year budget, we’ll have a holistic approach to be able to ramp up to that 47,000 units. So, I’m confident that if that’s something that we have the support of council, that we’ll be able to get to that target that we’re suggesting. To reiterate and go back to some of the comments that councilor Lehman had mentioned as well.

And this links into the question is about our general performance. And that’s an incredibly important consideration. And I just really want to express the how hard our people are working. They’re doing an incredible job with a large vacancies in our area.

In our building area, we have 26% of vacancy. We have interplanning area, 20% vacancy. And the challenge is we’re trying to hire and entertain some really great people. And the work that they’ve done in the last three years, we’ve broken records each of those years in the number of units.

And then the total value of work that’s being pumped out into the marketplace. And that’s not us. That’s actually the development industry bringing that to us and us being able to get through that process. And that takes really great, good people that are well-trained.

Canadian Home Builders Association, recently outlined in their Municipal Benchmarking Study. They looked 21 municipalities. London was number one, as far as our approval times, in Ontario. Ontario was the bottom of all of Canada, looking at the different provinces.

So we’re top of the bottom, yay. I want to be top of the top. So that just goes into all the things that we’re trying to do and change. And at the end of the day, that takes people, takes good people, being able to retain them and be able to keep them.

So anything that any comments I have today will be very much related to what can we do to have some of those best people here, have those capacity and make all the other improvements that are required to make sure that London can reach our target and can continue to improve. Councillor Ramen. Thank you. I’m not sure if this is a question.

So I’ll direct it perhaps through you chair to whoever is able to address it. I’m just wondering, in terms of the alternative work strategy, I’m wondering how as we as an organisation are learning through this process, how are we informing those learnings back into the process and making changes and improving in a continuous way? I know that that is our way, but I’m wondering if perhaps we can speak to that, what perhaps any examples where we’ve been able to make some changes based on some of what we’re learning as we go. I’ll go to Ms.

Barbara. Thank you through your worship. So one of the things that we’ve done, knowing how complex it is to actually implement alternative work strategies, as we explained in the report, is to implement that through pilots. So we’ve initiated our first pilot at 201 Queens with the ITS group and built into that pilot process is a continuous loop of evaluation.

So after we’ve basically solidified the changes in the space, the staff have been working in it. At 4812, we’ve got a series of evaluation activities that are going through to learn from that, to identify if there are any amendments that need to be done, policy impacts, et cetera, in terms of trying to take that, tweak the process and be able to adapt it for the second pilot that we’re looking to launch in the next couple of months to go forward. So we’ve got three that are in process that we’re trying to go forward. And we picked areas that were unique in each of their characteristics so that we could try to ensure we have accounted for all of the different things that might be variations that might need to change, particularly from a policy perspective, if there are things across the corporation so that we can continue to learn from them, ensure that we’ve got the staff feedback, but ensure we have the customer service feedback as well from any particular external groups to be able to pride.

So the first group has been primarily internal, so we haven’t had a lot of the external piece. The next group will have a little bit more of the external components. So that’s built right into the process of that continued. So as we continue, the hope is that after we’ve completed the pilots, we’ll have a great deal of information to be able to implement that as we look to permanently implementing it in the future.

Thank you. My next question relates to the motion that’s on the floor. I’m wondering if anyone can speak to the challenges related to any implementation of such a motion. I know that there’s been limited time to look at this in depth.

So you may not have all the answers, but I’m just wondering if you can speak to what you believe may be some of the potential challenges or roadblocks that we should be aware of before making this decision. Thank you. Start with Mr. Mathers and you can involve anyone else you like.

Absolutely. So I’ll start with people and then we can work with space. So as I mentioned, we are having huge challenges in even trying to retain and recruit people with our current arrangement. Making a different arrangement where we’re moving away from the current arrangement, every move towards full in office work is going to make it more difficult for us to recruit and retain our folks.

So that’s the general impact. If I could go back to 2020 and have a marketplace where everyone is at the work at work every day, that would be a wonderful thing. That’s not the environment that we’re working in right now. And my focus is just having the people to be able to do all of the good work that needs to be done.

Ms. Provost. So through your worship, in addition to that, this procuring the space will be the components. So we require to bring the staff back approximately 20,000 square feet.

So that’s about equivalent to two floors of city hall. So either we locate them elsewhere or we locate them here and then move other people out, which will add potential timing. But typically to procure new space, we would go out and do an RFP, follow that process and then initiate the plans for any changes to go forward. So typically that’ll take a couple of months just to get through that process because Elise would require a council approval, which would require a little bit of time to hit the committee meetings and then start to work through the implementation of if there’s any fit-outs required for that space, if it is in turn, key space that’s available.

So certainly that would be the facility side we would need to consider. Thank you. I’d like to go back to the question about recruitment and the challenges that we’re experiencing. Would you say that the recruitment challenges are solely related to the issue of at work or in office work or are they bigger and broader than just this topic?

Are they related to your salary and how will we remain competitive if we make these types of changes and do not make other changes substantive to increase our pool of potential candidates? Through your worship, great question. It’s not just the hybrid environment. There’s a lot of other challenges in the marketplace in the marketplace.

So it comes down to very basic things for folks. Like what’s their work life gonna look like? Is it the culture that they would like to work in? Is it something that is the salary appropriate to what they think they could get somewhere else?

So those are all important factors. We’ve been working with our friends and people services to look at developing retention plans and be able to bring something forward that would be able to secure these folks moving forward and to have a right plan. But it’s not just hybrid. It’s actually the whole package of working at any location.

Thank you. And just to add to that conversation, I’m not sure if anyone, people’s services may be able to help with this question and try to speak as fast as I can. Is it possible to get an indication of in a cost perspective, how much more does it cost to come to the office? How do we factor that in or consider that when we’re looking at salaries, compensation, et cetera?

What other places in the industry are, for instance, working remote? Just wondering if that we’ve given any thought to that. The simple answer is no. We’ve not explored that in any depth.

Realizing that I’m short on time, I’m going to speak lastly about just the costs. We talked about the additional need for square footage. Have we accounted for, maybe this is a question for the mover and the seconder or someone else? Have we accounted for those costs and how do we pay for them?

So I don’t know if that was a discussion that the mover or seconder had with our staff. So I guess I’ll go to the mover first and then I can see what comments our staff might have. The motion stands so I put on the floor. Okay, the seconder.

Yes, so long as we’re clear, I’m not using my speaking slot. The question of budgetary impacts was raised at committee and answered by our staff. So I would suggest that Ms. Barbone has already given us some indication of the kind of things and she already referenced the need to procure space potentially.

The issue of equipment and procuring equipment was also raised. So I believe that that was answered at committee. Maybe I can go, I was not at the committee so I’m kind of in the hands of colleagues. So maybe I can go to Ms.

Barbone to reiterate what you can reiterate. Thank you through the chair. So to reiterate what the response I provided at committee is right now we don’t have a funding source for additional lease space. That would need to be an additional budget ask through the multi-year budget to amend.

We would need to identify a temporary funding source to make these changes with respect to the operating budget for 2023 and then add that to the multi-year budget as lease space will be an ongoing cost. Councillor Cady, I had you at this point on the original speaker’s list. So I don’t know if you’d like to be on it now. You don’t have to take it up, up me up on it when I saw your hand raised earlier.

So let me just check with you to see if you’re looking to be on the list now. Thank you Your Worship. I’ll yield at the moment if you can come back to me. Thank you.

I can’t. So just flag your hand again when you’d like to speak. Councillor McAllister. Sorry, through the chair I was just pulling out my questions that I had previously sent to Mr.

Mathers. I appreciate the weight of this decision. I think it does set a precedent in terms of how we will interact with a lot of our staff moving forward and I understand in terms of end users and the development community have expressed their wishes. And I do wanna thank the mover and seconder in terms of what they’ve put forward.

There is some accommodation in terms of the hybrid model, but I would like to dive into some more questions ‘cause I do believe Mr. Mathers probably has more to say on this topic. In terms of the 11 positions we’ve posted for, what would be the anticipated start date for those? Through Your Worship.

So we, all of those positions except for one, so the 10 of the positions are actually up and posted currently. So usually there’ll be a couple of weeks that they’re posted and then we’ll be going through interviews. So ideally we could have them in place by September. And then the one position, which is the new building connector, we’re developing a job scripture.

So it’s gonna take a bit longer, but we’re hoping to have that posted this month as well. Okay, and thank you for that. In terms of the servicing delays that we’ve witnessed, would you attribute this to volume, performance, or training? Through Your Worship.

So I’ll go back to some of those early comments that we’ve actually been breaking records. We can do better. And for me to be able to do better, and we’ve highlighted this in our recent reports, we got to improve our processes. We’ve started to do that, we’ve been doing some streamlining, but we’ve got to finish off that process.

We also need to be able to enhance our customer experience. So we’ve created this new position, but we also have to be able to align some of the resources we currently have, and this is work that’s gonna be coming forward in the next couple of weeks that you’ll hear more about how we’re aligning to be able to better have customer experience in the building and in the planning area. And then finally, it’s that increasing capacity and capabilities. So capacity, it’s also the bodies, the people that can do the work, but also giving them the ability to do more, making sure that they’re consistent when they’re providing comments, making sure that they have the appropriate policies and procedures that aren’t in place right now.

So those are the three things that I think will improve it. I think we’re doing a good job. We can do way better. And thank you for that as well.

And unfortunately, I’m gonna lob a question to you that is not one that I previously sent your way, but I do think it feeds into that. And I’m just curious in terms of the tenure of our staff and planning, is the makeup largely junior, senior, in terms of years of experience, what are we looking at in terms of the makeup or staff? Through your worship, in general, during COVID and coming out of COVID, we’ve had a substantial number of retirements, of well-earned retirements for people who had a lot of history and a lot of backgrounds. Right now, we are very junior in really all of our areas.

So we’re doing a really great job and trying to be able to providing some of that training, but with that comes the extra work that goes into providing and giving people that kind of support. So in both areas, we do have a team that is quite junior and they need to mature and they need to be able to give in all of the abilities to get the training that they need and have that face time with their management staff. Thank you. In terms of servicing delays, do you think that the motion put forward in terms of the return to office would address the servicing delays with your current staff compliment and with the 11 additional?

Through your worship, as far as any kind of delays, the three things I go back to is what we need to be able to do to improve. So the streamlining, we have the enhanced customer service and then the increasing capacity is people. So if we want to retain people, that’s an important part of ensuring that we can decrease our timelines and get more units out there and building permits approved. Okay, and again, a question that I thought of earlier that unfortunately I didn’t have time to present to you with in terms of workflow management software, I know those are things that are obviously in the pipeline in terms of process improvements, but if you could just provide an update in terms of where that’s at, thank you.

Through the chair. So we have various initiatives that are in place right now. A very good highlight of all of those initiatives is in that 47,000 pledge report that came in February talks about all the different things we’re doing. What best aligns with the tracking that you’re talking about is our housing supply action plan that we’re developing with the industry.

We also have two different reference groups. One is focused on that action plan, includes industry representatives. The other one is completely focused on customer service and process improvements. And they have come up with over 30 different improvement ideas that have come directly from the industry.

Now we need to implement that. We need to actually make those things happen. So those are some of the critical things that we need to be able to move forward as well. Thank you.

And in terms of your counterparts in the province, where would we fall in terms of, and we’ll cancel around at one just in terms of our competitiveness, but in terms of the hybrid models being implemented elsewhere, where do we fall currently? Through your worship. So we have reached out to our direct comparators. And the trends we’re seeing right now, the surveys were done pre-COVID, during COVID, after COVID.

And the way the trends are sitting is that they’re doing the very similar same models that we’re doing. They’re conducting pilots, and they’re going through this process, especially in the planning areas. But what we’re finding is that none of our comparators are blanketing remote work options or alternative work strategies right across the corporation. They are picking and choosing, but it will say in the planning and development, in the building side, we are seeing more and more of that becoming the norm.

When we look at other industries, that’s why they’re finding it very difficult to retain planners in municipal government right across the board in Ontario, because many municipalities are starting to offer that specific area as the norm, where it makes it difficult where other municipal governments that haven’t made it the norm, planners are now having the ability to pick and choose. And that’s where a lot of us are coming from. Thank you, I’m not sure where I’m at with time, but I did just wanna end with one last thing. Regardless of what we decide in terms of the work model, I would also like to encourage Mr.

Mathers, your department to keep this feedback loop going. We obviously hear from the end users, but I would also like to hear from staff in terms of how they’re doing. I think it’s important for us to know how the work environment is, what they’re experiencing on their end as well, ‘cause we do need to hear from our employees as the employer. And so regardless of what we decide, I would encourage you to keep that in mind.

And as we progress and whatever is decided, that you come back to us if there are serious issues, because we need to look at this, ‘cause it’s a never evolving work environment, as many different industries are experiencing. So I would ask that if there are any issues that you do come back to us, thank you. Thank you, Councillor. And when you asked some short questions and the staff are giving answers, it actually time seems like it goes a little longer.

So I have Councillor Hopkins next. Thank you, Your Worship. And I wanna thank everyone here, everyone for reaching out to us with your concerns. I’ve been around the block a number of times here, and I know the concern in the industry.

It’s just not happened overnight. It’s been an ongoing concern. And I know when the accommodation plan came forward, I read the pilot projects that the city is doing with IT, for example, holding on to working at home, looking at that pilot project. Also with the, I think it’s wastewater department looking at a hybrid model.

And I was hoping we could maybe have an opportunity to even look at a pilot project with planning, given the concerns that are out there. But we’re not here today to look at a pilot project. We’re going to be implementing a new model, starting at the end of the first quarter of 2024. I have a couple of questions, Your Worship.

I’m going to start, and given I can only have one opportunity to speak, I’ll see how we go here with my time. Through you, Your Worship. First question I have for Mr. Mathers is, I know being on the planning and environment committee, there’s lots of reports and work that is going on behind the scenes to do a better job, not only with the communication element, working with the industry, but looking at many other opportunities going forward to improve the process in building and planning.

So there is a risk of not doing something, and I would like to know what are the plans going forward that the planning department is working on. Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so just speaking of risk, anytime you’re trying to make changes, there’s always a risk associated with that, if you’re going from the norm, and we do really need to make changes, and we need to take some very well-educated risks moving forward.

My biggest fear is just losing some of the really great people that we have, and anything the closer we get to that full in person, my fear increases. So that I think is a big risk for me, ‘cause to get to 47,000, we need the development community and the building community out there building homes, and we need our folks in the office, and getting work done, whatever fashion it is, getting a lot of work done on their computers, getting permits approved. So that’s a big risk. Also with the new changes, legislative changes, we will have mandatory timelines that we have to meet, otherwise we’ll be returning fees.

So there’s a bit of a financial risk there, if we don’t have the staff to be able to support that. Thank you for that. I do have another question as it relates to what has been done since the last time we met at SBPC committee, and today we know staff will be dealing with these changes that we are about to make. If you could talk a little bit more about how a staff responded, I know we’ve heard, we’ve seen some emails coming to us as well, but if you could speak a little bit about how since the news has gone out, where and how we’ve communicated the information that we are looking at tonight.

And I understand it wasn’t the four to one, but it is looking at more of a full-time return back to work. Through your worship, I can just describe it that there’s been a lot of anxiety with our staff. That comes whenever you don’t know exactly what’s gonna happen. So what we tried to do to fill that gap was I got right on top on the Thursday after the committee meeting, and then providing them with an update of what was happening said that we’re gonna be speaking today.

Also offered a mini town hall for to have our building and planning folks attend, and I could give them a little bit of the background of what I’ve heard so far, and let them know what the next steps are. I had over 100 people attend that session, and it got a lot of great questions from them. I just want everybody to know that we’re incredibly respectful. They respect as Council’s choice to make, and at the end of the day, they’re going to, they know that that’s the role of Council to be able to provide that direction.

So very respectful, and even in those values that we’ve given you are the numbers as far as the people that were concerned that we’d leave immediately, they were people that were very upfront of us when they took this job. So when we have people that live 35, 45 minutes away had the opportunity to live in London, and they’re willing to make that commute at halftime, those are the people that were highlighting. It’s not everybody who’s ever said in frustration about leaving. So very respectful of the people, and whatever direction that can come out of this, it’d be beneficial, and we’ll get that word back to our staff as soon as possible.

Also spoke to Steve Holland, and he’s been making his members very much aware of this, and as well, and also communicating openly with everyone on it too. Thank you for that information. I’m not sure how much time I have. Maybe I might sort of come to the end right now listening to other comments from my colleagues on why we should do this.

I would be looking if it does fail for a referral to get more information before we implement these changes. Thank you. Thank you. There are other speakers, Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I just want to be clear that the, I’ve never heard that our staff weren’t working or that they weren’t doing a good job. The only thing I heard was that it was a customer service issue and an accessibility. So there was a quote in the media that was interpreted as me saying that somehow the staff weren’t doing their jobs or capable of doing their jobs, and I really regret that it was received that way, and I want to apologize for any stress or anything that was caused by that.

I believe the staff have been working super hard, and we really, really appreciate that. But I have heard a pretty much unanimous request from our building partners, and they’re the only building partners that we have to meet an aggressive housing target that matters. It matters to everybody. And so I’m gonna honor that, it’s a big ask.

I’m gonna support it, but I would be very open to an equally big ask coming from civic administration as to what we can do then to counter that, right? And so I think it’s not one or the other. I think we get to say yes to this ask and say please let us know what we can do to help, to offset, to support in any way that we can our staff, and more asks from our building partners. Like whatever it is coming from myself, I’m here to help.

And so I want to know what we can do different, to get different results, to build more houses for Londoners. I want more requests to come before us all around, to help us achieve these really important targets. So I appreciate the ask. I appreciate the reflection on it, that it’s not been an immediate response.

It’s been a problem that’s been ongoing for 18 months. I also don’t think this is the answer. We’re obviously gonna need all of the other amazing things that the department is doing to try to improve, improve, improve. And again, anything that I can do as a city councilor, I would love to support.

I have Councillor Cudi and Councillor Ploza next. So Councillor Cudi, you’re first. Thank you, your worship and through you. I want to begin by thanking the mover of the motion for this compromise and that’s precisely what it is.

It’s a compromise and I think it’s a thoughtful process forward. I’ll also mention that I’ve heard from many developers who I’ve met that they have the highest respect for Mr. Mayders as a department and just to echo what Councillor Stevenson said, not only have the highest respect for Mr. Mayders in the department, but they know how hard everyone is working.

But also we have to remember as Councillor Stevenson said that we are service providers, we’re not builders. We don’t grow anything, we don’t build anything. We provide a service and that’s what we have to do to our customers. I’ll be supporting this motion.

I appreciate the fact that we have a shortage of good staff. I’m sure we will find them. There are a lot of people out there that are anxious to work and I’m sure they want to come to London, but I will be supporting this motion and thank you for hearing me. Councillor Plaza.

Thank you, your worship and just on the amendment before us. Thank you for Councillor Layman trying to find a way forward and compromise as this definitely was a long conversation. At committee, I don’t believe the concerns have still been resolved. And I recognize that Mr.

Mathers did walk into a department to help transform it, realizing there was already industry concerns and questions and a willingness to change. And that’s been fully encompassed by staff. As you’ve heard them say today, no one’s saying, there’s no problem, our heads are not in the sand. And definitely balancing that with the feedback, the extensive feedback that we’re getting from the development community saying things need to be done better and realizing we have a lot of junior staff with us who need time to hone their skills, get up to speed and adapt to what we need.

My questions for Mr. Mathers will be realizing there’s been lots of change behind the scenes, changes in process, applications and new technology were waiting to come online. How long do you estimate it would take so we can fully see the impacts of these changes on our service industry timelines and ability to increase our customer service? Mr.

Mathers. Through your worship, I hope that people are already seeing some of those improvements. We are seeing them on in our approvals in certain areas. And in other areas, we need to really push on that customer experience and really have to start aligning our staffing and changing that culture piece.

The reason why we have that culture piece is that we’ve really been in a mode where we’re just trying to get things out. And we’re not doing that really horrible piece, like an important piece, like we’re focusing on just trying to get quality and quantity, but customer service has to be interlaced with that. Part of that is that if you’ve got a bunch of people that are just trying to do as much as they can and get as many applications as they can, then it’s going to put a lot of stress and you have to make some difficult choices. So the multi-year budget ask that you see is going to talk about providing some of those supports.

You’re gonna be seeing that in some organizational changes we’ll be doing shortly to be able to make sure that we have better alignment for our building folks as well and give them some support. So short answer is they should start being able to see some of those changes and then we’ll be able to accelerate after we get some of these more resources to be able to through our multi-year budget ask. Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor, a follow-up question.

Realizing there’s space complaints, potentially complaints, definitely constraints. And if we’re looking as some colleagues in council in general or looking at bringing employees back, how many more staff could you fit in the current floor template if we want to bring some people back? How many could we bring back without having to rent more office space currently? Mr.

Maynard. Through your worship that there’s zero right now because in the planning it’s completely utilized with people sharing desks over that cycle and building it’s a react capacity. So there’s zero right now. Excellent.

That’s a pretty definitive number of wiggle room. Having heard complaints from colleagues and people in the industry of they’re not sure where people are working and when and having heard from staff that they’re, it’s not that they’re off, they are just working in an alternate locations. Checking to see if we have a corporate policy that requires people to have not so much of like an out of office on, but even the signature being updated or just saying, you know, I can be reached by this phone number and these dates I’m working in this location, including when they’re at City Hall and available for bookings. Is that part of our requirement to people working offsite?

Good. Your worship, yes, we have a policy where staff are to indicate how they’re available and if that availability changes, that should be indicated as well. Thank you, just a follow up. They need to indicate it by which means in an email signature, just a supervisor in a voicemail message.

How? Through you, your worship, there’s an expectation that voicemail is updated and that out of offices on if there’s a change in complete availability. The method of day to day can be done through a variety of mechanisms that are available often folks, if you’re in, you don’t have anything. That’s just what it is.

But if I do know a number of employees put that as part of their email signature and when they’re able to respond, I just wanna be clear when employees are entirely not available, then that is an expectation by voicemail and by out of office. Thank you and through you, Mr. Mayor, I believe it’s my last question to staff, realizing we don’t currently have the physical space to come in employees and having heard that we don’t have the physical office equipment for them, was there ever a time that we did? Or has it always been in and out?

Or how are we out of space and equipment for employees? Mr. Mayor. Through you, your worship, there was a substantial amount of hiring during the 2020 to 2023 period and we didn’t, not at that time because there was a lot of other work being done on the space side, look at creating permanent spaces.

We just were able to accommodate them in that hybrid sense format. Thank you, just, I promise, one last follow up. As I know through the pandemic, it was a question I got from STEM staff behind the scenes when they were asked to work from home. Do they have home office equipment that has been covered by the corporation that would be eligible to be brought into the workplace, meeting any health and safety standards to help with any budgetary impacts we might have?

Or are they just working with what they have at home and it was never corporately subsidized? Through you, worship. So during COVID, everyone was provided in our group anyways that needed it, a laptop and then also a secondary screen. So our planning folks and our building folks, everything they do for the most part nowadays is all on the screen.

There’s not a lot of physical drawings they’re able to do with that on the screen. As far as their phone and their extensions, their extension actually can run straight through their laptop and they can take calls on the laptop as well through any kind of Bluetooth device. So as far as the technology they have, they have the same at home, they should be able to answer calls, all of the same things as they can do in the office space. Thank you, that concludes my questions.

Thank you, Councillor, other speakers. Councillor Preble. Sorry to check to the staff. I just have a question and sorry, I will ask you before I will send it to you before but I just got these numbers earlier this morning.

So currently it states that we have 157 staff, correct? And I see nodding, you don’t need a microphone, but I just wanted to ask you. So we have 92 and 65 and 150, we had an increase of 17 positions. So if I subtract that, so there will be, we will be about 140 pre-pandemic and pre-pandemic, did everyone have their desk?

So through the chair, yes, pre-prandemic, everyone had a desk. What we had was, if you’re familiar, we have a location at 206 Dundas Street and that location was where all of the planning people were and all of the development people were in City Hall. What we did during, on the return to work in COVID, it was we said, like, wouldn’t it be amazing if everybody could be in the same space, even if it’s just at the 50% of the time, so that all your resources, everything’s in the same place, all the management’s to ask there. So we brought those folks from 206.

Then our economic development and the supports, people are now in that space. There is still spots available in that space. We would just have to break up the team and place them over there as well. So that, initially, there was that 150 spots.

We have also had hiring inter-economic supports and we’ve had hiring of the 17th positions in this area as well. Thank you. So if the economic development moved and I know if they moved from the City Hall or from another place, and if there is a space, is there an opportunity to take advantage of the space and create space here? So you have additional space for everyone to have their own desk, because based on this, there would be only really six, seven people, sorry, nine people that would be sharing the desk because 17 divided by two, let’s say nine.

But my question is, would we be able to take advantage of the 206 space and move someone there and have create more space so you are still building planning altogether? So through the chair, so this goes back to the reorganization that happened. There was new positions in the economic supports area as well that were created. And there were people that were located in rented space with the LEDC folks.

So those people were all then consolidated over to 206. So I don’t have the actual calculations. There is, that team also still needs a space and that some of them could share. I’d have to get you the actual number of how many spots would be available there.

It’s not a huge amount, but there would be spots available in that space and possibly other. Yeah, in that space. I’m a certainly great supporter of people coming back. I think that it’s not just for the customers and to sort of customer service.

I think it’s for City of London. We lead by example. We want people to come back. We want again, vibrant downtown or wherever we are.

And I do think, and especially the things you mentioned, new staff, if they are being hired trained, it’s really good to have someone beside you who is going to mentor you, who is going to train you and not kind of, this person is going to be looking or calling someone whoever is home. So I’m very much supportive of people coming back, no doubt, but one thing isn’t, you mentioned as well, that it’s not just the days in days out, hybrid, it’s all the other things. Have we actually done a really true detailed benchmarking or competitive analysis with other municipalities and also private sector? So we are attracted because I do think that any occupation it’s about or hiring about quality and productivity, productive people, have you really looked into this and are we talking about a lot of things here?

And we are not going to get much further anyways because our benefits, our pay is much less, so we are kind of wasting time because it doesn’t matter if we tell them, stay five days at home at the end of the day and the bank account, they have 30, 40% less than private companies or other municipalities. So my question is, have you really done this benchmarking and do we know where we stand to encompass other municipalities as well as private sector? Through your worship, so we haven’t done a formal analysis like that. We’ve been working with our people services partners to develop a recruitment plan, specifically with these new positions that we have, but then also for what we’re looking at being able to staff up to support the 47,000 unit work moving forward.

So I get a lot of emails from a lot of very engaged staff showing me different job postings and making comparators to the city of London. So I do know that there are some concerns from staff. And if that’s something that coming out of this is looking at recruitment and retention policies, we can come back with some more information to counsel on that. And I’m gonna ask, what do you think will take to get them back to work full time from here?

Because it’s a good thing for everyone. Maybe not the individuals, they might not think that because they have to come here every day. What is it gonna take that you believe for them to bring them back and us still being attractive? What would be your game plan?

Let’s say if we say no, if the council were to agree, we want them full time back because it’s the best thing for city hall, it’s the best thing for customers, it’s the best thing for our city lead by example. What would it take? Do you have an answer for everyone? Through your worship, this very much is council’s direction.

It’s really a values-based decision. And if the values is that you want the folks in the city hall, we’re gonna work with that and we’re gonna do the best what we can. To be able to continue to retain. What we can do and what we are always trying to do is we wanna work on our culture, make sure that people feel valued, make sure that they’re appreciated.

And that’s one of the reason why we’ve all been talking about the great work that they’re doing. So those are the things that we have a lot, the levers that we have. We can make sure they’re doing exciting work, that’s interesting work, and that they can see that they’re making a difference. That’s what we can focus on.

If there’s a council decision to change that type of work, then we will work with that and do the best that we can. And to the last question, do you feel even though we haven’t done the proper or detailed deep lean benchmarking, do you believe we are competitive enough with our entire package in terms of our municipalities and in terms of the public sector? I just wanna caution and let our staff know if you’re getting into like compensation packages, wages, like that is not a public discussion, that’s something that goes through a different process. Absolutely, that’s not something that we’ve done and there would be processes and if that’s something that council wants to look at, then you can direct to do that, we would do it.

So my no more questions, my last comment would be, it would be creative, we did this kind of benchmarking, competitive analysis, so we know where we stand. I think that’s very important, doesn’t matter if it’s public, private sector, where we stand and I think it’s much easier than to make the decisions because we know, we are maybe talking about something here that three days, four days, five days, that might not even potentially be the reason, right? It might be the reason that they would be okay, they would be okay with five days here, but we find out that we are 10, 20% below, so I think this is really important and I would like us, our staff to prepare this, of course it’s not gonna be prepared before we make the decision, but I really think this is very crucial and as was said here, we have huge task for the 7,000 homes, we are not gonna build the city, we give the direction, but we are gonna have to develop a person, build this, build the city, and we have a lot of work ahead of us and I hope they’ll stay on the right track, but please I think this would be a very beneficial information for us and I think it would be great for our staff, thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

I have Councillor Trostan next. Thank you very much, I’m gonna speak faster than I usually do given the time constraints. That was really through the chair, I wanna thank Councillor Pribble for making that really excellent point because I think this would be something we would want to have and I think it would be something we’d wanna have before we would do any alteration to the status quo. So I don’t think it would make a lot of sense to change the status quo, do this benchmarking and then look at it, but my specific question is, does the offering the opportunity to have flexible work, offsite work, does that have a bearing on your hiring pool in terms of what you get, in terms of people responding?

Through the chair, it’s one of the most common questions that we get and speak for Ms. Nealey here that we’ve actually had people cut off in the middle of an interview, not realizing it’s not permanent hybrid and stop an interview. So it is something that’s a very common question and so it is something that definitely, it definitely comes up. Thank you and to follow up on that then, you’ve hired people over the last period of time making a representation that they would be under some type of a flexible alternative arrangement, correct?

Through the chair and sorry if I wasn’t clear and our process right now, when we hire someone, they know that this is a temporary arrangement, they know that there’s a council direction that were under this hybrid scenario, but we hire everyone on the basis that they could work full time. We know that some of them will say that, hey, if it goes that way, we’ll leave. We’ve got that six to 12 number, but we’ve had people that because it’s not mandated, not stated specifically, that they will remove their name from the hat as well. What type of effect does this have?

Throughout the entire enterprise and maybe somebody else would wanna answer that, but more specifically, is there something unique about the planning profession right now that’s under some level of stress where this rises to a particular level of, I don’t wanna say acuity after the discussion last night, but a certain level of acuity within the planning profession. How is this going to affect particularly planning, but then also throughout the entire enterprise? Through the chair, we’re in generational shift in planning policy in the province. So when you’re talking about the changes in the planning world, there’s huge changes, the biggest changes people have seen in the last 20 years.

So we’re responding to that and some of those things are gonna be help us to actually be able to make things faster and some are gonna change the way we do things. So very much there is a very much a focus on trying to increase times, trying to be able to provide more flexibility. So yes, there is a very much a focus from a provincial level and at all levels to try to improve and make those changes in the planning area. In order to enterprise level, could you address that?

And also specifically, what would the dynamic be if we just sort of made it change in like one unit, not the other? Would that create issues? Through you, your worship. What we’ve been working with our employees on since council gave the direction to include alternate work strategies as part of our master plan, is that while we were piloting what a permanent alternate work arrangement could look like, employees would be in the position, those that operate through a temporary remote work, hybrid situation, that that’s the way it would be until the pilots were complete and we could make decisions then on how we would move forward as an organization, as a whole, as part of the master accommodation plan.

I think it’s fair to say that not just in the planning and development area and building and yes, they are under significant pressure to support what’s happening in our community. But across the enterprise, we are seeing rapid and significant change in many areas. We just talked last night about the complexity of our situation for those that work with those on our streets. One of the things that I think would be fair to say as coming out of COVID and we are not the only organization that is experiencing this is that people are looking for some level of certainty.

In a world where you can’t control a lot that’s happening to you each and every day, what is the certainty that you can expect? In your work arrangements, at your home, all of those places. So we’ve tried to communicate when we first and we were one of the first in this city to return employees back to the building after all of the mandatory remote work was lifted, was to try and provide some level of certainty around the process. That’s what we’ve been working under.

It’s entirely council’s decision to change that direction and I’m grateful with this motion for additional time to be able to support people should council move in that direction. But that is what we’re seeing across the enterprise in terms of everyone is working very hard, flat out and dealing with rapidly changing situation and environment. So when that happens, people look for certainty in their world. How much time do I have left?

Three minutes and 19 seconds. I think I’m going to stop asking questions and just give you my opinion on this. I think some good points have been made in terms of the need, oh, I do have one more question. Sorry, and it’s about lunch.

Everybody’s favorite topic. And I know you probably haven’t done lunch in surveys to go around and ask people, do you bring your lunch or do you eat upstairs or do you go to a sit down restaurant or do you grab something at the food truck or do you go to COVID, COVID market? We received a couple of submissions about people concerned about the midday lunch traffic. Does an employee, let’s just look in your department Mr.

Mathers, have time to leave their desk, walk to the COVID garden, eat and come back. How long are your lunch breaks? Through the chair, you can make alterations to it but the standard amount is one hour and sometimes half an hour. So if you walk quickly and I have done it, I can walk to COVID garden market, grab food, eat it, walk back so that you can’t do it within an hour.

Do you have a sense though of what is the practice among many of your employees, especially with our food service here where you can run upstairs and grab a sandwich and be back in your desk within five, 10 minutes? Through the chair, I’ll be honest, I don’t have a really great sense of that. I know it’s a balance between people bringing their own lunch, being upstairs and really being in the community. I get to work with a lot of great planners and people that are very much focused on that need and want to have like a local kind of option.

So there is definitely probably more than some groups that like being able to going into these really great public spaces. So I would highlight that probably it would be a little bit more common inside our group than it’d be others. So I’m not prepared to support this change even with the amendment. I think there would have to be a much stronger showing made that there would be an appreciable difference.

And I don’t think there is. And I think Council Pribble made a very, very good point. My main concern, and this is a very, very large concern, is retention, morale, consistency throughout the enterprise and the fact that the workplace and the people who are populating the workplace are changing very much. And I think you pointed to the fact of a generational shift in your workplace.

And I think more and more we’re seeing a group of younger people coming through professional schools who have an exceptionally high degree of technological falsification that our graduates might not have had 10, 15 years ago. And I think that while I’m hearing the general concern that we want people to be at their desks, I haven’t heard specific complaints about employees not being able to do their job because they’re online. And I know when I, during the period where I could not attend my classes, when I was trying to do my job remotely, really what would hold me up would be I need an upgrade. I just need an upgrade in my hardware or my software.

And I don’t hear that that’s the problem and I don’t hear that that’s not something that’s solvable. I have yet to hear a particular instance of a project failing because your employee has not been where they’re supposed to be. So in closing, I want to say I’m willing to hear more about this, I want to understand your numbers are very good, you are actually, like you said before, you’re at the top of your area. But I think before we make any changes, I want to hear a lot more about how that’s going to improve the situation and that has to be balanced.

That has to be balanced against the negative side of losing employees and destroying morale. So I’m going to ask my colleagues not to support this and for now, I want to keep the status quo. Thank you, Councillor. I have my myself and then Councillor for our next one and speaker’s list.

I’m going to turn the chair over to Councillor Raman so I can speak. Recognizing that I have the chair, go ahead, Mayor. I started to occur to see timer myself for you. I really appreciate the debate and discussion colleagues and I want to emphasize a couple of things that I’ve heard.

One is a desire to have back in the workplace, a greater degree than they are now, despite the challenges that we may have from a space perspective or some of the modifications we could make. I want to say I appreciate the Councillors giving staff a runway should we proceed with this. But there’s a whole bunch of stuff that I heard around recruitment and retention. And so what I would like to do, and I heard Mr.

Mathers rightly so say, we’re working on this stuff, like this is important. We know that there is a lot of competition out there in this space. We want to get lots of really smart people working for the city of London. We know the city’s expanding.

The development and building division is not shrinking. We know interest rates are high, but they might come down. And we know that we may be on the cusp of leaving even more, even more staff in this space. So as much as I know that there was some comments about recruitment and retention, what I would like to do, and an effort to get all of us almost standing at once, is I actually would like to amend this, and I want to say colleagues, whether you support it or not, I do believe in trying to improve a motion, whether you’re going to vote for it or not.

So I hope this doesn’t have to be an extensive debate. But I’d like to add an amendment that says the civic administration returned to a future meeting of SPPC, I’m not really hung up on the committee, but regarding possible recommendations for recruitment and retention of planning, development, and building staff. And just formalize that if council moves in this direction, that we also support, and are very clear, that recruitment and retention and strategies around that is a priority for us. So I guess I would have to see if there’s a seconder and then I can provide a little bit more rationale.

Thank you, and through you, through me, I guess. So I do have a seconder for your motion, thank you. Okay, so I want to say why this is important. Again, colleagues, whether you support this or not, if we go in this direction, given what we know today, given what our staff have outlined as challenges, given how we know where this space is gonna go and given our ambitious targets, recruitment and retention, particularly in a division that we know will continue to have ongoing pressure, is really important.

Now, I’m not gonna presume what those things are. There’s lots of things we could talk about. There’s probably lots of things you gotta talk about in camera, but there’s lots of things that you can engage employees on. If we go this direction and we send this signal, there’s gonna be a lot of people probably asking, what does this mean?

Where does this go? And I wanna make sure that we clearly outline as a council that we want to engage, hear those voices, hear what sort of things we could do to ensure people wanna stay here, work here, be happy here and be productive here, but also on the recruitment side of things that we gotta be aggressive with other municipalities who are recruiting as well. We have to try to retain and recruit individuals in this space. We probably have to grow our workforce over time.

We’ve got vacancies and we need to be aggressive, and I think that’s gonna require resources. It’s gonna require effort and a thoughtful planning process. So I know our staff are always on this, and I know the senior leadership team is always thinking about this, but I just think if we’re gonna make a council decision, and this is not a staff decision, this is a council decision to bring people back, let’s add a council decision to that to say, we empower our senior leadership team to really have council support in making recruitment and retention a priority in this particular division. Of course, across the corporation, but we’re making a specific change to a specific area, so that’s why I identify it there.

Okay, thank you. So we have an amendment, and I have Councilor Layman on the amendment. Thank you, Mayor, and I appreciate that amendment. I just like to take this opportunity to address our building community.

I think you can see this is no small thing for the city to do. We spent like five hours debating this. This wasn’t easy for even myself to propose this change. You can see by this amendment as well, that there’s other things that we will have to consider to get this done.

What I’m asking of the building committee is, we’ve done our part to get to do our best of 47,000 homes. It shows our commitment to provide housing for London. I am asking the building community is to hear our concerns that you hear from staff. We’ve heard it during a debate.

I hear it just in my day-to-day position as chair of planning. Those things are not asked slightly. So we can do this if this goes through today. I ask you to show similar consideration when you’re bringing your applications to permits or requests to staff, work with our staff to find the most efficient ways that we can do it for both sides.

Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Trostman on the amendment. I think the amendment is fine.

I don’t have a problem with the amendment. I just think it’s like the suggestion that Mr. Councillor Pribble made, it’s backwards. I think that we should be doing that study before we make any change to the status quo.

So I’m a little unclear about whether I’m going to support the amendment or not because I think it’s fine, but I don’t think it cures the underlying deficiency in the main motion. And by trying to make the main motion a little bit more palatable by adding this amendment, I think it misses the bigger point. And that is, these are things, this question of retention and morale is an immediate question. And we do not want to dig ourselves into a worse situation in the interim while we study this.

And I think if I keep going, I’m going to get back into the main argument. So I’ll sit down. I have Councillor Ferrer on the amendment. Thank you, Chair.

And through you, I did have a whole bunch of points for the original motion, but I thought I’d speak to this amendment ‘cause it does seem to go with where I was originally leaning. And that’s just more information, a little bit more time to consider this. I’m very conflicted when it comes to this ‘cause as the downtown Councillor, I’m always trying to get more people downtown. So I do see that there’s the possibility to do that.

But at the same time, I’m worried about retention of employees. I’m worried about morale as well. And I’m worried about the capacity that we would have if we were to lose anyone. I hear that we may be losing six to 12 possible individuals if we were to go this way.

And that could hurt our ability to build more homes. I do, with respect to the mover and the seconder, I do see what you’re doing. I enjoy that compromise. I’m always trying to find compromise.

So I appreciate that. I’m just also worried that it may turn against us and it may hurt us in the future as well. And this is why I would like to see if we could get some more information on that from civic administration. So I know I’m speaking to the amendment.

I do like the amendment. And I did have some questions for the original one. So I keep myself on the speaker’s list. But as it stands right now, I do see where the conversation’s going and I do appreciate what the amendment’s doing for us.

It does give us more time to consider, more time to engage with the community. I see what the building community is saying. And I do want to work with our developers so we can actually build some homes as quick as possible or housing units as quick as possible. But I do want to find that compromise.

And I do want it to work with our staff. I want to make sure, especially with the unknowns that we have, the space, where is that going to come from? The funding, where are we going to secure that funding? There’s a lot of unknowns at the moment.

So this is why I’m not going to speak to the original motion, but this is why I’m liking where this amendment’s going at the moment. So I do want to see what more of my colleagues have to say. And I guess I’ll keep my name on the list for the next one. And I will say to Mr.

Maydas, I’ve seen you walking down the street pretty fast, buying lunch in the past and I do appreciate that. So thank you to that. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, next on the amendment. And for colleagues, you can refresh your screen and see the amendment in your e-scribe.

Yeah, thank you and to the amendment. And I do have a question. I’m just sort of looking backwards here. I appreciate compromise.

This is an added clause. So my question to staff will be, if we were to approve A and C, what would change or what further information will be coming back to us? I don’t know if that makes any sense. Maybe I can just add to that.

It’s going to come back to a future SPPC, but if we move forward, I’m not exactly sure. I think I agree with Councillor Truss. So are we doing it backwards if we do A and C? That’s my question.

Thank you to Mr. Maydars. Through the chair, like with any remotion from council, the way that it was worded, we would be, would say that we need to be able to get on our horse and start working on that and bringing people back. So we would start that preliminary work.

And then as C has written here, we would be bringing back a report and doing that in parallel. Follow up, Councillor? Yeah, and as the follow up to the recruitment and retention portion of it, which I think is what we’ve heard loud and clear, is going to be the challenge. Would we not continue with the recruitment, retention challenges with getting staff, the wages, would that not already be part of what we’re trying to do to create change in our departments, sort of as is?

Mr. Maydars? Through the chair. So we do have a team that’s working, including external parties on a housing supply action plan.

One of the things is you’re all aware of, we are very much governed by our collective agreement. So that is where we start with any type of recruitment and with the practices we can take. If Council would like us to come back with some further work on retention and recruitment opportunities and what we would suggest, we can bring that forward. Go ahead, Councillor.

Thank you for that. So we are making changes. This is just forcing the changes going forward a little bit more, coming back to us. That’s great, thank you.

Thank you, I have Councillor Perble and then Councillor McAllister. Recruitment, so as for letter C, that certainly makes sense to me, absolutely. But the difficult part for me is that we are making a decision without having all the information. That’s the tough part for me.

And we haven’t explored two or six if there is a space could we move it there. We haven’t done the benchmarking and this is a really tough part for me. It would be much easier and this conversation could be much shorter if we knew exactly where our weaknesses are, where our strengths are. And sorry.

Thank you, go ahead. I’m Chair and with all due respect to, in fact, a number of the Councillors who’ve spoken on the amendment, we need the discussion to be to remain to the amendment, not the second opportunity to speak to the main motion. I appreciate Councillor Trust out did not do that, but we are getting back into the main motion. We are on the amendment.

And to be respectful of the time and the discussion, can we please focus on what is your main to the amendment? Do you want this clause added or not? Speculating on where we might find space on what this might mean in terms of our collective bargain or anything like that, just on the amendment. If we could stick to that, please.

And thank you and I’ll redirect. Go ahead, Councillor Pribble. Please redirect to your questions to the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Deputy Mayor for bringing it to my attention. As for C, I absolutely agree with it. I actually think we should have headed there already today so we can make a better decision. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Callister, next. Thank you and through the chair.

Question with regards to the amendment and the way it’s worded. In terms of the recommendations for recruitment and retention, I’m curious to know from staff, if you do hear in terms of, you know, staff that leave or staff that you’re looking to recruit, whether hybrid is the main topic of conversation. Because my issue with this all along is being, if we implement this and then we find out that it doesn’t work. We have the same issues.

Will this amendment allow staff to come back to us with suggestions in terms of adjusting to suit the recruitment and retention issues that they’ve witnessed? And so that’s a question to both the staff and I guess to the Mayor as well in terms of your intention. Thanks. Thank you.

I’ll go to staff first and then to the Mayor to see if he wants to add anything, Ms. Livingston. Through you, Madam presiding officer, our response to C would be to undertake a review of all of the aspects of recruitment and retention. I wouldn’t like to speculate particularly here today on the breadth and depth of that, but all of the aspects that would support retaining and recruiting, planning, development and building staff.

These are highly specialized, skilled people. There’s many complexities to this in addition to remote work. And yes, to the direct question, we do do exit interviews, so we do understand. We do have that information on why people choose to leave, but I think to the proposed amendment, we would undertake to do a thorough review and bring back a set of recommendations if we’re directed to do that.

Thank you, Councillor, follow up. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. Did you have anything you wanted to add to that question? I would just add that by passing A, which will be on the table, that will be something the Council has decided.

If through the course of the investigation of C, we need to make a change. Council can do that. Now there’s a process for that. It’s, you know, reconsideration and two thirds of Council can change that direction.

But my intention is to be able to run these tracks parallel, to be able to begin the work that the Councilors are suggesting with their motion, but also recognize that there are concerns about recruitment and retention associated with this. And so let’s empower our staff to say, this is a council decision. Council needs to also speak to those concerns as well. So that’s my intention, is that both would be able to happen as Mr.

Mayor has described. Thank you. Just seeing if I have anybody else to speak to the amendment. So no one here, anyone online?

Seeing none, we’ll look to call the vote on the amendment, which is also on the screen in currently. Go ahead. Councillor Purple. Actually now when I’m reading it, I would like to change regarding not possible.

Oh, sorry. Councillor, you have spoken already on the amendment. So unless it’s a procedural matter, are you looking to amend the amendment? Yes, he is.

Okay. We’ll wait for a ruling on that procedurally after looking over to the clerk that is not allowed. So unfortunately, we will have to vote on this matter and then work on something else if it doesn’t pass. Okay, so I will open that for vote.

Any votes, yes? Those in the vote, the motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you. I’ll look to return the chair to the mayor.

I have Councillor for our next on the speaker’s list. Thank you and through you. Well, like I said, I’m conflicted on the original motion. I think half of these points are irrelevant right now.

So I’m just going to ask the procedural question just to confirm. I know I was kind of touched on. I did kind of communicate with the clerk, but I just want to confirm this. I do like the way the amendment stands, but I don’t want to be voting on the original part of the motion.

So I was wondering if I could request to split those votes up and split on that motion separately. So we’re going to debate all of it at once. If you want, I would say A and B have to stay together. C could be separate if you wanted a separate photo.

Thank you through you. I would request that that’s okay with me. Sorry, go ahead, Councillor. I’m fine with that.

If we can vote on C separately and A and B that’s good. Then we vote with A and B and then C. I think only Councillor Frank and Deputy Mayor Lewis haven’t spoken to Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes.

I was just waiting till the end. I appreciate all the work that people have worked on for this amendment. I know that’s a compromise. I struggled myself a lot with this and I almost threw in my support for helping assist on the amended motion.

But I’ve been hearing a lot from staff and I’ve been chatting with a lot of people that are in planning and building. And overwhelmingly, I’m hearing from them that this would be a negative impact on their work-life balance and the experience they have working for us as an employer. So I think based on that alone, I will be not supporting just because I am hoping to retain a lot of the talented folks that we have. And it sounds like an absence of maintaining a more, a stronger hybrid model.

We might be losing some great folks. I do hear what the building and development community are saying. I do think we’ve made a lot of changes and I think that a lot of changes from Bill 109 and Bill 23 have severely impacted a lot of the workflow and timelines we’ve been seeing at planning. And I am very interested in seeing over the next year what additional staff and having a proper and full staffing complement would look like and how that would address some of the issues that the development community is having.

So at this point, I would have been happy to support Councilor Robbins referral to get more information and to hear what those changes could have been. But for now, I won’t be supporting it just based on what I’ve been hearing from staff. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m gonna start by a couple of questions to staff. I’m gonna get those through quick and offer some comments. So through you to our staff, the evaluation that put us at the top of the bottom.

Does any part of that evaluation include a count of off-the-clock applications? Mr. Bathers. So that’s actually something that we’re doing that a lot of people aren’t doing is actually looking at those off-the-clock applications.

This work actually just focuses on all applications, whether they’re on or off the clock. Second question, you spoke to some procedural changes as a result of provincial regulations. But is it factual to say that some of those changes are simply putting some of the processes in front in the pre-consultation phase rather than through the time once the clock has started on the completion of the applications? Through the chair, yes, that’s correct.

Thank you. So I gotta weigh in on a few of the comments that I’ve heard around. And I think it’s very important to say that when we’re evaluating when we’re not, and we are counting some off-the-clock applications, but when we’re evaluating even province wide and others aren’t, that is a big part of the problem. And we’ve heard that from some of the folks up there who have emailed us repeatedly.

And when we talk about enhanced customer service, I think we’ve heard loud and clear from our customers in the last two weeks. I think that that has been, I know Councilor Trussau hates the term customer, but that’s what they are. Because they’re the person who’s gonna go out and actually build so that we can reach the 47,000 units of housing that we need. Now, I was once told by a wise former counselor in Ward 7, who shall remain nameless, but was the counselor in Ward 7 last term.

Early on in my first term on council, that a good compromise is one that makes nobody happy, but that everybody can live with, that each side has to give something. What I’ve heard very clearly is that the status quo is not working for our customers. And that’s an important consideration for me here. And honestly, if this compromise doesn’t pass, then I am leaning towards back in the office five days a week, because the status quo is not working.

But I’m willing to make a compromise. I’m willing to support this, because yes, our staff will give up one flex day. Our building and development community is giving up one day that they want people in the office. People are gonna have to meet in the middle a little bit on this.

So to me, this is the compromise. When we talk about recruitment and staffing and hiring up, we heard one of the factors that we need to get right in this is surety. So when we’re trying to fill 11 positions, if we are not going to make a decision, we are still telling them that this is a temporary model and we don’t know what the future looks like. The same is true if we want to delay on making a decision about how our staff can move forward on a master accommodation plan.

We know it’s been started pause because COVID restarted, but at some point our senior leadership team is going to have to bring forward a report to us on this space and how we accommodate City Hall in the future. Whether it’s here or at another site, whatever that looks like, they need to know how many staff we are going to have in the office before they can provide us a good report on that. I recognize that we are going to have to absorb an impact for leasing space, absolutely. And frankly, with the recent report we had on the downtown vacancy rate on office space, I think that there’s lots of office space out there.

I think we’ll get lots of interest in an RFP that goes out. We heard last night at our other SPPC that the RFP will go out on hubs and we will get a report back in the fall. The same is true here. It will take a couple of months as Ms.

Barboon has indicated, but that is not going to preclude staff from starting to work on how they can manage their staff experience in terms of bringing people back. I was really, really adamant when I spoke to Councilor Lehman about this that we needed to give a longer runway than November 1st and we’ve done that. And we’ve heard from Ms. Livingston that the longer runway is much more appreciated and allows them time to flex and to address staff concerns and to give our staff a chance to plan for what their lives look like when this becomes the reality for them if this is passed.

So we come back to something that both Ms. Livingston and Mr. Mathers have said today that this is a decision of Council because the alternate work strategy that we have right now was also a direction from Council. Staff did not come up with this out of the blue.

Council asked them to come up with something temporary to adjust to the pandemic and they did and that’s what we have used. But we are past the pandemic time. So the expectation that this was always going to be the way it was from now on wasn’t realistic. Like we were always going to have to review this and figure out whether we wanted to go with this, whether we want to go with something different, whether we wanted everybody back in.

I think we’ve all been really clear. Nobody thinks our staff aren’t working hard. Nobody, we all recognize that. Even the building community recognizes it with the record numbers that they’ve been putting through.

But we recognize that there is a synergy lacking from having people in the space full time. I think this is a good compromise. I’m gonna tell you that I have heard particular complaints. It would be unusual for a counselor to hear that if it’s not in their ward or if they’re not the mayor or the deputy mayor.

But I have heard particular complaints. I’m not gonna speak about those here ‘cause that would not be appropriate. That’s for the deputy seating manager to figure those out. But specific complaints have come in.

So I’m really encouraging people support this compromise because otherwise, you know, to seek more information and I’m gonna ask the mayor’s indulgence for 10 extra seconds here. I’ve heard a lot of I wanted more information. You know, after the committee meeting last week, I’ve spent a dozen hours getting more information. I gotta cut you off for fairness.

Sorry, you’re gonna need an extension if you wanna talk more. Okay, that exhausts my speaker’s list. I don’t see any other speakers online. So with that, I’m gonna respect the request that I was asked to have the votes divided in a different way.

So we’ll vote on A and B first and we’ll vote on the approval of C. And yes, we voted on C, but that was an amendment to add it. These are the approvals of the clauses. So it’ll be a vote on C again to actually follow through and approve it.

So, but A and B will be first and they’ll be done together. So the same mover and seconder. You’d like B separate too? Okay, okay, okay.

I’m gonna, the perversion of B refers to part A. That’s why I suggested to tie them together. So just give me one sec. Let me just logistically find out what would happen if A was defeated.

So I’m gonna suggest, halfway forward for colleagues is, if you still like B, you defeat A and B together. And then I would not rule it out of order or contrary to put B back on because the new B that would be contemplated would be related to all divisions, not with the exclusion of one. So it would be different to me. So I’m gonna say we have to vote on A and B together.

If they’re both defeated, someone could put an alternate version of B on the floor and then C stands alone. So A and B are gonna be voted on together ‘cause they’re referenced. Okay, so with that clarification, I’m gonna open the vote on A and B for approval. Your worship could be motion be run out first, please.

Just gonna make sure the version that I’m reading is the same version in the E-Scribe counselor. Just one sec, we’re just gonna load the mover and seconder in to the, okay. The parts A and B of the motion as in parts A and B of the motion. So this is the motion.

So if you’re looking on your list of motions in E-Scribe, it’s motion number two, voting on. That the following actions be taken with respect to the master accommodation plan and alternate work strategies, A, civic administration, be directed to amend the current AWS in the planning and development and building services areas and develop a new model where employees are in the workforce for days a week and remote one day a week no later than the end of Q1 2024 and B, the implementation of the other corporate alternative work strategies in service areas other than those noted in part A as above, as outlined in the staff report data, July 19th, 2023, B continued. That’s the motion we’re voting on. Okay, I’m gonna open that for voting.

Ready, votes, yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries nine to six. Okay, and now we have C. So we’ll put C in the floor for approval.

We’ve already had debate. So I’m gonna open C for voting as soon as it’s ready. Ready, votes, yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

So back to the deputy mayor for the, to continue on with the 19th report of SPPC. To continue on, the only item left to deal with on the 19th report of SPPC is item five. That’s 4.3 from your committee agenda. That is the consideration of appointment to the London Hydro Board of Directors for requiring two members and Councilor Ramanas to have this dealt with.

Thank you. Go ahead, Councillors. Thank you and through you. I was asked by London Hydro as part of the process that they undertake to at this time ask for a deferral so that they may do the due diligence that they do with board members as you may be aware, there are additional requirements for members that sit on London Hydro and they have also their own processes which they verify the information that’s provided in the application from the candidates that they get agreement from the applicant once they have been nominated by the committee to then go through that process and verify the information.

So I’m looking to, for deferral and, or yeah, to August to the next meeting so that they have time to go through their process. So since this doesn’t need to go back to committee, they’re just looking to give them time. You’re asking for a deferral of Council approval of this to the August 29th meeting of municipal council. Yes, that’s correct.

Okay, and Deputy Mayor Lewis is willing to second that. Okay, so on this item, the motion is to basically defer this to the next council meeting. That means it’s not defeated, it’s not approved, it’s just a decision we would make on August 29th. I will open debate on that since it’s moved to the second, Councilor Trossa.

Am I correct through the chair? Maybe the question is to the chair. Am I correct in my assumption that this is wholly a decision that is made by this council? I’ll answer that the answer is yes.

So yes, we get to decide. So there’s nothing in any statute or other superseding regulation that would be a higher level of law than this city council’s resolution that would bind, that would prohibit us from finishing this process. So you’re asking a question about statutes? I’m not gonna answer that one.

I’ll go to either the clerks or Mr. Card to answer that. So, okay, we’re gonna go to Mr. Card about any statutes that exist that would outline who has the authority here.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’m pleased to confirm your answer. I’m not aware of any statute that would restrict the appointment. Thank you, Councilor.

Any other discussion on this? Councilor Van Mierbergen, you can go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. No, I wholeheartedly support the deferral, which is moved by Councilor ramen.

It makes sense and it’s very practical and it will result in a better decision. Thank you. Any other speakers? That’s a privilege.

I just wanna mention that I will support it as well. I wouldn’t say in terms of I wouldn’t use words, better decision, but I certainly would say the two candidates that were brought to the council, there was a little bit of a different deferral background regarding these two and there wasn’t about this one because this one wasn’t recommended by. So I will certainly support this referral for the next meeting. Thank you.

Yeah, and so colleagues, I just wanna be clear. We’re not rendering judgment on the committee’s decision, nor the candidates. We have a recommendation from committee and the motion is to this not be decided today, but still be decided by municipal council on August 29th. So I’m not gonna presume whether people wanna change things or not, I’m just, there’s a request for more time and that’s motion on the floor.

So I would ask, maybe we don’t go back and comment on the candidates. This is a deferral. If you wanna comment on the candidates, defeat the referral and debate the candidates today. So that’s the process.

Any other question or comment on the deferral? Okay, I’m gonna open that for voting. Any votes, yes? Posing the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

And that completes the 19th report of the Street Chief of Priorities and Policy Committee. Okay, two and a half hours in, I would like to see if colleagues would like to take 15, 20 minute break. Yeah, okay, 20 minutes. Yeah, I’d say two and a half.

Anybody wanna move a motion? Okay, five minutes? Listen, I’m not moving a motion. Someone put up their hand and move a motion.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’m gonna move a 10 minute recess. 10 minutes move, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Any discussion on 10 minutes?

I’m gonna do that by hand. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries.

Okay, 10 minutes, it’s 3.35. You got till quarter two. Okay, please be seated. All right, we’re at 8.2, which is the 12th report of the Planning Environment Committee.

I’ll turn it over to Councillor Layman to present the report. Thank you, Mayor, nothing better to do than get back up and stand for another three hours. I’m pleased to present the 12th report of the Planning Environment Committee. So far, I’ve had requests for a number 16 regarding 599 and 601 Richmond Street to be pulled and number 19 regarding 39 Carpara Street to be pulled.

Okay, so 16 and 19 separate so far. Other items, colleagues might want separate. Councillor Stevenson, I think, okay. So I don’t have anybody who wants something different.

So 16 and 19 are separate. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you. So I’d like to put all items excluding 19 and 16 on the floor and I’ll move them.

Okay, moved by the committee chair. Any discussion? Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, if I may, your worship.

I just wanna make a comment on number three, which is the Byron Gravel Fit Secondary Plan coming to committee. Whereas we’re gonna start the public engagement. There’s already been a lot of public engagement. As you know, the gravel pits are quite a unique part of our city and there is a high interest public wanting to know how we’re gonna go forward.

Looking forward to that information, public participation meetings going forward, but also when the final secondary plan comes back to us, we will then go forward with how that looks, development, and also working with the parks and right master plan for the area as well. I do wanna make another comment about the comprehensive review that’s been undertaken to that’s number 17. Really looking forward to that. That’s a, going to be quite an undertaking and looking for that report coming back to us.

Thank you. Any other comments, Mr. Stevenson? Thank you, just a quick comment on number 12.

Very grateful to medallion from bringing this forward. We really need the housing. So very grateful for that and for the development in Old East Village. There is concern by some of the residents that live in the current medallion towers around some of the issues in that building.

I just want to recommit that I wanna work with them to try to resolve those issues. I also wanna work with medallion around how we can improve some of the societal issues that are in that area. So this isn’t a one or the other. This is a both.

We get to improve the living conditions, improve the situation around the area and welcome the building development. Okay, anyone else? Don’t serve, McAllister. Thank you and through you in referencing number eight in terms of 689 Hamilton Road.

I just wanna thank staff for their efforts in terms of moving this forward. Just wanna convey from my ward that this is a derelict building which has caused a lot of grief in the neighborhood and they’re very appreciative that this process is moving forward. So I just wanna once again thank the staff and planning for moving this forward. Thank you.

That’s McAllister. Is that my favorite property that you and I talked about once? Yeah, okay. All right.

Okay, any other speakers? No, okay. And then we’re gonna open that motion for voting. Any votes, yes?

Opposing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. That’s a layman. Thank you, Chair.

To put number 16 regarding 599, 601 Richmond Street on the floor. That’s on the floor. I see Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes.

I had asked to have this item pulled as when we were at PAC and we were discussing the movement from eight floors to 12 floors. There’s a lot of discussion about losing affordable units because that was under the old bonus zone. And since we don’t do bonus anymore, any new changes would supersede that and we had the potential to be losing affordable units in that building, something that I think all of us are very concerned about. And that being said, the developer did commit to working with staff to come back with some affordable housing units.

In my ideal version, I hope it’s seven because that’s what we would get with the lift to 12. What the original commitment for eight was, was for four additional or for four affordable units. Regardless, I circulated a motion asking staff to let us know when the discussions between the applicant and municipal housing development begin and when they conclude. And I believe everyone received that via email and it will probably be pulled up shortly.

But to reiterate, I think as we move forward, we definitely want to be intensifying and densifying. We’ve seen a lot of those kinds of applications at PAC. I think that given that this is the first where we kind of would overrule our bonus zone and therefore the affordable housing units, we want to be sure that we’re still receiving those. And as much as I appreciate that applicants are going to be sending that via email or maybe verbally committing to it, I would like something slightly stronger and this allows us to monitor and make sure that those units are getting placed into those buildings.

So I’d like to put that on a floor as an amendment for this application. Sure, could you just read the amendment for me? Sure, sorry. Civic administration be directed to report back with a status update on the affordable housing agreement for 599-601 Richmond Street.

When discussions between the applicant and municipal housing development begin and when they have concluded. Okay, I seconded for that. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Okay, that’s moved and seconded.

You’ve heard the Councilor’s rationale. Any other speakers on that addition? Okay, we’ll go to Councillor Layman and then Councillor Hopkins. The worship my question is, is it just on the amendment or is it on the item?

So this has to be amended and attached to the item because the item passed for committee, this is in addition to it. So we’re not voting on the whole thing, we’ll have to have an as amended motion as well. So if there’s no discussion on Councillor Frank’s addition, I can open that for voting. How do you vote yes?

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay, so now I need to move on to seconder for as amended, Deputy Mayor Lewis is willing to move. I need a seconder, Councillor Frank. So now the committee’s recommendation with the addition, so the as amended motion, any discussion?

Yes, Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I did not support this planning and I will continue not to support it. I know we’ve probably made up our minds here already.

I’m not about to try to change your minds but what I would like to point out that the application was already agreed to with eight stories. We’re going up to 12. You’re allowed and clear the fit, the intensity and the lack of affordable housing is gonna be gone if we go to 12. I just wanna speak to that.

I also believe in supported staff’s recommendation which was to refuse it because it does not meet provincial policy statement. It does not meet our London policies. I know we’ve changed that around and says that it is, we are meeting at those policies but I’m not convinced that we are. So I am supportive of staff’s recommendation but more important, we’re going to probably see more of these types of applications on applications that we’ve already approved in the past, especially when it comes to the affordable housing part.

And as we change these applications going forward, we do lose the affordable housing component on it. It’s great, I appreciate Councillor Frank’s amendment to make sure that we at least know what is gonna happen with the affordable units in this building but there’s still nothing guaranteeing that there will be affordable units in this building as we move forward. So with that, I know lines are already made up but I will not be supporting it. Councillor Ferrer.

Thank you, thank you Your Worship and through you. I spoke to this at PEC and I was against removing that or redoing the zoning. I wanted to really push towards the staff recommendation because in the end, we can’t be putting ourselves in this position where we could have other applicants in the future requesting the same thing, citing this as a precedent to remove the affordable housing provision. We’ve already done the work.

We put a lot of work into this one too. I look back into the records and I did see that there was a good debate on that as well when the time came. And I really feel like the position we’re putting ourselves into is not a position that we should be in, especially considering we just had an election and we had a lot of people speaking about affordable housing and the fact that we need more affordable housing. If you look to the numbers of how many affordable housing units are on paper right now that have yet to strike ground, the number is not that high.

Even though this is four affordable housing units that was attached to this zoning, I would strongly urge you to reconsider if you’re thinking about going with the motion the way it is now because we can’t put ourselves in that position. Speaking to residents that I spoke to in the area, a lot of the residents are quite upset with the direction that we’re going with what we had on Peck, not only with the density and the height and the fit in the form, but it’s the affordable housing portion that is the big one for me. So that’s why you didn’t see me support Councilor Frank’s motion. I appreciate that, but I won’t be supporting the motion as it is right now.

I would like to go towards staff recommendations. So I really hope that we vote this down and bring staff’s recommendation back up because we can’t put ourselves in this position. We are really treading in very troubled waters if we do that. So thank you.

I have Councilor Frank on the as amended motion. In case you’re wondering why she’s speaking again. Thank you, yes. And I appreciate the perspectives of both my colleagues.

I think we’re already in very troubled waters with a lot of the provincial legislation changes that have come through. We are no longer able to do a lot of things that we used to do including bonus zones, which got taken away. And so I do know that the original eight story building for this location was in a bonus zone and that by going to 12, we’re superseding that agreement. Again, it is my understanding and we have a submitted letter from the applicant that they are gonna still commit to the at least four.

Again, I’m hoping for seven. And this is why I wanted to add my amendment because I’m hoping to see again in the next year if this developer does not provide at least four, again, I would like seven, but at least four, I will stop approving applications from this developer moving forward. I’m very serious but affordable housing. So if the developer community would like to make these changes, would like to still say that they’re gonna commit to affordable housing units, that will, in my opinion, it needs to happen.

I can’t have somebody say it a year later, just turn back on their word and not do it. But unfortunately, we’ve put in this position by the province where all we have are applicants words on an email or on a phone call. We don’t have the legal mechanism right now to force them to build affordable units. It just is not available to us.

So in absence of any kind of legal framework where we can compel and force, although, again, also, I think that council remember, one of my motions was in our community improvement plans, I’d like to put in an amendment where if they take incentive money, they have to build affordable. That is something we have control over ‘cause we have control over who we give our incentive money to. So I’m very committed to building affordable units. I do not see us approving a 12-story building as losing them personally because we have that commitment and I want to follow up on it with staff.

And again, if we see developers who are making these commitments in a year later building and not including affordable housing units, I think there will be consequences. And I put that out to the development community. If anyone is here who would like to pass it along to their members, that would be great. But if there are people that are gonna go back on their word, then I think that this council will pay very close attention to that.

So that is why I am supporting a 12-story building ‘cause I do think 12-story downtown makes sense, if not there, then where. But I do hear my colleagues’ concerns and I think that we are trying to mitigate and address it by following up and seeing that applicants are holding true to their words. So thank you. Councilor Troso.

May I ask staff, is there no legal device that you have in your planning tool kit that could guarantee that we get these units as a matter of their ability to proceed with this project? Mr. Mathers. Through your worship, we don’t have any device available.

To us at this point, if the city solicitor would also like to make a comment, if he has any other thing, any element that I might not be considering, be happy to hear from him as well. Mr. Card, do you have anything yet? Sorry, your worship’s a little slow on the sponsor.

No, I don’t have anything substantive to that. I would say though that we’re moving away from the legal agreement requirement to include the affordable housing at this time because we do not have the power, but we are looking at incentives that we are able to offer through zoning by-law enticements. I think it is if we can identify the type of units that we would like to see built, that will assist in the provision of those kind of units, even though we can’t control the rent that they go for. So we’re looking at that.

We’re also looking at approaches in the rethinking zoning by-law that would facilitate the equivalent construction of affordable units of certain types. So I mean, those are things we can do when we are doing inclusionary zoning as a ways down the road. We may be able to reinstate our former bonusing approach under that mechanism, but for the time being, no, we don’t have any legal right to control the rents. May I ask then, through the chair, why can’t you just simply place a restriction in the deed as a covenant?

I’m sorry, a restriction in- You know the deed? Oh, in the deed? A restrictive covenant in the deed. It’s a binding contract that requires them to do that.

Well, we could, but that would be voluntary. I mean, yes, if an owner wanted to get into an agreement of that type voluntarily knowing its rights, I suspect that that could be enforced. But I think there isn’t any mechanism that would compel an owner to do that at the moment. Well, I’m glad that you, I’m glad that we agreed that it could be enforced.

And I think there is a mechanism to compel the owner to do it at the moment. They’ve agreed that they’re gonna do this. And we write something that’s gonna protect us in the deed. Why would we not do that?

I’m not gonna have Mr. Card answer that because I think that’s a question for council. Why would we not do that? So, yeah.

  • Okay, through the chair. Why would we not do that? You’re speaking to your colleagues. Yeah.

  • Yeah. Okay, thank you. Other speakers, oh, wait, sorry. I have Deputy Mayor Lewis.

I’ll look for other speakers on the list. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m gonna speak to both that. And the idea that we’re losing units that were approved under the old bonus thing regime, the very simple reason and the very simple answer is, we have no power to compel a builder to build.

So yeah, they have the zoning. They can sit there and build nothing. And we get zero units. And we have numerous properties approved by the last council.

When bonus thing was still in effect, where no shovels are in the ground. So those units appear to have been agreed to in our inventory, but they don’t exist. No one’s living in them. So we have to be practical about whether we are building things or whether we are making a wish list of things we would like to have that actually results in nobody putting a shovel in the ground and not building anything.

It was mentioned that this doesn’t comply with the Provincial Policy Statement. And Councillor Hopkins, of course, has her opinion. I have a different opinion. And that’s the thing.

The Provincial Policy Statement can be read subjectively. Goals of the Provincial Policy Statement and key directions in it include efficient use and management of land and infrastructure, provision of sufficient housing to meet the changing needs, including affordable housing, opportunities for economic development and job creation, appropriate transportation, water, sewer, and other infrastructures needed to accommodate the current and the future needs of the property. This application checks all those boxes. So we can have differences of opinion on whether or not it meets the Provincial Policy Statement because it is subjective.

Councillor Hopkins could pick out two or three things in the Provincial Policy Statement. I’m sure that she could say I don’t feel it does meet those. And that would be a subjective opinion as well. But that’s the reason I supported this at committee.

That’s the reason I’m supporting it going forward. And that’s the reason that I am very much aware of the language in there that says, it doesn’t say our staff recommend and interpret it to meet the Provincial Policy Statement. It says not withstanding the recommendation of our staff. Council is of the opinion that it meets the Provincial Policy Statement.

So I think that it’s important that it makes that really clear because this is not, we are not changing our staff’s recommendation. The staff have made their recommendation. Notwithstanding that, we are recommending something different as is our prerogative at council. Other speakers.

Councillor, you’ve already spoken, you’ve already spoken. You gotta move it amendment when you speak the first time. Other speakers. With that, there’s a moved and seconded as amended motion.

So I’m gonna open that for voting. Any votes, yes? Councillor McAllister, closing the vote. Motion carries 12, three.

Chair Lehman. Thank you, Chair. I will put number 19 regarding 39 Carfare Street on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor.

I’ll look for any comments on that. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I asked for this one to be pulled as well ‘cause I was hoping to vote separately on the recommendation from committee.

So I’m just wondering if that could be pulled up and part to be obviously I’m very supportive of, which is having the applicant work with staff to discuss the various components of the easement agreement and to work collaboratively on resolutions on various outstanding items that we’ve heard about. The application that came to us at PEC was specifically for the roof, although we did have lots of other discussions. I’m hoping to vote on the roof separately. In my opinion, and based on what I’ve heard from staff, staff are simply asking for more than two quotes.

Currently, what was provided was one quote for $130,000 Wood Roof. The second quote was for, I think, a $21,000 asphalt roof. Staff are requesting a couple more quotes to be able to make a better deliberation. I think this is entirely reasonable.

I replaced my roof seven years ago. I got three quotes and I’m not under any contractual obligation for an easement agreement. I don’t have heritage status, but I think three quotes at minimum is fairly standard. We require it even for our own procurement policies to best my knowledge unless there’s unusual procurement, but we require at least three.

So I think just simply asking for more than two quotes to be able to make a decision and a deliberation on the roof seemed reasonable to me. So I also think that we had heard from staff and I don’t know if everyone listened to PEC, but one of the questions I asked was about heritage alteration permits. At PEC, we receive a lot of, we receive refusals. So staff do a lot of work to work with collaboratively with applicants to try and resolve issues before they come to PEC.

90% of heritage alteration permits are approved. We don’t really see that work because it happens at the staff level that doesn’t come and make its way to us. There’s only a couple of things that would trigger us seeing a heritage alteration permit. I think given that information, I do know that they are happy to work with applicants to try and find a mutually beneficial agreement and arrangement and so I think in this case, if they’re given a couple more quotes, they could have a discussion.

I think in no way and I think in the media, it’s been kind of stated, staff are forcing the applicant to put a $130,000 roof. That’s not true. Staff one more quotes. So I think it is entirely reasonable just to refer this back and have staff work with the applicant to have a couple more quotes, have some discussions.

And you know what? At the end of the day, they might even come to us and say Nashville roof is fine. There’s no alternatives that match the look, the feel that are within a reasonable cost estimate, but we simply don’t have that information. So I would like to vote on that separately given that information, thank you.

Okay, so I see in the motion there’s a part A, a part B and some it being noted, so you want B dealt with separately, but A and the it being noted are okay together? Sorry, I just want to vote part A separately from part B. Like yeah, is that me? Yeah, the it being noted are received communications from a bunch of staff, it being further noted that any written in oral submissions, so I think we can put the it being noted with the A, I don’t think it impacts the part that you’re concerned about.

So, a and the it being noted and B separate. Other speakers, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, although I’m not a voting member, I did attend the planning committee meeting and I did speak out there. In the eight months that I’ve been in council, I noticed that actually I have a quick question for staff.

Were there extra quotes added to the PEC agenda or at the PEC meeting? ‘Cause I recall there being additional ones. Go ahead. Yes, Chair, yes, that was correct.

There’s one additional quote. Thank you, so there are three quotes and in terms of the roof, the roof is leaking and so a deferral, I’m not going to support that. It’s a heritage building, it needs a roof repaired. I think we’ve dragged this on long enough and what I spoke out at PEC was or a planning committee meeting is in the eight months that I’ve been on council.

There have been several heritage issues that have hit the media that really don’t have a good look. Like they don’t seem reasonable to the public. It looks like we are not serving. Like this city council and city staff are supposed to be serving the people and so we’re protecting the heritage that the people want and we’re doing a good thing.

And when the public response is that we’re deemed to be looking like we’re being unfair, we’re being unreasonable. I think it’s a time to maybe take a look at our heritage policies and make sure that it’s in alignment with where we’re at right now in terms of economic and financial times. $130,000 roof and wanting to get involved at this level and delaying the work. I don’t think that’s what the people want.

I don’t think that’s what their taxpayer dollars were intended for and so I will be supporting the motion here. I will be advocating on behalf of the homeowner and other homeowners who have heritage properties and want to be proud of them and not be anxious and nervous about what city hall is going to impose upon them. Yeah, other speakers, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, I didn’t support B at planning but I am going to speak to A, for me A wasn’t a compromise.

Staff recommendation was to refuse. And I agree, Councillor Stevenson makes a really good point when it comes to how many applications or challenges that we are seeing with heritage at planning in particular the past number of months. For me being on planning and being on council for a number of years, I am really amazed that we are here having to delve into the weeds of making these decisions. I think it should remain with staff.

I’m not the expert, it’s that simple. But here we are, it was to refuse the recommendation. I know the advisory group, they were sort of not exactly, it wasn’t tied but it was a very even vote on recommending dealing with the roof. So we’re kind of caught here.

And again, we’re not the experts and I’m not even going to stand here and proclaim I know everything there is about heritage. When it came to A, I found that as a compromise, I’m okay with that one. With B, if you read in the report, staff wanted to work with the applicant to get more information, more quotes to look at a Nashville roof or a composite of some form. So I would suggest that we continue to encourage the applicant to work with staff when it comes to be.

So on A, I’ll be supporting it. On B, I will not be supporting. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

So I did support this committee and I’m encouraging colleagues to support it now in its entirety. Yes, we do have a number of applications that come forward to us where staff are recommending refusal. We’re weighing our prerogative as council as to whether or not to accept those. There was extremely good evidence presented by the applicant at committee that this home has for decades had asphalt shingled roof under the wood shake that was put on it to make it appear more heritagey in my colleagues’ esteem words across the way there.

But the applicant even pointed out that at one point, a wood shaker roof would have been illegal under London bylaws because after a fire that destroyed an entire neighborhood, now we’re going back more than 100 years, but council actually outlawed wooden roofs. There was a bylaw put in place to prevent that. So if we’re talking about restoration to the original heritage date, even if we had evidence that there was a wood roof on there at one point in time, at one point in time, the owner would have had to have not put a wood roof on. There was a number of other discrepancies in the heritage easement that the applicant brought forward, which is why there’s the encouragement to continue to work with staff to look at some conditions in the heritage easement.

But the roof is leaking. And I think we’ve all seen heritage demolition by neglect. And I think we’ve seen and we’ve heard two quotes were submitted as councilor Stevenson asked a third quote was submitted. I think we need to let the applicant repair the roof.

And I think any of us would agree $130,000 is not a fair price. Now, the third quote was not presented to us in our planning report. So we didn’t see that exact number, but I continue to support allowing that roof to be repaired. And we’ve said this at Peck numerous times, and I think Councilor Frank and I have to find a way to develop a motion to provide some direction to staff.

I think one of the reasons that we’re increasingly seeing these is the cost associated with replicating exact materials. As well as she and I have discussed in the past, the climate impact of choices and materials used as well. I think that heritage has some value in particular sites. I’m not a fan of heritage conservation districts, but I do think that there are buildings worthy of park forward designations.

That said, I think we have to be realistic as we move forward into the future, but what kind of repairs we can realistically be making, asking owners to make if we wanna preserve the character of these. And if that means newer modern materials to do so, so that the building itself has integrity moving forward, I’m fine with that. I hope too it can look heritagey, but I’m not gonna get hung up on the materials. I think in this case though, with longstanding evidence that a asphalt roof has been there for a long, long time, prior to the previous owner putting a wood shake over top of that, I think it’s reasonable to allow the applicant to replace that asphalt shingle roof with a new asphalt shingle roof.

Councilor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A question through you to staff.

Councilor W. Mayor Lewis just touched on it as I was going through the heck added agenda, just recognizing not the best at skidding right now. Was that third quote ever public or was it always just alluded to through the conversations? Go ahead.

Through you, Chair, actually I received confirmation from staff, it actually was information, it wasn’t a specific quote, but the idea was to say that they were looking at exploring different options. Thank you for that. I appreciate as a museum conservator by training and the heritagey issues that, as we’ve said, have been coming forward more recently with just the supply availability and pricing. Realizing this roof is currently leaking, potentially causing further and more expensive damage that could always result in some structural issues as well.

The owner’s theme is very engaged with trying to keep this property in good condition and as part of our heritage in the city. I’m tending to support what’s on the floor this evening, though thinking that as Councilor, some of us have some potentially some work to do behind the scenes with our wording and direction to help staff have a little bit more leeway and changing some wording to make sure that residents can keep their properties up with heritage as a nation the best they can within reasonable budgets. Thank you. Okay, other speakers, and I apologize.

I might have seen a hand out of the corner of my eye, but I missed it, so I don’t, Councilor Trossell. I always like to ask this to the Chair, to the staff, I always like to ask this, ‘cause I don’t like to get caught in a deadline track. If you continue to work with the applicant on this, are we running any risks of us macking up against any deadlines that would be prejudicial to our position? Go ahead.

Through you, Chair, we’re at an August 13th deadline, so we would need an extension, and there is a language that we could have an extension. And through the Chair, that extension would be in writing and in your considered opinion binding on both parties? Through you, Chair, we would need a mutual understanding agreement that the applicant also is supportive of that approach. So I have no objection to getting that agreement.

I wanna make sure that if you get that agreement, look, you’re the expert on this, and I’m asking you the question, so I just wanna express my concern that I don’t wanna lose the benefit of trying to work out with the property owner in good faith and have that come back legally and bite us, ‘cause we haven’t done that. So with the understanding that that binding part would be there, I don’t see a problem with trying to continue to work things out, but I cannot and will not support the rest of the application. And I wanna speak to the question that was raised by one of the Councillors, which was basically along the lines of, this isn’t a good look, and we’re supposed to be enforcing the Heritage Act here. And not only are we supposed to supposedly, not only are we supposed to be enforcing this act, but there’s that extra and above aspect of the easement here, which imposes, if I understand the situation and please correct me if I’m wrong, the easement imposes even further an additional obligations on the owner, on an owner and owner who, let’s face it, if you’re gonna, this is not like just going down to the store and buying a bag of chocolates.

I mean, if you’re buying real estate, you have real estate professionals looking at these things and a heritage easement has a very particular meaning in the law and it imposes additional obligations. And that’s for the general public, much less if you’re a real estate professional yourself. So whether or not there’s a good look, we have to try to enforce this law. And at this city council wants to make a determination that, yeah, heritage isn’t important, we’re better off just letting property owners do what they want and things will fall where they fall.

That’s a political decision. We can make it sub would be a very controversial political decision, but I’m not ready to allow our heritage protections to be dissipated property by property because I just don’t think it should. So I can’t support this. Thank you.

Councillor Cuddy. Thank you and through you, your worship, I’m advised by the applicant that there were actually were three quotes submitted to staff. The first was Murray Shaw roofing. The second was David off roofing.

And the third was Heather and little roofing. So there were three quotes submitted. I don’t know any more than that, but I thought I would bring that to council’s attention. Thank you.

Any other speakers on this? So I’ve been asked to divide this into the A piece with the being noted and then the B separately. So the first vote that we’ll have is on A and the other remaining components of the motion and then we’ll vote on B second. So I have A presented by the chair and we’ll open that for voting.

How do you vote, yes? Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, and now we’ll have the vote on B. So still moved by the community chair and B is just by itself now.

So I’ll open that for voting. How do you vote, yes? Opposed in the vote, motion carries 11 to four. Okay, now, okay.

Generally, and I should have said this at the start when there was a crowd, we don’t usually clap or boo or anything like that, people make decisions one way, people make decisions another way, some people agree, some people disagree, but we want everybody to feel comfortable in the debate and discussion. And that includes people in the gallery who may disagree with positions. So appreciate that people like to express their opinions and their feelings, but we generally would not do that here. So I just wanted to outline that.

And with that, I think, Chair Layman, are you your report complete? Despite your admonition against applause, my back and legs are plotting right now, I am finished. Right, 8.3 is the 14th report of Corporate Services Committee, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

My back and legs tell a different story. However, I’m happy to put the 14th report of the Corporate Services Committee on the floor. I am going to advise that on item, sorry, I lost my numbering here ‘cause my device is running out of battery juice. The consideration, so this is item nine, the consideration of appointments to the London Advisory Committees.

Committee was unable to make recommendations on several of those appointments. So I’m gonna suggest that nine be pulled to be dealt with separately. I’m also going to ask that item 14, the Council Policy Manual Review 2023, be dealt with separately as well. Not being made aware of anything else that needs to be dealt with separately.

Unless Councilors are of a different opinion, I am happy to put the balance of the report one through 13, excluding nine on the floor. Okay, would anybody like anything else dealt with separately? Then, committee chair has put that motion forward with those items. He’s identified the items we’ll deal with separately.

So if there’s no, actually, is there any discussion on any of the items that are before us? Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Your Worship. I would like to make a comment on number eight, 2.8, which is the update to AMO.

I was at corporate, spoke to the advocacy that AMO is doing, mainly the homeless situation that all municipalities are experiencing, but also work that they’re doing on empathy assessment, the need to bring that forward. And also the transitional blue box producer responsibility. Those have been big topics at AMO. We’ve also undertaken lots of conversations around Council Code of Conduct’s municipal insurance and public safety.

With that, I want to shout out to the AMO conference that’s happening in London, hoping that all of my colleagues will be attending, and I will guarantee you your first AMO conference will be memorable. As I in my term as chair of the large urban caucus, which allows me to get onto the executive of AMO and at the AMOU table, I will be leaving that position. I know our mayor, Vice Chair of OBCM, will be going forward with the AMOU table at AMO that we have a connection with the Ontario big city mayors and AMO. I do want to say that during my time in past three and a half years, as we have dealt with COVID, I, we have had many, many, many meetings with the provincial government.

I want to give my thanks to staff, Nix Steinberg in particular, who has assisted me. We have had one year up to 14 AMOU meetings, which ends executive meetings and AMOU at the AMOU table. So to Nix Steinberg and to Adam Thompson, their assistance and support have really allowed me to represent the city of London. I also want to give my thanks to Ms.

Livingston. I have, I’ve never forgotten the comment as we moved into COVID, the importance of municipalities staying whole. Those words have stayed with me, and I thank you for your leadership as well. So with that, that is my report.

Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. I will go to any other speakers on the number of items that are before us. Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Motion to vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Thank you, Mayor. - Thank you, Your Worship. Through you, I’m gonna suggest that we proceed in the following manner with clause nine of the report. On clause A, C, and D, the committee has forwarded recommendations to fill the vacancies on those advisory committees.

So I would like to start by moving nine A, C, and D so we can dispense with those. It is clauses B and E where the committee was unable to reach a consensus decision on the vacancies, and we can deal with those after we’ve dispense with the ones where there was recommendations coming forward. So I understand what you’re doing. The committee did make a recommendation on several of them.

There were two of them that the committee was not able to make a recommendation on. So you wanna deal with the ones where there was a recommendation first, and you wanna put all of those recommendations on the floor together. So that is appropriate. They are committee recommendations.

The chair’s gonna put the committee recommendations on the floor for those items, A, C, and D. Ready vote, yes. We’re not quite there yet. Councillor Cadi.

My apologies. We’re just, just so colleagues know, E-Scribe is still kind of hung up on the previous vote, so we just need a minute to put that out there. Apologies. Yes, the clerk is just gonna take the microphone and communicate with the other clerk.

Ms. Westlake Power, could you please close the vote and E-Scribe, I’ll try refreshing here and see if that clears the error. Thank you through the chair. That vote has been closed, so I will refresh at this end, but it may need to be the council display refreshed.

So colleagues, just so you know, why we’re doing this is your screens are fine. The screen the public sees is hung up on the last vote and displaying it, so if we have another vote, and that isn’t fixed, the public can’t see how we voted, so we’re just gonna wait a moment just to have that transparency as it’s displayed on the screen. Okay, we’re all good now, so the chair has put the items that the committee has made recommendations on, those appointments on the floor. I’ll look for any discussion before we have a vote on those committee appointments.

Okay, I don’t see any discussions, so we’ll open that for voting. Any votes, yes? Opposed in the vote on parts of A, C, and D, motion to zero. Thank you, worship.

I’m gonna proceed now with part B, and I will advise colleagues that we did conduct three votes on this. We did not reach a majority vote to fill three spots. However, through the runoff process, what we have forwarded to council is a list of four names, all of whom obtained two or more votes. The candidates who dropped off received zero or one vote.

The four names that we would suggest for a runoff ballot here are M, Ambrosio, S, Singdoll Hill, Dana Lynn, and Jay Gart, and we elect three of those four. So each councilor would have three votes in the runoff ballot. Yes, Councillor Frank. Thank you, procedurely, I’m wondering, given the original list of people to a point, are we able to pull anyone from there and see if they can be appointed to this committee?

Just give me a second, your worship, if it helps. So here’s how I’m gonna read the motion before us. Consideration of the appointments be forwarded to municipal council and it’s it being noted, the voting record. So the four who got votes, it’s just it being noted from the committee.

So I’m going to allow council to vote on all of the candidates put their names forward. That’s what’s actually loaded in the system. And so that’s the way that I’ll proceed, although a nice recommendation to try to speed it up. I think it’s probably for the best, given what the committee forwarded the committee to allow votes on all of the possible candidates.

So that’s what we’ll do. So with that then, colleagues will have all of the possible candidates available to them for disappointment. And at this time, you can make a case for a candidate before we vote, if you’d like to do that. And if you don’t, we can have some votes.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, I would like to make a case. I would love for people to consider Crispin Colvin. He’s a member of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

And I used to sit with him on actually on the Agricultural Advisory Committee. I think he’d be incredibly talented on this committee. Given that planning actually kind of absorbed the agricultural committee as well as the Heritage Committee, which I don’t think many people know. And Crispin is a farmer.

He’s actually a past Councillor, I think, in Thamesford or one of the counties. And I think he brings a lot of knowledge and understanding of agricultural issues, which we do get some zoning requests regarding that. So I would just love people to consider him on the list as well. Anyone else?

Councillor, we’ll just get your microphone and you can go ahead. I don’t disagree with what the Councillor just said through the chair. It did come up through our review of the applications of this applicant is not a resident of the city of London. And that caused some questions on the committee because on the one hand seems logical, seems like a good candidate.

But on the other hand, the application materials did say that you have to live in the city. On the other hand, the clerk accepted the application. So I just wanted to point that out to people. So I’m looking for guidance.

To the procedural question? Okay, no debating candidate again, so go ahead. Yeah, again, given the time they spend the agriculture advisory committee, more than half, 90% of the agricultural advisory committee were farmers from outside of the city. And I know we’ve changed up some of these, but I’m just wondering if perhaps we’ve lost some of that.

So I, in the past on advisory committees, we have had people that live outside the city. Okay, I’m gonna take that as a piece of information, not a debate. You’re very close to starting to make a case there. So if colleagues want to know, is it allowed?

Like, that’s a question that I can ask the clerks. And then colleagues can vote appropriately on how you want to consider that piece of information. So we just wanna check the terms of reference for the committee and the general policies to just give us a minute. Through the chair, I can advise that under the general policy for advisory committees, under section 4.3, residents of the municipality shall be invited to apply to fill the vacancy.

Ciao, I hope to repeat that. If the city clerk deemed it advisable to replace the advisory committee member, then vacancies, so this would be mid-term appointments rather than those at the beginning of the term that are handled by a striking committee. Vacancies for citizens of large or sectoral advisory committee members that will be publicly advertised and residents of the municipality shall be invited to apply for the vacancy. Councillor Stevenson.

Yes, we’re speaking on behalf of people. That was just to get a piece of information on policy and answer a question. So go ahead. Thank you.

I would just like to advocate on behalf of Jeff Gard. We just saw him here in terms of the car-free property. He’s one of the homeowners of that property. A long-time real estate agent, a lot of expertise in heritage, certainly a lot through this particular case.

And I think he’d be a valuable addition to the advisory committee. And I’m just gonna add a piece of information for colleagues because I don’t want you to do something or assume you can or cannot do something. The council policy that the clerk referenced is a council policy, it’s not a by-law. You can not withstanding that policy, appoint people who may not fall on it, but when if you elect someone doesn’t follow the policy, when we go to make the motion to appoint someone, we have to add a clause about notwithstanding our council policy on X.

So just want colleagues to know, someone wants you to vote how you’d like to vote, but there would be an additional piece if you appointed someone who was not within the city. Councillor Cuddy. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you. But I also like to add my support for Jeff Gart.

I’ve known Jeff for 30 years. The understands real estate, and understands for business community, and I think he’d be a great asset. Thank you. Okay, anyone else?

Okay, so we’re looking for three. I strongly encourage you to vote for three. And all the names will be on the list, and then we’ll proceed until we can get down to a majority of three, essentially until there’s three people left through the process. So with that, I’m gonna open the voting process.

Your Worship, can I vote verbally, please? Just give me a second. Ms. Westlake Power, are you able to enter a councilor’s verbal votes, or do we need the councilor to log into the system?

Mr. Mayor, I will be able to enter the councilor’s preferences. Councillor Cuddy, I’m just gonna have you go at the end, after I know everybody else is voted, and we’re just waiting on your vote. So I’ll do it that way, that way, we can make sure that all the other ones are in, and then your preferences can be added in, and they can be totaled.

So we’ll open the voting system here now. I’ll let you know when you can express your preferences to Ms. Westlake Power. Is it a procedural question?

Oh, so we’re gonna go until we have pre-left, yes. So people are gonna drop off as per the policy in the way that they normally would, and then we’re gonna do it again, and then there’s gonna be three left, and then at that point, we have to make a motion to actually select the individuals. Councillor Brown, Mayor Bergen. Councillor Cuddy, why don’t you go ahead while we’re waiting for Councillor Vame, Mayor Bergen to enter.

Thank you. My vote’s up for Cabraleo, Go Hill, and Guard. Thank you. Trust like Power, if you could close that vote, please.

The vote has been closed, and the following candidates have received the majority support. Mark Ambrosio, Jeff, Guard, and Sarvarender Singh Dohill. Ms. Westlake Power, could you also read off the vote?

Totals, please. Certainly. The totals are as follows. Ambrosio, 13, Anderson, zero.

Pullven, four, Dana Lynn, two, Easterbrook, three, Fen, one, Bar, two, Godwin, one. And then again, sorry, I skipped over, sorry, Mr. Guard, seven votes, Godwin, one, Dohill, 11. So I misspoke on our process, Councillor Frank, I want the clerk to explain the process for these votes, ‘cause I said we’re gonna keep voting until there’s three, and that’s not what the policy says.

So my apologies for that. So the clerk can explain how this works. Certainly, in three year worship, the selection process policy for appointing members to committee’s civic boards and commissions provides that where there are multiple candidates, or rather multiple positions to be filled by candidates. The round where it can be identified that there is a majority, then there is no need for runoff votes.

In the present case, there are identified votes for Ambrosio, Dohill, and Guard of 13, 11, and seven. The next highest candidate received four votes. Councillor Schossell. Would a majority require eight in 15 or voting?

Through the chair, there may be situations where because there are three, you’re not going to get to a 50% plus one because council members get three votes each. Meaning those are the three who are the top vote getters, and now someone can make a motion on whether or not to appoint that group. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’d like to make a motion to appoint those three.

Okay, is there a seconder for that, Mayor Lewis? The motion to appoint the three is on the floor. Councillor Schossell, go ahead. Stay be separated.

Okay, so selection process in the policy is meant to try to find some consensus on preferences. And then Councillors are to make a nomination based on that selection preferences, and Councillor has done that and proposed a slate. I am not going to share allow the slate to be broken up. If someone would like to propose a different slate, which may include some of the same individuals, you got to vote down that slate, and then put them in.

Otherwise, if we go to picking off one person at a time, we go way back to the system where people were just nominating individuals and voting for them up or down, and the whole point of the system was to avoid those singular votes but drive to a common preference. So if a slate is proposed, the slate can be approved or defeated. If a slate is defeated, it does not preclude people on the previous slate from being nominated on a new slate. As long as that slate is not identical, the one that was defeated be a new motion.

So that’s how I’m going to handle this because of the intent of the policy change. And so if Councillors don’t like this particular slate, vote it down. There would be no decision of Council yet, and a new slate could be proposed. So that’s how I’m going to proceed, and someone can challenge the chair if they don’t like that way, but I think that’s the most logical way to decide based on both the policy and the intent and reason the policy was brought into place.

So I have the slate that has been proposed before us, and I can take any discussion on that before we vote. Seeing none, then we’ll open the slate for voting. Ready, votes yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries, 13 to 2.

13 to 2, that was carried, yes. 13 to 2. Sorry, what’d you say? No, 13 to 2, so Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Your Worship, through you. I’m going to suggest we follow the same process for Clause E, let’s put the entire list on the floor for Council to vote. Okay, so we’ll do the same thing for Clause E, which are appointments to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee. So this is the point where before we put all the names up, as we just did last time, you saw how that worked.

You want to make some comments, now’s the time to make comments about particular candidates. Councillor Hopkins. Just wondering how many we voting on members. Can assist with that, Your Worship.

You’re appointing up to three this time. Sorry, my apologies, up to three. And again, I strongly encourage you to pick three. Councillor Stevenson, go ahead.

Thank you, I’d just like to advocate on behalf of Amanda Pfeffer, one of our London Police Services Officers who works in the traffic unit. I think she’d be a valuable addition. So Trossal, go ahead. Yes, my inquiry would be whether or not the policy precludes current employees, that’s a question.

But I did want to advocate on behalf of Emily Boyer who is currently the external vice president at the student government, at the University of Western Ontario. Her agency has appeared before us on several occasions and they’ve been very effective advocates for the student population and having the external, having the external vice president on the committee would serve us well. They’ve identified transit as being, transit and cycling as being one of their major issues. I also want to speak up on behalf of Christopher DeGroote who I’ve actually worked with on cycling issues for many years.

And he is one of the leading cycling advocates at the university where they’ve made great progress in terms of their work advocating for bicycle safety, pedestrian safety and bicycle storage on campus. And Chris was also one of the previous cycling advisory committee. And I think having somebody with his background and experience would serve the committee very well. So I want to raise that one question but I also want to advocate for Ms.

Poirier and Mr. DeGroote. Thank you. Okay, anyone else?

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Worship. And through you, Councilor Trusson, I agree that Emily Poirier would be an excellent candidate for this committee. She will have my support as well.

Whether this was who the Councilor was alluding to or not, I am also going to add my support to Amanda Pfeffer. The London Police Services membership are neither employees of a bargaining unit of the city of London, nor are they under our direction. They are an arm’s length agency governed by the Police Services Act, not by our Council. So I do not see a conflict there.

And in fact, I see a great deal of value in having somebody from the traffic enforcement unit be advising us on transportation. This is an integrated transportation committee. That means advice on all modes by which people get around the city and somebody who’s worked in the traffic enforcement unit is well aware and informed, I believe, in terms of the challenges that face drivers, that face pedestrians, that face transit drivers. The whole gamut is under the purview of traffic enforcement.

It is an advisory committee. They do not make binding recommendations on this Council. So I do not see where an officer serving in a volunteer capacity in this role would be an issue. I assume that if her employer had an issue with it, they would raise that with her.

And that would be up to Chief Trong to raise that if that is a concern on his part. But I will say that I do concur that Ms. Poirier is an excellent choice. And I would also like to see Ms.

Pfeffer put on this committee. So colleagues, Councilor Palosa? Yes, thank you. Sorry, we didn’t have that screen up, so I couldn’t see.

That’s okay. I would eventually interject it on my own. Just wanted to add support for Christopher DeGroote, have known Mr. DeGroote for years.

He served the city of London already on advisory committee, which was the cycling advisory committee before it was dissolved. And he wishes to continue serving, which I know was one of the things that Council discussed when we did dissolve the committee of with those on it still being entrusted if it was re amalgamated. So glad to see this name coming forward. He’s done great work in the community and for cycling.

His references also a professional engineer, but realizes how newcomers fit into the community and equity and inclusion and those vulnerable. So just letting my support to his application for your consideration, thank you. Other speakers? I’m just going to mention from the chair that in Amanda Pfeffer’s or Pfeiffer’s application, she was a member of the traffic unit among police service for many years, but she is currently working for the university in a similar role.

I still think she’s a great candidate. I just wanted to let people know that there was mentions that she is, but she was. And so why don’t people have the information before the vote? Okay, if there’s no other speakers, then we’re going to open that for voting.

And this is, you can select up to three, please try to pick three. And I’ll let you know when you can go, Councillor Cudi, not quite yet though. Thank you, Worship. Okay, go ahead, Councillor Cudi.

Thank you, Worship, Pfeiffer, Poirier, and Iso. Thank you. I suppose I’d like to pass. Thank you, through the chair, the following received the majority votes from Council, Emily Poirier, 15, Amanda Pfeiffer, 12, Anur, Iso, 10.

The additional voting record is Christopher DeGroote, seven, Thomas Lartner, zero, Tyler, Macklem, zero, Craig Power, zero. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’d like to move that we appoint those three. Okay, as your seconder for that, Councillor Layman.

Any discussion on the appointment of those three individuals? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Any votes, yes? Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Worship. Finally, item 14 from the Corporate Services Committee. This was 2.5 on the committee agenda.

This is the Council Policy Manual Review 2023. At committee, we had a very robust discussion on this. The committee approved two new bylaws to be implemented. Changes were made, or sorry, the repealing of nine were approved.

At committee, there was also under clause B, a motion to refer 49 additional review amendments back to, or sorry, to the governance working group for consideration. I know that I’m gonna be opening up debate on this, so I’m just going to put it out there. I’m encouraging colleagues to vote against the referral so that we can put the original staff recommendation on the floor. Since the Corporate Services Committee, I’ve had the opportunity to speak with our city clerk about this.

I have had a chance to have conversations with the senior leadership team about this. These amendments are not major amendments to any of our bylaws. These are primarily housekeeping items, things like gender neutral language updates to the policy from previous council direction, which includes things like the assessment growth policy, the council remuneration policy, the records management policy, how our land dedications, the mayor’s contracted staff, the mayor’s New Year’s Honors list, which just today, a note was circulated to individuals to start considering applicants for this year’s list. All of these policies in bylaw are out of date, either because of changes that need to be made around language and job titles, gender neutrality, or because the prior council has provided in an updated direction.

I’m gonna use the mayor’s New Year’s Honors list policy as an example. Mayor Holder, in the last term, added four positions for distinguished Londoners. That’s not currently reflected in our council bylaws, even though it was approved by council. This change, that’s before us today.

Point of order. Point of order, we are debating the merits of particular selected bylaws, and we should not be doing that during this procedural thing. We will have time to debate the merits of particular bylaws. I’m sorry, we will have time to debate the merits of particular bylaws, but I don’t think we should be doing it now.

And I also have to say as a matter of being the vice chair of the committee, I really would have appreciated notice that this was going to come up to be something different, because I felt very strongly at the committee, but no, I won’t talk on the merits. I just don’t think we should be discussing the merits right now, because it will be my attention to poll each one of these for a separate vote. 441 of them. Okay.

I’m gonna have both of you stop and pause for a second, both Councillors. I don’t think anyone is right or wrong here. What I see is a member of the committee saying they’d like to do a different direction than when the committee passed. So that means we can put the things that the chair is willing to put on the floor on the floor, so the parts of the motion that they’re willing to support.

If the chair does not want to put a different committee recommendation on the floor, like part B, the vice chair can put that on the floor, and then it can be voted on, debated, defeated, supported, but that’s how we’re gonna proceed. So I’ll ask the chair of the committee, if there are parts that you’re willing to support that are the committee’s recommendation that you wanna put on the floor, put those on the floor. If you’re looking to do something alternate and you don’t wanna put something on the floor, let the vice chair put the committee’s recommendation on the floor. You’ll have the opportunity to encourage us to go a different direction through the debate on that item.

So your worship, first I have to respond to the point of order, which is that I was debating the merits of a particular by-law. I am not, I was highlighting examples of the housekeeping amendments the clerks have made. That said, if the committee wants to split because the recommendations were three parts, and A, B, and C, I will put A and C on the floor first. Yes, and I’m gonna ask you to do that, ‘cause as chair of the committee, you present the committee’s recommendation.

So if you don’t want to support all the committee’s recommendation, put the parts on as chair that you wanna present, you can sit down, the vice chair can present the parts of the committee supported that you aren’t supportive of, and we’ll have it debate that way. And yes, I believe both councillors likely are moving into debate on that, and there’s a place for that, and that’s when we put that part on the floor. So I don’t think anybody’s right or wrong here. I’m not sure that was a perfect point of order, but I’m just navigating a path forward for everybody to proceed, which is my preference.

So you’re willing to put A and C on the floor, that is recommended by committee. So that is what will be on the floor first, ‘cause the committee chair can put items from the committee on the floor. It doesn’t need a seconder, because it’s committee recommendation. So I’ll have discussion on parts A and C, promoting on now.

Part B, we’ll do separate. So if there’s no one who’s looking to discuss parts A or C, those are the committee’s recommendation is up, and I’ll open that for voting. Ready, both, yes. Opposing the vote, motion carries 15 to 0, 15 to 0.

Okay, and so chair, if you’re not willing to put B on the floor. Okay, so the vice chair, if you could rise, and present part B of the committee’s report, which is the referral of the items to governance working group, you can put that on the floor for council debate and discussion on behalf of the committee. Yes, thank you, and through the chair, and with respect to bylaws and policies number one through 49, I want to put that, I want to put B on the floor, which would refer back to the governance working group, not necessarily to determine all of them, but maybe to determine which ones should go to certain standing committees, it would be a matter for the governance to determine. I don’t think it would be a good idea for us to try to enact all or part of part B, given what the corporate services committee said they would do.

You’ll recall at the corporate services committee, we did try to accommodate what the staff was telling us about bylaws that they really needed to have passed right away, and bylaws that they really needed to have revoked right away with respect to some of our equity programs, but to come in here at council and say, “Oh, well, never mind the fact that we reached a compromise “at the corporate services committee, “not to deal with 49.” And I’m not sure the deputy mayor is suggesting we deal with one through 49 here, but my positional one, one through 49 at the corporate services committee was the role bylaws in their own right, and I think we need to hear something about it. In some cases, it might be necessary to have the staff who’s responsible for it, and I hope that this doesn’t get put on the floor tonight, because I will very reluctantly, and I don’t think it will be a popular thing for me to do, but I call these separately at corporate services, and I will do it again here, because these are a lot of bylaws, and it might be that some of them are housekeeping, and it might be some of them more. So I really hope that we just send this along to a committee, we need a better process. The objection, the main objection I raised, am I okay?

Yeah, yeah, that’s just ridiculous. The main objection I raised was over the weekend, I have about 60 bylaws show up in my packet, and I’m supposed to decide what to do with them, and as much as I like to work on bylaws, I think would make sense to have maybe some subset of the governance working committee go through these, go through these, and decide which ones really can just go through quickly, and which ones need a little more discussion, but I certainly hope we’re not gonna be putting these on the floor tonight. So I am gonna really plead with this committee to just send B to the governance committee, as the committee agreed that they would do, and what I thought was a good faith compromise. I have a speakers list on this item, I have Deputy Mayor Lewis, I look for others.

Thank you, Your Worship. So as I said, I’m encouraging colleagues to defeat this, because these are housekeeping amendments. There is nothing that prevents any member of this council from bringing forward any bylaw for review of our staff at any time, comprehensive or minor. To suggest, however, that all 49 of these need to go to the governance working group, because the councilor doesn’t feel that he’s had adequate time to review them, is honestly, in my view, not respectful of other councilor’s time.

We all had the same package, we all had to make decisions about how to review it, what to assess, to move forward and what not. I pointed out, as I was speaking earlier in saying that I wasn’t supporting this, some of the examples of the bylaws that are simply language changes to bring them up to date with already approved council direction. And if the councilor chooses to call all 49 of these, should this referral fail, call all 49 of them separate, I am gonna ask the chair to make a ruling on whether that’s disrupting council in a standing committee. If there are individual bylaws that he feels need to be dealt with separately, they should be pulled to be dealt with separately.

To suggest, however, that for members in the gallery, that for members of this council, we are going to filibuster on all 49 of these by calling individual votes. I’m gonna ask the chair to make a ruling if that happens. There are a number of housekeeping amendments proposed by staff. There was appendixes attached to the committee report highlighting which ones had language changes, highlighting which ones needed to be repealed, which ones needed to be amended, which ones were new bylaws.

That was all outlined. We all have the same agendas that we have to read through. So I’m encouraging committee council tonight to let staff, let our clerks office, let the senior leadership team who have done the work to get this language right and their staff below them, get these into writing. And then if a counselor, any counselor, has an issue with any bylaw on our books that they want to have reviewed for a comprehensive review and changes, substantive changes, which through you chair, I wanna confirm with the clerks, substantive changes are brought forward individually rather than in this review process.

If you can confirm that with the clerk. Okay, go to the clerk. Thank you, through you, your worship. As indicated in the cover report, the policies are primarily minor housekeeping changes for significant policy revisions.

Those would form a separate report. As you’ll note, under section 4.4, there are a number of policies. For example, flags of city hall policy, illumination of city of London buildings and amenities policies, those are pulled intentionally and the intention is to bring forward a separate report for consideration of council with unaccompanied staff report, given that those would be substantial changes. Thank you, your worship.

So through you, I think I’ve made my point, substantive changes come forward with individual reports. Colleagues, do we really want to spend time at governance working group with all the other items that are on the agenda there, going through 49 bylaws, to discuss whether or not a gender neutral terminology or an update for four distinguished Londoners on the mayor’s new year’s honors list? Or any of these other things? Are worthy of the government’s, governance working groups, groups, revision?

You know, this is the thing. We’re asking them to be referred there. I’m not misrepresenting what’s in the motion. The motion has referred all of these to the governance working group.

Okay, no more across debate. So, finish your comments. I think I’ve made Councilor— Council wants to call a point of order. I’ll let that happen.

Yeah, I think I’ve made my point. And as I’ve indicated, I want us to vote this down so that we can approve these today and let our staff get on with their work. Councilor, you spoke, and so this better be a point of order or something. And I’m gonna listen to it before I let you speak too much.

Yes. - Go ahead. We are not— - Can you tell me what? The governance committee— - I do an appointed personal privilege or a point of order.

I’m making a point of privilege because you— Okay, that’s a point. - Use me a filibuster. And he misstated what was said at the committee. Because what was said at the committee was not necessarily that the governance committee was going to, as the committee go through all 49, but perhaps set up a working group, which I volunteered to be on, to decide which ones had substance.

And remember, he’s always saying primarily, well, there was an example of one that was already on another standing committee’s agenda. So it’s not a one of them. Okay, so please vote this down. No, no, we’re not debating.

You’ve called a point of personal privilege and your personal privilege centered around what you felt was a misstatement of your comments and particularly the filibuster language I believe you said. So I would say, I do agree that that’s probably not helpful to use the term filibustering. I will say, when I ask the counselor, if he wants to respond to the point of personal privilege, and then I’m going to make a ruling and then I’m going to move on. So there’s been a counselor who said they have a point of personal privilege on a couple of matters.

Counselor who that’s directed to can respond and then I will decide what to do next. So I will withdraw the use of the word filibuster. However, I am going to read part B. The following items be related to the council policy manual review 2023 be referred to the governance working group for consideration.

So I’m going to say, I think the inflammatory language was withdrawn. I’m going to say the point of personal privilege is dealt with. I think there is a difference of opinion on what to do next and I think that can be resolved through dialogue, debate and a vote of council. So we’re going to move on and continue with the dialogue, debate and vote of council.

I’ve had two people speak. I’ll look to see if there’s other speakers on this. Otherwise what the vice chair you can continue to stand because you’re presenting the committee’s report. I will go to Councillor Stevenson for a debate on what is presented before us, which is part B from the committee’s report on referring this to the governance working group.

Go ahead. Thank you. So my question through the chair to staff is if there was a change that we wanted to make to one of these policies, there is an avenue for us to do that without this. I just want to make sure that we’re not locking these in and if there is a change, ‘cause I know I am looking at the accountability and transparency to the public policy and I also am concerned with the, sorry, another one, the privacy policy.

So I’d just like to know. Yes, so I’m going to have the clerk answer that since it’s about process for policy change. So go ahead, clerk. Thank you, Your Worship.

And it’s quite correct that council can bring forward suggestions or proposed amendments to any policy at any time. I would just like to indicate that the report that went to CSC was in compliance with the council policy for establishing and maintaining council policies where the clerk’s takes lead in bringing forward various service area review by May 31st of each calendar year, any in an odd number. So it’s pursuant to council policy that the report came forward. But in answer to the council’s question, at any time council could direct a review of a council policy.

And would that be through the corporate services committee? Through Your Worship. It doesn’t have to go through corporate services. It could be initiated at any standing committee.

If that answers your question. Any other speakers? Okay, so what we have before us is the committee recommendation presented by the vice chair on part B, which is the following items related to the council policy manual review be referred to the governance working group for consideration and then the list of the 49 or so policies. That’s what’s before us.

If that’s approved, it’ll go to governance working group. It’s defeated, I can entertain an alternate. That is the choice before us. And we’ll open that for voting.

Councilor Cuddy, calling again, Councilor Cuddy. Councilor Cuddy will be marked absent, closing the vote. Motion is lost four to 10. Okay, so the committee’s recommendation is defeated.

I would entertain an alternate recommendation from members of council. I see a deputy mayor, Lewis had his hand up first, then councilor Stevenson, then councilor Trostoff. So go ahead, deputy mayor. I will move that the original clause be in the staff report that these items be approved is on the floor.

Is there a seconder for that? Councilor Stevenson. Okay, the clerk’s are just gonna load the original language from the committee. I see people in the speaker’s list, I’ll just remind colleagues you to speak once on every matter.

So councilor Trostoff, you’d like to speak now. You can go ahead. - I’ll go ahead. Okay, so we’ll get the language up, but it’ll be the original recommendation in the original staff report to make the relevant changes as outlined in the committee’s report to those policies that is now being put on the floor for consideration.

And we’ll get that language up. That’ll take a few minutes, but I’ll entertain debate on that. Councilor Trostoff. Okay, go ahead.

But can you turn your microphone on? Go ahead. - Yeah. I’m gonna choose my words very carefully ‘cause I don’t wanna invoke another point of privilege.

But I do feel as if it would have been collegial and nice if I had been told before this meeting that this was gonna happen because I came into this meeting thinking that this matter of part B’s 49 bylaws was gonna go through a different process. And so referring this back as in the motion failed, but I’m going to make a referral that this go back again to the corporate services committee where we can further discuss it because I don’t feel, and if I take a personal privilege hit here, I will do it. I don’t feel I’ve been dealt with in a principled way here by the chair of the committee. So I want to— - I couldn’t hear what you said.

You didn’t feel— - I don’t feel as if I’ve been dealt with in a upfront and personal good way as the vice chair of this committee who has been trying to work through this problem in good faith. So I do think this should go back to the corporate services committee with I don’t even think we need direction. I think what we’re obviously gonna have to start working through some of these. Okay, so Councilor Trossal, you can stand ‘cause you’re making a motion, is moving a referral to this matter back to corporate services committee.

Is there a seconder for that referral? I don’t see a seconder for the referral back to corporate services committee. So there’s no referral on the floor now. We have the new recommendation, do we have the language loaded in?

Yes, okay. So it’s in there, so if you want to refresh it, it’s up. I’m going to pass the chair to Councilor Lehman and I’m gonna speak on this motion. I’ll go to the mayor.

Okay, so colleagues, on this matter, I’m going to support the motion on the floor and I want to tell you why. I appreciate that Councilors have strong opinions on policy and policy development. And I fully support every member of Council who wants to make a change to one or more of our policies through the processes that are available to them. I do think, in my opinion, there’s a number of amendments that need to be made to these policies and I will be very clear, this does not preclude passing this today, does not preclude a member of Council to go through the list of Council policies, decide what ones they’d like to see a change to and bring that through a proper standing committee for either the changes directly or referral into another process to analyze those changes.

So I’m gonna support this motion because I think it allows us to deal with what is the regular every other year review of Council policies for updates, which we have directed our staff to do and that’s why it’s before us and that’s why there’s so many before us. It’s not because staff are trying to overload us with a bunch of policies, it’s because Council directed staff to do this on a biennial basis and make these changes. So I’m supportive of the changes completing that process but also will support members of Council’s rights to raise changes to the policies. Now, the changes I will decide how to vote for are not when I see them but I just wanna emphasize that I think there’s members of Council who do wanna see changes to our policies and we have processes for that and the decision today that we’re making now does not preclude anybody’s right to engage in a process of considering those changes.

Yep, Councillor. Policy change and it would be, it wouldn’t be something that a member of Council could just bring up without going through that process. Is that correct? Or is this exempt from that?

I’ll go to the clerk on that question. So pursuant to the policy that I referenced earlier through the Presiding Officer, that policy for establishing and maintaining Council policies provides a Council or the Civic Administration. So Council may identify a matter for which they wish to establish a new Council policy an existing Council policy which requires an amendment or a policy which needs to be repealed. So in situations where there is a policy that requires further amendment, that can be brought forward as a recommendation through the appropriate standing committee by Council.

And yes, these Council policies, the Council is quite correct, are enacted by by-law. However, that doesn’t preclude recommendations for future amendments to such by-laws. Councillor, I will rule against your point of order and I will hand the chair back to the mayor. Okay.

Other speakers on motion before us on the floor. Okay. So you know I’m going to open that for voting. I have a question before you take this to vote.

If there are matters on one to 49 that some of us feel definitely need more discussion and shouldn’t go through with the group, would this be the time to pull them out? Councillor Stevenson already mentioned two. I mentioned one that’s already in process before another committee. So Councillor, what’s before us is the staff recommended changes to each individual policy.

So if you want to vote against one of the staff recommended changes to each individual policy, you can pull out the one that you don’t support, the staff review changes to. And yes, you could vote against that. If you’re looking to change a policy in a different way that is not the staff recommended change to the policy, there’s nothing precluding that from happening at the standing committee and going through the process there. So I would say if someone’s going to request to vote on something separate, you’re pulling it out because you want to vote differently on the staff change to that particular policy.

So if someone would like to do that, they can, but this is not going to preclude them for making other changes in the policy at another time. I’m looking for the number, but I know for sure that there is a matter that’s on this list that is currently before the Civic Works Committee. I was deferred to the next meeting. And I want to, yeah, we’ll vote for certain.

I absolutely must take 30 out of here because that’s already been taken up by another committee. And I’m disappointed that the deputy mayor didn’t notice that. It’s what we’re talking about. Through the chair and your, no, go ahead.

I’m sorry, Your Worship. I think this has been very clear. The deputy mayor is not saying that some of these matters aren’t being dealt with by other committees. They are not the staff recommended language changes.

Other changes are being reviewed. In fact, the council redoomeration policy is at governance working group, but that is not dealing with the staff recommended language changes. The same as policy 30, which the council referred to, naturalized areas and wildflowers. There is something happening at Civic Works, but it’s not to do with the staff recommended change in the language.

It is a more comprehensive and substantive proposal to change some of that by-law. So I don’t know if the council is not understanding that the housekeeping language and the substantive changes are two different things. There are some of these policies that are in additional review as well, but that doesn’t preclude the language change. And I’m being accused of denying that these are at other committees, and I’m not doing that.

Okay, so that’s your point of personal privilege, is if you feel that someone is saying something that is not what you’re saying, and that’s true. I’m gonna say to the both the councilors, respectfully, you’re debating each other, and like you’re missing, both of you are missing, well, I’m not gonna say both of you. I’m gonna say there is some confusion about the matter before us, and I feel like two members of council may be talking past each other, and it’s getting a little bit heated. So I’m gonna say, I think there’s been multiple points of personal privilege noted.

I think that is because councils are talking to each other and making assumptions about each other’s positions, which I would prefer people don’t do. If you have a position, state your own position, don’t state someone else’s position. I’m gonna say, I have dealt with this in multiple ways, and I’m not gonna tolerate too much more. But what I will have done before we cast the vote is have the clerk clarify in a clear way, what is before us?

Because the entire policies for changes are not before us. This is a structured process that council has directed to bring forward some minor changes, and for the most part, minor changes to the policies, as a policy cleanup based on either previous council direction or changes to language or a number of other things. That’s what it’s before us. If you vote yes, those changes will be made, but there is no preclusion from a member of council if they’d like to change a bunch of other pieces of the policy.

And as was stated, there are some of these policies before other committees for other changes. None of that changes with the vote today. So if the clerk can confirm that that is where we are, or provide any additional context from what I said, then that’s it. So go ahead, clerk.

You worship, I can confirm that that is accurate. As indicated in the cover staff report, there were 189 council policies that were reviewed as a result of the council policy manual review process involving multiple service areas, many in the clerk’s office. And the results of that review were detailed in the staff report indicating the nature of the changes. So what is before council tonight is 49 of those recommended changes.

Many of them quote minor housekeeping changes, the legislative changes, minor legislative changes, administrative language updates. That is what is before council. Okay, so I’m again, I’m gonna move to the vote. I hope that’s clear for all of colleagues.

And we’re gonna vote on the sound. So the motion is moved and seconded. We’re gonna open it for voting. Councillor Frank.

Councillor Frank will be marked absent. Close in the vote. Motion carries, 12 to one. I believe from a corporate services perspective, all the matters are now dealt with.

Yes. I received a request that I know one member of council left the room for a five minute break so people can come in a break, just move a motion, councilor. Thank you, your worship, there you. All right, I’ll just do a seven minute break.

I’m moving seven minute break. You wanna move a seven minute break? Well, I want 10, but I know that we have people in the gallery waiting, so. Just move a motion.

Seven minute break. Okay, seconded. Councillor Hopkins. All those in favor of a seven minute break.

Any opposed? My motion carries. 550 is seven minutes. Seven minutes is up.

I need people to take their seats. Okay, please be seated. Right, we’re on to 8.4, the 12th report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. I will turn it over to Councillor Palosa to present the report.

Thank you, your worship. It’s a pleasure to put the 12th report. Well, not all on the floor at once. It was a four hour meeting as well, which is, I think, our longest one at Community and Protective Services.

In advance, I’ve been asked to pull items five, being 2.36, being item 2.4, and eight, being 4.2. Not sure if there’s any others I’m not aware of. Would anybody else like something dealt with separately? I’ll leave it to you, Councillor.

Thank you, I will put items one, two, three, four, seven, and nine on the floor. There was some advisory committee requests for time with staff, which staff are being able to, some of funds. And one item on note is the London Museum Board has redone their bylaws and will be seeking a Councillor appointment, which will then, after tonight, be circulated to all of Councillors to consider the information, to see if they’d be willing to serve. That’s a decision that will come back to us.

And that’s the highlights. Thank you, so the chair has put one, two, four, seven, and nine on the floor. Look for any discussion on those. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Close in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Councillor, close it. Thank you.

With committee, or Council’s indulgence this evening, I would like to do number eight being 4.2 first, being the Thames pool condition update and repair options, realizing many of our guests in the gallery this evening have been waiting for this one item. And hopefully as we dispose of this, it will allow them to leave a little bit sooner. So I’m putting item 4.2 being the pool on the floor, recognizing we had a long discussion about this at committee. There’s been some added communications in a motion made at committee that was supported, but realizing this is the Ward Councillor’s first opportunity to do something contrary to committee putting on the floor.

Okay, so you are putting the committee’s recommendation on the floor, and Councillor Frank is on the speaker’s list. Go ahead. Thank you, I appreciate this. And while I was able to attend the committee meeting, I unfortunately was unable to vote, just because I’m not on the committee, and I wanted to clarify that for some of the guests.

As folks know, and as you’ve probably received some correspondence over the weekend, and an email from the Old South Community Organization, there are lots of different perspectives on this issue, on the overall fate of the Thames pool. It’s obviously a beloved gem that we have for the city, 30% of all outdoor pool visits are there, 25,000 people use it, we all know the stats, we’ve seen them many times. So there’s a large number of reasons why people are very interested in repairing the pool, and maintaining it as an asset for the core neighborhoods of Old South and downtown as it’s within walking distance. And giving the complexity of the issue, I think that there is more that needs to be done, and we have again heard from the community that they would like us to repair it, and then continue to seek out those long-term options that we had been discussing back in April.

And that is one of the things I’m hoping to do, is to defeat this motion, and follow the motion that, the alternative motion that OSCO has circulated that I’m happy to read. That way, folks in Old South and downtown know that there’s a pool open to them potentially in 2025, 2026, that they’d be able to access, while a long-term location is being worked out for feasibility study, discussions, and community engagement, and all that good work can be done in the meantime. I understand that Deputy Mayor Lewis’ motion to offer various immediate opportunities for funding to improve the park, and finding a long-term solution for a pool is a good next option. But given the correspondence I’ve had from the community, I am hoping that we can revisit the look at repairing the pool.

I know that that was a lifeline to a lot of people in Ward 11, and they’re really hoping to have that move forward and move along, and we’re excited to see, although the two price points did increase, but they were excited to see two very viable options for repairs on the table. One question I do have through the chair to staff that I have had some communication from the community on, is I’ve been asked a couple of times if the reason why the pool failed is because of failed design or shoddy contracting in the rebuild that happened in 2010, 2011. So I’m just wondering if you could comment on that question because some members of the community feel that if the design or contracting was done differently, that we should or could have been holding those folks accountable, so I’m just hoping to get some comments from staff on that. Go ahead.

Thank you, and through you, your worship, the 2010 construction was designed and approved by Council on the requirements of that time, and understanding the site conditions and the flood patterns in 2010. Therefore, there’s been several changes in climate in geological conditions since that time that have impacted Thames Pool even more. I have Ms. Stewart on the line, and she’s happy to talk more in-depth play about the mitigation features that were included or what could not be included in the 2010 design.

Thank you. Would you like to get that answer too? Okay, okay, I’ll go to Ms. Stewart.

Thank you, through you, your worship. As was discussed at our previous committee meeting, there was a number of items that were identified that are good practices for building in a floodplain, and really it is the fact that Thames Pool is located in a floodplain and the topography of that site that makes for very challenging conditions there. So one of the mitigating measures that was suggested was to increase the thickness of the pool, and in fact, Thames Pool does have a greater thickness than is required, so it’s 205 millimeters, whereas only 150 millimeters of concrete thickness is required, so that was implemented in the 2010 design. Second point that was made was to have hydrostatic pressure relief valves, which is in the current design, built in 2010.

There are four units that allow for hydrostatic pressure relief, but what we’re acknowledging now is that with the significantly higher groundwater levels, additional relief ports would be necessary in a new repair of the pool. A third point that was suggested was to have gravity drains, to drain the excess water away from the pool. Unfortunately, the topography of that site and the design of the existing pool means that the deep end of the Thames Pool is almost at the same level as the static river level, so that gravity drainage is not a reliable draining method related to that on the fourth point was to have a method of dewatering the pool, either through passive drainage, which would be gravity fed or by using pumps. And again, with the elevation being a relatively flat topography there down to the river from the low end of the pool, sorry, the deep end of the pool, that is not an easy method to use.

If pumps were installed, we would need to have a dewatering permit to take that water away from the pool and release it into the river. There’s also the risk if you’re relying on a pump to dewater, that if you should have a power failure, those obviously wouldn’t function and there’s greater risk of pressure being built up again. And then the last point that was made in the report was that generally speaking, a pool should not be greater than four feet in depth if it’s to be built in a floodplain and of course, the community desire to have a pool that could accommodate competitive swims and diving means that the existing pool is much deeper than that four foot recommended depth. So it’s a combination of those factors, the site that we have that the pool is located in and the changing climactic conditions that have resulted in the damage that we’ve seen today.

I think I also need to reiterate though, as we’ve seen in all of the previous reports before council and in the reports prepared by our consultant. All of these are mitigation methods. There is no way to completely reduce the risk in its entirety for the pool in that location. Thank you.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. Then I appreciate the answers to those questions and I would like to just conclude my remarks, encouraging council despite the recommendation from committee to turn that down. If it is successful at being defeated, I would be advocating for the motion that has been suggested from Old South Community Organization.

They’ve worked really closely with the community to get a pulse check on what the majority of people they’re talking to would like us to do moving forward. And so I’d be advocating to council to work with the community to fundraise for their repairs, repair the pool. And while understanding that that work can occur and ideally hopefully be open for 2025, maybe 2026, depending on construction timelines, most people I talk to have come around to the understanding that it is not a good long-term location for a pool, but still would like us to repair it so that they have something that is within a closer timeline to being open so that people who have kids now are ideally being able to use the pool. So I think I’ve circulated maybe the alternative motion to some staff, but I’ll send it over to the clerks.

That of course is contingent on overturning this item. So I’ll leave it in council’s capable hands, but want to reiterate as a word counselor, I have heard a variety of different perspectives, but the one that still keeps coming back over and over is people would like us to repair the pool so they can enjoy it for a couple more years, understanding that it’s not a good long-term location, but still would enjoy having, you know, hopefully another five, eight, 10 years of access to that good location and not having to get in their car and drive to a new location somewhere in the city yet to be determined. So I’ll leave that with folks. Okay, thank you.

I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next on the list. Thank you, Your Worship. And I’m going to start by saying thanks to Councillor Frank for the very productive discussions we’ve had back and forth together on this issue. I am going to ask colleagues to support the committee recommendation.

And through you, I want to start by asking our staff and I believe Ms. Smith can answer this for us. How close we were just last weekend to having to open Fanshawe Dam and flood in the along the Thames River corridor in the downtown? Go ahead.

Thank you. And through you, Your Worship, as we know the significant rain events that happened and the impact it had on the Thames River and Harris Park, we were just a couple inches shy of having to evacuate the Thames, to evacuate Harris Park during our rock the park series. So that’s the situation, folks. Here we are in late July.

We’re not even talking about the spring floods now with the snow melt. We’re talking about late July, extreme weather events, and we were very, very close to maximum capacity of Fanshawe Dam and having to dump that water downstream. There is no guarantee that money spent on a repair will even allow the repair to be finished before another flood puts us right back to where we are today. And in fact, probably in worst shape if we’re in the midst of a repair when a flood event happens.

I’m not an engineer, so I’m not gonna presume that a flood in construction is going to make it even worse, but I would imagine it would. So the alternate recommendation that came before committee was to take the money, the lower cost repair option that was in the staff report and use that to provide the community some other amenities right now. And to start undertaking a feasibility study and specifically in working with the word counselor, I did identify two parks that are in Ward 11 or immediately across the road from Ward 11 in Murray Park and Roan Tree Park because I agree that the neighborhood should have an amenity. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily gonna be in the same location, but if we can locate it roughly in the same geography of Ward 11 as this current pool is located, I think that’s a reasonable position to land in.

But if we’re gonna spend money on repairs, then we’re not gonna have that money to make other amenity improvements in the neighborhood. And if we spend that money on repairs and we end up back at square one because the next spring, we have a flood that again, floods that Thames Park area and the pool, or even next July, we have an area that floods, we’re not talking about a 2025 opening, probably not even talking about a 2026 opening at that point, we’re talking about an indefinite and probably permanent closure at that time. I think we have to come to the realization that it’s time that we say goodbye to Thames pool, that we take the money that we could spend on a temporary repair and given what we just heard, I don’t think we’re gonna see five or eight years or 10 years. If we got one or two years, we might be lucky because we are experiencing more extreme weather events.

So let’s invest in the community in a responsible way with some immediate amenities and let’s start the ball rolling on a new location. The motion direct staff on a feasibility study for two other city owned green spaces in or right adjacent to Ward 11, I think that addresses the location piece. In the short term, yes, we will have to accommodate, but through you to our staff, are we providing swim passes or transportation to other pools or even to the Boys and Girls Club or the YMCA to that neighborhood currently? Go ahead.

Thank you and through your worship, like we did last year, we are continuing to distribute swim passes, we have distributed 1,300 swim passes to those impacted and those users who usually would utilize TEM school. And we are offering bossing twice a week from two different spots, Soho and Old South to the South London community indoor pool. And just to clarify, are those swim passes, I understand they’re redeemable at YMCA and the Boys and Girls Club as well? Thank you and through your worship, my apologies.

Those swim passes are good for any recreational swim time at the center branch for the YMCA. Thank you. So we’re providing short term accommodation. We’re providing transportation to another city pool.

We have an opportunity to provide some new amenities that many in the neighborhood have advocated for. And I referenced specifically basketball court, a pickleball court, a spray pad. Those are options that are on the table that we could deliver in fairly short order. Well, the feasibility study is taking place.

We can’t let nostalgia get in the way of the fiscally responsible decision on this one. So I’m encouraging you to support the committee’s recommendation. Other speakers, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and through the chair.

I agree with the deputy mayor. I appreciate the, it’s a great alternative. And I was the lone vote no at committee and I’m gonna stick with my no and support Councillor Frank. There’s just, there’s a few things in our city that just really matter.

They matter to the people, they’re worth the investment. And even if it doesn’t make logical, maybe fiscal sense, this is gonna be one that I’m gonna vote no and in support of the people and a real gem in our city. Councillor Hopkins. I think Councillor Stevenson said it right.

This is a gem. I wanna thank the community. They’re bringing forward fundraising money. Pools are about community.

I wanna thank the Councillor for bringing forward another option and I will be saying no to the committee recommendation. Councillor Trosa. Thank you very much. And I’ve really given this a lot of thought and it’s sort of a, it’s almost like a head and a heart kind of situation.

But I don’t think we’ve exhausted the head yet because I am just so impressed by the resolve of people in OSCO. And I got a lot, I’m not the ward Councillor obviously. I got so much through the chair. I got so much mail from probably a lot of people in here.

And there’s something about this that I’m not ready to give up. And from a, let’s cut the numbers and engineering point of view, maybe. And I was so happy to hear Councillor Stevenson say what she just said. But I’m gonna stand with the ward Councillor at this point.

And there may come a time when I have to split with that. But what really changed it for me was the resolve of your neighborhood association to actually roll up your sleeve and through the chair. Get, try to help with this. You know, the pickle bowl court, a lot of these are splash pads.

These are things that they could have anyway at different locations. I’m not sure that by proceeding with what would come next if we defeat this motion, we’re necessarily precluding some of these other amenities. I’m becoming increasingly concerned as I travel outside of my ward and I travel around the city. That there is a growing disparity between some of the amenities that are being offered and the outskirts and the amenities that are being offered in the inner city.

I’ll talk about libraries at a different meeting at a different time. But I wanna do everything possible. And so long, so long as you have, so long as through the chair, the community has Councillor that is able to work with the community at this level, she has my support. And that’s for now.

So I’m gonna be, I’m gonna be not a, I’m not gonna be supporting the motion on the floor. And someone else who had their hand up but I missed who it was, maybe I, other speakers? That’s where I’m gonna go ahead. Thank you.

I voted in favor of the original motion at committee. Having received the communication from OSCO, I am convinced that they have brought forward legitimate concerns and that they have provided a strategy to move forward that I am now supportive of. So I will be voting against the original motion or the committee recommendation, sorry. And I will be voting on a potential next motion from Councillor Frank.

And I wanna thank the community for reaching out, for thinking outside of the box on this matter. And I wanna thank the word Councillor and all those here that have been involved in conversations to find a path forward. I agree with you there, the head and the heart conversation is exactly where this is. I do feel like this is a treasure and we need to do our best to try to preserve what we can while considering how we move forward.

But I do know that the logical side of me is struggling with where we may end up with that decision. But if the community wants to try, I’m willing to try along with them, thank you. Other speakers? Okay, I’m gonna turn the chair over to Councillor Layman and I’m gonna put myself on the list.

I’ll go to the mayor. Just guess I have to ask the question of colleagues. I’m always happy to support the board council on something, but it seems to me what’s on the floor is the city spending money to provide some alternatives in the community and if we defeat that, we’re going to have, from my understanding of the motion, and maybe I can ask through the presiding officer to Councillor Frank that I wanna understand the next motion. The next motion is essentially, we’re not spending any money.

We’re going to authorize the repair. The community’s gonna raise all the money and there’s a couple other components to that. And I guess my question is like, I’m happy to support the community on this and I’m happy to support the board councilor, but it seems like the path here is that instead of the city providing additional amenities to the community, we’re heading down, let the community fix the pool with their own money, even if it might break again, we’re not spending anything. And I just wonder if that’s the next motion is.

I just wanna understand where we’re going because I’ve received the information too and I’m myself a little surprised that that’s where we might potentially land because a few years from now we might have a community with another broken pool, with them having raised money and us having spent nothing. And that seems like a very odd path for us to go down. But so I’m trying to trust the information I’ve got from the community. I’m trying to listen to what the board councilor has said.

She’s asking us to do, but I just, unless I’m not understanding something, it seems like a very odd place to land. So maybe through the presiding officer where I can ask Councillor Frank, what exactly does the next motion do? ‘Cause it’s really gonna impact how I vote on this one. I just wanna understand that clearly.

So, Councillor Frank, you’ve spoken on this motion already, but I’ll allow it the inquiry from the mayor. Thank you, yes. And I think it might be helpful if I read out the motion. The first part would be, so essentially it is what OSCO has submitted to all of us that we got in advance.

But the first part would be direct staff to bring back a plan that executes the following. Repair attempts pool based on option two with funds drawn primarily from private sources, with pool repairs underway. City staff would work in conjunction with Old South and surrounding communities to identify new pool location and develop a new pool community space. Pending community and city approval, construction on the new pool community space would begin at which point times pool current location would slowly be decommissioned.

And with a full decommission of the pool’s original location, community consultation would begin to develop new uses for that space. So it is taking some of what this is, but it’s reorienting the timeline essentially. I’ll go back to the mayor. I don’t have any further questions.

I just, in order to vote on this, I just, I really want to understand what the next steps were ‘cause I hadn’t read the motion in detail as it’s been clerked. But thank you for the answer, I appreciate that. And I’ll turn the chair back to the mayor. Okay, other speakers?

Councillor Ploza, go ahead. Thank you, weighing in on this one. I do support the decommissioning of the town’s pool, recognizing it’s been repaired multiple times. And I will preface it with, I use up both my kids for Victoria Public School family.

I know what it can mean for the community. I will say if the community wants to privately fundraise and mobilize, happy to support that. It has been done before. The Glanworth Library was a community.

They wanted a library. They fundraised and they got some other funding sources and that’s why we have a really small library out in Glanworth. So if this fails, happy to support the word Councillor. I’ve read the correspondence that came in.

I am listening, just realizing that as we fix it and we hope for a different outcome, it’s failed multiple times already. And knowing that with the heat in the summer and how much it’s loved, the community just wants it open. There’s still no certainty with the repairs of if it’s not gonna be this summer. Can it be next summer?

Is it the summer after that? And if we’re looking three years out, where is the money and the time best spent in organizing and planning the vision that we have for a community and those that can be served by it, recognizing absolutely downtown is underserved with many amenities and many green spaces in addition to our old South community. Thank you. Okay, other speakers.

There are other speakers. It’s the committee’s recommendation for us. And if there’s no other speakers, I’ll open the committee’s recommendation for voting. Any votes, yes.

Councillor van Merebergen. Oh, yes. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries, eight to seven.

Okay, so the committee’s recommendation passes. So I’ll go back to Councillor Palosa on the next matter. Thank you. So just to those in the gallery, it did pass.

So that concludes the 10th pool discussion for this evening. Item 2.3 being item five is the Housing Stability Services 2023, 2024 contract amendments. This motion was an A to D at committee. I will note that there’s added communications on our package tonight.

Also, we had one section in it that committee wanted more information from staff and a little bit upwards, but we did ask that information be available this evening at council before council had an opportunity to say, “Bring us information.” But staff does have some degree of an update, including from London Cares, what committee wanted and we can make a better informed decision tonight. So my recommendation is we receive that information from staff that they’ve brought back to us on behalf of committee and then we move forward. I would put the recommendation on the floor, realizing there’s also an amendment from other Councillor Pribble and Councillor Stevenson that is also in your package for your preview if you have not looked at it. So I would look to Mr.

Dickens first to give us the information that committee asked him to bring this evening for your listing pleasure. Yes, sir, go ahead. Through you, Your Worship, thank you. Included in your agenda package, page 180 and 181, is the report back, the update from the service provider directly, given the tight timeline to provide any type of reporting back by council.

The approach that civic administration was able to take with the capacity that we had was to engage the service provider directly to receive feedback on how the use of security has been accepted or received in the neighborhood as well as the rationale for the two security guards overnight and off hours on the weekends, noting that the organization still has a number of social interactions with participants during off hours and at that location at 602 Queens Ave also houses a number of overnight staff that come and go from the building to do outreach work. So that information is provided in your agenda package which details the response from the organization to hopefully satisfy the referral that was back to staff. Thank you. Councilor.

Thank you. I will put the committee’s report on the floor recognizing part B’s kind of been dealt with now as Mr. Dickens just spoke, but I’ll leave that to the clerk’s preview, but I put A through D on the floor as from committee. Okay, you can put that on the floor.

I’ll look for other speakers. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you and through the chair. I have an amendment for B.

I’d also like to vote on them separately, potentially. So I’m just mentioning that now. So the amendment that I’d like to put forward for B, I’ll read it out, make sure I still have a second and then I can speak to it, right? Yep, exactly.

So the amendment is that it’s a replacement that the civic administration be directed to provide a report to a future community and protective services committee to identify options and the associated costs to address the safety and security current concerns, expressed above, as well as the safety and security concerns of the agency’s staff, volunteers, and those accessing services. As I read it, we should probably take out the, as expressed above, seeing as it’s not in the motion. So security concerns as well as the safety and security concerns. So you’re just changing it from your letter slightly?

Just taking out the expressed above, ‘cause it’s, it doesn’t make sense. Okay, is there a seconder for that? Councilor Pribble? Councilor, we’re just, the clerk and I are just talking, given Mr.

Dickens kind of fulfilled B, it’s not really a replacement of B, it’s almost like a, like a new E. And so we’re just trying to land it because a committee recommendation, I don’t wanna have to say whether it’s contrary or not and B is kind of specific. And so, you know, I think we could still make this motion, I’m just conferring with the clerk that it could be, could be like an E, like an addition to the motion ‘cause it’s identifying something. Sure, that’s fine.

Okay, I think, that just makes more sense, I think procedurally, I’m just working through that piece. So, okay, so we’re just gonna adjust that in the system, it’ll be an E. And so it’s an amendment to add a new E. Okay, so that’s moved and seconded, we’ll get the language up there, just as the Councillor has adjusted it and I’ll look for a speaker’s list now, Councillor Palosa.

Thank you, as it relates to this, I will note that I was the loan, no vote originally, that maintains a question through you to Mr. Dickens, that originally they were seeking the $374,000 for right now for support security services at 602 Avenue and 448 Horton Street locations, as outlined as this was a London Cares request. Looking through you to staff, if we delay in this and wait for a future report back, is there still enough security? Funding available on this site, is the community gonna see an impact while we wait for this report back?

Mr. Dickens. Through you, your worship, the organization has been redirecting existing resources, existing funds to put the security resources in place, part of their steps, one of many steps, they have tried to take to help remedy the site and ensure safety for both the public, those accessing services and their staff. If there was a delay, the organization is most likely to pause or disrupt their security services at the end of the month.

So at the end of July, they would cease having security on site. What that means for the organization, in that interim, where there would be no security, remains to be seen, but it would certainly warrant conversations amongst their partners at that location, as well as any health and safety concerns that may arise from their staff. So there may be impacts certainly to the sense of staff, safety and security, perhaps some disruption or changes to service delivery, but there would absolutely be a pause or disruption to the use of security at the end of the month. Thank you, a follow-up question, realizing there could be some disruption, and that we have a contract, but this would be amendment to it.

Does that open, maybe it’s a legal question of any potential liability as per how our contracts are laid out, or is this just an additional ask and there’s no potential outliers? I can start with Mr. Dickens, and if you need Mr. Card or some sort of legal angle on this, and Mr.

Carda, let me know if this is a public or a camera thing, but I’ll start with you, Mr. Dickens. Thank you, and through you, your worship. This is an additional ask.

It’s not part of a requirement in the funding. However, in terms of the contract management piece and the vendor management, Mr. Card may want to weigh in, but this is an additional ask above and beyond our existing contract. I’ll see if Mr.

Card has anything to add. No, your worship, I don’t have anything to add. I’d have to do a thorough review of the existing contract documents before I could offer an opinion. And as you suspected, that opinion would likely go in camera.

Thank you. Okay, thank you, Councillor Ploza. Thank you. I’m always happy for more reports about how we could do things better and service all those in our community, but my concern with this one still lies in as we’re in unforeseen times in this together and making sure that the appropriate staff volunteers and the residents that they’re serving have proper security and until we know the full impacts of a potential funding answer being no.

I won’t be able to support this one tonight, and if it fails, I would put the original staff motion of be back on the floor to allow them to have the security money in the interim. Okay, other speakers to this. Councillor, you moved ends to the motion. Oh, you just, you moved it.

Oh, yes, that’s true. I did go to the seconder and you, yes. So are you gonna speak now then? Okay, go ahead.

That’s correct. Your time counts as your time and the staff respond to your questions, time does not. So go ahead. So one of the concerns that I have and seems to be consistently here is they’ve been paying for security according to this since April 1st.

And now they’re gonna rent out of money in six days, five days, and there’s no time for us to refer things back. So I’m wondering why it’s coming to us with no time to discuss it. Mr. Dickens.

Through you, Your Worship. The organization was looking at a number of mitigating factors that they could have put in place. The partners at that site, recognizing a increase of violent activity towards staff in the month of April moved quickly to put security on site. They then started to work through civic administration in terms of other mitigating steps they could take, but also looking at making a request for additional funds for security.

Those details were worked out throughout the month of May into June. It actually coincided with our ability to bring forward the report you have on the CAHPS agenda and on your council agenda with a number of funding requests. So the timing was on the civic administration side to align the funding asked with a number of other funding asked, but also as the organization and civic administration went through the details of what was in place, what was being proposed and what other steps could be used contrary to security, and that has led us to this path. Now, the contracts with the security company typically run on a 30-day or a one-month cycle.

So the funds are in place to support that throughout the month of July. At best estimate, they would not have the funds or they would continue to draw funds from other aspects of their service delivery if they were to continue that beyond the end of the month. The end of the month is the clear disruption date as opposed to the end of August. And when are they expected to get their next sort of semi-annual payment?

Could that be done quicker to keep their cash flow going? Through you, Your Worship, I don’t have that date and I don’t have my fingertips, they’re current mid-year forecasting, but I would have to report back on that. Thank you, and approximately how long a delay is there in getting their payment from the time that the new contract starts the second half of the payment? Through Your Worship, should there be council approval that there was going to be funds flowing to the organization to maintain security?

I believe they would be doing everything in their ability to maintain that and we would, our funding would then make them whole. In terms of how quick those payments get processed, it’s a matter of doing the contract amendment through our civic administration team, getting it out to the organization to sign and getting it back. So that can be done in a matter of weeks. Okay, thank you.

So I’m gonna make my comments. If this does fail, then I would recommend putting forward just enough money to keep them going so that this can be looked at because I spoke at length the committee regarding this and I think it’s a really important point. If we read the London Cares document here, there’s really serious issues, really serious, and moving them off of one property is not the answer to this. And I think it’s incredibly unfair to ask taxpayers to pay to have it moved onto the rest of their homes and businesses.

There are volunteers and employees right across the street at Banting House. There are employees right across the street at the John Howard Society. I mean, there are a lot of things going on. We’ve got tourists who are coming to see a historic site at the Banting House.

This is a serious issue that absolutely needs to be addressed. I absolutely wanna fund it, but this isn’t the answer. But I do wanna do it temporarily. I definitely wanna see security there while they’re operating from nine to five.

But the majority of this money, all of the money at Horton Street, and so only basically from my calculations, only 45,000 of this 374,000 is happening when the daytime operations are happening at 602 Queens. All of the other funding, so that’s 330,000 approximately, is to keep the property clear overnight and in the evenings when the operations are not happening. So those are serious, serious problems that are just being shifted and so that the public can no longer identify where they’re coming from. And I think that’s a problem.

I’d really like to see this urgently addressed. What I was given was that there would be one guard from nine to five, this is at 602 Queens, two guards from five to nine, and from five p.m. to nine a.m. And two guards from five p.m.

on Friday to Monday at nine a.m. Understand why there’s two guards for safety and security on an empty property. But the visual on this to the taxpayers who please hear me, 5,000 views on my current video, 50,000 on the other. It’s resonating with residents that they are being left with all of these problems.

They don’t have the money for safety and security. We don’t have things figured out. So I’m asking us not to pay to make the problem theirs. I’m asking staff to come back with something that we can fund that will help everybody.

How can we help these people so that they don’t have the aggression and they have some place to go? Let’s be creative, let’s spend a lot of money. Let’s truly help this. Because making the problem go away is not making the problem go away.

We’ve got desperation in our streets. Desperation in the businesses and the residents around there. And it’s simply not okay for us as a city council to pay to make them have the problem. We get to pay to solve the problem.

And that I can sell, that I can come forward with. So I’m open to a motion that will cash flow a little bit of money during daytime operations to keep staff and volunteers safe, 100%, but not this. Not all this money to pay for security guards for empty property. Then at least maybe we have campsites on that property or something.

We get to take care of these people and we get to handle it. The visual of paying for two security guards for an empty property to basically shoe people off into the neighborhood is just not gonna wash. It’s gonna be really, it’s really not okay. So I’m asking my fellow councilors to come up with something.

I don’t wanna see anybody at risk at that. They’re doing amazing things, feeding 250 to 300 people. I will pay for the security for the nine to five. I don’t think anybody in the area has a trouble with that.

But not an empty property. Not 300,000 to keep a property clear that is being funded by the city to rent that space and then funded for security to keep it clear of our most vulnerable people. So I’m really asking for council support on this. It is impacting my ward.

It’s in Councilor Ferreres, but it is definitely, people are moving into the municipal parking lots right across the street. Thank you, Councilor Ferreira. Thank you, through you. Speaking to the amendment, I have a concern that this amendment will itself create security concerns ‘cause it’s looking to identify the options and safety and security concerns of the location, but it’s also looking to not apply the funding right now.

And if we don’t have security at this location at the end of the month, then the first thing that’s gonna come up from this motion, if it gets approved, is gonna be there’s no security at the location. And my worry is this motion may just create an issue with itself. So that’s why I won’t be supporting this motion. We can’t, staff is not in full compliment during at nighttime.

So we do need this extra security. And also, it’s not just individuals there, but it’s also the property of the building itself. Imagine if we defer funding or do not fund and then security is not there, not present, we have damage to the building. And we’re gonna have to be talking about more funding to repair the building as well.

So I do see that with the staff recommendation with funding London Cares right now to provide security, that is the way to go. I would also say that the link between security and individuals in the area as the counselor is speaking to, I don’t see the link as a direct link. If we stop, if we don’t fund London Cares with this request right now, we’re not gonna see any changes. Those changes will come with the whole of community response as we start rolling out the implementation of the hubs and the supportive housing service, or the supportive housing.

So I won’t be supporting the amendment as it stands right now. And I will be supporting the staff recommendation. Colleagues, I just need just a moment. So in comparing with the clerk, I just, in support of council’s debate on this, I just wanna add some context.

The original BE, a committee, which was to approve the allocation, was changed into refer to this meeting, get more information for Mr. Dickens. The motion that the counselors have brought forward is not contrary the original BE. And as the counselor mentioned, they fund security of the property and get more information on something.

And so I hear counselors saying, I need to defeat this to do something else. I’m gonna say you can actually do both because B, as it was contemplated, committee’s now exhausted when it landed here. Someone wants to put the original BE back on or a version of that. They could as an additional amendment and leave this amendment there too.

The amendment and the original BE are not contrary to each other, they’re two different things. So I just want to keep colleagues the full range of options to consider. I’m gonna leave it to you to decide what you wanna do. But I don’t want colleagues to think they have to defeat something to do something else.

There’s an option here where you can actually do two things at once, ‘cause they’re not contrary. Councilor Palosa, you’re the chair, I’ll let you say. Just for clarity, I appreciate that. That’s when I mentioned that we kind of already did be, but it’s not the original BE.

So if someone did wanna put staff’s recommendation that was beyond, would it be now an F? It could be because B basically, as you can see, we’ve done that tonight, right? So B’s done. There’s not gonna be any more action taken on B.

And there’s nothing the committee recommended to say we couldn’t, you know, like the council can say, we wanna fund some security costs there in addition to getting this other information. There’s nothing contrary about that. So, you know, there’s two ways to do that. You can deal with this amendment at it.

Someone can make another amendment afterwards. I guess you can amend the amendment to add, you know, two amendments at the same time. Like there’s a number of options here, but if this amendment passes or fails, it doesn’t preclude someone from amending one. No matter which way it goes, there could be an F, right, to fund the security costs.

So it sounds like the easiest way to go since we’re already in discussion is to finish dealing with E, either way, and then if someone wants to move a new F, just keep conversation tight since we have been here for a while. That’s correct. So that’s the way I’m gonna proceed. I just don’t want colleagues to think you have to defeat something, do something, not contrary.

You only have to do that when it’s gonna be a contrary motion. So we’ll deal with the councilor’s amendments first, this one, and then I’ll entertain further amendments which does not preclude the original staff recommendation or a version of that from being considered tonight as well. Okay, so I just wanna make sure colleagues are clear on that. Are you looking to speak or ask for clarification?

Yeah, you’re one person down the list. I got Councillor Ferrera first. So you’re on the list though. Sorry, yes, Councillor Ferrera spoke.

It was brilliant. I do remember it, sorry, I have solving problems here. Councillor Bribble, I apologize, Councillor Ferrera. I just wanna go back to the motion and I do think that I certainly do agree what was said here before with my fellow council, Stevenson, to look at the intent of the security and the way they have it laid out.

And the reason why I’m saying it is that the two instances that I was there, there needed to be actually assistance during the day. And actually, to be honest with you, I would love them to revisit the situation in terms of security to have a social worker because actually the social worker, both instances that I experienced, the social worker would have been much more proactive because the security just was very directive and not proactive in terms of directing these people what they actually need. And I think that there would be much more beneficial to everyone if the social worker was more in premises than security guard. One thing is that I do wanna mention though, I did, as I mentioned actually last week, these contracts or disagreements there from first of April, these agencies, the community organizations, they are our partners and we cannot leave them, there’s a thing for us to look at future that we need to address these kind of two months before not four months after.

But one thing is we cannot leave them out there without the money if they are providing these services. So one thing is that I do wanna mention and that is that we cannot cut them off kind of today and they have been doing something for last certain month and we gotta make sure that everything is in place and they do have time to change certain things. So from my own perspective, it’s not that I wanted to cut them off today, no. I do think that we need to give them some time as well.

I don’t know if it’s still end of August, but it’s not that I wanna cut them off because these are their money that they have all this spent. And as I said, we didn’t address it two months before and we gotta make sure that our partners, these agencies, they are not in minus. But do I think that we need to address the security that they have there now as what I started with? Absolutely.

And I would love them to explore the opportunity with social workers and replacing in terms of the security. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins, Deputy Mayor Lewis, I have you next.

Councillor Hopkins has a bit of a clarification question that she’d like to raise. So I’m gonna go to Councillor Hopkins first. Yeah, thank you for allowing me to go. Just following on Councillor Preble’s comments about cutting anyone off gives me a concern and I want a better understanding.

And I will just speak to this amendment that’s in front of us. What exactly are we doing? Can we do it and how do we move forward? Okay, so I’ll be very clear for colleagues.

This relates back to the original motion that was at committee. The original motion at committee was to approve, approve the funding allocation from a source of financing to London Cares for their security. That was changed at committee to provide the information that Mr. Dickens provided here today.

But there is nothing before us that would give them the money today, right? There’s nothing before us. That would have to be added as a motion. That can be dealt with after this.

Right now, two Councillors have brought forward a direction that says provide a report to identify options and associated costs to address safety and concerns identified, as well as safety and concerns the agency staff volunteers and those accessing services. And their perspective has a slightly wider lens, like not just on the site, but general security in the area. So it’s like a slightly different motion. So you can still fund and support the agency who wants security on their site and get some information back about an expanded or different option for security in the area.

So all we’re dealing with right now is the Councillor’s request for this additional report. It does not preclude anybody after we’re dealt with this to put the original staff recommendation for funding them on the floor. But that’s not gonna happen now. That can happen after we’ve dealt with this.

No matter which way we vote on this, that is still an option before us, okay? Is that on the clarification, Councillor Roman? Go ahead. Thank you and through you.

So just to clarify, because I’m taking into context the paragraph that is listed in the communication before the motion. And my understanding as it relates to the motion is that the request is actually not to approve the funding that was initially put forward in part B. Instead, it’s to refer it back in order to decide on a more holistic expenditure of those dollars for both the community and for London cares. So I need clarification on that, please.

Okay, so I’m gonna get the mover to make some clarification. But I will say sometimes people write things in the preamble and they don’t put that in the motion. What we pass is motions, not preamble as a council. So what counts is what’s in the motion.

What’s in the motion, despite what it says in the preamble, does not preclude the other thing from happening. If they didn’t want the other thing from happening, they put that in the motion to be specific about not funding, right? You can make a definitive. But I’ll go to Councillor Stevenson to clarify on her.

Thank you. Councillor Rama is correct, that was my original intention. But now we’re having it as F not replacing B. So now it is just a request of staff to investigate the whole.

You’re right, it’s not tied to the funding at all. Just a request of staff to look at this problem and how can we actually solve it for this amendment? I know it’s a little bit confusing because things sometimes shift to council from even the communications that are written. But I think everybody, no one is incorrect in this.

It’s just we’re gonna be clear about what we’re doing at council and what the effect of that is. And so the effect of the motion on the floor is that it doesn’t preclude the other. If someone wants to preclude the other, I’d suggest to be definitive in that. But I don’t think anybody is suggesting that at this point yet.

So I’ll go back to the speakers I had and Deputy Mayor Lewis is next. Thank you, worship. Just a very brief question through you to our staff. I don’t know if Mr.

Catolic might be with us. So I don’t know whether Mr. Dickens or Ms. Livingston could respond.

But the question is simply with regard to municipal bylaw compliance. And CIR response is prior to the security coming on board, did we have complaints about bylaw compliance at that property? And since security has come on board, have we noticed a change in the rate of those? Through you, your worship joined this evening by with Ms.

Kramer’s who oversees our coordinated informed response. And we’d be able to speak to the volume of calls and incidents prior to security onsite and the CIR involvement post-security onsite. And just to be clear, we’re talking specifically at 602 because in the report it references to London care sites. So just 602 Queens app, thank you.

We just make sure we can get the microphone on. You could just do give me a mic check and I’ll let you know when we can hear you. There we are, that’s perfect, go ahead. Don’t expect me to wrap.

Through you, your worship. Yes, CIR and the city of London through service London was receiving a large influx of complaints at 602 Queens in regard to encampments and large amounts of debris and belongings residing there and people staying overnight onsite. Since security has been onsite that has come to a very dull roar. Thank you, that’s all.

Okay, so unless there’s, I’m just gonna check to see if there’s any other speakers on this amendment. Yes, just use your microphone, I’m not gonna let you speak but I wanna hear what you’re saying. Sorry, I already spoke but I’d like to speak one more time. Just because I see there’s some— You’d like to what, sorry, speak.

Well, I see that there’s been some clarifications on the motion so I just, I know that it’s happened more than once but for my own vote, I would like to see if I could speak one more time on this ‘cause I spoke to this item already about the clarification. Okay, I think if I say yes, lots of people are gonna wanna speak again. So I’m only gonna do that if someone moves a motion to let you, otherwise you’ve spoken once, so I’m just gonna leave it at that. Now, I will say after this vote, there’s a whole main motion.

If you wanna get on that list, you still can, okay? All right, so I’ve exhausted the speakers list, the motion is before us and I’m gonna open that for voting, okay? We’ll open that now. Councillor Cuddy, Councillor Lewis and Councillor Stevenson.

The vote is up, Councillors Cuddy and Stevenson. Cuddy votes yes. Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to two.

Okay, so now this main motion has been amended. I’ll look for further speakers on the main motion. Councillor Frank. Thank you, I’m wondering if we could add amendment in to support the funding request?

So you wanna add the original request, the original, the classic clause B from committee, so that is a specific way. And so you wanna add that in, so yes, that’s in order. That’s not contrary. So if that’s what you like to move, I see the committee chair willing to second.

So now we’ll debate on a new amendment, which is to further amend the amended motion with an addition of what is the original clause B from the committee report, but it might be, might be letter to different way here. We’ll let the clerk identify that. So speakers on that, okay? An amendment to an amendment is allowed, that’s fine.

So Councillor Stevenson on the amendment, the Councillor Frank and Councillor Flosa, before it, go ahead. I’m wondering if we can cut that amount in half and do it to the end of September, so that we’re fully funding it until the end of September. By that time, maybe we’ve heard back, and then we could do the second half or add more to it and do something that would be more beneficial. So this is a compromise to say, okay, we’re gonna continue what we’re doing to the end of September.

And then, and I’d like to hear what staff says about that. And then we have the opportunity to continue the other six months if we don’t have a better alternative. It would really help me with the neighbourhood to know that we’re at least exploring it. And we also don’t have the issues back at 602 Queen.

So I think it’s a good compromise if I could hear from staff what they think on that. Let me do the clerk first and then you can go Mr. Dickens. Listen, I think I’m gonna look for a seconder for that in a moment.

I just wanna go by your intent because to say it’s the half and then to the end of September, I’m not sure if it’s kind of a linear costing. So I think I need some information from staff about that. And then I can ask for a seconder. So Mr.

Dickens, I don’t know if you know what funding’s required to get to the end of September, but I think that’s required for the council to be able to introduce the amendment to the amendment. Through you, Your Worship. Yes, if we went, if funding was in place until the end of September, that would give civic administration at least a little bit of time to go out and do some of the work and be able to report back to a committee cycle with some potential recommendations that would probably entail us sitting down with the 602 Queen’s Out Partners and perhaps a neighborhood association and trying to come up with some sort of recommendation. So the end of September would give us a little bit of time to do that knowing how busy August is going to be with community engagement and AMO and the like.

And that would roughly be half. And so it would indulge a little bit of leeway and on the math that we would fund until the end of September working at what those financial details would be if that’s the recommendation from council. Okay, so councilor, I don’t know if we need both pieces because both pieces might be confusing. You could fund a specific amount.

It doesn’t have to be exactly half. It could be 200,000 or whatever. And that’s going to get them to a certain point. I don’t know what that point is because I don’t know how the contract has to be structured given the shorter timeframe.

And so I just want to make sure that you could basically choose to fund a different amount and that’s going to get them somewhere. But I don’t think we can presume to say half is going to be exactly half the security contract because you might get a deal for longer times. So if I divide by two, it’s 187,105. Can we call it 200,000?

Okay, so you want to amend it to 200,000. Okay, is there a seconder to do that? So councilor Pribble is willing to amend the amendment. So the amendment is there, but the amount is being amended.

So now we’re going to speak only on the amended amendment, which is just the change of amount. And councilor Stevens, and you moved it. Do you want to just finish speaking to it? And then I’ll go to councilor Pribble next on the speaker’s list.

Sure, because I’m going to be quick. I’m really, I’m asking, please support me on this. Just give us a little bit of time to explore options. I really appreciate staff being open to it.

And I’m willing to do the legwork on the community side to run up a whole bunch of solutions and suggestions that then staff and 602 Queens could consider. That’s really all I have to say is please just like, give me the compromise of a bit more time. They get what they need and I’ll get what I need. Councilor Pribble, you’re next.

And I’m just building a speaker list on the amendment’s amendment, okay. And I’m seconding it because I do think this gives us the opportunity to explore better opportunities, how to address these issues at 602 Queens. So I do think it’s fair to the agency. We are giving them over two months.

But I do believe that we are going to continue with certain investment at this property. But I do think the combination with the social worker and other initiatives will address these issues better more. I believe if we go with the entire amount, things will not progress or we are not going to get it as much as out of $1 because everything’s going to stay and it’s going to be status quo, but it was still now. I believe if we do it 200,000 which is going to be till end of September, we will explore other opportunities to address these issues in a better manner.

Councillor Palazzo. Thank you and through you to staff, particularly Mr. Dickens, realizing when we start halving numbers and riding them up, I always appreciate round numbers. So thank you for that.

So as we’re talking about $200,000 and a report will be coming back, just to make sure that in your estimate or best information, that that money would be adequate to do the work that needs to be done and we’re not somehow inadvertently causing another issue by choosing a different number. Mr. Dickens, give it your best shot at that one. And we appreciate that we’re asking you to, I’m going to say to colleagues, we’re asking Mr.

Dickens to make an estimate. We are going to be very cautious about not holding him to the exact thing that he says. This is not an exact science here and he’s going to give his best possible answer for our decision-making. Through you, Your Worship, I will absolutely attempt to do that.

So part of this funding request is to make the organization whole, for recognizing they have been redirecting resources to having security on site. So while it is a go forward plan, some of that funding is earmarked to the retroactive use of security. The $200,000 would be in the approximate ballpark to get them through to the end of September, best estimates based on what my team can compile here based on the funding request. So that is what we would be looking at.

It would, in terms of the timing, the end of September, again, would give us a little bit of time to do the work. I think there’s, in terms of the engagement and coming up with a alternative strategy that satisfies the motion, that would need to be considered of the voices of participants as well. The organization and their staff and certainly neighboring members of the neighborhood. So thank you.

Thank you for that and through you. Essentially, the hour goes late and we’re not done. I appreciate the concession being made, having walked the Councillor’s award with her and hearing from businesses. I still prefer the original and not the memo on the floor.

I realize it’s September is also rolling into budget season. And I prefer to only touch things once if we only have to. So we don’t need to come back to this particular decision. If it passes, that’s fine and great.

Sounds like the organization can help make itself whole again and make something work in the interim. Those are just my overarching comments if we have other big things coming our way to in that same timeline. Other speakers, Councillor ramen, go ahead. Thank you and through you.

I am struggling with understanding how we can, what we’re gonna get from the report that was mentioned beforehand, but also what we’re going to get back from dividing these dollars. I heard firsthand that there are security needs and concerns raised by staff and by the organization. We have follow-up correspondence stating just that. The security contract itself we do not have.

So again, we’re put in a situation where we have to think through what would be in a security contract and the parameters have said contract. And so that’s another piece. I think that leaves a little bit of unknown. I’m not sure if the expectation is private security walking up and down the streets.

If that’s where we’re heading with this conversation as we’re only in this conversation contemplating what will happen with security dollars used for security. The other piece of this is I do think that there were a number of concerns addressed in the correspondence to us that highlight the rationale for and why there’s this expenditure. And a lot of it was driven from the desire of the community to see more of a response at this location. So I’m just wondering to staff maybe is there something else that perhaps, I guess I’m really struggling with this because I don’t wanna send the impression to the organization or to the folks in the neighborhood either that security could end in September.

I think that’s really important too. We don’t want to, I don’t wanna give anybody that impression that that would be the case on either side of this. And right now I feel like that’s what I’m being asked to contemplate is whether or not that ends and then a report comes back and then we make a further decision. Also I don’t understand the length of the contracts and if we’re now going to increase the cost because we’re dividing the amount that would be for a security contract or what the extent of the contract is.

We don’t hold that contract. I don’t know how we can divide a dollar amount that is a commitment to a security contract. And I’m just again, I’m thinking in a very limited way of my understanding contracts of this nature. So I’m not going to support it because I do not have enough information yet at this point to understand the nature of those contracts and how this could, the implications it could have.

Yeah, I heard your colleague ask if they could make an amendment. So we’re at the maximum number of amendments. You can amend an amendment, but you can’t amend an amendment. So like we gotta deal with the amended amendment before you can amend the amendment again.

That may have been confusing, but point is, point is not yet. I said it actually accurate. It just sounds confusing. So no, this amendment to the amendment has to be dealt with first.

The second amendment to the amendment can be dealt with after this one is disposed of. So yes, so first off, let’s stop talking because we’re having a meeting and I can’t just have a conversation with the council in front of it. I guess to council rum and I can go to staff to see if there’s any additional information they can give on the contracting piece, but I don’t know if they have that or not. I can also say to colleagues, actually I don’t wanna say that.

I guess I’ll go to Mr. Dickens to see if there’s any additional information you can say on how this contract is structured because I think I understand Councilor Ramen’s concern about not understanding the contract, but you also said that they were essentially decreasing the kind of service levels they were providing to kind of deal with the security themselves. And so we’re making them whole. So maybe the contract is already there.

And this is about making them whole for a certain period of time. I think if we can better understand what is happening, it might give the councilor enough information to make her decision one way or the other. So Mr. Dickens, tell me what you can tell me about that.

Your worship, thank you. So the security contract that is in place is for both 602 Queen’s Ave and for the Horton Street address. The Horton Street property provides overnight resting space beds. So there is security on during the day and security on overnight at Horton Street as part of that funding or that contractual agreement that London Cares has with the provider for that location.

That same provider has the contract in place for 602. Those, I don’t have the length of term on those other than to say London Cares has just recently entered into it in April. And what that commitment would look like would be probably minimum six months and with a recurring option. But I would have to go and get those details.

Okay, so our decision is really to fund making them whole so they can provide the other services. It’s not us directly paying through them the security firm. It’s just funding for the organization to help them with this, right? Through your worship, that’s right.

This was an ask above and beyond the contract. We would fund the organization. It allows them to pay for the security contract. I hope that provides some clarification for councilors.

I’ll continue on with the speakers list on the amendment to the amendment, which is on the amount going to $200,000, other speakers. Seeing none, we’re going to open that for voting and then we can continue to debate on the amendment with either the original or new amount depending on how this vote goes. Councilor Cuddy, Stevenson, and Trussell. Any votes, yes?

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries eight to seven. Okay, so now we’re on the amendment with the new amount. Any debate on the amendment with the new amount?

Okay, seeing that, you do, unless I’m wrong and someone can challenge the chair, you move to an amendment, you spoke on the amended amendment but I don’t think you spoke on the amendment yet, so go ahead. I’m just gonna go really quick. I’m really asking my fellow Councillors to please support me on this. We will continue some kind of security going forward.

I’m not trying to cut it off. I’m willing to do the work with the residents and the community association to help staff, give them lots of ideas and solutions that they could run past the participants and London cares. I’m really asking for space and grace from my fellow Councillors to resolve an issue that is a huge issue. What you were reading about these sort of tragic stories and really serious issues have moved across the street into the municipal parking lot.

So what you’re reading here has just shifted and I would really like to be part of a solution that would serve everybody and I’m just asking my fellow Councillors to give me that time so that I can do that work and make a difference here. I don’t know if I have any, I look for any other speakers on the amendment, which now has a new amount. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. I’m going to move her in a seconder because we’ve amended the amendment.

So Councillor Ploza is seconded by Councillor Stevenson. Okay, that’s moved and seconded now. We’ll open that for voting. Any votes, yes.

Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to four. Okay, the Senate, we have, I need a mover and a seconder for the main motion as amended. Councillor Ploza is seconded by main motion as amended.

I’ll second it. Okay, so moved and seconded. So now this is the main motion with the addition of the motion that Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Pribble brought forward and the addition of giving London Cares the $200,000 and the other components of the motion that were there before. So that’s what we’re voting on.

That’s the main amendment motion. I don’t see any other speakers. Yes, mover and seconder was Councillor Ploza and me. Okay, we’re going to open that for voting.

For occasion on, Councillor. We are voting on, if we are voting on the first one to be, is there a three, 74? Yeah, the B, it doesn’t matter if the B’s there. The B’s been checked off tonight.

So whether we pass it or not, mission accomplished on B. So you don’t have to worry about taking it out. All right, we’re opening the vote now. Happy votes, yes.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Ploza, I repeat sentence here. If you would like to make a motion to have a break, we could do that before your last item.

I know there’s some motion on it. I’m not so sure my last motion item is going to be quick. So I do advise that we take a break now. Okay, so I’ll move that.

Make a motion with a time attached to it. 20 minutes. Can we do it, can we eat in 20 minutes? 20 minutes.

Councillor wants to take a 20 minute break. Is there a seconder for that? Councillor Frank, all those in favor by hand of a 20 minute break. Opposed?

Motion carries. Thank you, be seated, please. Okay, we’ll move back to Councillor Ploza, who is, I believe has one item left on your committee report. So we’ll turn it over to you.

Thank you for the final item of your community which is services pleasure this evening, I am bringing forward item 2.4 being the primary care recruitment transition into practice and retention program funding request. This one also has added communications on the agenda for your review. This was a discussion at committee. This was looking for an $80,000 per year pilot project over three years to help recruit more physicians to the area.

A couple of things, dash recommendation did not pass. What did pass at committee was that civic administration is going to look, be directed to review opportunities through wreath’s think zoning process to facilitate the establishment of team-based family care centers, notwithstanding our policies located in major offices, use in downtown core and consistent with the new provincial guidelines expecting physicians to set up in groups of six or more for the team-based care as actually directed by the province and we received the communication. So I’m putting what passed out of committee on the floor. Okay, that’s great.

I’m gonna start a speakers list in a second. I’m just, I just want colleagues who are online. If you could just flip your camera on and off just with the clerks are monitoring so we can make sure we have an accurate attendance list for the meeting, I appreciate that. Okay, so this is on the floor based on the committee chair.

I have Deputy Mayor Lewis on the speakers list. Thank you, Your Worship. I wanna speak first because I’m hoping that by sharing something with colleagues, we might shorten the debate a little bit in terms of whether this has value, whether we should be funding it or not, which is from the AM-980 website yesterday. This is a quote from the health team that brought this request to us and it says, “Should full council deny the funding request?” The health team said they would transition to a plan B to get the program off the ground.

I’ve heard a lot of people saying we have to do this, we have to do this, we have to do this, because we have a need. The health team itself is saying if council doesn’t fund it, we will proceed with a plan B to get this off the ground. So I’m gonna very quickly reiterate a couple of the points I made at committee. I’m not gonna ask Ms.

Barbont to channel her inner Martin Hayward, but I’m always reminded of his words in terms of the cautious of budget bombs. And when we willingly accept provincial downloading of responsibilities into pilot projects, what we are creating is a ticking time bomb in our future budgets in terms of the need to continue to fund. Because pilot projects, once they get started, have a very strong tendency of not stopping. Health care is very, very clearly a provincial jurisdiction.

It’s their responsibility to deliver primary care service. It is one of the principles in the budget document that our city treasurer circulates each year at the annual budget update and in the multi-year budget process that we don’t fill in for other levels of government. It’s bad fiscal policy to do so. And I understand people feel like, oh, it’s health care, though.

And my ward was one of the ones identified as one of the lowest doctor-to-patient ratios. And I voted against this at committee and I have not heard anyone from my ward say, oh my God, you’ve got to change your vote. Because they recognize that it’s not my job to address health care issues in ward two, it’s MPP Armstrong’s responsibility. Just as it is, not my responsibility when we have or any of our responsibilities.

I wanna talk about another area of provincial jurisdiction, education. We all know we have schools way over capacity in this city that have portables covering almost every inch of green space it seems that the school board has available for them. Should we start building new schools too? Should we accept that responsibility to address a very, very clear dire need in our community?

We don’t. We, similar to clause D of councilor plosas, which I did support at committee, because I think this is the area of municipal responsibility. I supported looking at this through the rethink zoning process with regard to team-based health care options. The same way, we have looked at opportunities to rezone and designate school blocks and give the school board flexibility to get a new school on the list sooner before the Ministry of Education.

So I’m gonna wrap up with that. We have to be very, very, very mindful of taking on willingly provincial health care responsibilities just as we do with education or anything else. So I encourage colleagues to support the committee recommendation, knowing that we’ve, as I’ve just read to you from the website from AM 980, the health care team is going to go ahead with a plan B model of getting this program off the ground anyway. So let’s let them do that.

Let’s not start putting public dollars from the municipality into provincial areas of responsibility for speakers. That’s a privilege. That’s for Trossa. I believe that what we’re hearing is a fundamental misunderstanding of the appropriate relationship between provincial and local jurisdiction.

And I really like the idea of the zoning amendment. And I think that’s fine. And I think it’s wonderful that the people who are in back of this, who really have their backs up against the wall in terms of what they’re trying to do are saying, you know, if this asks to the city doesn’t work, we’re gonna try something else. Of course that’s what they’re gonna say.

‘Cause they really care about the community. But as I mentioned, as I mentioned at the committee, this is a municipal concern. It’s right in the municipal act. It’s right in section and subdivision two of the municipal act.

It talks about health and welfare. It’s right there. There could not be anything that is clearer ahead of municipal jurisdiction than those explicit sections in sections 10 subdivision two of the municipal act. But let’s not determine this based on whether or not it’s municipal or whether it’s provincial.

It’s obviously municipal. I don’t think it would have gotten this far on our agenda as if we were really stepping on provincial toes and going beyond something that would be ultra virus. This is something the city can do. Question is, is this something the city can do?

The question is, is this something the city should do? Is this something the city needs? This is something the city needs. And I’m not going to repeat all of the background information in the report.

But we understand that there’s a growing inequity. There’s a growing inequity throughout the city in terms of position distribution. And this goes specifically to some of our equity and diversity concerns because make no mistake about it. There are disparate effects in this city that affects people’s health in terms of their ability to have a family physician.

And also make no mistake about it that when people don’t have family physicians, where do they go? They go to emergency rooms. They don’t get great service there. And so I think to start with the premise that this is a downloading project really misses the point that we have some very, very advantageous, we have a very advantageous situation here.

In London, in terms of the fact that we are sitting in the middle of a world-class medical school and a world-class research opportunity, a world-class series of hospitals, where a lot of new private practice people would love to be near because there are benefits that come from that. So let’s look at what’s exactly being asked for here. The charge has been made that this is about poaching. This is not about poaching.

This is not about taking doctors from other cities. This is about creating a broad coalition of healthcare providers who are interested in really featuring for people what are the benefits of having private practice in London? And I want to point specifically to the letter that Dr. Nair, page 184 of our added, sent in, Dr.

Nair is the co-chair of the London Middlesex Primary Care Alliance. And he’s pointing out some of the potential benefits of this program, he’s talking about why it’s needed. So let’s not cut ourselves off by saying the city does not have the power to do things that our people need, they very badly need it. And the fact that it’s got something to do with healthcare and that healthcare is generally part of is a provincial responsibility, that does not mean it’s not appropriate for the city to be doing this.

Now, this recruitment and retention program will be of benefit to all Londoners. And this is something that people look at, this is an integral part, not just of our recruitment strategy for family physicians, this is part of our recruitment strategy for the city as well. Councilor, you’re nearing the end of your time, but just grab it. Okay, and so just to wrap it up with one more sentence, this is something that people care about when they make determinations about what city they’re gonna live in.

We need this, this is something we have very, very good partners on, and I really would encourage you to reject the, I think the very, very misguided decision from the committee, and I take this opportunity to work with these people that wanna work with us. Thank you. Okay, other speakers, Councilor Pribley had your hand up. Go ahead.

As you saw, and I circulated, or sorry, the clerk’s officer, created the amendment, and I brought actually back what was recommended from the staff, and I do wanna make one adjustment, though. I did exactly work from work from the staff. I would like to change it from three years to one year, and I would like to reevaluate this program after one year. No doubt, healthcare is under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, but there are certain things that we can influence and be proactive, and I honestly see this as a proactive initiative.

What I love is the buy-in from the other partners, and I do believe this is a community approach. I did speak last week to three different individuals who are spearheading this program, and we had a great conversation in terms of the strategy, and they do have a clear strategy, clear vision, and I really think that I’m quite sure all of us know the issues we have with the physicians, and as was said by my colleague here, in terms of being proactive, I honestly believe as well that it’s gonna decrease services, just like from emergency rooms at the hospitals, et cetera. I do believe this is a proactive initiative. I do believe that we should give it a year and evaluate it after one year.

If I look at how much money we are spending for other things which are more reactive in terms of the healthcare, more reactive than proactive, I think this would be a very valued investment, and again, what I like is that there is a buy-in from other organizations, and they are not coming to it just with their wisdom and their strategies because they do have to know how we don’t, they are coming on to the table with the money as well. So I would like to, or I’m bringing back the recommendation from the staff, the only things I would like to change it from three years to one year, and evaluate this program after one year. Thank you, and I hope you will support this, thank you. Okay, so that’s an amendment, and it’s not contrary to the direction that the committee put in place.

They didn’t say take no action or do nothing, so this can be added as an additive piece. We’ve readjusted the language that you said to be one year, and Councillor Ramen has expressed a willingness to second. So what we’re gonna do now is move to debate on the amendment. I’ll have the clerk actually, now that’s moved and seconded, put it in the system so people can read it, and I will move to a debate on the amendment.

Now, Councillor Layman, you had your hand up on the original speakers, let’s just give you a dibs if you wanna get on the added, and then I’m gonna go to Councillor Ramen, who’s also looking to speak on the amendment. So do you wanna speak on the amendment, or do you wanna wait for the main motion again? I’ll be brief, I wanna speak to the main motion, but I’ll support the amendment. Okay, so on the amendment, Councillor Ramen.

Thank you and through you. So I didn’t support this at committee for the 80,000 over the three year period, but I will support it, and I appreciate Councillor Pribble hearing me out on this at a one year, and bringing back a report with some highlights of successes within that time period, as well as providing more information to us on where, if there’s been any increase in the number of family doctors that come forward in that time period. I do appreciate the communication from Dr. Neier as well, around, especially as second bullet, helping connect the interested physicians with various clinics, landlords and builders to help see the potential opportunities here.

I think that wasn’t highlighted in the initial report as well as it was in the follow up letter, which allowed for further contemplation of how to do this. I will say, I personally struggle with this one because it is a staff position to look at a strategy for recruitment and retention. However, I do understand that we are in a dire situation where we need family doctors in our community, and we have to try new approaches, and I’m willing to see what this collaborative group is able to do in that first year. I also appreciate the fact that there is the opportunity, as was mentioned, the initial report, to go to some of those organizations and businesses that were saying initially, they needed this as a recruitment tool to now go back and say, hey, there’s an opportunity for you to fund this as well, and also be part of it.

As was mentioned in the AM 980 report, there is that desire from the community to go forward, and they said they’ll move forward without that. So again, I struggle with this because I do think there’s more we need to do on the government relations side. If we’re going to enter into this conversation, I will be pushing for us to do more on the government relations side on this, because I don’t think we’ve perhaps taken enough of approach, but I do think if we’re going to start funding something, it’s going to push us into that discussion a little bit further. That comes down to the model with which we’re now looking at family health teams, how their family health physicians are being compensated, the international medical graduate programs, repatriation of graduates to our community, which I’m hoping will be the main focus of the program because, as I’ve said before, we have a lot of Canadian doctors that are trained overseas that are now matched in residencies in the United States that can be repatriated quite easily, that CPSO is now allowing to do that.

So there is that pipeline that we can be working on that was untapped and unavailable to us until legislative changes just came forward on that. So I do see opportunity there that is unique and different than we’ve had previously. So I do think there is an available difference in pipeline, but I will say, again, that I will be looking for a very robust report when this comes back to say what are our upcoming, what are our strategies, what have we seen as we move forward? So I’m happy to support this as a one year amount and then have it come back with a report.

Thank you. Thanks, Council Roman. You were the beneficiary of the, I forgot to start the timer. It happens once in a while and I’m sure you were perfectly on time.

I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next. I’ll look for other speakers on the amendment now. So I appreciate Councilor Pribble’s attempts to find an alternate path here, but I won’t be supporting the amendment because I come back to, if they’re willing to get this off the ground themselves, then come back to us in a year and show us that you’ve recruited some physicians and say you want to expand it. That I might consider being supportive of it, but we ask questions at committee about, and I know that the health team refutes it, but we ask questions about the poaching potential and what we got in a response was, this area has recruited this many physicians, this area has recruited that many physicians, but they didn’t have data as to where those physicians came from, whether they were new grads or whether they were just moving from one community to another as a result of a recruitment effort.

But Councilor Roman raises a very good point and this is why I supported Clause D, but why I’m not willing to do this is because we have not tried having a, I’m gonna use the term ambassador for lack of a better term right now. We haven’t had an ambassador from this Council, go and attend events at the med school, go and talk to the grads on their grad events, encourage them to stay here, talk to them about why this is a good community to call home. The LEDC, we are their only client. So the LEDC is a partner in this, so they’re already getting municipal funding support through the work that the LEDC is contributing to this.

I don’t know that the LEDC, ‘cause it’s not clear in the report that they’ve designated a specific ambassador to work directly with the medical school, it doesn’t seem they have, it seems that the desire is to hire another staff person, hire a hired gun recruiter to do that job for them. I think there are things that we could look at if we wanted to identify this within the existing scope of a municipalities business. That means outreach from us, outreach from the LEDC, whatever that may be. But if this program can prove concept in a year, then let them prove that concept in a year with their own funds and come back to us, looking to expand next year, if they can prove that the concept has worked for them to recruit physicians here.

So I’m still gonna be a no, but I do appreciate Council Perble trying to find middle ground here. I genuinely do, so I’ll end my comments there and we’ll see what others have to say or where the vote goes. Other speakers on the amendment. Councilor Palosa, go ahead.

Thank you, always appreciating the dialogue. But for me, it was realizing that some cities put in $200,000, or $250,000. If the program and the pilot doesn’t go as anticipated, maybe it’s just ‘cause we only did it for a pilot for a year. Maybe it’s ‘cause we didn’t put enough money in.

Maybe it’s ‘cause we didn’t play out the metrics, is the key metrics of the key performance indicator, one doctor, three doctors, four, just getting one from St. Thomas. And I’m not really familiar with the city being a second term counselor. Any pilot projects that we started, as fair warning to new colleagues, that we ever retracted it.

‘Cause once you start and you got two doctors, it’s like maybe it’ll grow. So you have a new program. Where if the first year, it just takes most of the time and the money to get the office, the contacts, the administration. And when you find out the second year, that’s when you’re gonna start to see some doctors, or they did networking at the right conferences and it’s gonna be the third year you start to see your return on investments for doctors.

So that’s part of my concern. Looking financially, there’s seven potential partners listed in this document. As we’ve seen a colleague earlier today decide to divide things up differently. I’ll highlight that we’re looking at putting in 80,000 of the 200,000.

If it was shared evenly, it would be really $28,500. It would be the city’s allowed proportion of it if we’re looking at being equal funders. I’ll leave my comments there, I’m not supporting it. Other speakers on the amendment.

I don’t see any, so we’ll vote on the amendment, which is moved by Councillor Pribble, seconded by Councillor Raman, you see it in E-Scribe. If you haven’t yet, you can refresh and see it there. And we will open that for voting. Councillor Cutty.

Second call for Councillor Cutty. Alternatively, you could vote verbally. Walmart, Cutty, absent, closing the vote. Motion carries, nine to five.

Okay, so now we have a main motion, which has an A, B, C and D. I had left off the main speakers list to Councillor Layman. But first, I guess I should look for an as amended mover and seconder. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by as amended and seconder, Councillor Raman.

Okay, Councillor Layman, you’re— Thank you, this is a hard one. Philosophically, I’m not in favor. I agree with the deputy mayor. This is a healthcare issue and I like his analogy with schools and boardables, et cetera.

That being said, I spoke to someone who’s from the medical community that’s involved in this. And they pointed out that we’ve had last four years one net new primary care practitioner. As we are one of the fastest growing cities in Canada, that’s putting a huge burden on our walk-in clinics and our ERs, it seems unfair that we have to consider this. However, the reality is other communities around us are doing this and they’re having good success.

In my mind, I compare this to the philosophical argument about whether the government to give Volkswagen billions of dollars to build a battery plant. There’s many that think the private sector should do that investment on their own. However, governments weigh the fact of the spin-off jobs and the job, the primary jobs, and the spin-off companies and opportunities around the area. And that sometimes moves the needle.

My preference would be that LEDC takes this on. I would hope that in the oncoming year that we have significant talks with them doing that ‘cause I see that as part of their role selling the city to this group that we want to come here just like they do when they sell to companies. That being said, I’m willing to give it a year. I appreciate the amendment that helped me out.

But there is truth to the danger of pilot programs becoming blocked in. And in this particular case, I’ll be looking hard at the real results that we see in a year and if it’s just a couple of doctors that I’ll say that money wasn’t worth it. Or maybe perhaps LEDC should take this on without further investments from the city. Thank you.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I will be supporting this as I’ve heard from many people, many residents that they struggle to access family care. Doctors, and I do think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

And if we can get a bunch of people in to see a family doctor, hopefully they are not using other medical services that are more costly for us. As well, I believe the green bin was piloted maybe 20 years ago and that was canceled. So I do think that we have had pilot programs that have been canceled in the past. So I just wanted to say that has happened.

I’m sure that there are others. But if it doesn’t go well, I’m fine to rescind the funding in the future. Any other speakers on the main motion now? Main motion as amended, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Yeah, so I always listen when our budget chair speaks on the main motion as amended. I am going to move on amendment to change the amount to 28,500 as per our budget chair’s comments and see if there’s a seconder for that. Okay, is there a seconder for that? Councillor Stevenson.

So there’s an amendment to change the amount to, sorry, it was 28,500. 28,500 moved in proportional. Moved and seconded. So new speakers list, new motion.

I’ll, you can speak. Yeah, I just want to continue. Councillor Palazzas, the budget chair is quite correct. The proportional share given the short-in-time frame is what I would be agreeing to.

Councillor Troso. Thank you and I appreciate the willingness to compromise here and in a lot of ways, the amount that we throw in is somewhat secondary. I think what’s really important here is the coalition effort that we’ll be building. But still, I do wanna ask on page 66, it does say the total cost of implementing and running the primary care recruitment and retention program is estimated to be $200,000.

So really, you would not be using, it includes the salary and benefit to the recruitment coordinator. Yeah, that $200,000 isn’t that what we would be splitting, which I think we’re not exactly doing. And I don’t really think there’s a problem for the city through this special fund, through this special fund, to be kicking in a little bit more. Because, yeah, if we’re not successful in getting doctors, that’s going to be something that people are gonna wanna take into account when they don’t renew this project.

But how many doctors do we have to get to provide services for people for this to be considered successful? So again, I’m not inclined to want it to go down that far, but I think it’s better than nothing. I’m anxious to hear what Councilor Preble has to say. But I think, really, we don’t wanna take it down too far.

‘Cause we have this money in our account. The current uncommitted balance of the economic development reserve fund is approximately $11 million. $11 million is there. Uncommitted.

And I think that that’s an important thing to take into account. This is not a general fund item. And this is not a situation where we’re depleting a fund where we would be talking about 80,000, 240,000 over three years, now less than that. And a fund that has an uncommitted balance of 11 million.

Sir, Hopkins, right, go ahead. I didn’t wanna speak to this, ‘cause I did not want to keep the meeting going on. It’s gone on quite long, but I think this is an important conversation. I’m not gonna be supporting the amendment to the amount.

The main reason I’m not gonna be doing that is because municipalities pay a lot for healthcare. We’ve had a lot of it downloaded. I’m not even gonna go through your worship to staff, to ask what that amount is, because they have not had the time to find it. But we do pay for healthcare as a municipality.

This is one year, 80,000. One full-time physician can directly affect the health, 1,200 to 1,500 residents in our city. Why would we not do it? Okay, Councillor blows on the amendment.

Thank you. I’m willing to play a ball with the 28,500, if it shows that we’re partners at the table. I won’t do the 80, if we start talking 80, at least I know if we did a signing bonus for someone, we could at least get a one doctor for sure. And we’d have somebody to serve as our Londoners.

I do believe it’s provincial jurisdiction of healthcare. I have friends who’ve left and gone to the States, who are Canadian, hoping that they can be repatriated and their credentials recognized. That’s not municipal jurisdiction though. But I’m willing to support it at this mount, no more.

Okay, that exhausts my speaker’s list on the amendments. The amendment is to change the amount to 28,500. I’m gonna call the question on the amendment. Councillor, you gotta put your hand up if you wanna speak before I start calling votes, okay?

I just had a question. So we are voting now on the amendment of the 80 or under 28 and a half. So the amount is 80, and that’s in the main motion. Two Councillors have amended that down, 28,500.

So if you don’t want it to be 28,500 vote against it. If you do, vote for it. So that vote is open. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, closing the vote. Motion fails, seven to seven. Okay, so the 80th amount remains. The motion’s on the floor.

I don’t have anybody else on the main speaker’s list, except for Councillor Pribble. Go ahead. I would like to decrease the amount from 80, but I would like to go to, based on what I heard and everything, I totally understand the budget chief and Deputy Mayor. I still honestly think this is important for us to be part of as a municipality, and it’s a whole municipal approach.

Bottom line is I would like to move this to $50,000, which I think is fair. And again, I know it’s only 12 and a half thousand, but let’s, if you agree, 28 and a half, I hope the budget chair is gonna be okay with 50. Let’s get it done. Let’s move on, and let’s move to another point in the agenda.

So I would like to change the 80 to 50, thank you. So I’m gonna allow the amendment. I would say it’s a significant change. There are rules in the procedure by-law that if you were gonna change it to like 28,502, that I could say that’s not within the respective council, but 50 is, I think, a reasonable number.

So I’ll look for a seconder for 50,000. Councillor Stevenson, so this moved and seconded. So now the amount is 50,000. I think the concept is the same.

I’m not really sure we need to go through it. Another speaker’s list on this. Councillor Pribble recognized it. So there’s no speakers, which I see none.

We’ll open the vote on changing the 80 to 50. Motion carries nine to five. To have found something in the work, Councillor Pribble. Perfect.

So now on the main motion, the amount is 50,000. You know, it’s the original motion plus two added. I don’t have anybody on the main speaker’s list. We’re gonna open it for voting with 50,000.

Oh, I need my mover, ‘cause we have amended again, mover and seconder for the as amended motion now. Moved by Councillor Ferreira, seconded by Councillor Pribble. Okay, moved and seconded. Let’s open that for voting.

Councillor Stevenson, Chaucelyn, and Hopkins, closing the vote. Motion carries 10 to four. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and that concludes the 12th meeting of the Communication Services Committee.

Phenomenal, thank you very much. Item 8.5, the 11th report of the Civic Works Committee. I’ll turn it over to Chair Raman to present that report. Thank you and through you at this late hour, I would like to move the 11th report of the Civic Works Committee.

We had a great discussion at committee on a number of topics, longest meeting that we’ve had so far. I won’t belabor all the points as discussed, but I will say that it felt like we covered the gamut in terms of the topics of Civic Works. So I will look to move items one through to 14 and then deal with 15 and 16 separately, unless I’m hearing from others that they like something else pulled. Okay, does anybody want anything else pulled?

Right now, 15 and 16 are gonna be dealt with separately. Anybody else want anything dealt with separately in the range of one to 14? Looks like you’re good for that. Thank you, and then I’ll put that on the floor.

Okay, items one to 14 are on the floor. Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Palosa, second call, Councillor Palosa.

Councillor Palosa absent, closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. Go ahead, Chair. Thank you, and through you, I’ll look to deal with item number 15, 4.3, the Mobility Master Plan, update strategies, mode share, target options, and project evaluation frameworks.

So we agreed discussion and committee about how we move forward with the master mobility plan. At one point, we tried to punt it to SPPC, that didn’t work. So we’re back at CWC to deal with that, which is where it belongs. And we had great discussion about the fact that this is a really important conversation for our community.

I expect that that will mean that we’ll have really robust discussion inviting other Councillors, of course, in on that as they see fit. What we did discuss that day, which is in front of you, which is the reason I pulled it, is the request to remove item 2.4.1, which was the mode target share option one from the above noted staff report. You’ll see that that went through committee. And I pulled it because we had a member vote against it.

So just wanted to give that person the opportunity to have their vote recorded here as well. Thank you. Okay, that’s on the floor by the chair. Any discussion on that item?

Seeing none, we’re going to open that for voting. Oh, wait, Chair? Yes. - Yeah.

Go ahead, Councillor and Mayor Vergen. My video glitch, okay. Thank you. With regard to in the motion on 4.3 or 15, it talks about removing option one from the noted staff report.

I voted against that because I think at this stage of the process where staff have come to us and told us that they’re from what they’ve gleaned that there’d be three options. And then at this stage to take one of them off the table, does not make sense. So I will be voting against B. So if you can call B separately, I’d appreciate it.

So that makes sense that the council would like to vote against that piece. And part B was the direction to remove option one from the mode share target. Correct. You can call B separately, that’d be appreciated.

Make this easy. I’m just going to call B first, and then we can call everything else. That’s probably the easiest way to do this. So Chair, you can just put B on the floor.

Okay, so just B is on the floor. Thank you, I’ll let you put that on the floor. Yep, thank you. Okay, so the item on the floor is the part where it says that civic administration be requested to remove item 2.41 mode target share option one from the above noted staff report.

So this is the removal of that piece. So that’s moved. Councilor, one council would like to vote on that separately. So we’re going to call that portion of the vote.

We’ll open that for voting. Councilor Cuddy, second call, Councilor Cuddy. Third call, we will mark Councilor Cuddy absent, closing the vote, motion carries, 11 to two. Thank you, I looked at the rest of that item on the floor.

Okay, this is on everything else remaining in that report on the floor. Any discussion on what remains? Okay, seeing none, we’ll vote on the balance of that item. This was like power up.

Can you reset and you ascribe please? Yes, please give me a moment. Thank you. Council should see the vote now.

Councilor Preble. Thank you, closing the vote, motion carries, 13 to zero. Glad you’re. Thank you.

And as I mentioned, we had a great discussion and that discussion also included the mayor had submitted a motion presented by the acting mayor, deputy mayor, whichever title he had that day. And that was to add more conversation with LTC and to bring back the by-law. So we did deal with that as well in that motion. Okay, I’m moving on to the next item, which is our final item, item number 16, 4.4, which was a letter from Councillor Frank, climate emergency action plan, phase out of gas.

And I understand that the Councillor would wish to have this item pulled because she has circulated another item, so being courteous and doing that. Thank you, yes. We had a good discussion, I think, at committee. And I had heard from various members, concerns regarding advocating directly to the province of Ontario and trying to stay in our lane.

As such, I took that advice and decided to rework a bit of the motion with some feedback. Directing the mayor of the city of London and Councillor Hopkins, who sits on AMO. And I should have included Councillor Raman, who sits on one of the AMO committees for land use and resources. But to submit a letter to AMO to develop a position to advocate on behalf of Ontario municipalities.

And essentially the rest of that motion and the two following are the same as the original submitted motion, but the direction of where that advocacy effort would be is instead directed towards AMO. So I’d love your support on this ‘cause all the reasons I spoke at it at committee still remain. I worry about our ability to meet our targets if our energy grid contains natural gas, which it currently does and is only set to increase. So I’m happy to answer any questions if other people have some.

But again, the only thing I changed was the first half of the first sentence and the first bullet and the rest remains the same. Thank you. Well, let’s just give me a second. So Councillors, as much as it pains me to add a step to your desired process here, given this is not identical, but very similar to your original motion.

And given the committee as a motion to refer that original direction to civic administration, I would, I have the advice that we should defeat the referral allow you to put the new slightly amended motion on the floor as the order of operations. So I would suggest that the committee chair is obligated to put the referral on the floor. We could defeat that if we’re gonna go a slightly different direction. Thank you.

Yeah, I’m happy to put the referral on the floor. I will say that the new language provided seem to me to be very similar to sending it to develop a position, which seems similar to referring it. So that’s why I was comfortable with both or either. So I’m putting the referral on the floor, hoping that it gets defeated so that we can deal with the Councillor’s motion.

Yes, and I guess where I see the difference is developing a position and actually taking these actions are where the difference is. So I’d prefer to defeat the committee’s referral first, just to be very clean about this, and then that could go on the floor. Of course, that’s up to the will of council. So the referral, the original committee directions on the floor, you’ve heard Councillor Frank essentially speak against that ‘cause she’s got an alternative.

Anybody else wanna speak to the original committee motion, which is to refer to staff for review? No? Okay, so we’ll vote on the referral, which is the original staff remote motion, or the original committee remote motion, sorry. Mayor, Chair.

Yes, Councillor Vamevergan. Yeah, we had a very full some discussion about this correspondence that we received from Councillor Frank. But the simple fact of the matter is the use of natural gas is part of our hydro grid. It is part of our production of hydro in the province of Ontario, production of electricity.

And it’s a very responsible use. The fact of the matter is our province is growing and we need more electricity. And the province has responsibly moved on this by stating in its policy that it wants to increase nuclear production and thereby not have CO2 emissions, as well as some ancillary renewables to help with peak power. But in order to maintain base load power for industry, manufacturing, et cetera, you need something continuous and stable like natural gas, which is of course the cleanest of the natural fuels, the cleanest of fossil fuels.

So it seemed to make complete sense to have this referred back to appropriate staff, which would include government relations staff to come back. Councillor, hold on, I have a point of order. I’m not sure if it’s a point of order yet, but I’ll hear what it is. And then I’ll go back to you on the speakers list.

Go ahead. Yep, thank you. The Councillor staying that natural gas is the cleanest. My belief is that it’s hydrogen.

So I’m not sure if we’re allowing general opinions to be stated as fact, if that’s a point of order, but I just want to inquire. That’s more debate than a point of order. People can have opinions as they see fit. So I’m gonna say that’s not a point of order.

I’m gonna let the Councillor continue with the comments. Well, I think I made it very clear it’s the cleanest of the fossil fuels. And so the promise is moving responsibly on this in terms of its mix. We have to get through this hump, this period of time where the three or four or five years that are needed to build the nuclear reactors, at the same time, we have to replace or add this ability to generate power using some natural gas.

So again, very thoughtful, logical policy from the province. And I think to just try and send in some kind of letter or something of that ilk to tell them how they should be generating power. I think we need to hear back from appropriate staff. And that’s why this motion is here for the referral.

So I would ask that colleagues support the referral. Thank you, Mayor. Okay, thank you. Any other speakers on the referral?

Okay, I see none. So we’re gonna open the original committee recommendation, which was to refer to staff for review. We’re gonna open that for voting now. Mr.

Hill here, thank you, closing the vote. Motion is lost five to eight. Okay, so the committee’s recommendation is defeated. This is the point at which an alternate motion can be put on the floor.

Councillor Frank, go ahead. Thank you, yes. I would like to put my alternate motion on the floor, changing the direction of the advocacy, and I seek the support of council to make it. I’m not gonna reiterate all my points from planning, or sorry, from civic works because it’s late, but a lot of them are contained within the updated motion that was circulated before this council meeting.

Seconded by Councillor Frara. We’re gonna get that up on the screen, a refresh and e-scribe in a moment. But I’ll entertain debate on this. Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead.

I’m gonna try and be brief. I wanna thank Councillor Frank for the very thoughtful, perhaps at times meandering, but ‘cause we did have some sidebars. But we had a great discussion on this last week about where my comfort level is in terms of municipalities doing one-offs to the province on policies, and how much more I prefer if there’s a team effort through AMO, or federally through FCM. I think the strength that comes from working together through our municipal partner organizations, AMO and FCM, makes much more sense.

It’s much harder for a federal or a provincial government to ignore a consistent direction from 20, 30, 50 municipalities through an AMO position than it is in case of SCM hundreds, and actually in case of AMO, a couple hundred and some, too, Councillor Hopkins, I’m sure, could give me the exact number. But the fact is when we’re consistent, when we’re going on a policy direction that’s been developed through AMO or FCM, it’s one ask. When it’s London asking one thing, and Kingston asking something slightly different, and Sudbury asking something slightly different again, it becomes a lot easier for the province to put it on a shelf and take no action. So I really thank the Councillor for rethinking her motion.

For sending this to AMO, we’re discussion with Councillors from other municipalities can happen, and then we can find a cohesive policy position to bring forward. Any other speakers on the motion on the floor? Councillor ramen, go ahead. Thank you, and through you, Chair, I’m just looking for clarification as to whether or not I will be directed on that action.

Thank you. Councillor Frank. Thanks, I’d love to add that. I shouldn’t want to delay by making it lengthier, but I’d love to add that in this as a direct to Councillor ramen as well, given the position she has on the task.

So I’m going to make a bit of a chairs ruling here. You said that in your introductory remarks, and we just copied and pasted your original motion up, we should have actually incorporated that into the motion you’re actually making. So unless someone objects, I’m going to have the clerks add that additional name in, doesn’t change the substance of the motion. So, and I can do that because the Councillor did reference that in when she was talking about moving this motion.

So that will be in there, and any other speakers on this motion? Mr. Mayor, can you clarify where that addition is supposed to be, is it in part C with the Mayor and Councillor ramen and Councillor Hopkins submitting the letter? Is that correct?

Yes, because we’re all associated with AMO in one way, we’ll write a joint letter together. So that’s the Mayor, Councillor Hopkins and Councillor ramen. Yeah, they need to be in both spots, I assume. Actually, I don’t think, so first off, there shouldn’t be a B and a C, only they’re both the same thing.

One of those, I think, is redundant. It seems like the original language and the new language got combined there. So that just needs a little bit of a tidy up as well. Ms.

was like power. If you look, it looks like B and C are identical. One spells out association municipalities of Ontario and the other one doesn’t. Oh, okay, let me just refresh.

Sorry, you guys refresh a little faster than I do. Okay, that looks like it’s got all those pieces in it now. So I’ll look to see if there’s any other speakers. Okay, seeing none, we’re going to open that for voting.

Councillor van Mirbergen. I can call Councillor van Mirbergen. I’ll vote no. Thank you, closing the vote.

Motion carries 10 to three. Thank you, that concludes my report. Okay, thank you. So on to added reports, there’s one and then another one.

Do we have the 11th report of council closed session? And we have an added, which is the report from the meeting last night. I’m going to start with the report of council and closed session, and that’s Councillor Layman who is going to present the report on my behalf. I think he lucked out with a shorter version of the report this time, so.

Yes, and thank you so much for that, Chair. I’d like to report out the 11th report of council and closed session. Your council in closed session report one, QP 101, tentative agreement that on the recommendation of the city manager and director of people services with the concurrence of the deputy city manager finance supports, the memorandum of agreement dated June 28th, 2023 and agreed to items dated February 6th and 28th, 2023 concerning the 2023 to 2026 collective agreement for local union number 101 Canadian union of public employees, otherwise known as QP local 101 be ratified. And number two, awarding of the 2023 Queen Elizabeth scholarships and on the recommendation of the city clerk and in recognition of achieving the highest school elastic achievement in their graduating year.

Following students be awarded the 2023 Queen Elizabeth scholarships in the amount showing Angelina Lamb from London Central Secondary School with an average. Let’s make sure my glasses are clear here. 99.33% awarded $2,000 scholarship and a Maris Pang from Sir Frederick Banting Secondary School and 99.17% average again for a $2,000 award and that concludes the report. Okay, Councillor, you’re presenting the report and there’s motion so you get to stand for this.

I put myself on the speaker’s list so I’m gonna hand the chair, Councillor Ramen, need your microphone though. Thank you, recognizing that of the chair and Mayor Morgan, go ahead. I’m gonna speak to the ratification vote that we’re about to have on the collective agreement with our inside workers and QP101. First, I wanna thank our staff team who worked diligently on the negotiations to find a fairly negotiated and freely negotiated collective agreement which I feel balances the needs of our workers with the needs of the corporation and coming to an agreement that will span this entire term of council I think is quite an accomplishment and although council has the ability to set some of those parameters, it’s really the ground work of our staff team who makes this happen.

I’ve been part of councils where we haven’t always had a smooth labor relationship in the past and I’m very proud of the track record of the previous council and this council in finding a way to negotiate, freely negotiated and fair collective agreements with our employees, it helps us retain those employees, it helps with morale, it helps us find the common grounds on how we provide services to lenders together and I’m very proud of the work that I’ve done, that our staff team have done and that we have the opportunity to ratify today’s council so I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this. I know Steve Holland was in the gallery earlier tonight, not sure if he wanted to just take in a meeting or wanted to see if this was gonna come up in time but I wanna say to him and the union and the work that they have done for us, their work is valued, they do incredible work for the citizens of London and we appreciate what they do each and every day and being able to ratify this agreement with them is a testament to our partnership to provide great service to the citizens of London. Thank you, returning the chair to you. Okay, any other speakers on the two items before us?

Okay, seeing none, we’re gonna open up both those items for voting. Councillors say, if you have an issue with the vote pop up, you can vote verbally, should you choose? Colleagues, I fixed it, but if you hit the refresh button so the reload the page button and then you’ll see a voting in progress. If it doesn’t pop up and you click on the voting in progress then you can cast your vote.

If you can’t figure that out or you have trouble with that, you can vote verbally. I’m unable to refresh, I vote yes. Vote yes. Councillor Stevenson, votes yes.

Those in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. I just have our support just pop around to the Councillors who couldn’t get it to refresh and just give them a hand. I would say, just so you know what I did, I just refreshed the entire browser window. Okay, well, we don’t have a vote in imminently in this moment ‘cause that one is now concluded.

So I’m gonna have the DEPUTY MAYOR present the 20th report, the Special Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting, this was from last night. So I’ll have that presented by the DEPUTY MAYOR. Thank you, Your Worship. Although I feel since I chaired, I should get you to present the report from SPPC.

However, not to prolong the meeting any longer. Last night’s special SPPC meeting, there are three items on the agenda. The disclosure of pecarian interest, the health and homelessness whole of community response and the July progress update. I’d suggest since there were divided votes last night, the colleagues may wish to separate those votes again this evening and I’m just going to state, I believe the votes were divided up, that A was handled separately, B was handled separately and the remainder of the report was handled in one vote.

I’m seeing some nodding of heads and concurrence with that. So I think what I will do is put perhaps item one and item actually the clerk probably won’t want me to bundle those. So disclosure of pecarian interest by itself, let’s just deal with that and then we can deal with the other two as split votes. Okay, the chair’s just putting the disclosures of which there were none on.

This can’t imagine there’d be debate on that. So as soon as that’s ready, we’re going to open that for voting. This is just the disclosure piece. Councillor Ferra, pose in the vote.

Motion carries 13 to zero. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m ready to put part two A on the floor for a council’s vote. And while we’re getting that ready to vote, I do want to acknowledge that one of our two co-leads who was so gracious with his time last night, Mr.

Warren is in the gallery again tonight. I do hope that colleagues, although we are separating this out to have individual votes, I do hope that colleagues had sufficient debate last night. Otherwise, I will caution we might be where we were last week looking for a motion to extend. Just 4.1 A, correct?

Sorry, I was reading the two from the committee item rather than the, so this, yes, 4.1 A. So just so everybody’s clear, 4.1 A is the London, the London’s Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System response proposed hubs implementation plan as appended to the staff report dated July 24th, 2023 at schedule one be endorsed. That’s the only item on the floor so far. Okay, any discussion on that?

I think you’re the only one. So go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. All right, thank you. So at committee, I voted no.

And the reason is that the broader community is starting to tune in to this process more. They’ve been hearing about it for months and months, but now they’re hearing things like a quarter of a billion dollars capital, a hundred million in operating. They’re hearing about drug use being permitted inside and outside of both the hubs and the highly supportive housing. They’re realizing that when we had the consultation, all the facts weren’t presented at the time, only the hub location.

There were very few answers to my questions last night regarding projections and there were a lot of no answers last night. There hasn’t been time for community dialogue. And last night, the motion to refer for only one month was rejected. I should be able to receive the information and engage with my constituents before any vote, let alone something with such a large financial commitment that impacts the entire city, something that we all heard about last summer.

And this plan doesn’t really, in my opinion, address what I heard at the door last summer, because it wasn’t just about housing the high acuity. It was about dealing with the impacts of homelessness on people. They don’t have access to their parks and their trails. They don’t feel secure with their property and their personhood when they can’t come downtown.

So we haven’t been addressing these kinds of things in this plan. So when we talk about whole of community, we’ve come back with one very small piece. And if we look at the winter response, that was a $5 million winter response plan that came to us in about eight lines with very few details. And I happily endorsed it, but I had no idea that that was the only information that I would be able to have access to.

There we had lead agency model with subsidiary agencies. Again, it seemed fine. But as a duly elected city councilor, I can’t see the contracted relationship. So I was told it was 24/7 women’s shelter with X number of beds.

It is not. And I hear that the contract that was signed wasn’t for 24/7, but that’s not what council approved. It’s not what I heard. And even with an MFAPA, I have not been able to get any financial data.

So if we compare that to now, we’ve got the same model with the same groups, but a much more complex structure than lead agency with one or two subsidiary agencies. I saw the governance model. I don’t think it was presented to council, but it’s a consortium, and it’s all kinds of different agencies working together, which again, it sounds great, but the logistics of it shared accountability, partnerships, all this kind of stuff. I can’t even see what happened last winter.

And we don’t have results. People care, I care. And when we are paying $50,000 a month for an agency, we’re women are sleeping outside. I’m not maligning the agency.

I’m saying, tell us what’s wrong. Tell us so that we can help as a city council to solve some of the problems so that people are housed. And what the experts have told us is needed, we can actually have that result. We can have the 24/7 that we heard about through the hunger strike, 24/7 shelters.

And we don’t have one in that women’s shelter. And I don’t know why. I wanna know why. I wanna help.

And I wanna know why the plan coming forward has three more hubs of 24-hour shelters when we can’t do this one. I heard last night, we need to do something. Well, no, we have a history only eight months in. We had a core area action plan.

We have all these things. We spent $10 million, but we don’t have results. I don’t think that we need to just go and spend money and tell Londoners we did something. I think they’re tired of that.

They wanna know what it is they can expect from us. And what I’m seeing in this plan is fewer deaths, fewer encampments, and more people housed. You can’t get more vague than that. That’s not okay.

We want the details. You said with the projections, we don’t have the data to know. I agree, but that’s what projections are. We make assumptions that the homelessness is gonna continue to rise the same as it did before, or more, or less, and just tell us why.

What are we gonna measure it to? We talk about accountability and transparency, but we don’t have that now. We do not have that with the winter response. And so to come and ask for more without saying, hey, we know this is the way it went, but now we’re gonna do X.

I can’t, in a good governance position, just keep saying yes. I hear we gotta do it now, you know, rushing is not good in a crisis situation. You don’t run into the burning house. You take a second and you figure things out.

So this do it now. We’re just asking for one more month, a bit more time. And I heard some of my colleagues say that they were, you know, it’s okay, we can just move along now, and we’ll wait and see about the expressions of interest. But if we think that we get to just allow this to move to the next stage where we’ve got partners putting in time and effort and energy to put something together, our city manager said last night that she thought it would be an expectation of proponents that we would be moving forward.

So this is a bit like our strategic plan where we say yes to everything, but we know we’re not gonna say yes to everything. People do a lot of work and we’re not making the tough decisions that people need to be able to, so we’re not wasting their time. So if council chose to end an RFP, the city manager said last night that there would be considerations that you would wish to hear from both finance and legal on that. So if you’re only voting to pursue this RFP with the thought that it can be ended, then I think that we should be taking the time to go into closed session and get finance and legal because I don’t know how long we can keep saying we’re building a bridge as we walk across it.

At some point, we’re gonna need to get clear and the province and the federal government is not gonna build a bridge without a design. So I’m asking my colleagues to say I care about this so much and I’m asking you to get the details, let’s do this right, let’s be able to celebrate really creating results for all Londoners. Okay, other speakers on this item, this is part A. Go ahead, Councilor Raman.

Thank you and through you, Chair. I know this is just on part A, but I will say that the last speaker did not stay on just part A, so I’m hoping that I’m given the same parameters to speak broadly about the issues and also to talk about what was shared. So I heard again, we do not have accountability and transparency. In referencing everything that’s here tonight, part of what we spent hours discussing yesterday, part of what went on here at SPPC last night was the opportunity to ask those questions to have that fulsome discussion to add additional accountability and transparency measures into this.

What I’m not hearing is what are those additional accountability and transparency measures that are not here that one would like to see? Because if there’s something else, there should be more amendments, there should be more opportunities for those items to be brought forward and discussed and put into these motions. What I’m hearing is there isn’t this, what’s the solution that’s being proposed outside of that? I think that last night we had careful and contemplative discussion around accountability and transparency, around continued communication, around how that effective communication can now be rolled out through community meetings, through additional engagements, through keeping our get involved site open and to continue the discussion on different parts of the plan.

And then we continued that into the July progress report and looked at funding additional communication strategies. So there are these methods and these measures, even if you looked at what we just did at CAPS, we just had another discussion where we said here, let’s talk about different ways to do this. So I feel like we are having those conversations what I struggle with is part of this conversation that we need to have with the community is about bring us those ideas through the get involved and believe that you will be heard. And so I feel like there is that trust element as well that we have to help to establish and that is why the first thing we’re dealing with is to be endorsed.

So I will be endorsing this tonight. I will continue to support additional transparency measures, having two members of council now on the accountability and strategy table, sorry, it’s getting late. And lastly, I will also be supporting the fact that we will continue the dialogue with the community. And I look forward to those additional conversations that are happening around additional needs and addressing concerns of neighbors and residents as we discussed at CAPS as well.

So I think through the CAPS report, I think there’s lots of opportunity here. Wouldn’t it be great if we all endorsed it? Thank you. Other speakers to this.

And you’re right, Councilor, I’m gonna kind of give some leeway for people to comment generally because we don’t have to debate every single clause. I think that’s excessive. So it would be great if everybody spoke their piece here, just like everybody’s done so far. Councilor Troso.

I’m gonna be very brief and I’m not through the chair. I’m not gonna repeat a lot of the points that I made last night, but yes, you do run into a burning house. People in there are about to die and you’ve got the equipment and you’re the fire department. Yes, you do go into the burning house and try to save people.

You don’t stand outside saying, well, maybe we should do a study to decide whether or not it’s a good idea to go into a burning house while people are dying, being, being, being, being hurt by smoke. I just think we went through so much rich discussion last night and there were some really thoughtful amendments that came forward. And I think it’s important to not go through all the details again of the standards of care, which were impeccable or the selection criteria, which were very thought out, but what I want to just spend a minute on is talking about the ongoing public participation because I don’t want people to get the impression that, well, Council’s done this, it’s done, we’re gonna implement this, see ya. That is not what is going on here.

We have got a very, very well thought out and careful set of ongoing consultations, ongoing, ongoing meetings, but we’ve got to start working on this. And yes, we are gonna issue an RFP, and it’s true. Every time you issue an RFP, there are contract and legal implications of it. We do not ask to go into closed session every time we issue an RFP.

It’s something we have to do, because if we want to take the next step and actually realize that some of these hubs are actually gonna get built about the constructed and the buildings are already in, and are gonna start providing the kinds of services that I think everybody agrees people need. Yes, we’re gonna issue an RFP. And yes, there are always legal issues when you issue an RFP, but we do it multiple times. We do it multiple times every meeting.

So I don’t think we need any special legal advice about this right now, or special understanding about what’s different about these contracts. We’re gonna be asking through these requests to help us fill in where the hubs are gonna go. And I think I’m pretty much out of time, so I’ll just close by saying, this has been a really good process. And this has been a good process that’s been very respectful of public opinion.

And to say for one minute that there has not been adequate public participation, it is just so far from the truth, because civic administration, most of the counselors have really been, I’m not admonishing anybody. I do have to deal with the point of order, the point of personal privilege actually, it was mentioned, so just let me hear it, and then I can come back to your screen, so articulate the point of personal privilege that you’d like to articulate. Thank you, saying there’s no truth in what I just said. We could each have our own truth, and if Councilor Traso could just state what he believes without referring to me.

Councilor Traso? Certainly. - This is not counting towards your time, so if you want to just respond. If I wasn’t specifically referring to you, you’re not the only person on this Council or in the community who’s raising questions about whether or not our public participation has been adequate.

But what I was trying to say, and maybe I could be more articulate, is we have had a good public participation process, and it’s taken a number of different forms, and it’s gonna continue to take a number of different forms, and the thing about the add-on resolutions that we made last night was we specifically recognized that the public participation aspect of this is going to be iterative and ongoing. It is not over. And if people feel that they want to have, people in the community feel that they want to have more say in where the pubs are gonna go, well most certainly, that’s anticipated. We have not made secret decisions about where the hubs are going.

We have not even claimed to have made decisions about where the hubs are going. We adopted criteria, that’s what we did. And now we’re taking the next step and realizing that. So I think it’s important for members of the community to appreciate the care that this Council and this Council a bit for a few hours, but civic administration and our partners in the community have been doing for much, much more time than we have.

And it’s been pretty fantastic what’s happened. And we’re not finished. We are just starting and we are going to be spending a lot of time talking to the public about this. I think every person on this Council and every person in civic administration is dedicated to that concept.

Thank you. Other speakers, that’s a privilege. Go ahead. So I’m just gonna say when I said 22 hours ago or something like that, as a concept, I do support it.

I will endorse it because I do believe we need to move forward. And there are a couple of things that we need to, in this process, we need to have, once the hubs are assigned or selected, we do need financial details and we need detailed services description. And that will give us accountability, transparency and consistency. So I do understand that at the stage of the game, we do not have, and actually, to be honest with you, I don’t think we can have exact detailed financials because again, we didn’t assign the hubs.

We have no idea if it’s gonna be for 25, 35 people. 10 people difference is about 30%. So the financials will be different. So bottom line is, I will endorse it.

I do like it as a concept because I did get feedback from local market, from international market. So I do agree with it. I wanna move on, but once we decide on the hubs, I would like to have the detailed financials and detailed services. So we can be held accountable, have a transparency and have a consistency.

Thank you. Other speakers? Councillor Lehman, go ahead. Thank you.

You were tasked with a very complex chore. Obviously, all of us have referenced, we heard this at the doors when we canvassed last fall. We’ve experienced ourselves in the city. We hear people who visit our city refer to this.

It’s not a unique challenge to London. It’s across Canada, across North America. But I find unique to London is that this is from what I’ve seen, real through effort to come up with a unique plan that will allow us to have a start to address this problem. If there was a solution, say in Denver, that produced results, of course, we would just copy that solution.

Unfortunately, I haven’t heard of such a solution, nor are people that I’ve spoken to. For me, there’s three things about this plan that may be hopeful and confident that we will see success here. The first and foremost is to focus on high acuity. When I was out talking to folks at the door, I think everyone realizes when the London Psychiatric Hospital in St.

Thomas were closed about 20 or so years ago, we lost 750 beds. We have 150 beds now at LHSC. Well, that’s 600, and funny enough, that’s the number that we’re talking about today. I believe that that is at the core of the issue that we’re seeing out there.

There is folks that are suffering out there with no place to turn. So the fact that I heard last night that the focus, I heard it’s over and over. The focus is gonna be on those with high acuity. Issues made me confident.

And what I would like to say to staff now is don’t lose focus on that. Stay true to that ‘cause there’ll be temptations to move away to help other areas of the community that are on our streets. And there’s a danger in that because if you try to help everyone, you’re gonna help no one. Stay focused as much of the temptation is to deviate, to get more people in the hubs.

Stay focused on that aspect of the plan that was presented last night. The second thing is safety. And this is what I’ve learned through speaking with folks on the street, speaking to the closest thing I’ve seen to a hub is the Winter Response Program last year. Oh, Fanshawe, that the Deputy Mayor and I went out and engaged with people who were staying there and it was a tremendous learning experience.

They appreciated being off the streets and put them in a safe environment. And we have to make sure that environment is different from the streets. That there is restricted access to those that are, we are helping. We have private areas for them to have private time.

And then we have areas where there’s communal activities, which I believe is an important part of it. But that is also safe and I will be looking at that for the service providers that respond to RFPs. The last point is flexibility and that’s been mentioned. We realize that this is a work in progress, staff have indicated that there will be movement as we go through to see what works, what doesn’t.

And also I hope to respond to community engagement, which we all will be doing as more of these details get out into the public. So with those three things, I hope they’re part of the RFP process. And I look forward to when we look at the actual providers and the locations that they are proposing. And I want to thank you very much to you, to the agencies that have been involved, to the private corporations and nonprofits, et cetera.

I’ve been part of the process. It’s difficult to come up with something that you’ll never please everyone. But I think we’re at a good starting point now. So I encourage you to stay the course and please keep your options open as we wind our way down this road.

Thank you. Okay, I have myself on the list. So I’m from the chair to Councilor ramen. Thank you, recognizing that I have the chair and Mayor Morgan on the speaker’s list.

Thanks colleagues. I appreciate the debate that we had last night. I don’t have any scripted notes here. I just want to speak from my perspective, and I’ll say this is just my perspective, but it’ll all be through the presiding officer.

I want to just make a couple of personal observations on how we got here. ‘Cause I think we can lose the focus in context, ‘cause we get hung up on details for small things that may not have gone perfectly along the way. And sometimes we miss the big picture. So let me step back and just remind you of the big picture on how we got to this point, how we’re taking a step and how there are many steps to go.

Last fall, we had hundreds of people, or we’re 70 agencies come together and something that has not been seen by municipalities across this country and say we work in a space. We disagree, but we’re going to come together and we’re going to try to find a new path forward because what is happening now is not working. And I see that and I continue to see that as incredibly inspiring. There are agencies who say at the end of this, we might not operate in the same way, but we care about the people who are suffering so much that we’re willing to come together, put our differences aside, people who believe in treatment and harm reduction, saying we need both, we need to work together.

People who have differences of opinion, agencies who don’t often work together, sitting at a table beside each other, people who have been at odds in the past, sitting as partners, development community, businesses, our hospital systems who for years, I haven’t seen them engage in city council, sitting at the table, CEOs spending time sitting up in this council chamber, being part of something that is bigger than each and every one of the agencies and bigger than us and bigger than our council. That’s inspiring. The other thing I’ve seen through this process is I have seen, and I’ll go all the way to last night, I have seen the co-chairs of this, stand here in this room and be peppered with very difficult, very complex questions and stand there confidently with accurate, robust, confident, valuable answers for members of this council. And I’ve seen people change their mind because of good, solid due diligence, knowledge and evidence-based research, going into a plan, getting asked questions and being able to respond.

I’ve seen the public confused. And I’ve seen us have our general work on providing housing with our work for the most vulnerable with permanent encampment strategies, temporary encampment strategies, winter responses, all get mixed together and actually create quite a bit of confusion about what we’re doing and what step we’re doing. And I’ve seen our staff. I’ve seen our staff in pretty much every member of our senior staff, but I think there are a few, you know, Mr.

Dickens and Ms. Livingston, a few extended members of their team who have spent a majority of their time this year working on something that is bigger than all of us. And having to do all of the regular duties that they have in their regular jobs, but being able to ensure that the city of London is providing leadership and information and bringing people together, responding to each and every one of the challenges that we’ve made at council, doing their best to shift and adjust and respond to our concerns and our needs, I’m super inspired and proud of the work that you’re doing. And I know there’s been difficult questions and I’ll say there’s been words said that can be very hurtful.

There’s a difference between having the intent and then having the impact. And I’ve seen people impact in this process, maybe comments with noble intent, land in a way that’s had difficult impact on people’s personalities, their way they feel they do their job, it’s been difficult. So what do I think happened last night? I think you saw us come together and say, hey, there’s a bunch of things that could go better.

There’s a bunch of changes we could make. And to take this next step, let’s put ourselves in a good position. So we approved and we can tonight approve a robust communication plan. We can cut through the confusion with the public, we can communicate better.

We put a process of continuous engagement together. We can say we don’t just don’t want you to come to one day in August and find your way downtown and come to a meeting and then go home and say you contributed. We’re gonna set up a progress of continuously getting feedback because we’re gonna need to correct. We’re gonna need to change.

We’re gonna have a thousand decision points between now and the end. And we’re gonna need that valuable insight in information. And as I approach the end of my time, I just wanna say I am very proud of this council and the way that you’ve debated over the last while on this. I think you brought thoughtful, reasonable positions to this table, you’ve sought answers, you’ve been open to change, you’ve been open to different ways of thinking.

And I think you have come and you’ve represented your constituents very well. I know my time is up, so I’ll leave it at that for tonight. But I just wanna thank you for the privilege of being mayor and being a part of this process. I look forward to taking the next steps together with all of you and I’ll certainly be supporting all of the components of this plan tonight.

Thank you, returning the chair to you, seeing no further speakers. Okay, any further speakers? Okay, we have, the deputy mayor has put 4.18 on the table. So we’ll open that for voting.

Is anybody having trouble voting? Other votes, yes. Councillor Frank votes, yes. Councillor Stevenson.

Councillor Cuddy, I think we’re getting your theme song there. Councillor Stevenson. Sorry, I’m not sure if you heard me. Cutty votes in the hall, thank you.

Thank you. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 10 to four. We’ll put B on the floor.

Okay, B is on the floor. That is to undertake a better procurement process to select the lead agencies. So that’s on the floor. I think everybody’s said their piece.

So I’m gonna open that for voting. Councillor Cuddy, Councillor Stevenson. Councillor Cuddy, both. Thank you, close in the vote.

Close in the vote, motion carries 10 to four. And if there’s an open microphone, if that could be, please be muted. Thank you, Your Worship. I will now put C through H on the floor.

Okay, C through H. Colleagues can see that in your package. This is basically pretty much the same way the votes were divided last night. So just make sure everybody knows what we’re voting on.

Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Cuddy, second call, Councillor Cuddy. Third call, Councillor Cuddy, Bill Mark. Councillor Cuddy, absent, closing the vote.

Motion carries 12 to one. Thank you, colleagues. I’m now going to put from the added reports, 9.23, July progress update, health and homelessness whole of community on the floor. That piece is on the floor.

Let’s see, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Van Meerbergen, can call Councillor Van Neerbergen. We’ll mark Councillor Van Meerbergen absent. Close in the vote, motion carries 11 to one.

That completes the added report of the strategic priorities and policy committee. Okay, that concludes added reports, deferred matters. There are none, inquiries. See if there’s any inquiries, seeing none, emergent motions, there are none.

Onto bylaws, thank the clerk has a plan for me. Okay, colleagues, here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to do 212 to 303. We’re going to exclude 225, which is the London hydro related matter because of the motion we made earlier.

I don’t need to separate anything out on, for Councillor Van Meerbergen, he’s not here anymore. So, unless there’s any objections, I think we can deal with everything except 225, Councillor Hopkins. If you can pull 1340, bill number 251, which relates to Richmond Street. Okay, so 212 to 303, polluting 225 and 251.

Okay, so those are bylaws 255 to 303, no? Okay, so you want to do the range of them separate, 255 to 303, okay. So that means we’re doing 212 to 254, excluding 225 for London hydro and 251 at Councillor Hopkins request. Okay, we have this sorted out 212, 254, excluding the London hydro item, which is 225, and excluding the item that Councillor Hopkins wanted separate, which is for 599-601 Richmond Street, which is 251, and also not even getting yet to the ones that Councillor Trossal wants separate.

So ideally, this is the ones that everybody kind of doesn’t have any sort of desire to vote differently on. Okay, so we’re gonna look for a mover and a seconder for that, Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Ferrera, this is first reading, so there’s no debate, so I’m gonna open that for voting. Councillor Stevenson appears to have left the room, marketing Councillor Stevenson absent, closing the vote, motion carries 11 to zero. Second reading for that, those bills moved by, Councillor Ferrera, seconded by Councillor Layman, any debate?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open those for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 11 to zero. Third reading, I’m gonna move on to seconder, Councillor Preble, seconded by Councillor ramen. There’s no debate on third reading, so we’ll open that for voting.

Councillor Stevenson is entering the room, who’s active, Councillor? We’re voting on third reading of the bylaws, these are the ones that no one wanted pulled separately. So it’s not the Council policy items, not the London hydro item, and not the item that Councillor Hopkins wanted separate, which was 599-601 Richmond Street, it’s everything else. Okay, can you do that in your microphone?

I vote yes. Thank you, closing the vote, motion carries 12 to zero. Okay, next we’ll do bill 251. Councillor Hopkins asked that to be dealt with separately.

I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for 251, which is 599-601 Richmond Street. Mover and a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. This is first reading, so we’ll open that for voting. Mr.

Mayor, can you please repeat the mover and the seconder? Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Closing the vote, motion carries nine to three.

Okay, second reading on this bill, moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Pribble. Any debate? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries nine to three.

Third reading, moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Pribble. There’s no debate on third reading, so we’ll open third reading for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries nine to three. Okay, next we’ll do essentially the corporate services committee motions based on the policy manual, which is bills 255 to 303, since it’s small changes to each of those bylaws.

I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for those Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Mr. Layman. We’ll open that for voting. Councillor Ferrer, closing the vote, motion carries 11 to one.

Okay, second reading for those bills. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder, moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. I need debate. Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to one. 11 to one. Third reading, moved by Councillor Ferrer. I assume that’s why there’s some noise over there.

You really want to move the motion. Seconded by Councillor Layman. There’s no debate on third reading, so I will open that for voting. Toronto, closing the vote, motion carries 11 to one.

Okay, that exhausts the bylaws. Before we adjourn, I just want to make one quick comment. Colleagues, over the last little while, we’ve had a lot of long meetings. So I want to say thanks to our staff, particularly all of the support staff, IT supports, security.

Everybody who, as we work long hours, help make sure that we can get the work done that we have to do here. I know there’s been a number of them in a row. We just really appreciate everybody who ensures that we can get the work done in this chamber, no matter how long it takes on any given day. So I appreciate that.

Thank you very much. We appreciate you getting claps, so we’ll be faster in the future for you as a reward. With that, I’ll look for a motion to adjourn. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Freire.

We’ll do this by hand, all those in favour of adjournment. That motion carries. We’re adjourned.