August 29, 2023, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:07 PM; it being noted that Councillors P. Van Meerbergen and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that Councillor A. Hopkins disclosed a pecuniary interest with respect to Item 3 of the 12th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, having to do with an agreement related to the property located at 869 Commissioners Road West, by indicating that she owns property in close proximity to the location.

2.   Recognitions

2.1   His Worship the Mayor Recognizes the 2023 Queen Elizabeth Scholarship Recipients

Angelina Lam, London Central Secondary School with a 99.33% average

Amaris Peng, Sir Frederick Banting Secondary School with a 99.17% average

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/15/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/15/CSC)

 

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending lease of 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. (6.3/15/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending 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. (6.4/15/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending 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. (6.5/15/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending 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. (6.6/15/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending 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. (6.7/15/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending 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. (6.8/15/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending 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. (6.9/15/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending 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. (6.10/15/CSC)

4.11 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. (6.1/21/SPPC)

4.12 Solicitor/Client Advice

Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, as it relates to the Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response and future operation of the Hubs. (6.2/21/SPPC)

4.13 (ADDED) Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; including communications necessary for that purpose, and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation; 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. (2.4/2/CPSC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The Council convenes in closed session at 1:19 PM and reconvenes in public session at 1:40 PM.

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

5.1   13th Meeting Held on July 25, 2023

2023-07-25 Council Minutes - Full

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the Minutes of the 13th Meeting held on July 25, 2023, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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

6.1    Fireworks By-law Options

6.2    Springbank Park Recreational Dam

6.3    8th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Advisory Committee

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

7.1   Designate Rail Safety Week - September 18-24, 2023

2023-08-29 - Motion Notice - Designate Rail Safety Week September 18-24 - Councillor Hopkins

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Peloza

That pursuant to section 11.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, leave be given for the introduction of a notice of motion to consider a time sensitive request for the Municipal Council to proclaim September 18 – 24, 2023 as Rail Safety Week.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Peloza

That in support of ongoing efforts to raise awareness, save lives and prevent injuries in our community, September 18 – 24, 2023 BE PROCLAIMED as Rail Safety Week in the City of London.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.2   Housing Accelerator Fund

2023-08-29 - Motion Notice - Housing Accelerator Fund - Full

At 1:47 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan places Councillor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 2:14 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That pursuant to section 11.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, leave BE GIVEN for the introduction of a notice of motion to consider a City-initiated zoning by-law amendment that would permit as of right, building permits for up to 4 residential units.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Housing Accelerator Fund application:

a)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a zoning by-law amendment that would permit as of right building permits for up to 4 residential units wherever a zone permits singles, semis, or street townhomes, for consideration by Council as soon as permitted by the statutory requirements of The Planning Act; and

b)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED at their earliest opportunity, to review and prepare a strategic assessment for Council, of specific neighbourhoods where as of right building permits for more than 5 residential units may be appropriate within the existing framework of neighbourhood development.

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

Motion that part b) BE REFERRED to the Planning and Environment Committee for consideration:

b)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED at their earliest opportunity, to review and prepare a strategic assessment for Council, of specific neighbourhoods where as of right building permits for 5 or more residential units may be appropriate within the existing framework of neighbourhood development.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion that part a), BE APPROVED:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Housing Accelerator Fund application:

a)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a zoning by-law amendment that would permit as of right building permits for up to 4 residential units wherever a zone permits singles, semis, or street townhomes, for consideration by Council as soon as permitted by the statutory requirements of The Planning Act; and

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.   Reports

8.1   13th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2023-08-14 PEC Report 13

At 2:16 PM, Councillor S. Stevenson leaves the meeting.

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 13th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 8th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 8th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee:

a)    the Ecological Community Advisory Committee Working Group comments on the Environmental Impact Statement relating to the property located at 952 Southdale Road West E FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review and consideration; and,

b)    clauses .11, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1 to 5.6, inclusive BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.3) Designation Pursuant to Part IV, Ontario Heritage Act - 1350 Wharncliffe Road South

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the designation of the property located at 1350 Wharncliffe Road South:

a)    Notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990, c. O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix C of this report; and,

b)    should no objections to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 1350 Wharncliffe Road South to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix C of the staff report dated August 14, 2023 BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

it being noted that should an objection to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a subsequent staff report will be prepared;

it being further noted that should an appeal to the passage of the by-law be received, the City Clerk will refer the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal; and,

it being also noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated July 28, 2023, from M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning / Design, with respect to this matter;

it being acknowledged 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

8.1.4   (2.4) Heritage Alteration Permit Application - 134 Wortley Road - Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application under Section 42, Ontario Heritage Act, seeking to recognize the demolition of the former building and approval for a proposed new building on the heritage designated property located at 134 Wortley Road, within the Wortley Village Old South Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED subject to the following terms and conditions:

a)    prior to the submission of the Building Permit application, the following details be provided to the Heritage Planner for approval:

i)    storefront panelling details;

ii)    storefront windows, including transom with simulated divided lights; and,

iii)    upper windows, including simulated divided lights;

b)    the exterior of the building, including its detailing, have a painted finish;

c)    consideration be given to using permeable pavers for the parking areas;

d)    the Heritage Planner be circulated on the Building Permit application to verify compliance with this Heritage Alteration Permit prior to issuance of the Building Permit; and,

e)    the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed;

it being acknowledged 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

8.1.5   (2.2) Heritage Alteration Permit Application - 520 Ontario Street - Old East Conservation District

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application made under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act to erect a new house on the property located at 520 Ontario Street, within the Old East Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED as proposed in the drawings appended to the staff report dated August 14, 2023 as Appendix C, subject to the following terms and conditions:

a)    all elevations of the exterior of the house be clad in horizontal vinyl siding with the exception of shake-style fibre cement board cladding in the gables and around the front doorway;

b)    the Heritage Planner be circulated on the applicant’s Building Permit application drawings to verify compliance with the submitted design prior to issuance of the Building Permit;

c)    all exposed wood, including but not limited to the wood porch railing/guard, wood exterior stairs, and wood porch skirt, be painted;

d)    the property owner be encouraged to use colours from the Old East Heritage Conservation District palette (Appendix D);

e)    the property owner be encouraged to use landscaping at the front of the property to minimize the visibility of the height of the basement level; and,

f)    the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a verbal delegation from U. Hecht, with respect to this matter;

it being acknowledged 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

8.1.6   (3.1) Demolition Request for Heritage Property - 763-769 Dundas Street

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the demolition request for the building on the heritage listed property located at 763-769 Dundas Street:

a)    the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the building on the property;

b)    the property located at 763-769 Dundas Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources; and,

c)    the property owner BE ENCOURAGED to commemorate the history of the property in a future development;

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

  •    H. Garrett, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    Q. Lang, Vice Chair, Cross Cultural Learner Centre Board of Directors; and,

  •    V. Marochko, Executive Director, Cross Cultural Learner Centre;

it being acknowledged 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

8.1.7   (3.2) Demolition Request and Alteration Permit for Heritage Property - 320 King Street

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application made under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval to demolish the existing parking garage and erect a new high-rise building on the subject property located at 320 King Street, within the Downtown Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED as proposed and described herein and shown in drawings appended to the staff report dated August 14, 2023 as Appendix D, subject to the following terms and conditions:

a)    Design Modifications be implemented if and as appropriate to accommodate any measures required to mitigate potential telecommunications signal interference;

b)    a vibration monitoring strategy be prepared and undertaken during demolition and construction activities to assess and mitigate potential vibration impacts on adjacent cultural heritage resources;

c)    the Heritage Planner be circulated on the applicant’s Building Permit application drawings to verify compliance with this Heritage Alteration Permit prior to issuance of the Building Permit; and,

d)    the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal 

presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    T. Whitney, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

it being acknowledged 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

8.1.8   (3.3) Vacant Land Condominium - 1875 Dalmagarry Road (39CD-23503)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Hyde Park Ventures Inc., relating to the property located at 1875 Dalmagarry Road, the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issue was raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the vacant land condominium application:

a)    the provision of short-term public bicycle parking in the development;

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

  •    A. Soufan, York Developments; and,

  •    S. Allen, MHBC;

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

  •    the purpose and effect of the meeting is to report to the Approval Authority any issues or concerns raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium and application for Site Plan Approval;

  •    the subject development block is of a size and shape suitable to accommodate the Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium; and,

  •    the proposed use, form, and intensity are considered appropriate and compatible with existing residential development in the surrounding neighbourhood;

it being acknowledged 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-D07)

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (3.4) 341 Southdale Road East (Z-9626) (Relates to Bill No. 323)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Sam Singh, relating to the property located at 341 Southdale Road East, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 14, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 29, 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 (R3-3) Zone TO a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-()*h-()*h-()h-18R5-6()) Zone;

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

  •    A. Richards, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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 Southwest Area Secondary Plan;

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

  •    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;

 

it being acknowledged 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)

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (3.5) 2550 Sheffield Boulevard (Z-9420) (Relates to Bill No. 324)

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 Sifton Properties Limited, relating to a portion of the lands located at 2550 Sheffield Boulevard:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 14, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 29, 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 Holding Business District Commercial BDC2 Special Provision / Office OF5 / Residential R8 Special Provision (h-h-54-h-100-h-128-BDC2(5)/OF5/R8-4(17)) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(  )) Zone; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review short-term public bicycle parking in the development;

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

  •    A. Haasen, Sifton Properties Limited; and,

  •    N. Davis;

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

  •    the recommended zoning by-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020);

  •    the recommended zoning conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Our Strategy, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable London Plan policies; and,

  •    the recommended zoning will permit cluster townhouse dwellings as a permitted use which is appropriate and compatible with existing and future planned development in the area;

it being acknowledged 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)

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (4.1) Facilitation of London as a Bird Friendly City by Nature Canada

Motion made by S. Lehman

Whereas bird populations in North America are declining at alarming rates due to human factors that require urgent corrective actions to address;

Whereas the City of London and its surrounding region are home to many species of birds that migrate through or occur here throughout the year;

Whereas the City of London, through its programs, policies and operations, aims to protect the Natural Heritage System and to conserve birds and biodiversity wherever possible;

Whereas Nature Canada has developed a certification standard to certify eligible municipalities as a “Bird Friendly City” that recognizes and celebrates their contributions to saving bird lives within their jurisdictions; and,

Whereas the City of London’s existing “High-level” Bird Friendly City certification reflects the ecological, economic and cultural significance of birds to Londoners;

Be it resolved that the City of London supports efforts by the London Bird Team to pursue London’s re-certification as a Bird Friendly City;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication from B. Samuels, Bird Friendly City London, ON, with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.12   (5.1) 9th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 9th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on August 9, 2023:

 

a)    the revised Working Group comments appended to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning Report, with respect to the property located at 50 King Street and 399 Ridout Street North, BE FORWARD to S. Wise, Senior Planner, for consideration to be included in the staff report going to the Planning and Environment Committee August 14, 2023; it being noted that Community Advisory Committee on Planning would encourage public access through the corridors connected between the proposed towers and jail and courthouse; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, 4.1, 5.1 to 5.6, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

8.2   15th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2023-08-14 CSC Report 15

At 2:17 PM, Councillor S. Stevenson returns to the meeting.

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 15th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) Council Policy Review - Flags at City Hall and Illumination of City of London Buildings and Amenities

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Flags at City Hall and Illumination of City of London Building and Amenities Policies:

a)    the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to bring forward to a future meeting of the Corporate Services Committee the necessary by-law to enact the proposed changes to the Flags at City Hall Policy, as appended to the staff report dated August 14, 2023, as Appendix A;

b)    the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to bring forward to a future meeting of the Corporate Service Committee the necessary by-law to enact the proposed changes to the Illumination of City of London Buildings and Amenities Policy, including the addition of national Pride month; and

c)    the report dated August 14, 2023, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the policy changes noted above are outlined in this report.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (4.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Orange Shirt Day/National Day for Truth and Reconciliation

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated July 14, 2023 from the City of London Indigenous Employee Resource Group, September 30, 2023 BE PROCLAIMED Orange Shirt Day/National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - National Children’s Grief Awareness Day

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Items 4.2, Application for National Children’s Grief Awareness Day, and 4.3, Application for Child Care Worker and Early Childhood Educator Appreciation Day, BE RECEIVED and the City Clerk BE REQUESTED to follow up with applicants for clarification for a specific London connection and reapplication.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (4.3) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - 23rd Annual Child Care Worker and Early Childhood Educator Appreciation Day

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Items 4.2, Application for National Children’s Grief Awareness Day, and 4.3, Application for Child Care Worker and Early Childhood Educator Appreciation Day, BE RECEIVED and the City Clerk BE REQUESTED to follow up with applicants for clarification for a specific London connection and reapplication.

Motion Passed

8.3   13th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2023-08-15 CPSC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 13th Report of the Community Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Item 4 (3.1)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That pursuant to section 9.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor S. Stevenson be permitted to speak an additional 5 minutes with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 8th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 8th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on August 3, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Winter Response Program Outcome Report Year-over-Year Comparison

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report, dated August 15, 2023, with respect to the Winter Response Program Outcome Year-Over-Year Comparison, BE RECEIVED. (2023-S08)

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (4.1) Inter Faith Homes (London) Transition Strategy: Appointment of London-Middlesex Community Housing (Relates to Bill No. 305)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated August 15, 2023, related to the Inter Faith Homes (London) Transition Strategy and the Appointment of London-Middlesex Community Housing:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 29, 2023, to:

i)    delegate the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written designate, the authority to perform all of the duties and exercise all of the powers of The Corporation of the City of London as service manager under the Housing Services Act, 2011, with respect to designated housing projects and transferred housing programs in accordance with the Housing Services Act, 2011,  and policies and directives issued by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing applicable to service managers under the Housing Services Act, 2011; and,

ii)    delegate the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written designate, the authority to approve and execute agreements necessary to carry out the authority to perform all of the duties and exercise all of the powers of the City as service manager under the Act with respect to designated housing projects and transferred housing programs; it being noted that this delegation of authority does not include the authority to approve exit agreements and services agreements under the Housing Services Act, 2011;

b)    the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written designate, BE AUTHORIZED, by Council, as Service Manager, to:

i)    exercise any of the remedies available to the service manager under the Housing Services Act, 2011 in connection with the resignation of the board of directors for Inter Faith Homes (London) or a triggering event under the Housing Services Act, 2011;

ii)    approve and execute any agreements required to exercise any of the remedies available to the service manager under the Housing Services Act, 2011 in connection with the resignation of the board of directors for Inter Faith Homes (London) or a triggering event under the Housing Services Act, 2011; and,

iii)    authorize the appointment of City staff to act as an interim Board of Directors for Inter Faith Homes (London); and,

c)    the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written designate, BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are required under the Housing Services Act, 2011 in connection with the Inter Faith Homes (London) Transition Strategy. (2023-S14)

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (3.1) Fireworks By-law Options

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to Fireworks By-law Options:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with a proposed by-law to implement Fireworks By-law Update Option A, as outlined in the staff report dated August 15, 2023; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the Business Licensing By-law with respect to the sale of fireworks and report back on the following: 

  •    licensing all retailers of fireworks;

  •    required communications to retailers and clients;

  •    fees; and,

  •    potential Administrative Monetary Penalty application and other compliance measures;

it being noted that the Community and Protective Services Committee received communications from the following individuals with respect to this matter:

  •    V.R. Anber;

  •    A. Kanji;

  •    S. Sinnamon;

  •    L. Green;

  •    K. Rhodes;

  •    T. Miller;

  •    M. Robinson;

  •    T. McMullen;

  •    L. Gebhardt;

  •    G. Rhodes;

  •    J. McCall;

  •    K. Godin;

  •    S. Ross;

  •    M. Hulet;

  •    S. Deebrah;

  •    S. Liggett;

  •    B. McClement;

  •    C. Poirier;

  •    K. Patpatia;

  •    S. Alexopoulos;

  •    C. Wilson;

  •    J. First;

  •    N. and S. Tirolese;

  •    M. Luce;

  •    B. Amendola;

  •    B. Samuels;

  •    L. Macklem;

  •    P. Reid;

  •    B. Hampton;

  •    S. Olivastri;

  •    N. Hans;

  •    K. Wood;

  •    D. Devine;

  •    V. Varapravan;

  •    Tatvamasi London;

  •    S. Varapravan;

  •    S. Richards;

  •    S. Crane;

  •    R. St. Pierre;

  •    M. Hertz;

  •    L. Miller;

  •    J. Sayles;

  •    L. Hemming;

  •    J. Tennant;

  •    J. Orchard;

  •    E. Schwob;

  •    D. Prout;

  •    D. Heap and S. Kelly;

  •    C. Kuijpers;

  •    C. Healy;

  •    C. Helka;

  •    Vishwa Hindu Parishad;

  •    Hindu Legacy Group;

  •    G. Mandal;

  •    J. Jacobson;

  •    D. Ronson; and,

  •    D. Fraser;

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

  •    V.R. Anber;

  •    A. Kanji;

  •    D. Devine;

  •    G. Dendias;

  •    P. Soni;

  •    M. Leff;

  •    L. Macklem;

  •    N. Jadav;

  •    Resident;

  •    J. Tennant;

  •    D. Duquetrelle;

  •    S. Varapravan;

  •    T. Zacharias;

  •    Resident:

  •    V. Patra;

  •    M. Khandekar;

  •    S. Pandeh;

  •    D. Ronson;

  •    L. Miller;

  •    B. McClemet;

  •    D. Sooklem;

  •    M. Charbineau;

  •    T. Golden;

  •    D. Fortney;

  •    B. Ramakrishna Acharya;

  •    J. Orchard;

  •    M. Blosh;

  •    R. Patel;

  •    Rick;

  •    J. Robinson;

  •    V. Kothari;

  •    M. Jefbleesh;

  •    I. Gopalakrishnan;

  •    D. Prout;

  •    L. Pelzarri;

  •    S. Sayare;

  •    R. Mills;

  •    S. Twilley;

  •    D. Divariar;

  •    J. Paetz;

  •    M. Borski; and,

  •    B. Amendola. (2023-P01)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Item 8.3(4) of the 13th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, “Fireworks By-law options” (3.1) BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for further consideration with a report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee in order to consider the following:

a)  developing an additional option which would recognize and define a “Family Lights Celebration” (or similar consideration) that would be permitted under the by-law;

b)  reviewing the Business Licensing By-law with respect to the sale of fireworks and compliance measures; reviewing the various definitions contained in the by-law of the various categories of fireworks; and

c)  reviewing such other matters as emerge in the discussion of this Motion to Refer including, but not limited to, various definitions.

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Item 4 (clause 3.1) of the 13th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE AMENDED in part a) by adding the following, “and including an exception to permit consumer (backyard) fireworks to be discharged on Chinese New Year Day of the Lunar Calendar”; it being noted that the part a) would read as follows:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with a proposed by-law to implement Fireworks By-law Update Option A, as outlined in the staff report dated August 15, 2023 and including an exception to permit consumer (backyard) fireworks to be discharged on Chinese New Year Day of the Lunar Calendar; and,

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That pursuant to section 11.14 of the Council Procedure By-law, the question related to the proposed amendment to part a) BE CALLED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Item 4 (clause 3.1) of the 13th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE AMENDED in part a) by adding the following, “and including an exception to permit consumer (backyard) fireworks to be discharged on Chinese New Year Day of the Lunar Calendar”; it being noted that the part a) would read as follows:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with a proposed by-law to implement Fireworks By-law Update Option A, as outlined in the staff report dated August 15, 2023 and including an exception to permit consumer (backyard) fireworks to be discharged on Chinese New Year Day of the Lunar Calendar; and,

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Item 4 (clause 3.1), as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion that the amended part a) BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion that part b) BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Item 4 (clause 3.1), as amended, reads as follows:

Item 4 (clause 3.1), as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to Fireworks By-law Options:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with a proposed by-law to implement Fireworks By-law Update Option A, as outlined in the staff report dated August 15, 2023 and including an exception to permit consumer (backyard) fireworks to be discharged on Chinese New Year Day of the Lunar Calendar; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the Business Licensing By-law with respect to the sale of fireworks and report back on the following:

  •    licensing all retailers of fireworks;

  •    required communications to retailers and clients;

  •    fees; and,

  •    potential Administrative Monetary Penalty application and other compliance measures;

it being noted that the Community and Protective Services Committee received communications from the following individuals with respect to this matter:

  •    V.R. Anber;

  •    A. Kanji;

  •    S. Sinnamon;

  •    L. Green;

  •    K. Rhodes;

  •    T. Miller;

  •    M. Robinson;

  •    T. McMullen;

  •    L. Gebhardt;

  •    G. Rhodes;

  •    J. McCall;

  •    K. Godin;

  •    S. Ross;

  •    M. Hulet;

  •    S. Deebrah;

  •    S. Liggett;

  •    B. McClement;

  •    C. Poirier;

  •    K. Patpatia;

  •    S. Alexopoulos;

  •    C. Wilson;

  •    J. First;

  •    N. and S. Tirolese;

  •    M. Luce;

  •    B. Amendola;

  •    B. Samuels;

  •    L. Macklem;

  •    P. Reid;

  •    B. Hampton;

  •    S. Olivastri;

  •    N. Hans;

  •    K. Wood;

  •    D. Devine;

  •    V. Varapravan;

  •    Tatvamasi London;

  •    S. Varapravan;

  •    S. Richards;

  •    S. Crane;

  •    R. St. Pierre;

  •    M. Hertz;

  •    L. Miller;

  •    J. Sayles;

  •    L. Hemming;

  •    J. Tennant;

  •    J. Orchard;

  •    E. Schwob;

  •    D. Prout;

  •    D. Heap and S. Kelly;

  •    C. Kuijpers;

  •    C. Healy;

  •    C. Helka;

  •    Vishwa Hindu Parishad;

  •    Hindu Legacy Group;

  •    G. Mandal;

  •    J. Jacobson;

  •    D. Ronson; and,

  •    D. Fraser;

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

  •    V.R. Anber;

  •    A. Kanji;

  •    D. Devine;

  •    G. Dendias;

  •    P. Soni;

  •    M. Leff;

  •    L. Macklem;

  •    N. Jadav;

  •    Resident;

  •    J. Tennant;

  •    D. Duquetrelle;

  •    S. Varapravan;

  •    T. Zacharias;

  •    Resident:

  •    V. Patra;

  •    M. Khandekar;

  •    S. Pandeh;

  •    D. Ronson;

  •    L. Miller;

  •    B. McClemet;

  •    D. Sooklem;

  •    M. Charbineau;

  •    T. Golden;

  •    D. Fortney;

  •    B. Ramakrishna Acharya;

  •    J. Orchard;

  •    M. Blosh;

  •    R. Patel;

  •    Rick;

  •    J. Robinson;

  •    V. Kothari;

  •    M. Jefbleesh;

  •    I. Gopalakrishnan;

  •    D. Prout;

  •    L. Pelzarri;

  •    S. Sayare;

  •    R. Mills;

  •    S. Twilley;

  •    D. Divariar;

  •    J. Paetz;

  •    M. Borski; and,

  •    B. Amendola. (2023-P01)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the enforcement of the current Fireworks By-law (PW-11) BE SUSPENDED for Diwali in 2023.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Council recess at this time, for fifteen minutes.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 4:07 PM and reconvenes at 4:28 PM.

8.4   12th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2023-08-17 - CWC Report 12

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 12th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Items 11 (4.2) and 13 (5.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 8th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 8th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting July 19, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) By-law Update - Vital Services By-law (PH-6) (Relates to Bill No. 309)

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 August 15, 2023, related to the By-Law Update for the Vital Services By-Law (PH-6):

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting on August 29, 2023, to amend the existing Vital Services By-law (PH-6); and, 

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this proposed by-law amendment. (2023-C01)

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) Greenway and Adelaide Wastewater Treatment Plants Climate Change Resiliency Consulting Fees Value Increase

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 August 15, 2023, related to the Greenway and Adelaide Wastewater Treatment Plants climate change resiliency consultant fee value increase:

a)    the value of the engineering consulting fees for CIMA Canada Inc. BE INCREASED by $949,759.80, including contingency (excluding HST), due to additional scope requests and project consolidation;

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

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project. (2023-E03)

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.4) Contract Award - RFT-2023-030 Watermain Cleaning and Lining 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 August 15, 2023, related to RFT 2023-030 Watermain Cleaning and Lining Services:

a)    the bid submitted by Fer-Pal Construction Ltd. at its tendered price of $6,498,810.00 (excluding HST), for Watermain Cleaning and Lining Services, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Fer-Pal Construction Ltd. was the lowest of two bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas and that this is the first year of a five year contract, where the City has the sole discretion to renew the contract for four additional years based on price and performance;

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, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project; and,

e)    the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2023-E08)

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.5) Consulting Engineer Appointment - 2024/2025 Infrastructure Renewal

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 August 15, 2023, related to the Consulting Engineer Appointment for the 2024/2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program: 

a)    Dillon Consulting Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to undertake detailed design and construction administration services for the Decommissioning of Water Chamber 13 project and detailed design for the William Street Reconstruction project, in the total amount of $413,912.40 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 14.4(a) of the City of London’s 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 project;

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

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

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.6) Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law (Relates to Bill No. 310)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated August 15, 2023, related to 2022 administrative amendments, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 29, 2023, to amend By-law PS-114, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London”. (2023-C01)

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (2.7) Contract Price Increase - Victoria Bridge - Temporary Modular Bridge

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 August 15, 2023, related to the Contract Price Increase for the Victoria Bridge Temporary Modular Bridge:

a)    Victoria Bridge – Temporary Modular Bridge (Tender RFT21-108) construction contract value with Algonquin Bridge, a Division of AIL International Inc. BE INCREASED by $150,000.00 to $380,390.00 (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-T04)

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (2.8) Contract Price Increase - Churchill Avenue and Manitoba Street

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 August 15, 2023, related to the Contract Price Increase for the Churchill Avenue and Manitoba Street project:

a)    Churchill Avenue and Manitoba Street (Tender RFT21-130) construction contract value with Elgin construction Company Limited BE INCREASED by $50,000.00 to $4,316,261.95 (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 City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2023-T04)

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (4.1) Springbank Park Recreational Dam

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that the delegation from M. Judson, was received and no further action be taken.

Motion Passed

8.4.12   (4.3) 9th 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 9th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on August 2, 2023: 

a)    the Municipal Council BE ADVISED that the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC)

recommends the City of London adopt Option B as outlined in the staff report presented to the Community and Protective Services Committee; it being noted that Option B would allow for permitted display fireworks only to be discharged on specific days in London; it being further noted that this option would restrict use of all consumer (backyard) fireworks, restrict the sale of consumer fireworks in London, and propose an increase to current fines; 

 

b) the Municipal Council BE ADVISED that the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee recommends that the City considers the locations of permitted display fireworks to account for nearby environmental disturbance and to limit pollution from entering sensitive features such as the Thames River, and that the City aim to promote lower-impact alternatives to fireworks for at least some subsidized public events, such as outdoor concerts and light shows using drones.

it being noted that the submission on the fireworks by-law review, prepared by ESACAC, was received; and, 

c)    clauses 3.1, 3.2, 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (4.2) Green Bin and Collection Program Changes

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 August 15, 2023, related to the Green Bin and Collection Program Changes:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement a weekly (except for Statutory Holidays) pickup system for Green Bin and Blue Box and a 26 week per year pickup system for garbage collection starting January 15, 2024, that includes a special provision to address the longer garbage collection cycle that occurs because of Statutory Holidays;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to establish an interim Waste Reduction & Conservation Calendar from October 1, 2023, to January 15, 2024, and distribute the Calendar using a combination of on-line tools and hard copies available at City facilities and other locations and not delivered door-to-door as is normally done;

c)    the Garbage Container Limit at the curb remain at three (3) containers or bags BE APPROVED, it being noted that the number of garbage pickup days has been reduced from 42 to 26 pickups;

d)    the Garbage Tag fee for use at the curb for extra bags or containers of garbage or for Bagged Residential Garbage brought to the EnviroDepots BE INCREASED from $1.50 to $2.00 as part of the upcoming Fees and Charges By-law review as part of the multi-year budget development;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement a separate large furniture and large bulky items collection program (limit of four items per pickup) that requires booking the pickup service in advance, with collection occurring on a regular collection day starting October 1, 2023, and includes a 3 month grace period; and,

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to establish a monitoring system to determine the level of household satisfaction with the Green Bin and collection program changes and report back to Civic Works Committee in July 2024 and at year end, including specific details on managing pet waste and diapers and incontinence products; 

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

it being further noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from M. Hulet, C. Butler and L. McColl, with respect to this matter, were received. (2023-E07)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.13   (5.1) Referred by Municipal Council on July 25, 2023 - Clause 5.1 of the 8th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare an information brochure to assist Municipal Law Enforcement Officers to explain the Council Policy on Naturalized Areas and Wildflower Meadows in response to community complaints and with respect to the Yard and Lot Maintenance By-law where applicable;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from B. Samuels, a communication from L. Johnson and the staff report dated August 15, 2023, with respect to this matter, were received. (2023-E07)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That clause 5.1 BE AMENDED to read as follows:

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare information materials to assist Municipal Law Enforcement Officers to explain the Council Policy on Naturalized Areas and Wildflower Meadows in response to community complaints and complainants, and with respect to the Yard and Lot Maintenance By-law where applicable;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from B. Samuels, a communication from L. Johnson and the staff report dated August 15, 2023, with respect to this matter, were received.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the clause, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the clause BE FURTHER AMENDED by adding the following:

b)    that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a comprehensive review of the Yard and Maintenance By-law that encompasses the by-law provisions, definitions and related policies concerning naturalization of yards, naturalized areas and wildflower meadows, weeds, grass, and what is considered waste; the review should include: 

     i)    a jurisdictional scan of other municipalities to examine how other by-laws have been updated to account for naturalization.

     ii)    to provide information about the enforcement of London’s by-law, including the number of exemptions given for naturalization and the procedures followed by enforcement staff to assess a yard; and,

c)    that a public participation meeting BE SET to allow the public to assess the by-law and any potential changes; and

d)    that a “Get Involved” site BE ADDED, with respect to the above information.

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the clause, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Item 13 (5.1), as amended reads as follows:

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare information materials to assist Municipal Law Enforcement Officers to explain the Council Policy on Naturalized Areas and Wildflower Meadows in response to community complaints and complainants, and with respect to the Yard and Lot Maintenance By-law where applicable;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from B. Samuels, a communication from L. Johnson and the staff report dated August 15, 2023, with respect to this matter, were received.

8.5   21st Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2023-08-16 SPPC Report 21

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 21st Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) 3rd Report of the Governance Working Group

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on July 27, 2023:

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the draft Council Members’ Expense Account Policy:

i)    that section 4.2, part c), item vi BE AMENDED to read “advertising, in the manner deemed appropriate by the Member to extend greetings”;

ii)    that section 4.2, part c), item vii BE AMENDED to read “expenses related to ward matters, including such expenses as: neighbourhood or constituent meetings, notices, printing, and other engagement opportunities deemed appropriate by the Member;” and;

iii)    the balance of the draft Council Member’s Expense Account Policy BE REFERRED to the next meeting of Governance Working Group for further discussion;

it being noted that an update to the transportation allowance in 4.2c) ix A. will come forward at a future meeting of Governance Working Group (GWG) for consideration;

b)   the Verbal Update on the Appointment of Deputy Mayor Policy from the City Clerk BE RECEIVED and that the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to bring forward a report on Strong Mayor legislation to a future meeting of Governance Working Group; and

c)  clauses 1.1, 2.1, 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (4.1) August Progress Update- Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response;

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

b)    a one-time Single Source contract agreement with Ark Aid Mission Services in the total estimated cost of $130,000., to support continued services at 696 Dundas from 2:30pm-9:30pm daily from August 1, 2023, through September 30, 2023, BE APPROVED;

c)     a one-time contract amendment agreement to Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) at a total estimated cost of $70,000. to support the Coffee House drop-in program with additional evening hours per day from August 1, 2023, through September 30, 2023, BE APPROVED;

d)    a one-time contract amendment of existing agreements to London Cares for the continuation of service provision in Encampment Service Depots for a six (6)-week extension from August 14, 2023, to September 30, 2023, the total estimated cost of $52,000, BE APPROVED as follows:

i)    for food total estimated cost $42,000; 

ii)    for water total estimated cost $5,000;

iii)    for comfort stations total estimated cost $5,000; 

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

f)     the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation amending a Purchase of Service Agreement; and

g)    the Mayor and Government Relations staff BE DIRECTED to take the following actions:

i)    undertake immediate advocacy efforts with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Ontario Big City Mayors Caucus, and the Government of Ontario to develop a united policy condemning the relocation of homeless individuals under false pretense or against their will; 

ii)    further work with those partners to undertake the processes to stop this practice, including the development of proper levels of funding by the senior levels of government for adequate homelessness and supportive housing services, and appropriate consequences for organizations or individuals found to be engaging in such activities; 

iii)   work with the province to develop a program by which those released from hospitals or detention centres are provided proper discharge planning that includes transportation back to their home communities; and

h)   that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide to the appropriate standing committee the existing data that is available with respect to this matter, including the reliability of the information;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated August 8, 2023 from Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor E. Peloza and a communication dated August 14, 2023 from F. Moore, President, M. Rioux, Vice-President and J. Thompson, Executive Director, LIFE*SPIN with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (4.2) Consideration of Appointment to the Museum London Board of Directors

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Councillor S. Trosow BE APPOINTED to the Museum London Board of Directors for the term ending November 14, 2026.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (4.3) Confirmation of Appointment to the Old East Village Business Improvement Area

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Old East Village Business Improvement Area:

a) the resignations of Kimberly DeSousa, Libro Credit Union and John Young, East Village Market BE ACCEPTED; and,

b) Caileigh Robson, Libro Credit Union BE APPOINTED to the Old East Village Business Improvement Area for the term ending November 14, 2026;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated July 26, 2023 from M. Drangova, Board Chair and J. Pastorius, General Manager, Old East Village BIA with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (4.4) Confirmation of Appointments to the Hamilton Road BIA

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following individuals BE APPOINTED to the Hamilton Road BIA for the term ending November 14, 2026:

Councillor H. McAlister

Shahin Kardan, Vice Chair, Apollo Pizza and Wings

Gursharan Singh, Baked Bites

Dan Martens, Western IT

Naz Tilva, Sak’s Variety Store

Rick Pinheiro, Pinheiro Realty

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated August 9, 2023 from C. Luistro, Executive Director, Hamilton Road BIA with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

9.   Added Reports

9.1   12th Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

  1. Property Acquisition – 16 Wellington Road – Wellington Gateway Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 16 Wellington Road, further described as Part of Lot 13 Plan 11 (4th), in the City of London, County of Middlesex, being all of PIN 08357 0035 (LT), containing an area of approximately 7,373 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)     the offer submitted by 16 WELLINGTON HOLDINGS LTD. (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $1,380,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

b) the financing for this acquisition BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report attached hereto as Appendix “A”.

  1. Property Acquisition – 124-126 Wellington Road – Wellington Gateway Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 124 - 126 Wellington Road, further described as Part of Lot 4, Plan 312 (4th) as in Inst. No. 676511, S/T 676511, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, being all of PIN 08357-0095 (LT), containing an area of approximately 10,054 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)     the offer submitted by SJMA ON SITE GROUP INC. (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $1,495,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

b) the financing for this acquisition BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report attached hereto as Appendix “A”.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

  1. License Agreement – City and London Hydro Inc. – New Telecommunications Tower and Equipment Room – 869 Commissioners Road West (Reservoir Park)

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, and the concurrence of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the License Agreement for the lease of lands for a new Telecommunications Tower and Equipment Room located at 869 Commissioners Road West, the License Agreement between the City (the “Licensor”) and London Hydro Inc. (the “Licensee”) attached as Appendix “A”, for the license in respect of the construction, maintenance and operation of a new Telecommunications Tower, Equipment Room, Servicing Connections, Transformer and Back-up generator on a portion of lands located at 869 Commissioners Road West for a term of Thirty Five (35) years commencing on December 30, 2023 (the “Commencement Date”) and terminating on December 30, 2058 (the “Expiry Date”) BE APPROVED, subject to renewal options.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

  1. Offer to Purchase Industrial Lands – Raven Windows Inc. – Huron Industrial Park

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Huron Industrial Park C1, being composed of being Part South 1/2 Lot 4, Concession 3, as in 750136 London/London Twp and being part of PIN 08147-0337 and to be further described in a reference plan to be deposited, and further shown outlined in black and labelled as Parcel A and Parcel B, as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by Raven Windows Inc., (the “Purchaser”) to purchase 3 acres more or less of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $419,400.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the conditions and terms as set out in the Agreement.

  1. Offer to Purchase Industrial Lands – Dhandabani Ramakrishnan (In Trust for a Corporation to be Incorporated) Huron Industrial Park C1 Lands

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Huron Industrial Park C1, being composed of being Part South 1/2 Lot 4, Concession 3, as in 750136 London/London Twp and being part of PIN 08147-0337, further described in a reference plan to be deposited, and further shown outlined in red and labelled as Parcel 8, on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by Riverside Burgeon Inc., (the “Purchaser”) to purchase 0.50 acres of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $87,500.00, reflecting a sale price of $175,000.00 per acre BE ACCEPTED, subject to the conditions and terms as set out in the Agreement.

  1. Offer to Purchase Industrial Lands – Huron Industrial Inc. – Huron Industrial Park

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Huron Industrial Park C1, being composed of being Part South 1/2 Lot 4, Concession 3, as in 750136 London/London Twp and being part of PIN 08147-0337 and to be further described in a reference plan to be deposited, and further shown outlined in black and labelled as Parcel A and Parcel B, as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by Huron Industrial Inc., (the “Purchaser”) to purchase 4  acres of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $606,425.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the conditions and terms as set out in the Agreement.

  1. Offer to Purchase Industrial Lands – Wyedel Power Inc. – Huron Industrial Park

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Huron Industrial Park C1, being composed of being Part South 1/2 Lot 4, Concession 3, as in 750136 London/London Twp and being part of PIN 08147-0337, further described in a reference plan to be deposited, and further shown outlined in red and labelled as Parcel 7, as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by Wyedel Power Inc., (the “Purchaser”) to purchase 2.88 acres of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $504,000.00, reflecting a sale price of $175,000.00 per acre BE ACCEPTED, subject to the conditions and terms as set out in the Agreement.

  1. Offer to Purchase Industrial Lands – 2864150 Ontario Inc. – Innovation Park

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Innovation Park Phase II, being composed of Part of Block 1, Plan 33M592, being Parts 14 and17, on Plan 33R-20884, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by 2864150 Ontario Inc., under the corporate name Aeon Canada (the “Purchaser”), to purchase six (6) acres of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $990,000.00, reflecting a sale price of $165,000.00 per acre BE ACCEPTED, subject to the conditions and terms as set out in the Agreement.

  1. Offer to Purchase Industrial Lands – Thomson Foods Inc. – Huron Industrial Park C1 Lands

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Huron Industrial Park C1, being composed of being Part South 1/2 Lot 4, Concession 3, as in 750136 London/London Twp and being part of PIN 08147-0337 and to be further described in a reference plan to be deposited, and further shown outlined in red and labelled as Parcel 6, as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by Thomson Foods Inc., (the “Purchaser”) to purchase 1.00 acre of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $175,000.00, reflecting a sale price of $175,000.00 per acre BE ACCEPTED, subject to the conditions and terms as set out in the Agreement.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

10.   Deferred Matters

10.1   Consideration of Appointment to the London Hydro Board of Directors (Requires 2 Members) (Relates to Bill No. 306)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

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

b)  the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 29, 2023, to ratify and confirm the Resolution of the Shareholder of London Hydro Inc.

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Council convene in closed session, in order to consider a personal matter about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees, related to appointments to the London Hydro Board of Directors.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The Council convenes in closed session at 6:02 PM and reconvenes in public session at 6:14 PM.

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Council convene in closed session, in order to consider a personal matter about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees, and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, related to appointments to the London Hydro Board of Directors.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The Council convenes in closed session at 6:19 PM.

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting at 7:00 PM.

The Council reconvenes in public session at 7:18 PM.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the matter of consideration of appointments to the London Hydro Board of Directors to a future SPPC meeting, including an invitation to the London Hydro Board Chair to address the Council with respect to this matter, including the process undertaken by the London Hydro Board and including the information gathered by the Board as a part of their due diligence.

Motion Passed (8 to 6)

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 304, 305, and 307 to 324, and the Added Bill No.’s 325, 326 and 328 to 333, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 304, 305, and 307 to 324, and the Added Bill No.’s 325, 326 and 328 to 333,, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 304, 305, and 307 to 324, and the Added Bill No.’s 325, 326 and 328 to 333,, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 327, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 327, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 327, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

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

Bill No. 304

By-law No. A.-___-

A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 29th day of August, 2023. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 305

By-law No. A.-___-

A by-law to delegate the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written designate, the authority to perform all of the duties and exercise all of the powers of the City as service manager under the Housing Services Act, 2011 (4.1/13/CPSC)

Bill No. 306

By-law No. A.-___-

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

Bill No. 307

By-law No. A.-6377(__)-____

A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6377-206, as amended, entitled “A by-law to continue the London Transit Commission”. (4.4/19/SPPC)

Bill No. 308

By-law No. L.S.P.-__-

A by-law to designate 81 Wilson Avenue to be of cultural heritage value or interest. (2.2/11/PEC)

Bill No. 309

By-law No. PH-6-23___

A by-law to amend By-law No. PH-6, as amended, being “A by-law concerning the provision of vital services and the maintenance of suitable heat at leased or rented dwellings”. (2.2/12/CWC)

Bill No. 310

By-law No. PS-114-23_____

A by-law to amend By-law PS-114 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London.” (2.6/12/CWC)

Bill No. 311

By-law No. S.-__-

A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Old Victoria Road and Bradley Avenue, west of Oetker Gate)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedicated purposes pursuant to a industrial land sale)

Bill No. 312

By-law No. S.-__-

A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish, name, and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway as part of Ayrshire Avenue.  (Chief Surveyor – registration of 33M-833 requires 0.3m Reserve on abutting plan 33M-821 to be registered as public highway for unobstructed legal access through the subdivision)

Bill No. 313

By-law No. S.-__-

A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Dundas Street, east of Highbury Avenue North)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to Consent B.035/23)

Bill No. 314

By-law No. S.-__-

A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Southdale Road West, west of Wonderland Road South; and as widening to Bostwick Road, south of Southdale Road West)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to the Southdale Rd W; Pine Valley Blvd to Bostwick Rd improvements project)

Bill No. 315

By-law No. S.-__-

A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish, and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Sunningdale Road West and Hyde Park Road, south of Sunningdale Road West and west of Hyde Park Road; and as widening to Sunningdale Road West and Hyde Park Road, north of Sunningdale Road West and east of Hyde Park Road)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to the Sunningdale Rd W at Hyde Park Intersection Improvements project)

Bill No. 316

By-law No. S.-__-

A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Trafalgar Street, west of Veterans Memorial Parkway)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to B.037/19)

Bill No. 317

By-law No. S.-__-

A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Bluegrass Drive)  (Chief Surveyor – establishment of Bluegrass Drive as road allowance requires 0.3m Reserve on abutting plan 33M-595 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 318

By-law No. S.-__-

A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Beaverbrook Avenue; and as part of Oakcrossing Road)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of 33M-600 requires a 0.3m reserve on abutting plans 33M-532 and 33M-566 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the Subdivision)

Bill No. 319

By-law No. S.-__-

A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Baird Street; as part of Whetherfield Street; and as part of Beaverbrook Avenue)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of 33M-611 requires 0.3m Reserves on abutting plans 33M-511 and 3M-566 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 320

By-law No. W.-5577(__)-____

A by-law to amend by-law No. W.-5577-64, as amended, entitled, “A by-law to authorize the Western Road and Philip Aziz Avenue Improvements. (Project No. TS1136)”. (2.4/11/CWC)

Bill No. 321

By-law No. W.-5676(__)-____

A by-law to amend by-law No. W.-5676-194 entitled, “A by-law to authorize the Capital Project TS1627 – Philip Aziz – Western Rd to Thames River.” (2.4/11/CWC)

Bill No. 322

By-law No. W.-_____-____

A by-law to authorize Project TS1670 – Intersection – Sarnia/Philip Aziz – Western Rd. (2.4/11/CWC)

Bill No. 323

By-law No. Z.-1-23____

A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 341 Southdale Road East. (3.4/13/PEC)

Bill No. 324

By-law No. Z.-1-23____

A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone lands located at 2550 Sheffield Boulevard. (3.5/13/PEC)

Bill No. 325

By-law No. A.-___-

A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and 16 Wellington Holdings Ltd., for the acquisition of the property located at 16 Wellington Road, in the City of London, for the Wellington Gateway Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement.  (6.1/15/CSC)

Bill No. 326

By-law No. A.-___-

A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and SJMA ON SITE GROUP INC., for the acquisition of the property located at 124-126 Wellington Road, in the City of London, for the Wellington Gateway Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.2/15/CSC)

Bill No. 327

By-law No. A.-___-

A by-law to authorize and approve a License Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and London Hydro Inc. for the license in respect of the construction, maintenance and operation of a new Telecommunications Tower, Equipment Room, Servicing Connections, Transformer, and Back-up generator on a portion of lands located at 869 Commissioners Road West for a term of Thirty Five (35) years commencing on December 30, 2023 (the “Commencement Date”) and terminating on December 30th, 2058 (the “Expiry Date”), subject to renewal options. (6.3/15/CSC)

Bill No. 328

By-law No. A.-___-

A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Raven Windows Inc. for the sale of the City owned industrial land located in Huron Industrial Park, being composed being Part South 1/2 Lot 4, Concession 3, as in 750136 London/London Twp and being part of PIN 08147-0337 and to be further described in a reference plan to be deposited, containing an area of approximately 3 acres, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.4/15/CSC)

Bill No. 329

By-law No. A.-___-

A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Riverside Burgeon Inc. for the sale of the City owned industrial land located in Huron Industrial Park, being composed being Part South 1/2 Lot 4, Concession 3, as in 750136 London/London Twp and being part of PIN 08147-0337 and to be further described in a reference plan to be deposited, containing an area of approximately 0.50 acres, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.5/15/CSC)

Bill No. 330

By-law No. A.-___-

A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Huron Industrial Inc. for the sale of the City owned industrial land located in Huron Industrial Park, being composed being Part South 1/2 Lot 4, Concession 3, as in 750136 London/London Twp and being part of PIN 08147-0337 and to be further described in a reference plan to be deposited, containing an area of approximately 4 acres, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.6/15/CSC)

Bill No. 331

By-law No. A.-___-

A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Wyedel Power Inc. for the sale of the City owned industrial land located in Huron Industrial Park, being composed being Part South 1/2 Lot 4, Concession 3, as in 750136 London/London Twp and being part of PIN 08147-0337 and to be further described in a reference plan to be deposited, containing an area of approximately 2.88 acres, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.7/15/CSC)

Bill No. 332

By-law No. A.-___-

A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and 2684150 Ontario Inc. for the sale of the City owned industrial land located in Innovation Park, being composed Part of Block 1, Plan 33M592, being Parts 14 and 17, on Plan 33R-20884, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, containing an area of approximately 6 acres, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.8/15/CSC)

Bill No. 333

By-law No. A.-___-

A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Thomson Foods Inc. for the sale of the City owned industrial land located in Innovation Park, being composed of being Part South 1/2 Lot 4, Concession 3, as in 750136 London/London Twp and being part of PIN 08147-0337 and to be further described in a reference plan to be deposited, containing an area of approximately 1.00 acres, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.9/15/CSC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 7:36 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 (5 hours, 36 minutes)

I’m just gonna let everybody know that the meeting is gonna be about another five minutes before it starts. There’s a bit of a technical issue with the live stream. And we have people who are on the live stream looking forward to this. So we’re just gonna give that a few minutes to get corrected.

Thank you and be seated. Well, welcome to the 14th meeting of municipal council. I am gonna start the meeting off with the a land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak and Adawandran.

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 Nantfan Treaty of 1701, the McKee 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. The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames and Muncie Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures and customers.

I also wanna add that the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. Make a request specific to this meeting. Please contact council agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. And with that, it’s my delight to introduce our national anthem singer today.

Canadian artist Julianne Hobby presents original music following a career in major musicals across Canada and the United States. Her full-length debut album, Country Lungs, was released in June of 2023 to all music streaming platforms with the bright single, “Say It First,” landing her features on Canadian radio and opportunities to perform at places like the Calgary Stampede. Hailing from London, Ontario, her love for country music has great company here. With that, I’d invite Julianne to come forward and sing the national anthem and if everybody could rise, that would be excellent.

(singing in foreign language) Okay, this time I look for disclosures of puree interest from members of council. Seeing none, I do have a couple of recognitions, so I’m gonna move to the podium to complete those. Colleagues, you may recall from previous votes of council that we awarded the Queen Elizabeth Awards scholarships. And today I’m delighted that we have one of the recipients here in person and the other recipient online.

And so I’m going to, I’m gonna do both of them separately, but I’m gonna say a few words about each. I just, some background, the $2,000 scholarship was awarded annually and it recognizes two high school students with the highest scholistic average and achievement based on the students’ best six subjects in their graduating year. I can tell you that their averages are very impressive, always makes me feel like I missed something when I went to high school myself. But let me introduce our first one.

Graduating with an average of 99.33 from London Central Secondary School, Angelina Lamb will pursue her post-secondary education at the University of Western University in medical sciences program with the goal of becoming a dentist. Her favorite school subjects were biology and writer’s craft. She loves cooking and creative baking and is an accomplished student of the piano. Angela is also a recipient of the Ontario Scholar Award and the governor general’s academic medal.

If Angelina would like to come up to the front, that would be excellent. Come closer, it’s okay. We’ll stand here. I seem to get photos.

I’d like to thank the city of London for presenting this award to me. I’m really honored and I’d also like to thank my friends and family and teachers for all their support. I’ll continue to work hard. Thank you.

And joining us digitally, Amaris Pang graduated from to serve Frederick Banting Secondary School with an average of 99.17. She will continue her education at the University of British Columbia in the Bachelor of Science program, specializing in cellular anatomical and physiological science with the aspiration of becoming a doctor of pediatrics or anesthesiology. Amaris enjoys a large range of STEM-related subjects and is also a competitive swimmer, currently on the Canadian National Team and she will also be swimming varsity at UBC. She has previously been recognized as a UBC Presidential Scholar holding the Hugh M.

Brock National Interest Scholarship Awards. I know she’s joining us digitally, but maybe we can give her a nice round of congratulations so she can hear us. And in an awkward call out, I don’t know Amaris if you want to say a few words. You’re welcome to unmute yourself and do so.

You’re not obligated to, but we’ll just pause and see if you’d like to do that. Hi, I don’t know if you can hear me or not. Yes, we can, go ahead. I just wanted to thank, I guess my family and all the amazing teachers that I’ve had advancing that have definitely been so difficult my academic journey and I guess my strive for learning.

And without being public support, I definitely hadn’t either I am today. And of course, I was just wanted to thank the City of London for such an amazing opportunity in the first place and I can’t wait to see what’s next. Awesome, congratulations. I noticed you didn’t thank your current or previous ward seven counselors at Sir Frederick Fenty there, but we’ll pretend that we had something to do with your success.

Thank you so much and best of wishes with all of your academic pursuits. And again, these scholarships are sponsored by the City of London. The Queen Elizabeth scholarships were established in 1981 and recognize academic excellence among graduating London high school students pursuing post-secondary education. Thank you so much for that.

There is one other recognition that I just wanna on the fly make and that is to members of council. Last week, we engaged in a very intense conference and we hosted the Association of Municipalities of Ontario Conference right here in London. It was the largest conference that AMO has ever hosted and it happened right here in our city. 40% of the delegates of that conference were newly elected council members from across this province, coming and experiencing a conference of this magnitude, engaging with the premier and provincial ministers for the very first time.

From the feedback that I heard and I know many of you heard, their experience was phenomenal. They had a great time here. I hear there were very successful engagements with the ministry, excellent sessions, great opportunities to explore the city through the study tours. And so I wanted to just do two things.

One, recognize and thank the members of council who participated in so many different ways. I could tell you they worked incredibly hard, some members of council were up early, first thing in the morning for sessions and then helping with study tours or receptions into the evening. And I think many of you went above and beyond to ensure that all of those visiting our city had a phenomenal experience. And so thank you for that.

I also want to thank everybody involved in organizing the conference. Our staff, staff and AMO, all of the volunteers and everybody who made this a phenomenal success for our city, the feedback was great. I know they’ll be surveying the delegates, but from what I heard, it was a very successful event and I just wanted to recognize everybody who made that happen. Thank you very much.

Okay, that concludes the recognitions review of conference matters to be considered in public. There are none. Council and closed session, there are 12 items on the regular agenda, one item on the added agenda. So that’s 13 items for closed session.

When we do the vote to go into closed session, members of council and the staff will be moving to community room five. So everybody here in the gallery, you don’t have to leave. We’ll complete our closed session and we’ll return. I don’t anticipate it will be too long, but I just want you to know that that will take us just a brief period of time, but no one here has to go anywhere.

We’re the ones who will move to committee room five. So with that, I’ll look for a motion to move into closed session from Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, any discussion? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, colleagues, we’ll move to committee room five. Okay, please be seated. Okay, thank you for your patience with us doing our in-camera portion. We have the confirmation signing the previous minutes before us, we have the minutes from the 13th meeting of council held on July 25th, 2023.

I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for the minutes. Moved by councilor Cuddy, seconded by councilor McAllister. Any comments or changes to the minutes? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, next we have communications and petitions. There’s a lot of them. So, those remind colleagues what we do.

It references in the agenda, which mattered before us tonight, the different communications referred to, and where they are in the agenda. Unless anybody wants anything dealt with separately, I’m gonna entertain a general motion to refer all of those things to the relevant portions of the agenda where they are contained and will be debated. So, if you’d like something dealt with separately, now’s the time, I don’t see anyone. So, I’ll look for someone to make a general motion to refer all of those communications items on both the regular and added agenda to the relevant areas of the regular agenda.

Councilor Close, seconded by Councilor Ferra. Any discussion on that? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, next we have given, I’m not sure we’ve had, I don’t know if we’ve had any of those yet, maybe one. We have two today. You can thank Councillor Hopkins and myself for that. Just for motions of which notice is given are usually matters of which there’s some urgency, but colleagues have had time to put it on the regular agenda so that the rest of council can see what we’d like to consider.

Each of those independently requires leave to bring forward the motion. The leave is non-debatable, it’s just a motion for leave. Leave, it doesn’t commit you to the motion, it just allows, you’re just allowing the council permission to bring it forward tonight. So we’ll deal with these separately.

And the first one is 7.1, which is a communication from Councillor Hopkins to designate rail safety week. So in order to do that, Councillor Hopkins, you want to ask for leave? Yes, due to our calendar, the next standing committee meeting cycle will be too late to consider the proclamation. As such, I am seeking leave to introduce a motion directly to council, a request your consideration of the following motions.

First of all, I guess pursuant to the council procedure by law leave be given for the introduction of a notice of motion to consider a time sensitive request for the municipal council to proclaim September 18th to the 24th as rail safety week. Okay, so Councillor Hopkins is moving that leave portion just the leave so that she can introduce the motion. She’s indicated what she wants to do. She’ll have a chance to provide her evidence for that.

I need a seconder for the motion for leave. I see Councillor Palosa, leave is not debatable, not debatable, so we’re going to open the vote on leave for Councillor Hopkins to bring forward a motion. Councillor Trussell, who’s in the vote motion is granted. Okay, go ahead, Councillor.

Thank you, your worship. And as we all know, the city of London has two major railways that run right through the city, educating and informing the public about rail safety, such as remaining, reminding the public that railways right of ways are private property, enhancing public awareness. All these things I think are really important to promoting safety, rail safety in our city. And I think the conversations, reducing the number of avoidable fatalities and injuries caused by incidents involving trains is something that many municipalities experience.

I’m hoping that you will support the motion that I would like to introduce that in support of ongoing efforts to raise awareness, save lives and prevent injuries in our community September 18th to the 24th, 2023 beak proclaimed as real safety week in the city of London. Okay, is there a seconder for that? I have Councillor Palosa willing to second any discussion on the motion that the Council has brought forward. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Closing the vote motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, I’m the next person who is a correspondent, so given, I’ll do what Councillor Hopkins did and ask for leave, I’m gonna turn the chair over to the Deputy Mayor to run the meeting. And thank you, Your Worship. So we have the communication provided by the mayor, colleagues, he is seeking leave, so we will need a motion to grant leave so that the motion can be presented.

So I’m looking to see if colleagues are willing to grant leave, moved by Councillor Ramen and seconded by Councillor Hopkins, any debate? Oh, sorry, non-debatable. So we will open the vote on that. Closing the vote, motion carries and leave is granted.

Thank you, colleagues. I would now to Mayor Morgan to present his motion. Yes, colleagues, so my motion relates to our Housing Accelerator Fund application and the letter that I received from Minister Frazier, which I have brought before Council for your consideration and I’ve also included a draft response, although it is a draft response and I would certainly adjust it pending the Council debate, discussion and decision-making tonight. As you can see, I can address pretty much everything in his letter with the exception of one item, which is why I’ve brought a motion before us today.

I’ve indicated that I have a seconder in the motion, so if the acting chair would like to see if that seconder can confirm the motion before us, which I’ll read, and then I will provide my rationale for it. So the motion that I’d like Council to consider is a two-part one. The civic administration be directed to prepare a zoning by-law amendment that would permit as of rate permits for up to four residential units, wherever zone, wherever a zone permits, singles, semis, street, townhomes, for consideration by Council as soon as permitted under the statutory requirements of the planning act. And then a second part, further to this action, the civic administration be directed at their earliest opportunity to review and prepare a strategic assessment for Council of the specific neighborhoods where as of right permits for more than five residential units may be appropriate within the existing framework or neighborhood development.

Thank you and our planning chair has indicated that he is prepared to second that, Councillor Layman. I’ll second. Okay, the motion has been moved and seconded. We’ll look now for any debate on this.

And we’ll start with Mayor Morgan. Yes, I’ll provide some rationale for colleagues. So as you know, we have submitted an application to the Housing Accelerator Fund and there’s been a lot of very productive ongoing dialogue between CMHC and our staff. My understanding is that our application has now landed on the minister’s desk, which is great, that means it just needs the minister to sign off on it.

Upon reviewing it, he wrote the letter, which highlights some of the very positive aspects of our application. Given no one has been awarded housing accelerator funds, it’s my expectation that they’re trying to establish the expectations on what they’re looking for for awarding these funds. And in that, the minister wrote on three items. Two of those items, I had a subsequent conversation with the minister on about the actions that we’re taking with the consultation with our staff.

You’ll see in the draft letter, my response is to those, and I can tell you from an engagement with the minister who I talked with before I drafted the letter, I brought the motion before council. Those are items that satisfy those concerns and the minister and his staff are very satisfied with the actions we’re taking on them, related to providing housing densification along transit corridors, as well as the engagements we have with our post-secondary institutions and on opportunities to work with them to provide housing in those areas and/or support the work that they’re doing to build university residences. The piece that the government is interested in seeing is a much more aggressive approach across the country on as of right units. As you know, a provincial legislation brought in three units as of right across the province.

That is a base level standard. There are other municipalities across the country that have gone further than that and made more aggressive as of right targets. But the as of right zoning does not preclude like the as of right permissions. Do not preclude that you have to comply with the base zoning and the other requirements on a piece of land or what’s required within the official plan or any of those other components.

And so permission for as of right units does not automatically mean you can go out and build those as of right units, you still have to comply with all of the rules and all the regulations and all of the processes that you would have to under the zoning by-law. But it does set that expectation and that direction from council that we’re gonna be aggressive on being permissive, on creating opportunities for housing across the city. And so I’m very comfortable with the move beyond the required three in the province to four. I can say that I anticipate colleagues will have lots of questions.

I have engaged thoroughly with our planning staff on what their intentions were down the road, the work that was being done on the zoning by-law and whether or not this fits in with where we’re headed anyways and compliance with the London Plan and other documents that are key to our decision-making as a planning body. And I will let our staff speak for themselves for the question and answer. But it’s my understanding that they have no objections to moving this direction, that this is in line with the direction that we’re taking and that this is a clear statement to both the provincial and federal governments that we are going to do everything we possibly can to address the housing crisis in the city. And that means a general light densification of properties where appropriate.

And again, people have to go through the process to do it across the city with as-of-right permissions. The second part of this is not something required to the minister, but something that’s re-engaging with our staff. There may be parts of our city where a higher base zoning may be justified. I don’t know where those are.

I don’t know what that looks like. And that second part of the motion is just a request for our staff to say, “Take a look at it strategically. “Come back and tell us what that looks like.” They may come back and say, “No, four is fine. “There are no other areas where we’d up it.” They may come back with some strategic suggestions through future processes.

None of that is anything the minister is asking for, but I thought if we’re going to try to get aggressive on creating housing in the city, there’s no sense if we’re going to move to four why we wouldn’t look at what we can do in other parts of the city. I can tell you this has been out there and the feedback has been positive. There are other municipalities who have seen my motion and I can tell you other mayors have reached out to express to me that they will likely be bringing similar motions to their council in an effort to address housing pressures across this province. So with that, I’ll leave it to the debate and the questions the answers colleagues have.

And again, I know our staff are more than capable of addressing any technical questions or questions that they would have for them. So thank you for consideration. Well, I didn’t start the timer right on time, your worship, but you were under the time that I had started the timer for. And I have Councilor Trussau next on the speaker’s list.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate the desire to increase the intensification. We just went through an exercise implementing the provincial three as a matter of right.

And I will note that that generated quite a bit of provisions in the reports that we looked at. And there were, there would have been concerns, although this is mandated. I need to be assured. First of all, I want to understand why this cannot come through a planning agenda.

I don’t think it would be very controversial if it’s been asked for. Maybe you have, maybe you have a reason, but I’d like to know why this would not come through a planning agenda. I also want to sever out the five residential unit thing because I think that whatever justification there is to do this in a hurry, there’s less of that for the five. Maybe we wouldn’t want to go to five.

But I would like to see a study on that. I need to be assured that all of the provisions that were written into the by-law that implemented the three as a matter of right are incorporated by reference here. And maybe Mr. Maditz could address that.

Thank you, that was through the chair, by the way. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Trussau. And I will go to Mr.

Mathers first. And then if Mayor Morgan wishes to address the timing piece, I’ll give him an opportunity to do that as well. Mr. Mathers.

Through the presiding officer, just to add that process piece here. So this is a direction for staff to undertake the work to bring forward a zoning amendment. That zoning amendment process would be the standard process we go through for all of our zoning amendments. So there still would be a public consultation.

You’d have a public meeting at the planning environment committee and then an opportunity for the committee and for council to make decisions on whether that’s what they wanted to go for. So there still will be a full process. This is just kicking it off and letting us know that we want to come forward with a city-led zoning by-law amendment. Thank you.

Assuming you’re referring to four, that satisfies my concern. Yes, Councillor, sorry, both of you. I asked you to please wait until you’re recognized by the chair to take the mic and start speaking. So, and Councillor Trussau, you do still have time left.

So if you have additional questions, I’ll allow that. So Mayor Morgan, if you want to respond now to the timeline question, go ahead. I’ll respond to both the points that the Councillor made. On the part with five, there is not the same urgency if the Councillor wants to entertain separating that and even referring that piece to planning committee for a discussion before the direction is given to staff.

I honestly wouldn’t have huge concerns or objections to that. On the first piece, I do believe there’s emergency. We’ve submitted a very aggressive and comprehensive housing accelerator fund application to this government, which is critical to us supplying affordable housing options in the city. The minister has reviewed that application, made reference to it in this letter and has said this is something you’d like to see.

And the minister is going to be in the city for meetings in a few weeks. And I think that there is a good opportunity for us to show a clear commitment to moving in this direction, even though there is a clear process that we have to go through that involves public consultation, but a directionality from this council that we are very serious about considering this. And I think that that can only do benefit to the speedy approval of our housing accelerator fund application, which a speedy approval allows us to get moving on the aggressive housing opportunities that we have put forward to the ministry and CMHC in that application. And so for me, the urgency is, I want the housing accelerator fund money as soon as we can possibly get it, so that we can create affordable units in the city as soon as we possibly can.

To me, this direction allows us to set a clear public council statement that we are listening to what the minister’s saying, we are going to be aggressive on housing and we will help them set the stage. And if they want to make the first announcement on the housing accelerator fund here, I would greatly welcome that because we can get that money deployed very quick. That’s the urgency in my mind. Thank you.

Councilor Al just ask you to remain standing until your time’s up or until you yield the floor, but I will return to you to see if you’ve got any additional comments or questions. Yes, through the chair, I think based on the representations that were made, I’m satisfied. I don’t want those processes being shortcut. I think there’s a little bit of ambiguity in the first paragraph, but I think based on what you’ve said, it’s clear.

And that the five issue can be sent to the committee. And that’s really all I have to say. Okay, so just before I move on to the next person on the speaker’s list, Councilor, you said that the five can be separated. I want to confirm whether you want them separated or whether you’re okay with this being a single vote.

No, I’d like the five separated because that has a little less urgency. And I think that can go back to the committee for full review. I want to make sure that, yes, I want the five separated. Okay, so I’ll take that for as direction to ask the clerks to separate the motion into two components so that when we come to a vote, we can vote on them separately as an A and B clause.

And while the clerks are working on separating that, I have Councilor Ferrera next on the speaker’s list. And thank you presiding officer and through you. I guess I’ll start off with saying thank you to the mayor for doing this work and giving us the communication back and forth between you and the minister that is quite helpful. And thank you to staff for helping with the mayor in this endeavor.

I do want to see the Housing Accelerator Fund monies come to us as soon as possible. So we can actually make some action on the floor. And I would also say, just looking at the conversation going back and forth, I do see a part in the letter from the minister talking about creating opportunities for the city in addition to the Housing Accelerator Fund. So the first question I’d like to ask is, beyond the Housing Accelerator Fund cash that we may receive by putting in the four to five units, what would the other opportunities be if there has been any part of the discussion on that?

Mr. Mathers, did you want to start with that? Through you worship, whenever there’s an opportunity to get additional funding from the federal government where we have a team that works diligently to be able to secure that. So if any other programs come available or there’s other programs that we can be able to leverage using the Housing Accelerator Fund monies, then we’d be doing that and actively pursuing that.

Councillor Ferrer. And thank you and through you. Yeah, I just wanted to see if there is like what the opportunities would be. I also see, I do want to do a shout out, I guess to the mayor and staff again, just because like I do know that in any type of negotiations that I’ve been involved with, not to this magnitude, but there’s always things kind of around the center point and just kind of reducing that and getting right down to the ask of, what is the ask and just kind of leveraging that?

But I do see that that was probably, probably took a little bit of work in your discussions with the minister. So I do appreciate that. And just looking at it from, we’re bringing in this intensification into our transit corridors and we’re bringing it into the New York campus neighborhood. So I do see that there is a good strategic approach of how we’re going to be bringing this development.

And so again, thank you to staff, thank you to the mayor and hopefully the minister, thank you as well for that money that we’re going to get in the future. Thank you, Councillor. Can you see if there’s any other speakers to this? Councillor Layman.

Thank you, Acting Chair. Couple of comments here. We do have a housing crisis on our hands and we get asked a lot as Councillors. What are you doing to solve this?

It’s a big problem and requires a lot of actions that we can take as council. But quite frankly, it requires a lot of assistance from the levels of government higher than us at the provincial and federal level. And I think we’ve been clear as a city and working with our partners at those levels that we take this very seriously. We are going to be quick with our response to your concerns and I think what we’re seeing, for example, responding to the province’s challenge of 47,000 homes by 2031.

We were quick to say we will get there and we’re seeing the good results from that in our working partnership with the provincial government. I think this is a great opportunity for London to be clear with the federal government that we intend to do everything we can as a city to build homes and get homes affordable for residents of London, Ontario. The Minister of Housing was very clear in his desire for us to move on this item from three to four residential units. So I want to say to the mayor and your office, good work on moving so quickly and responding quickly to get this in front of council in a timely manner because yeah, I want to be first when the Minister of Housing comes to London and says you’re first as a city to have access to the Housing Accelerator Fund which we all know is important for the plans that we have to get houses built.

I’d like to just discuss there’s some concern at moving to looking at five and maybe two LA concerns there. What I might suggest is referring the look at five to a further meeting to give council time to look at and staff to work with council before we go down that road and before staff are busy. So let’s make sure we’re all on the same page. So if possible chair, I would like to refer the part B as part of this motion.

The unfortunate thing about chairing from my own seat is that I can’t jump in and speak over you councilor to cut you off or to acknowledge your referral but referral does take precedence. So we’ve got a referral on the floor for part B which is and further to this action civic administration be directed at their earliest opportunity to review and prepare a strategic assessment for council or specific neighborhoods whereas of right build permits for more than five residential units may be appropriate within the existing framework of neighborhood development looking to see if there’s a seconder for the referral. Lots of seconders for that. I will recognize Mayor Morgan supporting that referral.

So I’ll look to see if there’s any discussion on the referral, Mayor Morgan. Yes, I appreciate the comments the colleagues have had. I, again, the second piece, there’s no rush on. The priority is the four.

Staff need time to work on that. Referring this to planning environment committee for a discussion of that committee before providing the direction to staff to do this work. I have like absolutely no problem with and I think that probably fits in with the timeframe that we’d be looking at anyways given the work ahead on completing the first part of this motion. So I appreciate the councilor’s comments and happy to support the referral to gain some wider support for this initiative.

Thank you, Your Worship. And thank you for mentioning the specific direction of the referral. So Councillor Layman, you’re moving this referral to a future meeting of the planning environment committee. Yes.

Thank you for that clarification. Any further discussion on the referral? Councillor Trussow. Talks about more than five.

First part talks about four. Where is five? I think five is in the second part. I think you mean to say five or more?

Thank you, Councillor Trussow, Councillor Layman. I believe I’m moving part B, which is directing staff to look at five or more units. So I am going to say Councillor Trussow’s point is correct. The language says more than five.

Part A says up to four. So there is actually a gap. And I would suggest that the language the councilor referred to would be correct five or more. So I’m gonna just look to the mover and the seconder to see if that language change.

And I’m seeing nodding of heads. So I’ll accept that as a change in language. I’ll just ask the clerks to make that correction. And I see the clerks nodding that they will make that correction as well.

So any further debate on the referral? Seeing none, I will ask the clerks to open the vote on the referral for part B. The vote motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, colleagues.

So that brings us back to part A, which is all that’s left of the motions of which notice is given. I don’t have anyone else on the speakers list. So I’m gonna make one last call. If anyone wants to speak to this before we open the vote, seeing none, I will ask the clerks to open the vote on part A.

Deputy Mayor, I was waving my hand. I didn’t get your— Oh, sorry. Councilor Van Mirbergen, I did miss you. However, the vote is open.

So, okay, the clerks have canceled the vote. So Councilor Van Mirbergen, I’ll go to you now. Okay, thanks very much. I’d like to change some information either from the mayor and or staff.

I’m just looking for clarification in terms of the amount of funding we could potentially be looking at. Do we have any knowledge at this point of what funding levels we may attend? Councilor that, I’m just gonna advise you. I’m gonna check with the clerks that we may have to go into closed session for that.

And I’m seeing an awning from our planning staff as well. I just, I was just typically with these types of funding programs, they’re public. So I was just wondering what amount we’re looking at. If for some reason it’s not public, then sure, that would be fine if we go into cameras.

Okay, I’m gonna go to Mayor Morgan first ‘cause he did want to respond to your question. So Mayor Morgan. Yes, I just wanna let the councilor know that our full application with the total amount and all of the breakdown of the components of it was approved by municipal council in camera and submitted with the support of municipal council to CMHC and the minister. The reason why I specifically did not mention the components of that is because that piece is confidential until the agreement is signed with the ministry.

But the councilor can go back through the in camera minutes and see the in camera reports and see all of the components of exactly the total amount and every piece of the breakdown and all of the rationale for our original application, but that cannot be discussed in public session given the nature of the agreements between the two levels of government at this time. The only things I could refer to or what the minister chose to express publicly about our application, but it’s not our place to make those public. So the councilor could get all of that information again tonight with another in camera session or he could go back and look at the full report that was before us earlier. Thank you for that answer, your worship.

I’m going to, Councillor Van Mirbergen. Yes, I like to thank the mayor for the clarification. I guess what I’m wondering is, is that a flat amount or is there a potential for that to either go up or down? I think that staff may be able to answer.

Is the amount that was submitted through the confidential application process the full amount or is there a chance that it is a variable? Mr. Mathers? Through your worship.

So what is completely open and public is the actual application form. So basically there’s a commitment to be able to provide a certain amount of housing and the amount of funding is provided to you is based on that number. So if at the discretion of the minister, if they decide that there should be a smaller number for London, then they would get less money or if it’s a larger number, they would give us more. So it is completely up to the minister to be able to assess how much funding the city would get.

Thank you, Mr. Mathers. Councillor Van Mirbergen. Thank you very much.

You’re good? Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Any other speakers to the motion that’s on the floor? Check the screens this time. Seeing none, now I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Thank you colleagues. That concludes the motions of which notice is given. So I will return the chair to Mayor Morgan. Thank you very much for that colleagues.

I really appreciate the support on that. And I’m very excited to communicate that vote to the minister. Item eight is reports. These are our standing committee reports.

The first one is the report of the planning and environment committee. I’ll turn it over to Chair Layman. Thank you, Mayor. I’ve had no one approach me to request any item pulled from the 13th report.

Does anybody want any items pulled from planning and environment committee? I don’t see any, so you can go ahead and grab the motion. So I would be happy to put the full report on the floor. Okay, the chair has put the full report on the floor.

The entire 13th report of PEC. Any discussion on any of the items? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, that concludes your report. Thank you. That concludes it.

There you go. He set the tone. Let’s see if we can keep that up. I have, next I have the Corporate Services Committee report.

15th report of Corporate Services Committee. I’ll turn it over to the Deputy Mayor to present that committee’s report. Thank you, Your Worship. Likewise, I have not been made aware of any items to be pulled to be dealt with separately.

The bulk of our agenda was in-camera confidential matters, which we dealt with in our in-camera session earlier. We have some applications for proclamation and an update on the flags and illumination of city hall policy. So that was all supported unanimously at committee. Anybody like anything dealt with separately from the Corporate Services Committee?

Okay, seeing none, so you’re putting all of it on the floor. Okay, any discussion? The entire committee report moved by the chair. Any discussion on any item?

We’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. All right, roll your Worship.

That concludes the 15th report. Thank you. The next item is the 13th report of the Community Protective Services Committee. I do know that there is one item on this report that we’ll probably deal with separately, but go ahead, Councillor Ploza.

Thank you, as chair of this committee. It’s the 13th report, the Community Protective Services Committee. I’ve been giving notice to pull item four, being 3.1 being the fireworks bylaw options, looking to see if there’s others. Other items to be pulled.

So the fireworks bylaw option would be dealt with separately. Any other items pulled separately? I don’t see any. Okay, go ahead, Councillor.

Thank you. I’ll put all items except for being 3.1 on the floor, noting that there were communications from the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee in regards to the fireworks band. And the interfaith homes is a time sensitive transition from that property back into the city. Thank you, chair.

So any discussion on the committee’s report with the exception of the fireworks bylaw options? I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis, and I’ll start a speaker’s list. Thank you, worship. I’m gonna be brief.

I just want to address 4.1 from the committee agenda. That’s item five on the council agenda, the interfaith homes transition strategy. And I just want to acknowledge that Mr. Felberg has made himself available to speak with board representatives, including Councillor McAllister and myself, on the LMCH board about this transition piece for now.

The board had a lengthy discussion at our own board meeting earlier this month. Certainly we’re comfortable in terms of taking on the onsite service provision. I recognize Mr. Curtis with us as well.

He also took time to meet with us on this. And so while there are some steps to take, the board at London Middlesex Community Housing is generally supportive of the direction that we’re heading here. Thank you, I have Councillor Stevenson next. Thank you, I have questions on this one and on the winter response.

So seeing as we’re talking about this, I’m going to switch to that, I sent a question earlier today on page, sorry, I was ready for the winter response one. On page 99 of the CAHPS report, it says that, oh, it does, that’s not it. Anyway, it says that, sent the question earlier. It talks about if the, there was a $30,000 a month cost that would be there, if it was implemented and the reply, I got back, said it was a typo and it was, so if they could just be clarification there.

Go ahead, Mr. Mathers. Through your worship, the report speaks to an interim and receiver and manager option. That option is what’s being suggested in this report, so that cost is associated with what’s included in the resolution.

Thank you, so it’s $30,000 a month for how long? Through your worship, I don’t have that at this moment, but if you give me a moment, I can probably get that answer. Maybe you can go ahead with your other questions, Councillor, we’ll eat, looks at them. Okay, sure.

So the others were more just overarching questions around this, around the downloading to the municipalities regarding this and what the potential liability is for us in this regard. And are there, how many other properties do we have? Is it something that we’re on top of? ‘Cause when I look at schedule B and the governance findings, there’s really like a lot of issues in that.

And so I’m just wondering in terms of not seeing financial reports, not dealing with it, things that need to be dealt with, wondering what our level of liability or exposure is there and what other units are out there that we could maybe proactively check in on? Mr. Rather, through your worship. We have approximately 40 different housing providers that we work with.

Over the last six years, we haven’t had anyone that’s in this situation. We do do an analysis on an annual basis when we are developing the funding for them every year, looking at all of the aspects from their finances. So it is something that we do monitor. This property was attempting to be able to get back on track and they weren’t able to.

And that’s what’s pushed them into this situation. Okay, thank you for that. The other thing is this, the report that’s included as Appendix B was done in 2021, I believe. And it’s a bit concerning in this time of wait lists and people so desperate for housing that one of the issues here is the vacancy rate in those buildings and that it wasn’t properly being maintained and making sure that people were in those units.

So I’m just wondering again, like, is there something that we can do here at the city to help ensure that we do not have empty units out there due to mismanagement or whatever the issues are? Through your worship, absolutely. So the funding that they receive through our various programs is very much linked to the number of units that they have full. So as part of that annual analysis for all the different housing providers that we ensure and their funding is dependent on them having these, having a maximum occupancy.

So that’s how we do that is we basically tie it to their funding. And just trying to understand this, a little bit more tied to the funding but they’re short and funds and so we covered the shortfall so they’re not short and funds and so it doesn’t seem very effective in that sense ‘cause I noticed we’ve provided money and we’re deferring all kinds of subsidy clawbacks and yet we’ve got units empty. Through your worship, if it is a property that is managed appropriately, you shouldn’t be getting into the problem where we run into that. When there is a situation that exists and it doesn’t come up very, very often but what could happen if that situation occurs and we’re aware of it is that we can actually go back and renegotiate our agreement with them to ensure that, and usually that is a discussion, it’s a negotiation, it may include requests for deeper affordability if they’re gonna get funding from the city to support it or as you mentioned as well the number of units that are at capacity but there is options available to them if they’re getting themselves into a hole we can work with them to negotiate it.

If it’s something that on an annual basis is being run effectively and they have the appropriate funding to support all their capital improvements and so on, then it doesn’t become an issue. (laughing) Okay, thank you for that and glad to see it’ll be in good hands going forward and the other thing that struck me in this report and there were a lot of them actually in this report but the one was the administration overhead being 140,000, 20% of revenues and it said that based on your review, most are 8% or only 56,000 per year so again, just wondering like what oversight we have or are we changing things as you said that going forward will be seeing this reviewing it or is there no approval process that we do to ensure that especially when there are financial concerns and we are providing subsidy. Through your worship. So with this property moving forward, there’s an opportunity to absolutely revisit how they operate for other properties that it is that annual process that we ensure that they have, we need to ensure that they’re not renting to folks that don’t meet the criteria for our program so that’s our check and balance to ensure for the general population of these buildings that are being run effectively that they’re going to be able to not run into those financial issues and that they’re providing the service to the population that we’re trying to target.

So for this property working with the housing provider we’ll be able to change how they, how this works effectively. Councilor, just as a courtesy I wanna let you know you said you wanted to comment on other things in this package of motions because the motion on the floor is everything from the committee’s report. I just wanna let you know you’ve used about three and a half minutes so I don’t want, I don’t want you to be surprised if you wanna get to other items otherwise I’ll have to ask for an extension from colleagues at the five-minute mark. I just wanna let you know that these are all one motion right now.

Okay, well I would like to ask for five minutes on the other then because that wasn’t told to me in advance and being a new counselor. I didn’t know that. The winter response is obviously my focus. Well that’s why I’m giving you a heads up.

So you can go until the end of the five minutes as the procedure by let that time I would ask for, you could ask for an extension of time. So if you wanna proceed with your questions, it’s just the way the motion is. I have to follow, I have to do the same. Okay, I understand and telling me with a minute and a half versus at the beginning would have helped, right?

So can I ask for the permission now? Well you can use up the rest of your time. So are you done with this item? Yeah.

  • Yeah, okay. So you do have a minute and a half so you could exhaust that or you could, you can ask for an extension of five minutes from this point, that’s up to you. Yeah, I’d like to ask for an extension of five minutes at this point. The winter response is the key piece and had I known I would have done things differently.

Okay, so the councilor’s asking for an extension of time of five minutes from this point. Is there someone willing to move that? I guess the councilor can move that. It’s seconded by Councillor Cuddy.

So extension of time is not debatable. I just had to check on that. So it’s moved and seconded. So we’ll just open the vote for an extension of the, no, it’s not debatable.

So I can’t let you do that. So an extension of time for an additional up to five minutes from this point, which means the councilor’s time would be to have minutes total. So everybody understands what the motion is. So we’ll open that for voting.

Four minutes from this point on is what she’s asking for. Those in the vote, motion carries nine to six. Okay, Councillor, you got five minutes. Thank you, I very much appreciate it.

The winter response part, I know that I spend a lot of time on it, but it is one of the main reasons why I ran was this homelessness issue. It’s very much an issue in my ward. It’s the number one issue for the people who live there. And I have a few questions for staff.

I really want to change the energy around this. It gets to start with me on this. The open, transparent, accountable. We just get to have the hard discussions.

People just want to know, they want to know where the money’s going, who’s being helped, what’s working, what’s not working. And when I look at the winter response, and I have to say, I totally appreciate all the social service agencies do in our city, I totally appreciate city staff, my heart breaks for those on the street, in the businesses, and in the surrounding neighborhoods. But when I look at the winter response, and thank you very much to city staff for putting it together to compare the last couple of years, I don’t see in the report the accountability, the transparency around identifying, like really trying to identify what it is that isn’t working. So I’ve sent some questions to staff in advance to say, when I look at the 2021, the occupied use of the beds was 99.74%, in 21.22, it was 93.5%.

And then in 22.23, it fell to 50% occupancy for the daytime beds, and 70% for the nighttime beds. So I did ask staff to give me an answer for that question. I’d like to put it on the public, so that they to understand why the difference in 22.23. Especially given that the report mentions that homelessness had unexpectedly doubled, and we didn’t have the COVID restrictions.

So we had a number of bed days available down to 60% of the previous year, and then we had the occupancy rate really low. Go ahead, Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, I’m actually joined by Mr.

Cooper online, who has some of the details that we were able to provide, and thank you to the Council for sending those questions ahead of time. So I will go to Mr. Cooper, who can speak to some of the delays in opening of spaces, and some of the factors that impacted the occupancy rates. Thank you, and through your worship.

I appreciate the question from the Councillor. The response for the 2324 comparison, as requested by Councillor Pribble, outlined sort of available beds. And so for the 2324, that did include the safe space location, which operationalized after the recording period of the request from the Councillor. So that number would have been zero as part of the overall numbers, which shows that decrease in overall percentage.

In addition to that, a number of our organizations were managing damages in some of the spaces that they were operating, which resulted in beds not being available for a certain number of days, as well as pest management issues. So a number of spaces had to close due to pest management treatment for a number of days, and cumulatively, those bridged the gap for the spaces that weren’t operationalized during the timeframe. Thank you for that. And in the follow-up email, I had said in the performance outcomes that we received in the previous CAHPS report, the number of beds available for safe space that didn’t impact the percentages.

It said zero available, zero use. So was that changed in this one, where the available beds are actually the planned expected available beds, rather than what was actually available? Mr. Cooper.

Thank you, and through the chair. So our response was very specific to what the Councilor, Councilor Pribble had requested through motion and through his request at a previous council meeting. So we did include what was planned and available as part of the response to Councilor Pribble. Give in, they were approved and approved by the, sorry, approved by the city manager at the time, and then added to contract.

So when they were on that contract, we then included them as available, appreciating that they weren’t operationalized at that time. Okay, thank you. So just, then again, I’m asking the question so that we can all, and the public can better understand like how we’re addressing this dire need. So the planned expected day beds available was 60% of the previous year, like we dropped 40%.

And the bed nights were 91% of the previous year. So I guess I thought maybe that our planned beds day and night would have been more this past winter. There were a reason why they’re lower, so much lower. Mr.

Cooper, you wanna take that or yes? Yeah, sure, thank you. I can start and then Mr. Dickens can add on it if he likes.

The reality with the winter response is, I know we were comparing them and through your worship, we were comparing them year over year as requested by the Councilor, but the reality is these responses were mutually exclusive from one another. And the reality is that we were trying to operationalize as a community, what community could flex to support? And so year was one in years two were very focused COVID years. Organizations were very strapped with staffing and restrictions on space sizes, limitations, as well as public health requirements.

Last year was much more of a community-driven focus as a result of the hunger strike last summer, and then the subsequent action and accountability meetings in the fall. So every year we really focused on what the community could operationalize. Last year, the conversation shifted a bit, was a broader community input, and again, was what the community could look to operationalize. Okay, thank you.

And I guess I was just trying to understand that we had the hunger strike because so many people cared so much about what was happening. And we deferred to the community and to the experts to come up with a plan. And yet our plan, both in what we wanted to create or expected to create and who actually got beds, was less. And so like I don’t, it’s not about blame, it’s about as we go forward in this new system, are we identifying what didn’t work?

Because in the last report, it had said that for all, LOSA, there were 40 beds in the cold weather alerts that none were available due to location. The location wasn’t able to have them. And that London cares of the 100 cold weather alert beds that were hopefully to be available. Only 33 nights were they actually used, 33 out of 100.

When it was so cold and our homeless population had doubled unexpectedly. And it was addressed in the last report that said, going forward, there needs to be some sort of a system to fully utilize those beds. Very happy to hear about that. Would love to know more about that though.

Because again, from the public perspective and from my own, so heartbreaking to see people out on our streets. You have 30 seconds. And so my point is that I really want us to dig into this. I want us to have the hard conversations.

I want us to come together. We are better together when the business community, the community and the social services and city hall comes together with the police. We are going to do amazing things in the city. And I want us to lean in on these conversations.

And I appreciate City Council giving me the extra time. With one second to spare. Thank you very much. You have Councilor Pribble next.

Thank you, answer the chair to the staff. I just wanted, I’m looking to ask the questions that I already asked last time. And I received the answers. So thank you for that.

Thank you for completing the three year report for two years when we did it to our south city, last year when we did it with our community organizations. And I just want to repeat what I said last time. I think that this week, either they already did, or they will be meeting the strategic table and the accountability table. And I just want this information because I think it’s going to be very, very useful for them.

Please have them available for them with any questions that they would have. And also, I really would like us to very strongly consider that this year’s initiative is going to be, is going to be directly done with the local organizations and the city and we are not going to use a third party. So we do have more access to the accountability and verify certain results. So thank you for that.

Then I just want to repeat it from the last meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Mr.

Maynard has an answer to an earlier question. He said he needed a minute, so I’ll let him answer that. Through you worship. So the question was related to the $30,000 per month that was highlighted in the report.

So that is an estimate and maybe lower than that hopefully, but that’s for the interim management. And it’s likely that that management would go to at least November, 2024. That’s when the mortgage is reassessed, but it would be up to and working with LMCH ‘cause they would be working as far as with that property moving forward. So it would be for approximately year and several months period.

Okay, thank you. I have Councillor Pribble. You’re still on, I saw that your time going. So go ahead.

Thank you. No, do you know what I actually didn’t know? I made a comment statement, but I didn’t know if the staff wanted to respond to it. And just in case they wanted to respond, I just want to give them the opportunity.

That’s all, thank you. Sorry about that, Councillor Pribble. He made some comments. I didn’t realize the Councillor, I don’t know if staff have any response, sir.

Through your worship, the comments about sharing this report with the encampment table and those that are trying to look at the way our community responds to extreme weather, be it extreme cold, smoke, air quality conditions or extreme heat, that report that’s on the agenda package was shared with that table co-chairs at the conclusion of the CAHPS meeting. So they’ve already received this report and members of my social and health development team have been attending those meetings to also support. Okay, thank you. No full-up, thank you.

Okay, others, speakers, and I’ll just remind everybody this is every item on the CAHPS report with the exception of the fireworks, you know, oh. I just want a personal privilege, rise on a matter of personal privilege. Oh, you can rise on personal privilege, but I think you spoke to this right. Yes, so your worship, I just want to take a moment as a point of personal privilege on the time extension matter.

I supported the time extension matter in this case because it wasn’t made clear right at the outset that the five minutes was for the motion as a whole, but I wanted to take this opportunity to say in the future if counselors wish to have time to discuss and debate in motion separately, I would respectfully ask that they ask for that item to be pulled. I will not be supporting time extensions in the future on a bulk consent agenda item. There’s an opportunity to pull them if you want to debate and vote on them separately. So moving forward, I just want to advise colleagues, I won’t be supporting time extensions on consent agenda motions.

If you want time, ask for it to be pulled and dealt with separately. And I’m not sure that’s really a point of personal privilege, but that’s, there’s nothing to deal with there, you’ve said your piece. Any other speakers for this? Okay, so the motion on the floor is, all of the items on the committee’s agenda with the exception of the fireworks by-law, so I’m going to open that for voting.

Was in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Councilor. Thank you, I’m going to put I’m 3.1 being the fireworks by-law on the floor. This was a longer discussion at committee.

Our public participation meeting went on for four hours. Just wanted to thank everyone who attended who those who have sent correspondence, either electronically, some have arrived in person. On this evening’s agenda, you’ll notice that there’s the communications of over 40 that we’ve put and referred to this item. At committee, we heard a long range of options of option A or B that staff had developed for us in addition to residents raising make no changes at all and some residents requesting a complete band of all fireworks ever being set off in the city of London.

So I’ll put the staff and the committee recommendation on the floor and also give notice that I likely will not be able to stand for this entire duration. Councilor, I have no problem. Sit when you need to. That’s, I don’t think anybody has any objections to that.

I just want to make a couple of comments on this matter, only because I know that there’s a number of people in the gallery here. So unlike the committee meeting, this is not a public participation meeting. The public has had its say, although people have their signs and can communicate that. There will be comments.

I see some different opinions in the audience. So be comments that don’t be made by members of council, that you may like, there may be comments that you don’t like. So we’re not going to cheer or clap or say booze or anything like that. People can sit and watch quietly.

Councilors will debate the options. There is a committee recommendation on the floor that the chair has moved. If you want something different from the committee recommendation on the floor that isn’t an amendment, so small amendments can be made to that committee’s recommendation. But if you don’t like gay and you want B, you got to defeat the committee’s recommendation before you can get to B.

If you want to amend A, you can do that. And I know that one colleague has a referral and referral ends up taking precedent over everything. So that colleague is actually first on the speaker’s list. And so I anticipate we’ll entertain the referral first and then Councilor Raman is second.

And so Councilor Trostow, go ahead. Yes, I have made a motion for a referral and is the language that I provided to the clerk up on the screen and have all the councilors received it? I know I got it, but I don’t know if everybody checked the email ‘cause it came. So before we start on this, is there, should I ask for a seconder first?

That’s exactly what you should do. So just outline your referral. I’ll ask for a seconder and then I’ll let you speak to your rationale in the referral. Okay, the reason I’m asking— But not rationale, just tell me what the referral is.

The referral is to send this back to civic administration to answer certain questions which I will set out and which will develop from this conversation further and they will report back to us. And the purpose, the purpose for the referral is to— I don’t need the purpose of the referral. We’ll get into the debate afterwards. So the council would like to refer this back to civic administration and the councilor submitted a piece of correspondence to us about half an hour, 15 minutes before the meeting with the details of the referral.

But it’s essentially going back to staff and then back to the committee and the councilor can outline the reasons for that in the debate. But I’ll look for a seconder for the referral at this time, Councilor Ferreira. Okay, the referral has moved and seconded. We will get it on the screen so everybody can read it and you can continue with your rationale for the referral now, Councilor Trossa.

Okay, I felt that given the level of intensity and divisiveness and I’m not going to speak to the merits of options A or B. I’m going to get to that later right now. We’re just on the referral. I think it would be in the interests, the best interests of the community and all aspects of the community to refer this back for more information.

I believe that there are a number of questions that are still pending regarding the conduct of licensing and enforcement. And I see that Councilor Ferreira has his hand up and I know that he’s looked at this in some detail. So what I’m going to do is I’m going to focus my attention on a very productive conversation that I had this morning with the Deputy Fire Chief and I would like to address through the chair. I would like to address some questions along the lines of what we discussed.

My understanding based on our conversation was that options A and options B were put out there as a starting point for community discussion. And it was not intended to be the only options that this Council could consider. And I’m wondering if you could just verify whether that’s correct. Go ahead, we need your microphone, Councilor.

Okay, now go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. That is correct. Options A and B were intended to start dialogue.

Through the chair, I do not have the full text of what my new proposal would be because I think it needs to be developed and I think it needs to go back to staff for a little bit of refinement. But I would like to consider something along the lines of an intermediate option which looks at the question of what is already exempt under the by-law? Because so much of the discussion during the public participation meeting centered on the use of lights and centered on the use of sparklers. And if you look at the by-law, well, in the by-law, we have a couple of different definitions.

We have definitions of band fireworks. We have definitions of consumer fireworks. We have definitions of display fireworks. I think some of that could be clarified.

But one thing that I think was lost during the discussion was sparklers are explicitly not covered under the by-law. So I was a little bit surprised to hear so much attention in the community about don’t take our sparklers away because this is what we’ve been doing all along when in fact this is not even under the by-law. So what I would like to do is I’d like to consider an option and we can call it a family lights celebration. We could call it a family safe backyard celebration.

There were a number of things we could characterize it as. But we would start with the fact that there is an exemption already for sparklers and I believe the other term that was used by people is pinwheels and I think I would like staff, particularly the fire staff, to look at what pinwheels are and how those compare to the explosive that goes off with a pyrotechnic. And may I ask through the chair to, if you can expand on pinwheels, which I understand are used in conjunction with sparklers. Go ahead.

Thank you, Your Worship. Through Your Worship, a pinwheel is a form of fireworks that’s attached to a wheel. There are fireworks that can be discharged. They emit a large amount of sparks.

So if I could, if I may, fireworks are attached to a wheel that may spin and each end is ignited and they spin in a circle, creating the formation of a pinwheel. So these are large spark emitting devices. The amount of pinwheels in displays or consumer fireworks, I’m not sure how many we would actually see in a year. Personally, I have not seen any requests come through on a fireworks permit, either through consumer fireworks or display fireworks where a pinwheel may be used.

May I ask the chair if you would tell me when I’m at a minute, please? You got a minute and a half left right now. And that includes the time that he spoke? I’m not counting the time he spoke, that’s where I answered your comments.

I have a lot of questions about licensing, but I think someone else may get to those. What I’d like to understand is what role does either the fire department or licensing play when they go out to, not permits, but when they go out to the actual sites of the individual pop-up sites? How many pop-up sites are there and what kind of inspection do we have of those pop-up sites? Go ahead, Mr.

Chairman. In the year 2023, we have issued 20 licenses under the business licensing by-law for pop-up firework sales. Through past amendments to the business licensing by-law of previous city councils, religious groups and nonprofit and charitable organizations are exempt from the by-law as are bricks and mortar stores. I’m going to yield, I’m going to just sort of reserve the rest of my time right now and see if other colleges want to address this.

Well, Councilor, just because I just want to make sure people know, since it’s council, when you yield the floor, you’re done. You spoke at once, even if you have more time. So if you have more questions, I’d suggest you get them with the 50 seconds that you have left. On a typical Victoria Day, it seems like there are dozens and dozens of them.

Yes, through your worship, we’ve issued 20 licenses, but it’s very possible that there’s many others because of the exemptions for religious organizations and nonprofits. Well, it just, I think this is something that I would like to get a lot more information back in terms of how many there are. And I’m talking about the commercial, I’m talking about the commercial operations, but I will yield it this way. Thank you, Councilor.

On the referral, I have Councilor Raman and Councilor Ferreira on my speakers list. So Councilor Raman, you go first. Thank you and through you. I will not be supporting the referral and the reason for that is that I believe that what we have in front of us today in option A or sorry, in option A, but in what came out of the committee as a recommendation includes the direction to report back to CPSC, as well as tasks our civic administration with reviewing those components of the business license bylaw as it relates to licensing all retailers of fireworks, required communication for retailers and clients, the fees associated, as well as that potential AMPS application and other compliance measures.

So I do believe that we are addressing those concerns. I think that this has been an extensive process and discussion already. And I do think that at this time, the community’s ready for us to make a decision. Thank you.

Councilor Ferreira. Thank you and through you. Okay, so I’ve listened to some of the comments for the colleagues. I do want to, I do have some questions for licensing, but I just want to go to Councilor Robbins points.

The reason that I would like to see the referrals, obviously, ‘cause we have more questions that I would like to see answered, but I also see that with the amendment that Councilor Palosa and you actually amended on, like I really like how that amendment looks, but I also see that because we are also in, the motion does approve for the option A, I feel like that amendment becomes a moot point. I’m just worried that if we were to see this as a decided matter of Council for option A, and then we get information back from the amendment that gives us extra info that would be workable with because it would become a decided matter of Council. I’m worried that we wouldn’t be able to revisit option A, which is why I would like to see the referral. In the referral motion, there is parts that is pulled out from that amendment that you and Councilor Palosa put on.

So that’s just, I just wanted to respond to that, but I wanted to go back to the licensing. I did reach out to staff. I did get that there were 10 fireworks license issues. So the 20 licenses issued is news to me, but I did wanted to know because I’m wondering, I have also seen just from my memory, I haven’t counted them all, but just from my memory and just speaking with others, it does seem like there are more than 20 pop up vendors around in the temporary sales locations, the temporary sales establishment.

So I understand that the answer was, there probably religious groups or other exempt groups that are selling those fireworks at those pop up stands, but I do see that I haven’t, I haven’t necessarily seen like the data on that. I just wanted to be sure that that is the case because if we are issuing these licenses, but at the same time we have other vendors that aren’t taking the license and selling with the license, I do see that there might be an issue with vendors selling without having the licenses. So I would like to see maybe some extra, I don’t know, like enforcement or extra, just inspections of that. So I do want to go back to the license of thing and I just wanted to ask, you do need a license if you’re not part of the exempt groups to sell in the temporary sales locations, that’s correct, right?

Yes, through your worship, that is correct. I believe it was two councils ago that gave the direction to exempt religious groups and nonprofits. Previously, we used to license those. So my understanding of the direction after the public meeting was that we give consideration for pop-ups, all bricks and mortars, and all the currently exempt premises to be fully licensed.

Thank you, and through you. Follow-up question to that would be, okay, so from what my understanding is, is the process is complaint driven. So if there is an individual that sees a temporary pop-up location selling fireworks that might be too heavy or too loud or doesn’t fall within the confines of the bylaw, you would have to respond to that with the complaint. Through your worship, the process is complaint driven and also proactive.

So when we see a pop-up that’s not licensed, we take action. We also get our referrals from our partners at London Fire. Thank you, and through you again. So I understand there’s the proactive component, but is it safe to say that it would be more heavily weighted on the complaint side of everything?

Through your worship, it’s actually more heavily weighted and proactive because we are out in the field, pretty well 24/7 with our staff. Fire department is very well aware of these issues as also our partners at London Police Service. Thank you, and through you again. I did see that in the past.

I think the last time this was brought to council, there was a page on the city website that did say, that listed the amount of vendors and their licensing and possible locations and everything like that, but I do understand that that page is no longer, we no longer use that active page. So I just wanted to ask about that, if that’s something that we could use as a possibility in the future to have that page again, just so if we do have any complaint driven processes before they go to municipal enforcement, they can look on the list and know whether that vendor has a license or not. Yes, your worship, we can certainly continue that educational tool. Thank you, Through you.

For that educational tool, would we need direction from council for that to provide to you so you actually are able to put that page on? Your worship, I consider that an operational matter so we can do that without direction from council. Thank you, how much time do I have, by the way? You got just over a minute.

Okay, so considering the issuing of licenses, I do see what the municipal enforcement is saying that there is more heavily weighted on the proactive approach, but I just know that those vendors are out there that don’t have the license that they’re working on. Like I say, I know, but just from conversation for my own experience, it’s just the 20 licensing does seem very low citywide. So I would expect, I would strongly expect that there must be more, which is why I’m looking for more information, which is why I supported the referral. I do feel that we need to go back, we need to look into exactly how many vendors there really is or there really are and really see how many are having license, they’re using licenses that how many don’t have licenses.

And I feel like this conversation needs to go a little bit deeper before we make this decision. I do see that we started off with the A and B approach. And originally I was for option B, but I do feel that both approaches are not appropriate at this time because we do need that extra information. So those will be my comments, I guess, for now.

But that’s why I really hope that we can just support this referral and get more information. I don’t know which way it’s gonna go, but I do think before we make this decision, we need to get that extra information. Thank you, Councillor. I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’m gonna try and be as brief as possible. I won’t be supporting the referral. I agree with Councillor ramen’s points with regard to the direction that was provided in the committee recommendation.

I also want to reiterate what Chair Palosa said. There’s over four hours of public participation on this. We’ve received communications from across the city. We’ve had people participate in it get involved.

We’ve also had people participate in a fireworks celebrations this summer. The community elected us to make decisions. I think the community is ready for us to make a decision on this. That doesn’t prohibit us in the future from coming back and looking at further changes, but we have left this out there, in my opinion, long enough.

I’m not interested in asking our staff at this point in time to go out and do more work on top of the work that they’ve already done on this file. We have a number of very, very important and heavy items that we ask staff to be working on. There is at the end of the day, a point where we have to make a decision. We are at that point in my mind, and I’m ready to move ahead and debate and vote on the committee recommendation.

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship, and thank you for your comments. I really appreciate, first of all, the work that the committee did with the public participation meeting. I appreciate the amendment being coming out of the committee’s recommendation.

I am going to be speaking to the referral here, but I do think, and this is what I know right now. I disagree with the deputy mayor. I don’t think the public is ready for us to make a decision, and there is no harm in getting further information given the concerns. And the biggest, two biggest concerns I’ve heard, and the misconceptions that are in the public is number one, that we are banning fireworks.

We’re not doing that. Permitted fireworks still will exist in A and B. We’re also allowing small-scale fireworks to be allowed in backyards, in both options. That is not part of the by-law that still exists.

It allows that there’s a lot of misinformation and to have further information and details. There’s nothing wrong with that, and I will be supporting the referral. Thank you, I have Councillor Ploza next. Thank you, and through you to staff, if staff could just come in, what fireworks permit would cost individuals?

Your worship $445. Thank you, and the next question through you, just one Councillor did mention it tonight of a decided matter of council, and realizing that our council has already raised tonight as a new Councillor, and just the terms we use. If staff could just clarify at what point does this become a decided matter of council, and what does that actually mean? I know, but just for everyone’s on the same page, as we make decisions going forward.

Yes, I wanna have the clerk answer that. Thank you through the chair. So what is before you is that civic administration be directed to report back in a future meeting? So it’s not the by-law itself, it’s simply a report back.

Thank you, and for me, not in favor of the referral and realizing that we are having information coming back, as we did discuss at committee, looking for all the retailers, and looking at the required information right now, the city just makes it available for those who choose to look at it, of making a requirement to be handed out, then that’s really important, as we discuss the information coming forward, and that’s the information I’m looking to come back to at committee to finish, looking into those information, the questions that we can raise, and that’s why I would like to get this information to committee specifically really to what’s on the option A, and I will not be supporting the referral this time. Any other speakers to the referral? I’m gonna speak briefly to it, I’ll just do it from the chair. I really like the point that Councillor Cloe’s approved at the end, I know one colleague talked about a decided matter of council, and yes, when we make a final decision on something, it is a decided matter for 12 months, that means it requires two thirds vote to overturn.

However, the stage we’re at in this particular item is that we’re asking staff to report back at a future meeting with a proposed by-law based around option A, and the parameters of the committee built around that. At that time that proposed by-law will be seen by the committee, you can make adjustments to it, you can make other debates, you can refer it, you can change it, so I don’t see any reason why the committee didn’t do good work, got feedback, that by-law can come back, so I’m gonna not support the referral, I’m gonna listen to the other options that Councillors have, I know other people have amendments and possible motions tonight for that direction to come back with that by-law, and then I’m going to see what the by-law looks like, and I’ll vote on that at the time that it comes forward, and then that will be council’s final decision on this matter. So I think that there’s, even if we don’t support this referral, and we go through the process, there are still other checkpoints that Councillors can interject changes into this process, should they see that fit? I don’t have any other speakers on the referral, so we’re gonna open the referral for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion is lost, five to 10. Okay, so the referral is lost, so if I go back to the main speakers, let’s say I have Councillor Ramen next. Thank you and through your worship. I’d like to introduce an amendment to part A of the motion that’s in front of us today.

The amendment would be to allow for the discharge of fireworks on Chinese new years, lunar new years, and the language has been provided to the clerk. The reason for my amendment is in recognition of communication received from members of the Chinese community through the London chapter of the Canadian Chinese Council, and I’m grateful for the time that they took to engage in the conversation with me. Councillor, just like I did with Councillor. Yes, you’re right, sorry.

I’m not debating, I’m putting my amendment forward. Let me just get you a second there. I do have a seconder in Councillor Lewis. You have a seconder, so you could do all the justification now for your motion.

Thank you and through you. Okay, now on to the justification, thank you. So I’m very thankful for the community for reaching out to have this conversation. It just shows the intention and desire for this conversation to be had broadly.

What I heard from city staff was that we did have some fireworks that were happening in backyard fireworks around Chinese new years. So this is an opportunity for us to again, provide notice to the community that this would be part of option A. So I’m looking to put that amendment forward. I’m thankful to my seconder for allowing that.

And as Councillors know, this was included in the added agenda, the communication, thank you. Okay, so colleagues, this is the amendment that has moved and seconded. I will note just because of the questions about the side of matters, the amendment is basically to A, that when this is coming back, this be included in the draft by-law that comes forward. So this is an additional option, but we’re not approving an additional day at this time, just so people know that it’s clear in this piece.

So you can see that wording up on the screen now if you refresh your screen. And I’ll move to a speakers list on Councillor Raman’s amendment. I see, oh, I see one, Councillor Trostoff, go ahead. I’m speaking against this amendment because I think this is a flawed approach.

Recently, the city of Saskatoon’s fire department filed a report with the Saskatoon City Council. On this exact Diwali question. And what the fire department said in Saskatoon was there can be over 200 of these types of requests just in the city of Saskatoon. That doesn’t mean they all have the same amount of population as those who celebrate Diwali or those that celebrate Chinese New Year.

But basically what we’re doing here is we are opening up, we are opening up our city to backyard fireworks, not just backyard fireworks, but five days, five days of pop-up fans each time. And I think that that is going to create a lot more problems than we have right now. Because I see this as a issue of supply. We’re going to be opening up backyard sales for Diwali.

People are going to be going to buying those if they’re not celebrating Diwali. And they’re going to be stockpiling their firecrackers, which they can then set off on New Year’s Eve. And I guess I would ask the staff, is that a legitimate concern? Sorry, you worship, Councillor, could you please clarify that, sorry, the concern?

My concern is every time we open up this by-law for another holiday, we increase the availability of fireworks in the city. And there certainly are going to be people who are going to be buying the fireworks who aren’t engaging in the celebration. And I think when we have these at the end of the year, there’s going to be, we’re going to hear this. I worry that we’re going to hear this when New Year’s Eve and other other times.

Especially if we keep adding, especially if we keep adding and adding additional holidays. And I don’t think this will be the last one. And I’m wondering if you could just comment as to whether or not that’s a legitimate concern. I just, before the answer is given, I know that’s a bit of an odd question about a legitimate concern.

So I’ll allow the question, but I recognize that it may not be something you may be able to answer the way it was proposed. But if you have some sort of evidence or documentation that helps the council with this question, I’ll allow that. But I just, I will caution that it is a bit of an awkward question to perhaps answer in the way it was articulated. Thank you, Your Worship.

The anytime we have sales or events with fireworks, regardless of the event that it’s used for, we have to be sure that we are using proper enforcement ensuring that our community is educated on the dangers of fireworks. This could be from long weekend in May, for example, Victoria Day, stockpiling saving fireworks for July 1st, Canada Day. So we have to make sure that the community is educated and absolutely, if anyone was to stockpile fireworks, that would be a concern. All right, Councillor.

My next question is, I guess this is more of a rhetorical question through the chair. Where does it end? Where does it end? How many weeks is it going to be acceptable for us to have pop-up stands?

And I don’t expect an answer to that ‘cause that was rhetorical. But a question that I would like to get an answer to is are there other holidays out there that have as part of their tradition lights or fireworks? And I think that that’s something that we need to really think about. You know, it used to be that people used candles on their Christmas trees.

And that was found to be very dangerous. And no one banned Christmas trees. But over the years, we started to develop safer ways of illuminating Christmas trees and the practice of putting candles on Christmas trees stopped. And I think that’s a sensible approach.

But I think we’re moving away from that when we start adding. So I guess a real concrete question is just because we give the Wally or Lunar New Year or other holidays and exemption, are there other ways of doing the exemption that don’t involve opening up the pop-up trailers for five days related question to that is, can we go to three days since we’re doing more of these? And the other related question is just because we allow an exception for a particular celebration like the Wally and now Chinese New Year and next who knows, does that mean that that has to be coupled with allowing the pop-up trailers or can those issues be decoupled? And I think that’s a legitimate question to be asking.

My main concern is the proliferation of the supply. That every time we open up another pop-up operation, that supply is going to increase. And it’s not just conscious supply. It’s purchases that you just sort of see driving by and you say, “Oh yeah, I think I’ll do that.” It’s one of the reasons why we don’t have cigarettes being displayed.

So I just would like to have the question answered about, can we decouple the allowance of the pop-up stands from the recognition of these additional celebrations? Go ahead, Mr. Patolic. But I was just, it was almost a procedural question, but if you have an answer, you can.

Go ahead. Yeah, yes, through your worship. As part of the research we did on this topic, we did a municipal scan. And there’s a range of days of selling fireworks before the event.

So it ranges from like six days to 14 days. It also recognizes that there’s some border cities with the United States that celebrate joint celebrations. So we’re in council’s hands what they feel is appropriate on sales before the specific event. But the reality is that in this day and age, you can purchase, as we talked about at the committee meeting, you can purchase fireworks online and have them delivered to your porch in three days.

Councillor, I’ll say you have a 15 seconds left. Councillor, some of the questions you’ve been asking, if you want, Councillor Raman, who moved the motion, as indicated, she might have a couple of answers, so I could go to her. Which furthers my question about whether or not we have the authority and can direct you to decouple the pop-up sales from the recognition of the different days. And whether that needs to be in this motion.

I can tell you that, so that’s more procedural. And the answer is yes, just like council changed the number of days that the sale was before. There’s no, just because you have a day, doesn’t mean you have to allow three or five or seven. That is within our jurisdiction to make that decision on how many days of sale there would be before a particular event or contemplate different days sale before an event.

So that is all procedural and I just have the clerk just confirmed that that’s the case. Okay, that’s more of a legal question. So I could defer to legal if I want, but there’s nothing stopping us from identifying the number of days of sale different from identifying the number of days of backyard fireworks being available. If I could have someone from legal confirm that.

Thank you, Your Worship, that’s correct. The power in section 121 is to regulate and that invites a discretion on the part of council with respect to those matters. Thank you. We go to Councilor Raman, only because I know you asked some rhetorical questions, but there were some specific questions in Councilor Raman who moved the motion.

I’m gonna allow her to address whatever one you need to. Thank you and through you. So the amendment to the motion is with respect to the Lunar New Year and the conversation or the questions that the councilor was asking referred to Diwali and referred to at points Lunar New Year. But there are other dates that we are not talking about right now, which is Canada Day and Victoria Day.

So I think it’s important that we frame this discussion around all of those dates. Instead of particular days, our communication that we’ve been receiving, I’ll tell you, has taken a negative tone to certain holidays. And I think it’s incumbent on us to again set the tone of this conversation. This is about all of the days that were mentioned and now I’m putting an amendment forward around the Lunar New Year, Chinese New Year’s.

Okay, Councilor Ferrer. Thank you, through you. So I am also asking like where does it end? There was a great report from the clerk’s office on the flagpole policy and it listed all the national holidays of all the different cultures that we have in London and that list was very expansive.

It was huge. I don’t know how many pages it was. And I’m just concerned of the doors that were opened and the precedent that was set of, you know, imagine if every single community came and said, let’s, I would like to have a new year. Imagine if, you know, my Portuguese community came to me and said, we want to celebrate Portugal Day.

You know, we’ve seen that we’ve opened up the doors for other cultures and we want to do that too. And I’m concerned of where does it end? Again, of what the Councilor was saying just now, we could potentially find ourselves with the fireworks holiday every single weekend, which is why I am, this is why I’m so hesitant on this. So I guess I’ll ask, I don’t know if this would go to legal or the clerk, but my question would be open ended to anyone who can answer it.

With the way this bylaws craft, with the way this direction is crafted and with us putting in these extra days, is there a precedent to open up the doors for every other nationality on their special day to come in and ask for a celebration? So that’s a Mr. Card question, ‘cause you’re asking about precedent and that sounds legal to nature in me. So I’ll have Mr.

Card answer that. Thank you, Your Worship. I believe that’s the kind of question that ought to be answered in camera. As there is no definitive yes or no, it’s a matter of opinion, which is something that I would prefer to share with you in that environment.

Thank you. Thank you and through you, that’s what I was guessing. I would guess that the answer would be up to Council to decide and if that is the correct way, then we find ourselves in this issue saying yes to you, no to you, yes to you. And then we find ourselves in a really big mess.

As the downtown Councillor, we’re in a very close proximity, geographically speaking. We don’t have large yards. We don’t have, a lot of us don’t have fences. And I do hear fireworks going off almost weekly.

I heard them going off this past weekend. And my concern, like I said on the committee, is for safety, is for issues where fireworks can go haywire. If someone uses it as a projectile, someone gets injured, something gets burned. And we have a big mess on our hands again.

During that committee meeting, there was an article in the news reporting on I think a million dollar barn fire in St. Thomas. That exact day, which was, you know, was just a coincidence, but it’s— Councillor, just the amendment, it sounds to me like you’re debating the main motion. The amendment is adding a specific day to this.

Your questions about the precedent and all that were good, but now you’re starting to sway into the general debate, I think. So if you keep it tight to the amendment, which is when the option comes back, adding, you know, Chinese New Year Day to the options. Okay, thank you for that. Through you, my concern is with the amendment on the open doors that it will create and the safety concerns that would create.

So let me speak to the safety concerns on it, if that’s appropriate. We did ask the fire department actually at the committee if they could come back with numbers on the amount of fires or possibly numbers on injuries that occurred in the last, I forget the timeframe that we asked, but if you could, if you have that information, I’d be willing to hear it. Thank you and through your worship. Over the last five years, London Fire Department responded to two fires.

One was the actual cost was $15,000. It was the deciding of a house. And the second one was $1,000. It was some damage to a motorcycle in the parking lot.

There have been no injuries reported over that same time period. And that was about out of, in that five years, the total number of fire responses was about 4,200. Just the microphone for the councilor. So thank you through you.

So yeah, those numbers are interesting. And that’s, it’s just points to the concern that it had. It is the safety concern. It is the concern of opening up the doors in the president and increasing the incidence of occurrence that this could cause the incidents as in how many fireworks are going off and how often they’re going off and how many days throughout the year that they’re going off.

The more days that we see, the more fireworks that we have going off, the more chance we have of people getting injured and property getting damaged. So this is why I’m looking for more information. Sorry, I’m not gonna talk about the referral. This is why, these are my concerns.

That’s, and those were my questions. So I guess I won’t be supporting the motion as it is. I do respect the council for bringing that through. And I do have to say a shout out to the South Asian community because I was very impressed on how many people came out and the organization that you have.

Okay, I have a speaker’s list. And again, I’ll just let people know this is on the amendment. So Councillor Frank, Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councillor Palosa. Thank you.

I’ll be quick on this because I’ll be probably speaking a little bit longer to the other motion. I wanna start off with saying it sounds really weird, but I actually will be supporting this, but not supporting the other motion as I think the tone to Councillor Amman’s point is not necessarily coming across as inclusive and holistic as I would appreciate. I don’t think we should allow fireworks on Canada Day, on Victoria Day, on New Year’s Eve. So I think that I would, I’d be happy to include Lunar New Year in this motion because I think that I just don’t necessarily agree with how this is coming across.

And then I will be voting against all of the different days. But I just wanted to say, just for this amendment specifically, I want to be inclusive in adding this. And then trying to say that I don’t necessarily think we should do fireworks on any day. If that makes any sense, but thank you.

Yes, we appreciate your explanation. I will move to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. And through you, I guess I will be voting with Councillor Frank on the amendment and opposite to Councillor Frank on the main motion.

I am supporting the amendment. And I want to address a question that’s been raised. Where does it end? The history of Chinese Lunar New Year fireworks goes back to at least 880.

So over a millennia, the Diwali celebrations, again, hundreds of years of history, both of these cultural traditions long predate either of the other two holidays suggested in the by-law of Canada Day or Victoria Day by centuries. So to the question of where it ends, there would have to be a demonstratable, cultural tradition that certainly predates Canada Day and Victoria Day for me to even consider an addition. But for me, both Diwali and Chinese Lunar New Year easily meet that threshold. So no, to the Councillor’s example, if the Portuguese community came forward and asked for fireworks permission on a particular day, I would say no unless they could demonstrate their centuries of history behind that already.

So I respectfully, to me, it’s demonstrating a cultural history and a need to do that. I think we’ve heard very clearly from the Hindu community that it is part of their longstanding centuries of Diwali traditions, certainly from the Chinese community. As I said, it at least 800 AD. So more well over 1,000 years of history there.

So that, for me, is the threshold. Yes, Council would have to use its discretion because that, at the end of the day, is what we are elected to do, is to use our judgment and vote on matters that come before us. So if other requests were made, those would have to be considered at the time they’re brought forward and in the context they’re brought forward in. But I do appreciate Councillor Ramen bringing forward this amendment.

I was actually surprised that it wasn’t in the original recommendation because I am quite aware that the Chinese community in London has been celebrating Lunar New Year’s, including some fireworks displays for, well, for as long as I’ve been involved in the social life of this city. So that’s many, many years. So I want to thank the Council for taking the extra step of engaging with them. And I want to thank the National Association, London Chapter as well, for putting that communication and writing to us.

It does help when we’ve got that in writing on the agenda as part of the public record. So thank you and we’ll be supporting this amendment. Councillor Ploza. Thank you, having not spoken to this item yet, can I call the question on it?

Let me just, I believe you can. Let me just double check to make sure. Yes, Councillor, you can ask that the question now be put as someone who’s not spoken, we’re not a committee, you haven’t debated it. The question to put cannot be amended or debated.

So this is essentially the Councillor asking to end debate and then immediately have the question put, which means we’ll just vote on the amendment. It requires a two-thirds vote to end the debate. So if you’d like to do that, yes, I will. Yes, I’m putting the question, thank you.

Sorry? - Yes. Okay, so the Councillor’s asked that the question be put. So it does require a seconder.

And you can, yes, to the Councillor’s mumbling, you can put the question on an amendment, that is fine. It does require a seconder to put the question let’s see, Councillor Cuddy, okay. So this is not debatable. So it will come up that the question be put is what’s before us.

If you vote yes, then we will immediately proceed to an vote on the amendment. If it’s defeated, we will continue along the speaker’s list for further debate on the amendment. So with that, the request for the question to be put has been duly moved and seconded. And I will open quoting of the question for consideration.

Councillor Cuddy. Oh, yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries, 12 to three. Okay, so given the question has been put and that’s supported by the two thirds majority of council, we will now vote on Councillor ramen’s amendment immediately.

There’s no further debate on this particular portion. And then after that amendment is either passed or failed, I will return to the main motion speaker’s list. So we’ll open Councillor ramen’s amendment to add the Chinese New Year item for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries, 12 to three.

Okay, the amendment’s passed. Thank you, Councillor. Believe it or not, only two people have spoken on the main motion. So I’m back to a main motion speaker’s list and I don’t currently have anyone.

Oh, no, I need a, because the motion was now amended. I need an as amended mover and seconder, Councillor Palazzas moved, seconded by Councillor ramen. Sorry, just as the point of order is that was a while. Can you just remind us who two people are who have spoken to the main motion?

Who’s spoken, Councillor Troso spoke first, moved one amendment, Councillor ramen spoke second, moved another amendment off the main motion. So we’re back to the main motion. If you’re not one of those two people, you can speak, you don’t have to, but you can, Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through you.

Appreciate the opportunity to speak on this, just ‘cause I didn’t get an opportunity to speak on what just passed. I did just wanna clarify why I voted against that. It’s not that I have anything against Chinese New Year, it’s that I don’t personally want the backyard fireworks. I appreciate all of the views that we heard in the PPM, received a lot of correspondence on this, a lot of phone calls and to Councillor Hopkins point, I’ve spent a great deal of time just dealing with the misconceptions around this.

And a lot of folks have just reached out saying, is this an outright ban? And what’s interesting from what I’ve heard from my ward is that the entire debate about this being backyard fireworks versus public fireworks displays have got completely lost in this whole debate. So I just wanna clarify in terms of the options that were put before us from the get go, it was never a prohibition outright and I know that word’s been thrown around a lot. And so I’m just expressing in terms of what I’ve heard and also what I’ve concluded is, I actually do believe that B was the better option, I do think it was the compromise option.

To me, A, as we have heard this afternoon, I think it opens the door for a lot of issues that I think going down the road will create more enforcement issues than we’re willing to deal with. I think the banning of the backyard fireworks actually addresses a lot of the concerns that I’ve heard from my constituents in terms of the issues they’re constantly dealing with. I know By-law told us in terms of the responses they had and I would just like to say, I’ve probably received more emails and calls just from noise complaints, maybe they were not logged. I know sometimes in terms of the service requests that go through people don’t do that properly, they call directly to their counselors.

And so I just wanna express that I think that that was also understated in this whole debate was that there are a lot of issues that aren’t being reported, a lot of neighborhoods experience it and a lot of neighborhoods honestly give up on it because they’ve got neighbors who have done it, keep doing it and they know that by the time they call it in, nothing will happen. I respect all of the different cultural traditions we have in the city, but I do think in terms of respecting our neighbors and having safe and welcoming neighborhoods that we also need to recognize that doing it in your backyard is probably not the best place for it. I think that public displays are completely acceptable. I think they also allow those different cultural traditions to have their time as well.

So I personally didn’t view it as a bad thing to still allow the fireworks, but in a more controlled setting. So that’s where I am at with it. I’m in favor of a B and I will not be supporting the motion. Thank you, Councillor McAllister and just a little piece of council history.

There’s only one other time that I’ve seen the question put. It was by Councillor Park and I was next on the speakers list. So I didn’t get to, I didn’t get to speak either. So I feel for you.

Other speakers on the main motion. Councillor Stevenson and then, Councillor Chaucer, you’ve already spoken. Yes, I’ll look into that. I’ll let Councillor Stevenson speak first.

Thank you. I just wanted to speak on this, that it’s been, we’ve heard loud and clear on both sides. There’s been a lot of discussion around this, a lot of public engagement. I’d like to see people speaking up for what they believe in, making their arguments.

And I will be supporting option A. It is the majority of the residents that I’ve talked to. I personally love fireworks. I have great memories of them as a kid, whether it’s backyard, any kind of way.

I love the cultural festivals. I love the ability for people to form communities in their neighborhoods and get together in their neighbors backyards. I think we get to trust our fellow neighbors. You know, part of building community is trusting that we’ll be respectful, that we’ll be honoring of each other and that we can get together and have some fun, some in effect, inexpensive fun during some difficult times.

And I hope we get to know each other over these things. I hope that we are able to move forward that doesn’t, I’d love to add all kinds of money to Mr. Catolek’s department. But there’s so many things that we need to deal with.

And this one, trying to figure out where fireworks are coming from. Things that can be, as was mentioned, delivered to your porch and it doesn’t matter about local stores. I really don’t want to sign up for something like that. Let’s embrace the joy and the festivity and let’s be kind to our fellow neighbors.

Okay, to Councillor Troso. I got some advice from the clerk and I know some people are gonna like this, some people aren’t. But under the speaking once section, silent. And whenever it’s silent on part about moving an amendment and whether that’s speaking to the motion or not, it’s technically introducing another motion.

Some of the backups that I’ve used in consultation with the clerk is other rules of order where we’re silent. To me, that tells us our procedure by-line needs to be cleaned up a bit. But Robert’s rules would say that the act of making a secondary motion does not count as debate on the main motion. So if you want to speak because you immediately without debate moved the amended motion, I’ll allow it.

I would appreciate if colleagues don’t take advantage of that and I think that we’re gonna learn some lessons through Council that there’s some things that if you don’t like it, we might want to clean up in our procedure by-law. So Councillor Troso. I’m gonna allow it based on the advice I’ve gotten from the clerk and going to a secondary source given the silence of our procedure by-law on it. And so if you want to speak, you can go ahead.

Yes, I’m going to speak in favor of option B through the chair. I’m going to speak against option A and I’m going to speak against the motion that’s on the floor. I think this is not a good approach that we’re using in this community. Because what’s been lost in this whole thing is the environmental lens.

What’s been lost in this whole thing, this whole discussion is the idea that we are, we are in a climate emergency. And it’s really hard to get away from the fact that fireworks, one thing that’s true about fireworks, they go up, you know what I’m gonna say next? They come down. And when they come down, what do they do?

They leave fresh, they leave chemicals. And where do those chemicals go? What do you think makes the fireworks so pretty? What do you think puts the color in the fireworks if it’s not different types of chemicals?

And unless or until we can have fireworks that do not have the decibel level of what is constantly going off, and unless or until we can have fireworks that do not contain the dangerous chemicals that get in our soil, that get in our water, that go downstream, and that stay in the environment for years. I don’t think sparklers do that. So my problem is not sparklers. But I think that what we’re doing is we’re overlooking a very fundamental point here.

And that is, number one, fireworks are dangerous. Fireworks have a devastating effect on the environment. We’ve heard from our advisory committee on the environment in great detail. I’m not even going to try to repeat it.

We should be listening a little bit more to our advisory committee. Then we had some very good advice, I think, from the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee that talks about the effect on animals, pets, but also wildlife. And the devastating effect that this charge, or pyrotechnic devices that are loud and that our chemicals have, all sorts of animals. Should humans be doing this?

Should humans be doing this to the environment? Should humans be doing this to other animals, both our pets and wildlife? And I really think that this city is going to have to think long and hard when it tries to claim that we have environmental sensibilities. Because this flies in the face of all of the environmental sensibilities that we previously have said are important.

And I can read the votes around here. I think this is going to pass. Certainly when it comes back, we can try to look at putting some amendments in. I want to make sure that when the amendments come back, that we still have the opportunity to do some debating about just how far does option A go and whether there are other environments.

The idea of creating a family-friendly alternative was just so summarily rejected. And it’s so sad because I don’t think that we use fireworks to come together with the exception of the community fireworks. And again, to reiterate the point, there is nothing. There is nothing on the floor today, this year, that would inhibit the ability, any group, to go out and get a permit so long as your permit comes with a licensed technician who knows how to handle these things safely.

And we should be going the permit route. We should not be going the backyard fireworks route. Because one of the big problems with the backyard fireworks is the inducement, is the purchases. People say, oh, I see there’s this big flag rolling that says kaboom, and there’s a big sign.

And people make U-turns, and they go into these places. These are impulse purchases. Yes, and I know, people can go online. People can go to another community.

But what I’m really interested in doing here— 30 seconds, I don’t think. -is limiting the impulse purchases that are often not used in backyards. They’re used on the street. They’re used in parks.

They’re used in school yards. And yes, I know there’s an enforcement problem. Less urge my colleagues to vote no on this. And I think this city, as an environmentally conscious city, can do a lot better than what we’re doing.

Thank you very much. OK, other speakers? I don’t have any on the list. Councillor Hopkins, can you jump in?

Yeah, I will not be supporting option A. I think— I would like to ask that A and B be separated, though. But I won’t be supporting option A. And the reason I won’t be supporting that is really about option B to me as a compromise.

It’s not banning fireworks at all. It is allowing permitted fireworks to exist. I mean, it’s a balanced approach. And Councillor McAllister, I just want to follow up on what you said.

There is such misinformation in the community. And I think that is a really big concern for me when I make a decision here at Council that we don’t have the information that’s available to us. Option B does not allow selling of consumer fireworks. So I’ve been around a long time.

When my kids were little 30 years or so ago, we used to do street fireworks. We used to do the sparklers, the spurning of the schoolhouse. Fireworks today in backyards aren’t about that. They have a louder bang.

They’re more explosive. There is more of a safety concern in the community. Those are the concerns that I have with option A. I think it does option B.

It’s best for all citizens in our city. It’s that simple. I want to make the decision for the greater good of the community here. I do think other municipalities, when I’ve looked around, when they’ve put more restrictions on their fireworks, there has been a reduction in enforcement.

Hasn’t gone away, but it’s helped to some extent. So for me, option B is the choice that I would prefer, not only improving safety and increasing the awareness for Londoners, but it’s that balanced approach. I think there’s something to be said about that. And without going too much into the protection of our natural environment, the protection of animals and creatures and people, option B gives us that.

So I will not be supporting option A. Thanks. OK, that exhausts my speaker’s list. So, Councillor Frank, go ahead.

Thanks. As I mentioned earlier, I’ll be speaking in favor of option B, so I’ll be voting against option A. I appreciate how both Councillor McAllister and Hopkins highlighted again, option B is not a ban. It is just centralizing, organizing, and coordinating fireworks shows on specific days.

And I’d be happy to amend option B to include Lunar New Year, if things progress, we’ll see. I don’t think that that will stop celebrations if only it’ll consolidate them and address many of the other issues that have been brought to us. And I think being kind to our neighbors looks different for me as we’ve heard from many communications from people that wildlife, people, and the environment suffered during firework experiences. So limiting the volume and location of fireworks seems kind to me.

I live near the Cove’s ESA. And every year, I see fireworks going off in the Cove’s, not during the holiday days that they’re supposed to be going off, but the week leading up to and the week after. And I do worry about the wildlife as well as the forest that’s there if it was a dry season. And I know in our strat plan, we have both a pillar about being a more inclusive community.

But we also have a pillar about ongoing environmental concerns and trying to address them. So I find this item actually very incredibly difficult to decide, because it is really hard to prioritize competing interests when we have strategic priorities on both of the areas. But that is why, actually, I like option B, because I think it is a compromise where people can still celebrate with one another in their traditional way and with their culture. But as well, it is trying to reduce as much environmental harm as we can.

So given my background in the environmental sector, I believe at this time, it’s important to be safeguarding the environment. I know that it’s easy to shrug off. Perhaps this is like a small drop in the bucket of environmental concerns, and that there are bigger fish to fry in our environmental caseload. But that being said, I think that the issue with the environment is it gets all the externalities.

So we shrug off this, we shrug off that. And it gets to the point where animals almost have no peace, no quiet, nowhere to go. And I think this is one of the opportunities where we are able to discuss and try and reduce some of the impacts that they’re suffering from. So as Councillor Hopkins said, I do think that option B would benefit the city of a whole.

And that is just how I’m considering this with my decision making. Thanks. Okay, now I’ve exhausted the speaker’s list. So we have option, so we have the amended option before us, which was the original committee recommendation with Councillor Romans amendment built into it.

I’ve had a request to vote on the A and B parts of the original motion separate. So the A part is interestingly the option A piece. And the B part is the additional direction to review the business licensing by-law with respect to the sale of fireworks and report back on a number of items that was added at the committee. So the same mover and seconder are comfortable with supporting and moving both, which it looks like they are.

We’ll vote on option part A of the committee’s recommendation first, and then we’ll do part B second. So with that, I’m gonna open the vote on part A, which is the amended committee recommendation for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries, 10 to five. Okay, and now we’ll open part B, which is the additional direction that the committee provided as well as the it being noted on all of the pieces of correspondence that came in on this, both at the committee and today.

So I will have the same mover and seconder for that, and we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries, 13 to two. Councillor ramen asked me about an additional motion related to this item that she would make after we decided on this, and I said that the appropriate time and consultation with the clerks would be at this point, because it was related, but not part of those two pieces. So it’s the additional piece that you wanted to introduce, which I’ll let you do now.

Thank you and through you. In light of the decision that we just made, and in light of the conversation that we’ve been having here through our conversation with the public participation meeting, as well as all the communication we received, I’m looking to put forward an additional motion that the enforcement of the current fireworks bylaw, PW 11, be suspended for Diwali in 2023. Okay, so there’s a seconder for that. Councillor Layman’s willing to second.

So that’s moved and seconder. We’ll get that up on the screen, and we’ll open, well, the councilor, you can provide your rationale now that you’ve got a seconder, and then I’ll start a speaker’s list. Thank you and through you. What I heard quite clearly through the public participation meeting from members of the Hindu community, as well as through the correspondence that was received, and members of the Sikh community, and the broader community around Diwali, was the desire to be compliant within the city of London.

I kept hearing from people, we are law abiding citizens, and we want to be able to practice our backyard fireworks during Diwali, and so looking at where we’re going in terms of our direction to report back, I’m asking for consideration that because this direction would not be received until 2024, that we suspend the bylaw in 2023. Now also noting that this is not unique to council. Last term’s council did suspend this bylaw as it relates to backyard fireworks and the graduation ceremonies during the pandemic. So this is not unprecedented.

This is something that we can do, and I’m asking for council to consider doing that today. Thank you. A point of order from Councilor Trossa, go ahead. I’d like to inquire as to whether or not this motion is contrary to part B that we just passed.

Okay, so I’ve received advice and at the request of a point of order on this, I’ll make a ruling, and if councilors don’t like that, they can challenge the chair. So I’m gonna say given all of the fireworks, bylaw discussions, and A and B are related to making adjustments for 24 bylaw rules. And the councilor has said, and councilors can make motions like like, that they would like to make an exception this year, given the direction that we may be going, even if we haven’t got there, I’m going to allow the motion to stand not in conflict with the pieces that passed for 2024, but as a matter related to fireworks, of which we’re discussing that relates to this year. And so that’ll be my ruling is that the motion is in order, and under the procedure of bylaw, someone can challenge the chair and council to make a ruling on whether they support that or not.

So that’ll be my ruling is that the motion is in order, and so that’s how I deal with the point of order. Thank you, I’m not going to challenge the chair. I respect that ruling. I think I could go on either way.

Fair to make it. I don’t want to speak against the amendment. Would I do that now? Yes, you can.

Okay. But a different point of order, go up, sorry. Let me deal with the point of orders for councilor Palosa. Go ahead.

Thank you. My point of order is wondering per procedural bylaw, if this is actually a merger or not, I believe Diwali is November 12th, 2023. And I would prefer to bring this through MIDI. Absolutely in support of it, just wondering procedurally, I didn’t believe we could do other emotions unless they were emergent.

And it appears that there is enough time to bring this adequately through committee. So the councilor asked for advice from both the clerk and myself on where to land this. We gave her advice here. So I’m going to allow the motion to stand.

That doesn’t preclude you from either challenging my decision to allow the motion to stand or referring it to committee right now, which would have the same effect. So I’ll let you decide. Respectfully, I think it was bad advice. I’m not going to challenge you to keep things moving tonight.

Realize me still have so many friends with us in the gallery and knowing how much it means to them. But the councilor doesn’t have a seconder yet happy to second it and hopefully move this conversation along. So we do have a seconder. That’s why it’s on the floor.

And no challenge of the chair. So I’ll go back to Councilor Trossa who wants to enter the debate. Yes, I want to speak to the merits of this amendment, which I pose. And one of the main reasons I oppose it is we’ve gone through a whole public participation meeting.

We’ve gone through a staff report. We’ve gone through the run up to this meeting. And I really would like to understand better. And I guess this is a rhetorical question through the chair to nobody or anybody that wants to answer it.

Why wasn’t this point raised as part of the motion? Why do we wait until after the motion has passed? And then we put another thing on the floor, which really as a practical matter precludes the ability to seek any kind of enforcement relief for November, when at least before there was the possibility that that could happen. So I would have been happy if somebody wanted to refer this back to the committee, but I’m just going to for now speak very, very adamantly against this amendment.

I don’t think it’s properly brought, but the ruling is the ruling, but I just think as a matter of not bringing things up at the last minute and being open about what you’re doing, this could have been brought forward as part of the main motion. Because I think this is gonna have a substantial effect on the enforcement. And when you say suspend enforcement, does that mean suspend all enforcement? Does that mean suspend the rules that we have about licensing and compliance right now?

Because I think the way that motion was just meant was just drafted. And I think it needs much more precision, which is why it should have gone to the committee or should have been vetted ahead of time. The way that motion is drafted, it’s wide open, no enforcement. So I really hope that my colleagues, even some of my colleagues here who have not been supporting my points tonight, will see that this is going to open up a terrible situation come this November.

We haven’t even, we haven’t even ruled yet whether or not the option A bylaw that’s coming back will even allow pop-up stands. Because when I asked that question before, I was told, well, that would be council. So this is jumping the gun. It’s premature, I believe it’s out of order, but like I think given the fact that it’s on the floor, I really hope that people think about the implications of engaging in policymaking this way.

It’s very dangerous. Thank you. Speakers to Councillor ramen’s moved to seconder motion. I have Councillor Stevenson and Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you. I just wanted to quickly thank Councillor ramen for this motion. I think it’s honoring of the celebration that’s coming and allows there to be, just removes this hurdle for that celebration. So I will be supporting this and I appreciate the motion.

Thank you, worship. And I am rising briefly to speak in support of Councillor ramen’s motion in the last term of council in her past role as a school board trustee. We actually work together on the gold for grads campaign. And there was, in fact, the suspension of the by-law on that occasion because families could not get together and celebrate graduations during a lockdown.

I believe the language that’s been presented today is very consistent with the suspension of that by-law in the last term of council. Through you, I just want to ask our staff if their interpretation of the language, if Mr. Catola can indicate whether this is consistent with our previous decision in our prior council. Yes, your worship, I recall that debate from I believe two years ago.

My understanding of this is that this suspension would allow for the sale of fireworks seven days before and also allow fireworks on the day of Sunday, November the 12th, 2023. Thank you, just appreciate the clarification on that. And again, I think that this is a one-time exception. It’s very specific to this year, and I will be supporting it.

Okay, I have no other speakers. I’m gonna say something about the procedure piece. The clerk and I have conferred. And I will certainly, actually we both said we take ownership over.

We learned about Council Raman’s desire for this motion this morning. Both of us had busy mornings. The advice that we probably should have given is that it should have been added as like a part C to the main motion, and that probably would have been more appropriate, and yeah, we’re not gonna get everything perfectly right. So we’ll take ownership over a little bit of awkward procedure here and work to do a little better in the future on that.

So appreciate colleagues’ feedback on that. I still think it’s the right thing to do to let the motion stand. That’s my ruling in the future. We’ll make sure it lands in a little clearer spot for colleagues, Councillor Palosa.

Thank you. Through you, just looking to see if the Councillor wanted to make a comment on that, always being prepared before committee is appreciative. And then I have a question regarding the sale of fireworks. Thank you.

I did submit this to the clerk and staff at 7 a.m. yesterday, thank you. Thank you, I appreciate that. And just, I know with the fireworks piece, if we’re looking at the sale of it, having hurt in the community, a lot of the times they’re happy with the smaller fireworks, but do we need to do extra staffing to ramp up for any of the licensing or sales?

Do their current licenses already cover it? Just looking to see what kind of extra administrative costs might be behind the scenes? Mr. Catolek would be a question for him through you, Mr.

Chair. Yes, through your worship. We will apply the same protocol that we do for other celebrations. So we will, there will be no extra staffing in terms of the licensing.

Likely the 20 licenses that are currently, we’d have to look at which ones applied for it at what times. In terms of enforcement, we will work with our partners at London Fire and have additional enforcement before and after the date of November to 12th. That exhausts the speaker’s list. Just looking around to make sure.

Okay, Councilor Dromman’s motion is on the floor. It’s moved and seconded, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to two. Okay, Councilor Close.

Thank you, that concludes the 13th meeting with the Computer Services Committee. And through you wondering if we’ve been at this three hours if there’s a break. It was my intention to break after the fireworks that it was done, which is now done. So I’ll look for, given it’s been three hours, a 20 minute, you went 10, 20, 15.

Someone move in motion, 15. 15 minutes moved by Councilor Close. A seconded by Councilor Frank. All those in favor of a 15 minute break.

That motion carries. Okay, thank you, we seated. We will continue on with the Council agenda. We’ve completed the Community and Protective Services Committee item, which was 8.3.

We’re on to the Civic Works Committee, the 12th report. And I’ll turn it over to Chair Rob for us. Thank you and through you, Chair. And so Civic Works met for the 12th meeting of the Civic Works Committee on August 15th.

We had a number of items for discussion of note. We did discuss the Green Vins program. And we had a really great discussion around the new collection, hearing from Mr. Stanford on what that will look like.

And lots of really engaging discussion and back and forth around the rollout of the Green Vins program, which I know everyone is eagerly awaiting. So one of the points for discussion was also whether or not to bring in the additional increase to the cost of tags. And so you’ll note that there was in the report, there was some back and forth about that and an amendment to that was considered as well. But at this time, I have not received from anyone asking for anything to be pulled.

I will be pulling item 13. But other than that, I was looking to move everything unless, excuse me, unless someone like anything else other than item 13 pulled. Okay, I’m gonna look to colleagues. This is the Civic Works report.

The chair has indicated that item 13, which is 5.1 on the committee’s report will be dealt with separately. So I’m looking for anybody else who would like something separate from the group of motion. Yes, go ahead. Thank you and through you.

I actually have some questions before possibly pulling an item 4.2. So I’m not sure if I wanna pull that. I just wanted to ask a question to see if that would be the proper way to go. So instead of pulling, I don’t, I just wanted to maybe go out to staff or should I wait?

Councilor, I’d suggest if you think it’s an extensive series of questions, maybe just pull it and deal with separately. If it’s just one, just leave it in and ask your question. So you’re good with it in or you wanna separate? Well, I’m not sure at the moment.

I just wanted to— - Let’s just separate it. Okay, we’ll deal with it separately. 4.2, C specifically. Okay, well, we’re just gonna pull item 11 on the council agenda, which is 4.2, which is the green bins collection program.

That’ll just be dealt with separately. Councilor Ramen will put together a motion. Any other things separate? Okay, I’ll let you make a motion.

Thank you. I will look to put items one to nine with the exception of item 11, or sorry, one to 10. And then I’ll also look to put item 12 for decision right now. And I just wanted to comment on item 10 particularly.

I wanted to note that we did receive a delegation regarding the spring bank dam and that you will see additional communication that was in the package and that we received the delegation and we took no further action. That’s the recommendation coming out of the committee. Just wanted to flag that for the attention of councilors today as well. So I’m looking to put all those items on the table.

Okay, so that’s everything with the exception of 11 and 13 on the floor from the committee chair. Any discussion or comments on those items that are before us? Okay, seeing none, we’re gonna open that for voting. Close on the vote.

Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you. And I’ll look to put item 12, 4.3, the ninth report of the environment. Oh, sorry, I’m looking to put item 11.

Sorry, item 4.2, the green bins and collection program changes first. Okay, that’s in the floor, Councillor Ferri, you had a question, go ahead. Thank you, through you. I’m in full support of the green bin implementation program but I just have one question for item C.

I do see that staff is in this direction, staff is being directed to change the calendar from 26, sorry, 42 to 26 pickups for the garbage collection. But I do also see, I just wanted to confirm, is that gonna be in effect October 1st, 2023? Or is that in effect in January when the green bin implementation is coming? Thank you, Your Worship.

That would be coming in effect in January when the new green bin implementation resets our solid waste management program for the whole city. Thank you for that. In that case, I have no issues with the direction right now. So that’s it, thank you.

Okay, great. Because then this comes from Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you and I too fully support this. Everyone just cannot wait for this green bin program to come.

So very excited to see it come forward. The concerns that I’ve been hearing are from small landlords and people who live next to multi-residential, like small, multi-unit rental facilities where garbage is already a bit of a concern. So the move to every two weeks is a concern. And many of those units don’t have garages that protect from the heat of the summer, the snow falls and the animals getting into them.

As we move forward, we’re looking to increase the density and put in fill in. And I really want it to be as problem-free as possible, to have neighbors not have this concern around garbage, which really can be a problem in terms of pests for small landlords, if people are keeping it inside, then they have just pest management issues and then there’s rodent issues outside as well as smell and mess and all the rest of it. So I wanted to thank staff because I reached out with questions and I got a lot of answers which were great. I just wondered if staff could respond to, has that problem been looked at?

Any solutions or proactive measures or any reassurance that you can give to the small landlords who already deal with garbage as an issue and are very concerned about this next step? Through your worship, certainly each small landlord situation can be quite different in terms of the challenges they face. On a positive note right now, we’re picking up garbage 42 times a year. That would include your kitchen garbage, which tends to be what animals are really attracted to in the waste stream.

That’ll increase to 50 times a year. So there actually will be eight additional pickups for food waste if people are using that well. We know, however, that sometimes information goes to tenants, does not trickle down to, or sorry to landlords, does not always trickle down to tenants effectively. And in those cases, we’re really happy to work with those property owners and their tenants to improve the compliance and the use of these programs.

And we appreciated the suggestion you passed on earlier with respect to educational materials and staff are happy to take that on. We’ll report back out on this at mid year as well as the end of the year. I can also say it’s always different a little bit in every community, but this has come up in cities that have had programs like this in place for the last decade. And generally speaking, they’ve been able to manage it quite effectively for most properties.

We’re committed to doing the same. Thank you for that. And I think for most people, this is gonna work very, very well. But the concern, and maybe if bylaw can maybe answer something, I’m not sure, what about the small landlords where they’ve got tenants where they’re just not bought into for whatever reason, the green bin, or maybe they don’t need a lot of produce.

I’m not sure whatever, but they end up with a lot of garbage that is now having to be kept for two weeks. Are landlords gonna be in a position of being penalized or are neighbors gonna be struggling because of the non-compliance? Yes, through your worship. I am working directly with Mr.

Stanford on enhanced education and that because anytime there’s a new program, a new bylaw, we always focus on education first, enforcement when necessary. Thank you, well, whatever I can do as a ward counselor to get that information out, I’d be happy to work with people proactively on that, so that would be terrific. Councilor Trossaab. Thank you, I’m in fully support.

This is I have all along. We had some very interesting discussions at the Civic Works Committee, and I don’t want that to get lost. And so I just wanna underline the point that, especially in the near-campus neighborhood, where we have people sort of maybe moving in for the first time in the fall. It’s really gonna be important to step up the education.

And I know people in the neighborhood are concerned, not so much about the new program. People are really welcoming the Green Bayon program, and everybody just really appreciates the work that Mr. Stanford has done, and I’m sorry he couldn’t be here to sort of take a round of applause, but maybe he’s watching us. But I do wanna say that I think that now that we’re going over to a different type of system, which simplifies to collection, in one respect, it complicates it in another.

And I think that that could be remedied with the distribution of the calendar. And I did express some concerns that the calendar should be distributed, but maybe it’s not gonna be distributed, and the assurance that I got at Civic Works, which I wanna make sure is still there, and I wanna put it on the record here. I’m not gonna make an amendment, is that ward counselors will be given assistance in terms of additional educational materials and pamphlets if they have particular pockets of neighborhoods where this becomes a problem. Thank you.

Through you, Your Worship. Yes, we are happy to provide educational materials for ward counselors in the near campus neighborhoods around both Fanshawe and Western. We’re also developing packages we can share with students as they arrive on campus and work with student unions and post-secondary officials. We have waste challenges and move in days in those areas.

And thank you for acknowledging Mr. Stanford. This has been a 20 year labor of love for him, so he’s absolutely watching, and I’m sure he’s heard those kind words. Councillor Cady.

Thank you, and through your worship, Mr. Stanford gave us all, and I sent it out, to the clerk of some literature on this now. And it’s been very helpful. I’ve heard from a number of counselors that they’ve handed it out to the constituents.

I appreciate the work that Mr. Stanford’s put into this. I couldn’t think of a better executed project at the one that we have going on now, and I’m thankful to staff and Mr. Stanford in particular for the work.

Thank you. Okay, that exhausted the speaker’s list. So this is, oh, Councillor Van Meerberg, and my apologies, go ahead. Yeah, I know I’m in the cheap seats, but thanks for acknowledging me here, it’s great.

Okay, I brought this up at the committee meeting, and there’s a concern out in the community, and frankly, I share it. And frankly, anyone who’s had a young family, or currently has one, knows the horrors of the steaming baby diapers, with their frightfully stinky smell. And so the question is, how do we deal with that? So it looks like we may have to tolerate the two-week garbage collection, until we can look at this.

It sounds like we may be visiting this in July of 2024, in terms of having baby diapers as part of the Green Bend program. If I could just get that confirmed or at least clarify both staff. Go ahead. Through you, Your Worship, yes, we are not recommending the addition of incontinence products or diapers to the Green Bend mix.

There’s actually only two municipalities in Ontario that do, I believe it’s Peel Region and City of Toronto. There’s a number of implications in adding that to the mix that can be challenging for the end product being quite useful. But we will report back on the instances that we are hearing concerns, and we will be monitoring for the presence of those in Green Bins or other issues. That’ll be part of our July and year end report.

And we would encourage folks that there are still options to purchase additional bag tags or take household garbage to the depots as well, if that is a viable option for their home. Great, thank you, Mayor. My pleasure. I have some of those challenges in my house.

So I certainly understand them. But the diaper genie, the long diaper genie bag full of diapers is finally referred to by my kids as the poop snake. So I know what you’re talking about. Yeah.

Thanks so much. Any other speakers on this? Nobody, sometimes any little comedy you wanna get’s later in the afternoon. So with that, we’re gonna open this item for voting.

Councillor Ferrera, Councillor Layman. I vote you. Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero.

Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, Your Worship. We’re going to item 13, 5.1, which was the eighth report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee. And particularly, we heard a delegation from Mr.

Samuels. We received communication. As you’ll note your package, there is additional communication shared. And so I wanna make note of that as well.

The recommendation from the committee was to support an information approach so that we could help to better explain the Council policy on naturalization. And since there’s been some good dialogue in the community around this topic, there’s been some media articles. And I know that Mr. Catolic had provided some comment on that as well.

I think what we heard through that discussion has been that we had just done an update to the by-law. And at the next round of updates for the by-law, that through these conversations around this informational material, that there’s an opportunity for some additional updates to be done through that dialogue. So I’m looking to put the recommendation on the floor. And then I also have an amendment to that recommendation.

So if you’d like to make an amendment, I think the vice— - Oh, sure. I’ll ask the vice chair— - The vice chair should probably present this part of the committee report. - Yep. And then you can go ahead with your amendment and I’ll start a speaker’s list on both the main motion and the amendment.

So— - Can I see a dual question? Yes, go ahead. The committee also had another motion that was in favor in front of it that was two to three and I wanna put items B, C, D, E, and F of that motion back on the table. How would that fit into this discussion?

‘Cause it was already submitted and it’s already in the report of the committee. It lost two to three and I wanna raise that again in full at this committee. So how would that work procedurally? So let me just because of the chair who’s now being presented wants to move an amendment.

I’ll deal with that amendment first, but just because committee didn’t support something doesn’t mean it can’t be raised as long as it’s not directly contrary to what the committee decided. So I don’t think it could be an amendment, but I have to deal with what Councillor Ramen’s doing first and then I can come back to you for whatever amendment you need. - So although she made that motion, the body of the motion that included B through F was what did come through the committee report even though it wasn’t passed. So I would think that that would take precedent and I’m worried that something will be found contrary and I won a full vote at this meeting on B, C, D, E and F.

F being the same thing as already on the floor, A as we receive it. So it’s really B, C, D and E that need adjudication here. So taking that as a procedural question, so you haven’t debated yet. So don’t worry about that, you’ll have your chance.

The order of operations, I’m gonna hear Councillor Ramen’s whatever her amendment is first, but I don’t see what the committee passed direct and information campaign as contrary to an amendment that you might wanna bring to bring back the pieces that were defeated by the committee for consideration by council. Both could kind of coexist, but I have to let the first speaker speak first so that I can come to you after. So it’s not contrary, just because it’s in the report doesn’t mean I skip what a Councillor said and go to you. Like the Councillor has the floor and she’s making an amendment.

I don’t know what that amendment is, but I’ll hear that first and then we can move to you on the speaker’s list and pending whatever amendment that is, and again, I don’t know what it is yet. I’ll let you know if anything is contrary at that point, but right now, I don’t see anything that would preclude you from at the appropriate time in the meeting, raising what was defeated at committee for consideration by council. The problem with that order is I presented my resolution to the committee on the 15th, way in advance of today. And I don’t even know what the next motion is gonna be.

And I guess I would raise a question about when committee chairs are introducing what’s in their report, whether that’s an appropriate time for them to be essentially engaging in argument and putting a new motion on the floor. ‘Cause I think the committee chair really needs to not do that. Yes, that’s why I asked the committee chair to sit down and have the vice chair present because I wasn’t gonna let the committee chair put a motion on the floor without being properly situated in council. But I recognize the committee chair, so I’m gonna let her proceed.

And then I will put you on the speaker’s list next, but I’m going to deal with the committee, the councilor’s motion as the vice chair presents the report. That’s how I’m gonna proceed. So, Councilor Raman, so the current committee recommendation is on the floor by Councilor McAllister. You have the floor to debate your amendment.

Thank you and through you. So I’m looking for some small changes within the recommendation that was put forward. And these came out of dialogue with Mr. Samuels following this discussion and with respect to how to strengthen this information material.

So the first change, and as I mentioned there, small, is where it says an information brochure is to say information materials. And then the second is it says further down, it says on naturalize, so to assist municipal law enforcement officers to explain the council policy on naturalization areas and wildflower meadows in response to, it says community complaints, the addition of and to the complainant so that it’s reflective of both and everyone receiving the information. And again, that was in consultation with Mr. Samuels in conversation with him about how to strengthen that.

And so that’s what I’m putting forward. So that’s some wording changes that are not contrary to the motion. I think it’s probably best if I just ask for a seconder for that and then I can put it on the screen. I see Deputy Mayor Lewis is willing to second.

So we’re gonna, it basically amends it to strike and and then the information materials instead of brochure. And then later it says complaints and complaint tense. And those are the only two changes really. Okay, so those are the changes.

With that? Yes. Without debating, I just went, I’m sorry, I may have— Was it a point of order? Yeah, well yes, I just wanna make sure that without debating this, these changes, which I think are insubstantial and they’re fine, I just wanna be assured that there’s nothing in this amendment that’s gonna come back later and say, well now that’s contrary to your parts B, C, D and E.

I don’t think it does, I don’t think it does either at all. I think you still raise the other parts as a motion and Council can vote on that. So the Councilors put a motion on the floor and seconded. This is some minor wording changes colleagues.

We could have a big debate about it or we could put it up on the screen and take a look and we can move to a vote. There’s clearly another amendment coming. So I will, I’ll get this on the screen, but I’ll ask if there’s any further debate on this amendment. Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead.

Thank you, I’ll be very brief. I think it is important that information gets to the complaint in as well so that they understand what constitutes a valid complaint and what does not so that our by-law enforcement officials are not spending time chasing frivolous complaints after information has been provided to a property owner. So I think Councilor Raman’s amendment here is very appropriate. Okay, any other speakers to the amendment?

To be up if you refresh, Councilor. I wanna make sure you’re ready ‘cause I don’t think there’s anybody else. Okay, good. Okay, so I don’t see any other speakers.

You have the amendment of wording on the floor. I’ll open that for voting. Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, Councilor McAllister, are you willing to move the as amended motion?

Yes. - Okay, seconder for the as amended motion, Councillor Cuddy. Okay, now the as amended motion, Councilor Trostare your next to the speakers list. You can introduce the amendments you’d like to introduce.

Yes, I submitted and it is in the committee report. Part A is the staff report B received. Part F was about the informational brochure. And I think I would just adopt instead of the language that’s in part F, the language that we just passed.

So I think part F has already been done. So I think I wanna put part B, C, D, and E on the floor. Some Councillors might wanna discuss those or vote on them separately. The only thing I would add, if I could add one thing to part E, is that the city also prepare and put up on the web, I’ll get involved site.

But other than that, I want to, I think what’s in part B, C, D, and E need to be addressed as a separate motion and let me know when my time starts on arguing that. So Councillor, I just wanna be clear. You wrote a piece of correspondence to the committee that had some lettering. The lettering that I see that was voted on by the committee and failed doesn’t have all of the letters that you mentioned.

So I just wanna be clear about what you’re looking to put on the floor. So ‘cause the clerk’s gotta get it up on the screen, I need to look for a second. So it’s civic administration to be directed on, okay? It’s the relief should include, it’s the relief should provide that a public participation may be set and that’s it.

But it was to, yes, and that’s if you can hear it, that’s one of those, I mean, it’s the desire. Okay, so colleagues, just, here’s what happened. Councillor Trossall brought a letter. He had certain lettering in the letter that he’s referring to when it was drafted by the committee clerk.

It was changed into a BII and a C. So the council is looking to put those pieces back on the floor. So if you’re looking to what it is, it’s in the committee’s report and he’s looking to amend it to put those pieces back on the floor. So that is, I just want everybody to be able to refer to that so that they can see.

And then I’ll ask for a seconder for that piece. But I want people to have time to be able to see it. So I apologize for a little bit of confusion on the lettering. The lettering kind of got changed when the council’s motion was put on the floor.

But he’s referring to his original lettering and his correspondence. So we’ll go by the committee reports lettering. And the only addition is a piece about a get involved. Putting it up on get involved, yeah, okay.

And my other question is would the vice chair pass the chair back to the chair at this point? No. ‘Cause he was the seconder of my motion. Well, the vice chair can present the motion and second the motion is not going to present the motion.

Okay. Yes, if you’d like to do that, he still can. There’s nothing precluding him. I’m looking for a seconder.

Yeah, so Councilor McAllister’s willing to second that. What I’d like to do now is just give us a moment to put that language up ‘cause I don’t want anybody to be confused about it’s there. We’ll put it up on the screen. It’ll be very clear what the amendment is and then we’ll proceed with the bait.

I will start a speaker’s list but I’m not gonna have speakers until they can see it. So Councilor Trozau, this is your amendment. I’m gonna put you on the speaker’s list first to speak to it so you can provide your rationale for what you’re doing if you’re okay with that. And then I’ll put others on the list but I don’t want you to start quite yet.

Chair, I just have a point of order on this. Yes. Yeah, so I was at that committee meeting. I would suggest that this so-called amendment is actually contrary to what we’ve brought forward.

This amendable piece that’s being brought forward now was defeated at committee and was not contemplated in this motion and it was defeated for a reason. So I would suggest if we wanna proceed with this from Councilor Trozau, that we’d have to defeat the main motion and then see if his alternative motion will pass. That would be my work could give some advice on that. So the clerk, Councilor, the clerk and I have spoken about this and the committee, yes, did defeat some of the Councilor’s suggested motion, then put on a motion and as it reads and has been amended by Councilor Raman, which is really to prepare a brochure to list law enforcement officers to explain the policy the wording has changed.

The committee did not add a clause to take no action on Councilor Trozau’s piece. So that part just never made it through committee. It’s not contrary, you can have a brochure and do the other items. So it is in my opinion fair to have the amendment on the floor and considered and in the future, if a committee would like to not have this happen, I would suggest you use a take no action clause that comes along with a recommended vote from the committee to say we’re taking no action on the Councilor’s correspondence.

So don’t just defeat the motion. A defeated motion just didn’t get through committee. It’s still fine to raise it as long as it’s not directly contrary and my advice from the clerks as well as my ruling is that it’s not contrary to what’s being contemplated by the committee. So we’ll proceed.

And if you can still vote it against it again, if you like, but it can get on the floor this way. And this has happened before, so okay. I’d like to speak once, like whenever’s the correct time in the order, I’d like to speak on the amendment. I will add you to the list, Councilor.

Thank you. Councilor Trozau’s gonna speak to his amendment provide the rationale, this is your speak. I have Councilor Vamereberg and you’re gonna be next and I’ll look for other speakers. Okay, basically it’s civic works.

I adopted the recommendation from the advisory committee which gave us quite a bit of material justifying the need for a review of this by-law. And I certainly don’t have time in my five minutes to go through all the points that were raised in Mr. Samuels as the chair of the committee, the justifications that he put forward for the review. Just to sort of boil it down, there is a lot of uncertainty in the community in terms of what they can and can’t do with respect to alternative law and treatments.

And the committee, it was the committee’s opinion and there were quite a few other letters. There’s since also been a petition from climate action that we need to review this by-law, we need to redo it. We need to do it carefully and we need to pay particular attention to the definition so people know what they can and can’t do. And I think that would work very nicely with the amendment to the information piece which was actually part of my original motion too.

The second part is when Steph does this review, it would be helpful I think to do a jurisdictional scan. That’s typically done when we get a staff report. There’s increased interest throughout Canada on the topic of using pollinator guards and other types of alternative treatments be besides the traditional one. So I think a jurisdictional scan can be helpful and may also raise some additional ideas.

The review should provide information about the enforcement of the by-law, including the question of exemptions. There is some uncertainty about what happens when we look at naturalization, when we look at, there are a couple of other categories that are in the by-law that I think have to be looked at. My goal here is I want people in London to feel comfortable installing either a full pollinator garden or just on part of their lawn. I want them to have the choice to do that.

And right now I think that’s being impeded. I’ve asked in my motion for a public participation meeting, people might want to decide to take that out or leave it in. But I do want to add that I would like that to be accompanied with a get involved web page, which I think would be a very useful way to do this. So without without going into all the, how much time do I have?

Two and a half minutes. Okay, so some of the concerns that were raised was that people felt that there was pressure, not to engage with this sort of alternative front yard treatment. And that people want to be assured that what people want to follow the law, people want to do the right thing. If there are particular issues that need to be addressed in particular, like not impeding the sidewalk, which was raised on the radio this morning, I think that’s an excellent point.

I am not suggesting that people can build pollinators gardens that block the sidewalk. I mean, it’s got to be within the one, and I understand there’s a little piece of setback that has to be there. And I’m not trying to change that. I think right now it’s not really clear sometimes whether something is a weed that needs to be removed or whether it’s an attempt.

Sometimes you see beautiful gardens, and it’s really clear that that’s a top quality if not professional garden. And sometimes it’s an honest attempt. So I think the amendments that I’m offering here are warranted. I think they’re needed.

And I think it would help people comply with the law. So I would ask for your support on these changes. Thank you. Thank you.

Councilor Van Merebergen, it’s your turn. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. No, this is not needed.

It’s not warranted. And the data actually drives that conclusion. This is why the committee voted these amendments down because it’s simply not an issue. People can plant their pollinator gardens.

They can have their alternative front lawn gardens as they see fit according to our bylaw. And so I’d like to ask Mr. Catolic, how many complaints have we had under this bylaw? And how many of them were about not being able to have an alternative lawn?

Mr. Catolic. Your worship in 2023, we’ve had three complaints and no enforcement actions have been taken. Councilor Van Merebergen, go ahead.

Okay, three complaints. That’s hardly, you know, people’s scattering. You know, the force of the town’s looking for some kind of radical change here. Again, this is a non-issue, opposed it to staff as well.

When was this bylaw completely reviewed? And when was it last looked at? Give us some kind of timeline on that. Mr.

Catolic. Your worship, the bylaw was recently reviewed in 2020. The council policy was before you at the last council meeting and was approved. And we have allowed natural gardens through this bylaw since 1998.

Councilor Van Merebergen. So I would suggest that what’s before us now, the motion is very, I would say, practical and logical. We do not need to go through these steps, these extra public discussion meeting and others. It’s just not necessary.

When you’re hearing about three complaints in a whole year, really, I think we have other things to be concentrating on. Thank you, Mark. Okay, thank you, Councilor. I have Councilor Hopkins next, and then Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Yeah, thank you. I guess I want to thank the councilor for reintroducing the motion that he put forward at committee. Through you, your worship, maybe to staff any concerns about the review when it comes to the bylaw. I know we’re going through a naturalization review of our public spaces, but any concerns with the motion that’s being presented as an amendment?

Yes, your worship. We always undertake housekeeping reviews of bylaws. We did defense bylaw this year. We did the AMPS bylaw, and I have already instructed staff and in consideration with our city ecologists to look at some of the definitions of this bylaw.

Over the last two weeks, there have been a lot of tweets on social media that are 100% incorrect, that we do not allow natural gardens, that you have to register your hostas, like unbelievable comments that we’ve been seeing. So I agree, we need to do better public comments on this bylaw. Not too many people I know sit around read the bylaws at night, but they will look at some of our pamphlets and some of our websites to better educate themselves about the bylaw because bylaws are in their nature legalistic. So I have already instructed staff that we’re going to add, in addition to some other housekeeping items with the yard and lot bylaw, some of the definitions to clarify the bylaw.

And in terms of doing a review together with public lands, I’ll let Ms. Sheer comment on that. Thank you through your worship. We do have a direction to review naturalization and native species plantings as part of the strategic plan, and we’re in the process of preparing a budget business request.

It would be in the latter half of the strategic plan, given some capacity resources and major projects, certainly as part of the business case that will be brought to council for consideration in the multi-year budget. We are happy to include where that could be applicable and appropriate for private lands, whether that’s just residential or a little bit more broad. We can scope that piece out. It would be subject to budget approval.

Of course, we don’t have that expertise or resource in house. Thank you for that information. I think that is very helpful to me to be able to support the reintroduction of this motion. I think it’s also really important that we know as a community what we can and can’t do.

So happy as well to support the amendment. I think the more that we can educate, really understand ourselves what we can and can’t do. And then really looking at how we naturalize our private spaces is really part of our strategic plan to some extent when it comes to having a better understanding about our natural environment. Question again through your worship to staff about the when would the public participation meeting because it’s part of the motion, does that need to be included at this time?

Your worship, any time we do a review, housekeeping review of the bylaw, it comes back to CAHPS Committee and there is an opportunity for public participation. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

So I appreciate the spirit in which Councilor Trussell has reintroduced this. But I have to say that I find this to be a solution that’s actually in search of a problem. And I think that the numbers that Mr. Catolic shared with us three complaints in a year and zero enforcement really underlines that this is not a burning issue for the community.

But I want to speak from a personal experience and I want to speak to that misinformation that’s circulating out there. First of all, I will say if anybody’s having trouble sleeping, reading bylaws is a great way to get yourself ready for bed. Mr. Catolic, because they can be very legal jargonistic pieces of reading.

But one third of my front yard is a pollinator garden. It is respectful of the neighbors on both sides. It does not impede anyone’s access to their driveway. It does not impede or get close to the city blivard.

And it’s clearly delineated by a stone border. So any complaint from a bylaw perspective, I’m sure that an MLEO would attend and say that it’s consistent with our bylaw. My work on it is low level maintenance. I’m not out there weeding every day.

I’m not out there trimming every day. A couple times a year, it gets a little attention to pull things back within the border of the garden itself so that they’re not spreading everywhere. It doesn’t impede people’s sight lines. It’s not encroaching on the boulevard or the sidewalk.

And I’ve had zero complaints about it. I want people to do more pollinator gardens. I also want people to plant more vegetable gardens and actively participate in growing their own food. I think there’s great lessons in that.

And I think if there was any particular clause in the existing bylaw that had been identified as problematic and a solution was brought forward to a particular clause, I would be certainly open to entertaining a particular solution. What I’m not interested in doing is tasking staff to go off and undertake yet another fulsome review without a direct sort of intent on where this would land. But throwing it wide open to come back to us with something at some undetermined date, which I don’t expect would be quick because I expect that there are capacity limits in biologists like everything else. I think where the committee recommendation came out with the education piece and I think the addition of informing the complainant as well is really important.

And you mentioned the staff mentioned there are other pamphlets out there. And I would point to the one that Ms. Sharers division has with regard to PDCs and the residents responsibility and the city’s responsibility when private train connections have to be replaced and what that looks like in terms of infrastructure projects as well. That’s a really good, easy to understand, lots of visuals, great piece of information.

And something similar to that with regard to lawn naturalizations I think would be very helpful. Both to complain tints and to those folks who are interested in undertaking that. I think we should have a downloadable PDF version available on our website. I think that would be great resource that counselors could share with their constituents as well.

But I come back to, and Councilor Van Muirberg raised it, just three complaints in a year, zero enforcement measures, and a lot of these gardens that exist already in the city. The bylaw hasn’t discouraged people from planting pollinator gardens and pollinator pathways. I think that there might be, and I would be willing to entertain a very specific motion that would say if people are planting one, having an opportunity to inform the city and have a registry where pollinator gardens have been planted, just something that’s in a database so we know. So that Mr.

Catolix MLEOs can actually reference an address when they go to respond to a complaint and see that a resident has actually submitted a form saying they’re planting a pollinator garden. I think there’s opportunities to work with community partners, be that reforest London or others to make sure that residents have opportunities to access resources to plant a native species and other appropriate plantings on their lawns. But I don’t think undertaking just a wide review and looking at what other municipalities are doing, I think we can do that. And if there’s specific things we want to tweak in the bylaw, I think we should bring those forward.

I don’t think we should ask staff to add this to their work load right now. And again, I say this is somebody who has both an extensive vegetable garden and an extensive pollinator garden on my property. I find it very peaceful. It’s my moment of zen when I get to get my fingers dirty and dig into the ground and plant something new or to harvest some vegetables.

But I’m not experiencing a level of complaints that really justifies putting this sort of work load on our staff at this time. So I won’t be supporting the amendments. But if there are specific things that are really problematic in the bylaw, if the Council wants to bring something forward like that in the future or if any Council wants to bring something like that forward in the future, I’d certainly entertain specific adjustments to the bylaw. But I’m not supportive of an overall review.

Councillor Frank. Thank you. And I have seen the pollinator garden at Deputy Mayor’s House. And it is lovely.

I encourage anyone on Council who has a lawn to set aside some space for either a veggie garden or a pollinator garden. I have both and they’re a very productive use of space. And I have had no complaints so far. So fingers crossed, we keep going that way.

To me, I will be supporting amendment. A bylaw edict would help with the misinformation in our community. I get regular calls or emails from residents asking if they’re allowed to have a front lawn, pollinator garden, naturalized garden, whatever language they use. Because simply they do not know if they’re allowed to and they’re worried about investing money because this does cost money over time.

And I think the educational materials would be very, very, very helpful because they’ll synthesize the bylaw. And we’ve already discussed that bylaws are very long and dry. So I think that is an excellent step in the right direction. But I did actually hear from staff that they will likely be doing a comprehensive review of this bylaw whether or not we provide direction, which I think is wonderful because that, you know, is fabulous.

So I don’t see why we shouldn’t pass this if they’re going to do that anyway. But that’s just my perspective. So to me it’s more about creating a culture in this community that encourages pollinator gardens. And even if we already do allow for it, the public does not understand that.

And I know that a lot in the last two weeks has become very confusing. But I, again, have gotten numerous emails and calls asking if they’re allowed to have one and they’re worried they’re going to have it removed. I even had a call with the resident who previously was in CBC in my ward because she had her garden removal, she was away. And she also still isn’t completely clear about what she’s allowed to have and not allowed to have.

And she has had regular interactions with bylaw. So I think that just that is why a lot of people would like to see some clarity coming through. And the educational stuff is going to be great. But I think it does stem somewhat from the language in the bylaw, which is why this has come to us.

And I think that it’s about creating this culture and space that people feel safe and that their investment will be maintained. And I think that having these amendments would make that clear. So that’s all be supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you and through you. I like the comments that I’m hearing. I also have a pollinator garden in the front. Not one third, but one eighth of my front lawn is a pollinator garden.

A little sparse and I have a vegetable garden too that has been eaten by all the wildlife. But that’s a side point. I do want to touch on the uncertainty of the community with the regard to naturalization. There is an uncertainty not necessarily pollinator garden close to the house, but maybe on a boulevard.

These are the questions that I would have that I would like to expand on in a bit. But it’s the uncertainty component. That is a real thing. And that uncertainty as far as I’m concerned does create barriers towards the naturalization of our area.

We have bylaws that help with the many types of grass that we have that are not very natural to the area. And that really promotes that. But we should really reduce that level of uncertainty. So you have more individuals feeling more comfortable to plant these types of pollinator gardens on their front lawn.

So I do feel like the suggestion or the amendment that I see on the floor from council to also I do like the motion moved and passed by councilor ramen as well because more information is better. But I do want to go to the complaints portion. So there’s three complaints in a year with zero enforcement. So I’m just going to ask a really obvious question.

But why was there zero movement on those three complaints? Your worship because the complaints were invalid so that no additional enforcement actions were necessary. And thank you and through you. Are there any of any of those three complaints in the entire city as they’re all invalid?

Because I have a specific issue within the in my ward. I’m not going to say the address for privacy reasons. But there was a complaint that came in that has been complaining about this. It’s a boulevard line of sight issue with a pollinator garden.

And they’ve been they told me that they complained about it for over a year. And I have been going back and forth with enterprise supports. And they told me that the street by law team is there is action forthcoming, but they haven’t taken any action yet and they haven’t got back to me. And that was about last week.

So I’m just concerned on on that issue. Like I do see that this complaint has been verified from what I see in my emails, but no action has been taking. So I just wanted to know this particular issue. I guess it wouldn’t be fair to not tell you the address, but I don’t want to say it on the public record.

But I just want to know if you’re aware of that. And how does that get counted in the three complaints? Mr. Kedolek.

And also could you identify any differences between like a pollinator garden at someone’s lawn and then moving into say, you know, the civic boulevard, if that’s related to it. Because I think there might be different rules that apply to those different pieces. Yes, your worship. You took the words out of my mouth.

There are different regulations with respect to gardens, planting of trees and other natural vegetation on the boulevard and closer to roadway. So the focus is pedestrian safety and visibility. So although it’s important butterflies and bees are important and that’s why since 1998 we have allowed natural gardens in our yard and lot maintenance bylaw. But also at the same time we have to respect public safety and that’s through visibility and specifically the visibility of children, children on tricycles.

So if somebody plants tall grasses on the boulevard and you can’t see cars backing out, the general rule we use through our street spylop is three feet, so without getting into that specific complaint, I’m very much aware of that complaint. And that’s where we engage our transportation engineers. What would be a good reasonable solution to allow the naturalization of the boulevard. But at the same time respect the importance of visibility triangles for public safety.

Thank you and through you. Thank you for that. And that’s like, this is why I asked the question because there, you know, there’s uncertainty. There’s uncertainty on the side of, I guess, the individuals who planted on the boulevard and there’s uncertainty on the side of the complaint.

The complainant, the complainant does know that it’s beyond the height restriction that we have and it is blocking the line of sight. But this is why I do believe that, you know, the motion that Councilor Trossos put on would be appropriate for right now. So with that information, I would be supporting this motion or the amendment. Any?

Oh, Councilor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. I could repeat everything that Deputy Mayor said. So I will not do that.

But I do fully support the pollinator gardens. We’re in a what’s on our yard. So I got to be 50% of my yard, but it’s also very small. I do, I do appreciate what what Councilor ramen made in the, in her adjustments.

And I think it, it covers the piece of the lack of information and clarity. And I think that’s really important. I’m excited to hear what, what is coming in terms of our budget cases, because more pollination pollinator gardens and naturalization gardens is going to be really popular. I think most people want more of that.

I think it’ll be great. I walked Quebec Street yesterday with the new construction and the boulevards are asphalt, which is another topic. But the naturalization gardens and the pollinator gardens. I think it’ll be solved with the current motion and I won’t be supporting the amendment.

Any other speakers? That’s a ramen. Go ahead. Thank you and through you.

I won’t be supporting the amendment today. And the main reason is that I do think that this is being addressed through the information piece and from the discussion that we’ve had. I think that that was, that was clear to me that a lot of this, again, from a misinformation perspective can be addressed through more information. But I also think that there’s opportunity with the annual updates, as well as what’s coming with what we had included in the strat plan.

I think that there’s opportunity to have this looked at through those opportunities that have already been mentioned. And what I’m hearing is generally a willingness to address and to support pollinator gardens and naturalization in our community, which I think is quite positive. What I also think is that there’s an opportunity through the creation of this information piece to have more dialogue with the community about what we’d like to see updated in the annual update. So that willingness, I’m thankful to staff for engaging in those discussions and for their willingness to look at that at the annual update.

And then again, through potentially a budget ask as well. Thank you, Councillor. Any other speakers who have not spoken to this? Okay.

So what’s on the floor is Councillor Trost has amendments seconded by Councillor McAllister. So we’re going to vote on the amendment. I’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote.

Motion fails six to nine. Okay. So back to the as amended main motion, which is moved and seconded, which is the amended from the earlier debate and change we had. Any other speakers to the main?

Go ahead, Councillor Trost have. I know my five minutes is running, but this will be very short. Even though I included this in my motion, I’m going to vote against this. The reason I’m going to vote against this is I don’t think putting out a brochure when we’re not really sure what some of the operative positions provisions of the bylaw are makes a lot of sense and I think by putting this brochure out without giving people more of an opportunity to weigh in on what they want to see and look at some of this language.

I think it’s misplaced and I think we need to brochure, but we need some more clarity in the bylaw. So sadly, even though I would have loved to have seen this included in a package, I am going to vote no on this. Thank you. Any other speakers on the as amended motion?

Okay. I see none. So we’re going to voting on the as amended motion. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 14 to 1. Councillor McAllister, I think that’s the whole report. Thank you for doing that. I’m going to go to the SBPC report before that I do that.

Is there any I need to volunteer from council who’s going to read out our closed session report. So don’t make eye contact. You’ll do it. Awesome.

It’s a long one. So I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis for presentation of the SBPC Committee 21st report. Thank you, Your Worship, I have not been made aware of any items colleagues wish to be dealt separately, so I am prepared to move the entire report unless anyone wishes anything pulled. Would anybody like anything dealt with separately from the SBPC report?

All right. Then I am prepared to move the report in its entirety. Okay. So the report’s on the floor.

Now I look for comments and questions or debate on the report. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I have questions regarding three, which is the August progress update for the health and homelessness.

Just wanted clarity. I know I’ve asked once before, but in terms of the targeted population of this plan, is it going to be solely the 600 high acuity? I guess what I’m getting at is what I’ve asked before around the services for the community and for the business. Is that something that we get to work on separately or is that something that is coming in this plan?

Mr. Dickens, go ahead. Through you, Your Worship, there are a number of activities related to the whole acuity system response. As we’ve indicated, excuse me, we’ve stood up a business reference table, a developers reference table.

Later in September, we’ll be setting up a funders reference table. We’re engaging with a number of key parties that contribute to this whole acuity system response. What you will see is many opportunities for Council to be involved in decision making when it comes to how we can best support businesses. So we are having meetings with that business reference group.

We have more that are already scheduled where we see the leads from the old East Village BIA, the downtown London BIA in the chamber, pull together their colleagues and start to discuss ways that we can support areas that have been overly impacted by the effects of health and homelessness challenges that we’re facing. So that work is still ongoing and we’re supporting that business table to do that work and to come up with some recommendations that we can then come back to you as Council and present in front of you. So those items will be connected not just to community safety, but certainly adjacent to them and probably will touch on them. But part of the whole acuity system response and the opening of the hubs is to diminish those impacts of community safety.

And that’s why we’ve incorporated so much community feedback into the hubs plan that Council has endorsed. Thank you. It mentions around highly supportive housing that the table has identified the elements of highly supportive housing. And I know it said it’s coming.

Is there anything that you can share now or do we get to wait until that comes forward at a future report? Through you, worship. I don’t have the slide decks in front of me to share some of that information, but we would be happy to include that in the next monthly update. This was a short turnaround as we were before you at the end of July and then submitting this at the beginning of August.

So those meetings are happening in real time. So we incorporate those updates into this report. And then the working documents, we would be happy to include that in next month’s update. Okay.

Thank you. And I wanted to thank staff. I asked a whole bunch of like detailed questions about the materials and supplies distributed and services provided. And I really appreciated the answers.

It was all good. When it comes to the highly supportive housing, I noticed that our gate is down here for two houses with five bedrooms. Are those houses that we have already? Or is that something that’s just out there as part of what we’re looking for?

Through you, worship. We had asked the participants of the highly supportive housing table to identify projects that could be in the pipeline for supportive housing as defined by the group. So a number of organizations, as is indicated in the report, identified either some properties that they have that could be used for highly supportive housing as it’s defined by the table and would be brought to council. But also some organizations identified projects that are already further along in those pipelines or they’re part of a multi-year strategy where the property’s not yet identified.

So we’ve tried to capture what’s happening in a multi-year plan. What are some opportunities that might be ready made if the properties exist? But this is just a sense of what could be available to us. They still need to do a little bit of work in terms of are they appropriate?

Could they meet the definitions and would they be suitable for folks? Thank you. And I noticed Sylvan Street down here. And I just wondered with 403 Thompson, are we on track for getting people into and housed in that highly supportive housing for October?

Does that still look good? I will take this one, Your Worship. Yes, we are still on track. I don’t have a definitive date, but I know Mr.

Feldberg, Mr. Mather, their team has been leading this phase of Thompson Road and things seem to be progressing right on track. Okay, that’s good to hear. The last question or comment I just want to make is the contract amendments that are coming before us here are things that we’ve been doing for a long time.

And so it doesn’t really address the shelter issue that has been so crucial or the 24/7. So just wanting to, like that’s what people are anxious to start seeing come out of this whole community plan and the $25 million donation. So I’m going to be supporting this, but I also want to mention that with the specifically around the arcade, I don’t see anything here to deal with some of the — there’s unintended consequences that come from providing this great service that I think need to be addressed. And so if it’s not going to sort of come forward next time, I’m going to have an amendment ready to be sure that if we’re funding a program that does great work, that we get to deal with the unintended consequences that we are fully aware of, we’ve got - you know, people can’t move along the sidewalk because of the lineups, we’ve got garbage and drugs and drug use that is triggering for people who are in recovery, who have oxygen tanks, who don’t want their children to see that.

And I know we can look at Bendas Street and think it’s not Bendas Street East and think it’s not a residential area, but there are a lot of people who live right there above the stores in the buildings behind. And so I will support this. I am asking that we put some sort of a good neighbor thing. We’ve been talking about it, but we need it right now.

Like we need at least to be trying things to see if they work and if it doesn’t, we can try something else. So I’m really asking if there’s any way informally to address that as we fund these programs that we’re not penalizing others in the area. >> I don’t know if you were looking — I don’t think there was a response to that. That was just your comment.

Sorry. No, that was just — I was just putting it out into the space. >> Okay, perfect. I’m going to move on unless you thought that was perfect.

Thank you. So I have — so what’s before us is the whole committee report. Any other comments on this or other items on the committee’s report? All of SPPC.

Okay. Seeing none, we can open that for voting. >> Opposing the vote. Motion carries 15-0.

Okay. That’s it for committee reports. We’re on to added reports. I want to very much thank Councillor ramen who will read out an extended edition of the report of from Council on closed session and a lot of activity coming out of closed session.

Councillor ramen, I’ve given you a list after you read it all out of the order of operations to kind of do the motions and given, I think voting preferences in any conflicts that may arise. So I’ll let you proceed with that and thank you very much. >> Thank you. And through you.

So this is the 12th report of the council on closed session. Your council on closed session report includes property acquisition, 16 Wellington Road, Wellington Gateway project that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager of finance supports with the concurrence of the director construction infrastructure services on the advice of the director realty services with respect to the property located 16 Wellington Road for the described as part of lot 13 plan 11 fourth in the city of London County Middlesex being all of pin 083 570035 LT containing an area of approximately 7,373 square feet as shown on the location map for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway project, the following actions be taken. A, the offer submitted by 16 Wellington holdings limited that vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of $1.38 million be accepted subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement and B, the financing of this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report to property acquisition 124 126 Wellington Road, Wellington Gateway project that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager of finance supports with the concurrence of the director construction and structure services on the advice of the director realty services with respect to the property located at 124 126 Wellington further described as part of lot four plan 312 fourth as in its number six seven six five one one ST six seven six five one one in the city of London County being all a PIN08357-0095, LT containing an area of approximately 10,000 and 54 square feet, as shown on the location map for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following action be taken. A, the offer submitted by SGMA onsite group Inc, the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of 1.495 million be accepted subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement, and be the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report.

The three license agreement city of London, sorry Hydro Inc, new telecommunications tower and equipment room 869 Commissioners Road West Reservoir Park, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the deputy city manager enterprise services and the concurrence of deputy city manager environment and infrastructure on the advice of the Director Realty services with respect to the license agreement for the lease of the lands for a new telecommunications tower and equipment room located to the city for the license agreement between the city, the licensor and the London Hydro Inc, the licensee for the licensed in respect of the construction maintenance and operation of a new telecommunications tower equipment room, serving servicing connections, transformer and backup generator on a portion of the lands located 869 Commissioners Road West for a term of 35 years, and on December 30, 2023, the commencement date and terminating on December 30, 2058, the expiry date be approved subject to renewal options offer to purchase industrial lands Ravenwood Inc, item for here on industry industrial park, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports on the advice of the Director Realty services with respect to the city owned industrial lands, located in here on industrial parks see one being composed a part of being composed of being a part south half lot for concession three as in 750136 London slash London Township and being part of pin 0 8147 dash 0337 and to be further described in a reference plan to be deposited and further shown outlining in black and labeled as parcel A and parcel B as a sketch, the agreement of purchase and sale, the agreement submitted by Ravenwood Inc, the purchaser to purchase three acres more or less of the subjected property for from the city at a purchase price of 400 sorry 419,400 be accepted subject to the conditions in terms of set out in the agreement. Five offer to purchase industrial lands, Devany Ramakrishnan in trust for a corporation to be incorporated here on industrial parks see one lands that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance support on the advice of the Director Realty services with respect to the city owned industrial lands located in here on industrial park see one being composed of being part south half lot for concession three as in 750136 London Township and being part of pin 0 8147 0037 the agreement of purchase and sale, the agreement submitted by Riverside Virgin Inc, the purchaser to purchase 0.5 acres of the subject property from the city at a purchase price of 87,500 reflecting sale price of 175,000 per acre be accepted subject condition and terms set out in the agreement six offer to purchase industrial lands here on industrial ink here on industrial park that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports on the advice of the deputy of the director sorry realty services with respect to the city owned industrial land located here on industrial park see one being composed of being part south half lot for concession three as in 750136 London London Township and being part of pin 0 8147 - 0337 and to be further described in a reference plan to be deposited and further shown outlining black and labeled as parcel a and parcel B as outlined on the sketch. The agreement of purchase and sale, the agreement submitted by here on industrial ink the purchaser to purchase four acres of the subject property from the city at a purchase price of 600,000 6425 be accepted subject to the conditions and terms set out in the agreement and offer to purchase industrial lands wide old power ink here on industrial park that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports on the advice of the director realty service with respect to the city owned industrial land located in here on industrial park see one being composed of being part south half lot for concession three as in 750136 London London Township and being part of pin 0 8147 0037 further described in a reference plan to be deposited and further shown to be outlined in red and labeled as parcel seven as outlined on the sketch, the agreement of purchase and sale, the agreement subject to by wide L power ink, the purchaser to purchase 2.8 acres of the subject property from the city at a purchase price of $504,000 reflecting $175,000 per acre be accepted subject to the conditions in terms of set out in the agreement. Eight offer to purchase industrial lands to 864150 Ontario Ink Innovation Park that on the recommendation the deputy city manager finance supports on the advice of the director services with respect to the city owned industrial land located in innovation park phase two being composed of part of block one plan 33 m 592 being parts 14 and 17 on plan 33 r dash 2884 in the city of London County Middlesex as outlined on the sketch, the agreement of purchase and sale, the agreement submitted by 2864150 Ontario Ink under the corporate name, I on Canada, the purchaser to purchase six acres of the subject property from the city at a purchase price of 990,000 reflecting a sale price of 165,000 per acre be accepted subject to conditions in terms of set out in the agreement.

And nine offer to purchase industrial lands Thompson food ink here on industrial parks see one lands that on the recommendation the deputy city manager report on the advice of the director realty services with respect to the city owned industrial land located in here on industrial parks see one being opposed to being part south half lot for concession three as in 750136 London London Township and being part of pin 08147 dash 637 and to be further described in a reference plan to be deposited further shown outlined in red and labeled as parcel six as outlined on the sketch, the agreement of purchase and sale, the agreement submitted by Thompson food ink, the purchaser to purchase one acre of the subject property from the city at a purchase price of 175,000 reflect in a sale of sale price of 175,000 per acre be accepted subject to the conditions and terms as set out in the agreement. And with that, I’ll look to put item one and two on the floor. And then call the rest separate. I have before you put together the package washes I have Councillor Hopkins who wants to make a declaration.

Yeah, first of all, thank you Councillor ramen for that. I would. I’d like to recuse myself on item number three as my property is close to the property in question in the lease agreement. I’d like to also recuse myself on bill 327 as well.

So the Councillors made that declaration. I believe you’ll divide the motions based on people’s voting preferences and counselors conflicts. So go ahead and start doing. Thank you.

And I’ll look to divide one and two first. So one and two are related to the Wellington Road Gateway acquisitions. So we will deal with that first. We have Councillor ramen willing to move Councillor Hopkins willing to second.

Any discussion on those two acquisitions? Okay. We’ll open that for voting in the system first. This is a Wellington Road Gateway project was in the vote motion carries 14 to one.

Thank you. I’ll look to put item three on the floor next item three is the matter that Councillor Hopkins declared a conflict on. So any discussion I’ll move by Councillor ramen seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Any discussion on that?

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. I’m Mayor Bergen. Thank you. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse. You all look to put items four through nine. Okay. Move by Councillor ramen seconded by Councillor Ferrera.

This is the remaining matters that the Councillor read out very articulately. Any discussion on this? Okay. I’m going to make a comment on this one.

I’ll just do so from the chair. A number of these are in fact five of them are industrial land sales in various industrial parks, which I think is I think the largest block that we’ve had of separate sales at one time. And as colleagues know that this is a regular thing that we’re reading out either options being taken on industrial land, new developments, and the success of our industrial land strategy I think is something that we can all be proud of. I want to thank specifically, although these come through routinely, it requires an incredible amount of work by our Realty Services staff and the teams that support industrial land development as well as our partners at LEDC in landing these opportunities, bringing these jobs to London, creating these opportunities for our local economy.

And so, you know, given that there’s a few all at once, I thought it was a nice moment to pause and just say thank you to everybody on the back end who, you know, allows us to have the good fortune of being able to make these votes that we’re about to make. To sell these industrial lands and create these opportunities in our city for Londoners who live here today and Londoners who will come in the future job creation is obviously key part of what we want to see in our city. And this is, this is yet another example of a continued success story in our industrial land development strategy. So with that I’ll see if there’s any other comments.

If not, we’ll open this group for voting. Councilor McAllister closing the vote motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, Councilor ramen. You’re done.

Thanks. That’s very excellent. Thank you. We’re on to deferred matters.

There was one deferred matters item. I just need a moment with the clerk. Okay. So item 10.1 is a deferred matter.

We deferred consideration of appointments to London hydro board of directors to this meeting of council. We had a previous process we went through. It came to council. It was deferred to today.

Council Ramen sits on the board and identified a further process that was identified. I don’t know if Councilor ramen you want to make any comments leading into this and then I have some comments to make as well. Thank you and through you. I’ve had some time to reflect on the decision that’s before us with respect to the London hydro board.

And discussion as well with with the with the board itself. We as as council asked London hydro or agreed with London hydro to undertake a new process. And we asked that they sell they take over that selection process through that process. Many were spent reviewing the applicants and then going through the interview process as a board at London hydro with the an ad hoc committee.

Following deliberation, a recommendation was put forward and then brought to council. I can tell you that the folks that the board members around that table spent a lot of time thinking through this decision and reviewing the needs of the board and that’s where the conversation really started around what are the needs of that of the board specifically. And a lot of that discussion centered around our needs in terms of audit. So having folks that are that are able to sit on this board that have extensive audit capabilities and a background in accounting is important, but also the type of accounting as well as the way that they have been involved in the accounting, accounting, the accounting practice that they’ve been involved in.

So I know Councillor Stevenson’s the accountant. So I won’t go further into it than that, but I can tell you that that there was a lot of conversation around that aspect. And from there, the recommendations from the London hydro board were Tim Watson and Tracy Gustavsson and both come to came to apply with that extensive background, but not only in accounting, but also in terms of having served on other boards. So, you know, I know Councillor Cudi could probably speak to this.

You know, this is a different type of board. And so corporate boards require different skill sets. And so it’s important to ensure that the candidates that we look for have those skill sets. And again, that was something that this board looked at quite closely.

And from there, they made these recommendations of Tim Watson and Tracy Gustavsson. So I’m hoping that today we reach a different conclusion. We put forward the recommendation that was initially given to us by London hydro to move the two appointees that they suggested, Tim and Tracy for the term. I think as we contemplate these processes, I know we have it at the housing corporation as well.

We have to respect that they that other groups have now undertaken this process had done the interviews and I have to ask outside of talking to, you know, one or two potential appointees, how extensive have Councillors, the conversations they’ve had with folks. That are engaging and interested in being part of the London hydro board. So I do think that the board did its due diligence. They’ve made great recommendations here and have the potential to move forward and fill some of the gaps within the board with the two that were recommended.

So I am seeking, I guess, the chair’s consideration as to how best to deal with it as we have. This is our deferred item. We have a recommendation that came out of SPBC. So I’m wondering if I can amend this to put back in the initial appointees as suggested by London hydro or whether or not there’s an opportunity to then if we need to defeat it and then put the new slate forward.

Yes, so thank you for the context is the board member only because we had asked for some additional context from London hydro and I appreciate your comments. I will say what was deferred to us was the committee’s recommendation and that still continues to be the item deferred to us, which was the selection of Mr. Watson and Mr. Gomez.

The our gums. The that would have to be defeated to put an alternate on the floor. And so that’s the item that we have to consider first as the committee’s recommendation that was simply deferred to this meeting. And that would be defeated to make an alternate alternate recommendation.

So we have to put that on the floor first and then we can take action. Although I have another matter that I have to address council with on this piece to. Which will require us to go into camera. So procedurally what I need is for someone to put the previous recommendation on the floor so that we have the thing to consider.

Councillor Stevenson’s willing to put that on the floor. Look for a seconder. Councillor Cuddy. So this is the committee’s recommendation on the floor.

At this time I’m going to hand the chair to Deputy Mayor Lewis and I’m going to make it. I’m going to ask for, I’m going to make a motion essentially. Thank you, Your Worship. I will assume the chair and I recognize Mayor Morgan.

So colleagues, I have a piece of correspondence I have to share with you that is confidential nature from London Hydro, but it requires us to go in camera because of the identifiable individuals piece. So I’m going to suggest that I use you support me in a motion that I’d like to move that council convene and closed session in order to consider a personal matter, but an identify identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees related to appointments to the London Hydro Board of Directors. That has been moved and Councillor ramen seconds. Look for any discussion on that before we open the vote.

I see none. So I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote to move into confidential session. Councillor Van Merebergen, closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0.

So we’re going to stay here for that. So I’ll have to ask, I’ll have to ask other colleagues to depart. Mr. Card, I know you’re online.

I’m probably going to need you for this one given going to camera. There might be questions for you as well. Recording in progress. Okay, we’re back in public session.

I’m going to go to Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you. I’m wondering if we could, I’d like to put a motion forward to go in camera for legal advice. Yes, we’re looking to add legal reason to the existing reason to go into camera.

The clerk will read out that full and contemplated reason for going into camera. Thank you. The reason would be that the counts, excuse me, the motion would be that the council convene in closed session in order to consider a personal matter about identifiable and identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees and advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose related to appointments to the London Hydro Board of Directors. Okay, seconder for that reason to go back into camera Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Any discussion on the additional reason, or the more comprehensive reason to go in camera. Okay, seeing none, we’re going to open that for voting. Motion carries 15 to 0. So we’re going back into camera for that extended reason.

It’ll just be a couple moments. Yeah, I said scholars. Okay, we’re back in public session. I have the deputy mayor report progress on our in camera session.

Thank you, worship, I will report that progress was made for the item on which we went into confidential session. Okay, and so we return to public session. And what we have currently on the floor is a motion from. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, through you, I would like to put an amendment referral to this motion to call on the chair of the board to visit council. I’m not sure how much language I can put into that. So he wants. So refer to a future committee meeting and invite chair of the board to come to council to talk about their recommendations.

Yes, that’s correct. To a future committee meeting to call on the chair of the board to talk about the recommendations. That’s, I would move that motion. So we’re going to get that worded up.

I’m just going to see if there’s a seconder for that motion. Okay, so let us just get that worded. But essentially, we are going to take the item that is before council and refer it to committee with an invitation to the chair of the London Hydro Board of Directors to come and talk about essentially the process that they followed. Answer our questions.

Okay, speakers on that. Councilor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Worship, I think where I wasn’t sure where we are making a motion council.

So I know it’s been a long day, but you get to stand up. I do have a question through you and I’m not sure who can answer this, but I know the last time that the appointment of the London Hydro Board came to us that we did the board came to us asking that they needed to do reference checks and I would like to know where that is in the process or maybe that information could be provided to us as well within the motion. I don’t know if we need to put it in, but that is my last understanding is that the board had asked us to support their process, which was to do reference checks on the candidates that we appointed. So I can confirm that the clerk doesn’t have any information on reference checks.

So I think given the motion to invite the chair of the board, like that’s something that we can discuss with the chair at that time. Yeah. Oh, hold on. Councillor ramen might have a piece of.

I wasn’t sure if it was shared with us or where it was in the process. I just don’t remember. There may be some confusion on what you’re asking about reference checks because there was correspondence shared, but I don’t know if it was specifically the idea of reference checks. Councillor ramen who sits on the board is going to communicate the information that was given back.

It wasn’t. I don’t think it was reference checks as we would contemplate it, but what was asked for by council. Thank you and through you. For the referral council was asked to be able to allow hydro to go through their process of which they they’re standard process of resume confirmations.

And they do that with employees. They do that with anybody that serves on their board. So they just asked to undertake that same process before council arrived at their decision. And so my understanding is that there was communication back to the clerk that that process has been completed.

So that’s the answer and it was just communication back that they had completed that process. Appreciate the update. Councillor ramen, go ahead. Sorry in this late hour.

I think I referred to it wrong educational. It’s just credential checking when you want to be clear. Okay, I’ve been moved in seconded motion. I’m looking for other speakers.

Otherwise, if there aren’t any that we can vote, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. I just wanted to say I’m happy to second the motion. I think this is an important step in the process.

Any other speakers? If not, I don’t see any. Let’s open. Oh, Councillor ramen, go ahead.

Thank you. I’m just going to speak to the referral. So, so I’m personally not comfortable with referring this item at this time. I do think that London hydro needs to have a full complement.

And in order to do so, they need an appointment process to happen here. We have been provided with information from the London hydro as to who they would recommend that was done based on the process which this council approved. And so now here we are. And I think in front of us, we have a motion which I’d like to see or we have a referral, but I’d like to see us move forward.

And if we’re not moving forward, you know, because we’re waiting to hear more from the board chair, I’m just wondering, you know, at what point is it at what point in our own process when we’ve handed the selection process over to an entire committee, when are we going to allow this process to then be back in our hands? So I think that there’s an opportunity for us to, again, understand that we’ve been given all the information of the applications that were provided. We’ve had an opportunity to contemplate it and we’ve received a recommendation from hydro. So I think we have enough information to make a decision again so that the board can make their decision.

So the board can do their due diligence. I’m asking that we go ahead and do our appointments tonight. Okay, I just appreciate the comments. I just want to correct one thing.

We didn’t, we didn’t hand a process over to the board. It was clear all the way through that they’re making recommendations, but municipal council does make the final decision on the appointments to this particular board. So I’ll just make that clear. We get, we may ask for advice.

We may ask for recommendations, but ultimately it’s up to us on who to point. Any other speakers on the referral, seeing none, I’m going to open the referral for voting. Let’s close the votes now. Councilor Pribble, Councilor Troso, closing the vote.

Motion carries eight, six. Okay, that’s referred to a future meeting. So that’s the deferred matters inquiries and we don’t have any inquiries from members of council. Emergent motions, I have none.

We have bylaws and just like colleagues know, given the, so given the bylaws and the way that people voted and the way that conflicts were declared and then the decision on them hydro. So we can do bylaws 304 to 333, which includes all of the regular and additional bylaws. We’ll exclude the two bylaws 325 and 320. So we don’t have to exclude the ones that council member and wanted to vote on separately because he’s not present.

So we only need to exclude two bylaws. The one that councilor Hopkins declared a conflict on 327 and the bylaw related to the appointment of the Leno hydro board of directors, which is 306 because we’ve referred that. So we will vote on all of them as a group, the exception of those two, the Leno hydro appointments and the one that councilor Hopkins declared the conflict on. So I’m going to look.

Yes, Councilor Troso. Sorry, but if I want to vote against the bylaw, I can vote against the bylaw that I opposed, right? Sure, just let me know which one and we’ll pull it separately. It was the fireworks bylaw.

There isn’t one because the motion was to send to basically bring forward a bylaw to future meetings. There’s no bylaw before us tonight because we weren’t actually making a final decision on any sort of bylaw, like actual bylaw. That’s so obvious. Thank you very much.

Sure. Okay, so moved as I contemplated. So bills number 304305 307 to 324 and added bills 325 326 and 328 to 333. That covers everything that covers the two ones that we need to exclude moved by Councilor Stevenson seconded by Councilor Cuddy.

There is no, there’s no debate on first reading. So we’ll open that for voting. So close the votes. Yes.

Hello, yes. Thank you. Close on the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0.

Okay. Second reading set of bills moved by Councilor for a seconded by Councilor Hopkins. I need to bait. Okay.

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Close the votes. Yes, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0.

Third reading of the same set of bills moved by Councilor Pribble seconded by Councilor ramen, no debate on third reading so open third reading for voting. Motion carries 14 to 0. Okay. And finally, the item that Councilor Hopkins declared on bill 327 mover for bill 327 first reading Council cuddy seconded by Councilor Stevenson, I will open first reading for voting.

Motion carries 13 to 0 with one recuse. Okay. Second reading of the same bill moved by Councilor Ferrara seconded by Councilor layman. I need to bait on second reading.

Okay. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Supposed to vote. Yes, closing the vote.

Motion carries 13 to 0 with one recuse. Okay. Third and final reading for this bill. Councilor Cuddy moved seconded by Councilor Stevenson will open third reading for voting.

Supposed to vote. Yes, closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to 0 with one recuse. Okay.

With violence complete, we need a motion to adjourn moved by Councilor Stevenson seconded by Councilor Cuddy. All those in favor of adjournment. We are adjourned, thank you very much.