September 12, 2023, at 12:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 12:00 PM.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That items 2.1 to 2.3 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   2024 Stormwater Management Remediation Project - Consultant Award

2023-09-12 - Staff Report (2.1) - 2024 Stormwater Management Remediation Project Consultant Award

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated September 12, 2023, related to the 2024 Stormwater Management Remediation Project Consultant Award:

a) AECOM Canada Ltd. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers in the amount of $125,345.00, including contingency (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (d) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b) the financing for the 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 approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; and,

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

2.2   RFT-2023-224 Removal and Management of Hazardous & Special Products

2023-09-12 - Staff Report (2.2) Removal of Hazardous and Special Products

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated September 12, 2023, related to the Request for Tender (RFT-2023-144) for the Removal and Management of Hazardous and Special Products:

a)    the tender submitted by GFL Environmental Services Inc., 203 Lottridge Street, Hamilton, Ontario, L8L 6W1, for Removal and Management of Hazardous and Special Products BE ACCEPTED at their tendered unit rates including the optional additional unit rates (excluding HST) listed in Appendix A; it being noted that this is being reported as an irregular tender result as per the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Section 8.10 (a) as the annual estimated net cost of approximately $360,000.00 (net of Producer Responsibility Organization funding) of the lowest compliant tender exceeds the 2023 Council approved budget amount for this service;

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

c)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval. (2023-E05)

2.3   SS-2023-233 Single Source Purchase of Cured In Place Pipe (CIPP) Lining Trailer

2023-09-12 0 Staff Report (2.3) SS-2023-233 Single Source Purchase Cured In Place Pipe (CIPP) Lining Trailer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated September 12, 2023, related to SS-2023-233 Single Source Purchase of Cured in Place Pipe (CIPP) Lining Trailer:

a)    approval BE GIVEN to execute a single source purchase as per section 14.4 (d) and (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the single source negotiated price BE ACCEPTED to purchase one 2024 Bravo Aluminum Star Cargo Trailer for a total estimated price of $108,099.83 (excluding HST), from Bluewater Trailer Sales Ltd., 940 Wright Street, Strathroy ON N7G 3H8;

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

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval in accordance with Sections 14.4(d)(e) and 14.5(a)(ii) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; and,

e)    the financing for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2023-E09)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   9th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

2023-08-16 - ITCAC Report

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 9th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on August 16, 2023:

a)    the attached presentation, with respect to the Mobility Master Plan, BE RECEIVED by the Civic Works Committee for their consideration; and,

b)   the London Transit Commission BE REQUESTED to provide the following information to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee:

i)    provision of transit services; 

ii)   current Service Plan (Conventional and Special); 

iii)  criteria of provision of transit services in new subdivisions; 

iv)  areas and subdivisions in London where no transit services are available; 

v)   zero emission bus fleet implementation and rollout plan; 

vi)  when Londoners may see the first group of zero emission buses on the roads; and, 

vii) how many buses and which routes will be used in the pilot project; and,

c)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 BE APPROVED.

it being noted that the delegation request from R. Buchal with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by H. McAlister

That pursuant to the Council Procedure By-law, the delegate BE PERMITTED to speak an additional 5 minutes with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee (ITCAC) BE THANKED, and the ITCAC Presentation, BE RECEIVED with no further action be taken.

Motion Failed (2 to 3)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the Civic Works Committee convene In Closed Session for the purpose of considering the following:

6.1 Litigation/Potential Litigation/Solicitor-Client Privilege/ Confidential Information Supplied by Canada/Province/Territory/Crown Agency of Same

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board by Canada, a province or territory or a Crown agency of any of them; and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

The Civic Works Committee convened In Closed Session from 12:45 PM to 12:50 PM.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 12:51 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (1 hour, 8 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. I’ll look to call the 13th meeting of the Civic Works Committee to begin. Please check the city website for any additional details, detailed information regarding this committee meeting. Meetings can be viewed via live stream on YouTube and the city website.

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

I will go to item number one, disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, I will move to item number two, which is our items for consent. You’ll see that there are three items in front of you. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder on those items.

Councillor Cuddy and Councillor Van Mierbergen. And any questions before we entertain the consent items? Councillor Chassa. I just wanted to ask a question on 2.2.

Is this just something routine that would normally happen, or is there something special with this that’s unusual? Mr. Stanford? Through the chair, the reason it’s here is that the amount that has come in is over the budget that we’d established for 2023.

So the reason it’s here is that it’s coming in as a result that is an increase in cost. So we bring that to your attention in this case. Any additional items on the consent agenda? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

I’ll vote yes. Closing the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. We have no scheduled items.

So we’ll move on to item number four, items for direction. You’ll see that we’ve got item 4.1, the ninth report of the integrated transportation community advisory committee, and with that, a request for delegation from our vehicle. I understand that Mr. Buckel has joined us online.

I will look for a mover and a seconder to accept that delegation. Sorry, he’s a committee member, so we don’t need to have a mover and a seconder. Okay, with that, we will check and see if Mr. Buckel is able to come onto the screen for us.

Okay, thank you very much. So Mr. Buckel, you’ll have five minutes, and please speak in when you’re ready. Okay, well, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee.

Now I would like to share my screen, if I may. You are able to share your screen. Okay, just bringing it up. Okay, I hope everybody can see my screen.

So I would like to begin with a little bit of context. I think that everybody agrees with is London essentially is a car-centric city, as are most modern cities in Ontario, Canada, North America, and even the world. And the characteristic of a car-centric city is that most people own a car, and most trips are by, done by car. Transit and active transportation are used primarily by people who do not have access to or own a car, and most of those people would prefer to drive a car if they could.

Okay, so I think that is the context of London as it is now. Now, looking at the mode share targets that you see on the screen, I’ve presented a number of mode shares that are historical from 2009, 2016, 2019, as well as some mode share targets that have been proposed in the transportation master plan for 2020 and 2030, and they proposed mode shares in the draft master mobility plan for 2050. And the characteristic that I point out is that the mode shares reflect the nature of a car-centric city, and that the targets are essentially status quo with very little change. So basically, if you’ll get active transportation in 2019, it was 15%, and the target for 2020 or 2050 in the most ambitious plan is 18%.

The mode share target for private vehicles in 2019 was 73.5, and the target in the most optimistic scenario for 2050 is 65%. And I would argue that these are not sufficiently ambitious targets, and also widespread assumption is that the climate emergency will be addressed simply by people substituting their current gas-powered SUVs and pickup trucks, which are the most common form of vehicles, with new electric SUVs and pickup trucks. And I would argue, and I think there is agreement by many experts that this is not sufficient to meet climate change targets. Now, I would also argue that the mode share targets do not reflect what is actually required to meet the climate change targets.

A couple of years ago, the London Cycling Advisory Committee prepared a very detailed report through a climate change lens of what kind of targets would actually be needed to achieve climate change targets. And they determined that the mode share for private vehicles have to be reduced to 25%, which is a significantly lower number than any of the targets that have been proposed in any of the London plants. This seems like a very ambitious number, but is achievable. The global gold standard typically used as Amsterdam, which is a very bicycle-friendly city.

And the mode share in Amsterdam currently for private vehicles is 20%. So it is actually possible to achieve radically different mode share targets than what are being proposed. Now, an important point that I like to make is there is a perception that London is a very car-dependent city and that alternative modes other than cars are not practical, but what is actually true, and this is shown by the trip surveys, and as well as looking at the actual distances traveled in London. And in fact, 70% of trips in London are shorter than seven kilometers.

Okay, this is not widely appreciated. The seven kilometer trip is easily done in a 15-minute bike ride. And what that suggests is that London essentially already is a 15-minute city, which by definition, is a city where most needs can be reached within a 15-minute walk or bike ride. So this is an important thing to realize.

Now, the reality of it is, even though most trips can be done by bike, currently only around 1% of trips actually are done by bike, and this is typical again of most Canadian and North American cities. So the reality of is, or me? You have 30 seconds. I thought I had five minutes.

You have 30 seconds remaining. Of five minutes, okay. So let me conclude that it is possible to reduce mode share. And an imagine, instead of owning private cars, we had a system where people could use or borrow cars as they needed for each particular trip, and had access to a variety of other more efficient modes, such as bicycles, micro-electric cars for short trips, and so on.

And with a system like this, we could massively reduce the mode share for cars. Thank you, Mr. Vehicle. That is your time.

Okay, thank you. No. Councillor Trossam. Yes, and light of the fact that we have a very short agenda today, and this is a presentation from one of our advisory committees.

I’d really like to hear his presentation, so I move, we give him another five minutes. I think it’s really important that we recognize representatives from our advisory committee. This is not like we have a long line of people waiting to speak, so I’d like to move that his time be extended. Councillor McAllister.

I’m just seconding that. Okay, I do have a motion on the floor to extend Mr. Bugle’s time. I will say, although we do not have an additional item on the agenda, we do have, or items for direction, we do have additional items as well, but I will hear from the committee on this matter.

Councillor Van Murewhergen. Thank you, Chair. I think it’s reasonable we give an extension to the presentation, so I’ll vote in favor of that. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll open up for voting if there’s no further comments. Closing the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, Mr.

Bugle, please feel free to continue. Okay, thank you. I probably need less time than the time we took to vote. Hopefully, minutes or so will be enough.

So to get to the conclusion, how could we actually significantly reduce mode share for cars to make a real impact and a real difference? And it generally agreed that we need to make driving less attractive than the alternative is more attractive, but the problem is in a car-centric city, everybody feels that they need a car for certain trips. They need a car to go camping with the kids. They need a car to take the kids to soccer practice.

And the problem is once you own a car and there’s a car sitting in your driveway, it becomes the most convenient option for virtually every trip. And it’s very difficult to convince people to leave the car in the driveway and walk or take the bus or cycle instead. So let’s imagine an alternative system where instead of owning a car, you could borrow a car whenever you need one and pay per use. So this essentially is a car share system.

If you didn’t have to own the car, but you had to pay each time you used it, you probably would choose sustainable alternatives more often. Now, suppose you also had a range of sustainable alternatives also available for borrowing. And these included bikes or e-bikes for commuting and short trips, transit perhaps for trips downtown, e-cargo bikes for shopping, and perhaps electric microcars, very small one or two seat cars similar to golf carts that you could use for the majority of short urban trips. A system like this could probably reduce the number of car trips you needed by an order of magnitude.

And I would suggest that the vast majority of trips could be accommodated more cost effectively and much more sustainably with a system like this. It would be relatively easy to get a factor of 10 reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, in other words, 90% or more. And it would also be easy to achieve very aggressive mode share targets of 20% car use or less. And that was basically the conclusion of my presentation.

Thank you. Thank you. I will look to committee to see if there were any additional comments. Councilor Vamereberian.

Thank you, Chair. It’s always good in a democracy to hear other points of view. Certainly there’s much in this presentation that I certainly don’t agree with. And I would venture to say that a lot of Londoners don’t either, but it’s always good to hear other points of view.

And with that, I’d like to move a motion that the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee be thanked and their presentation be received with no further action. Seconder, Councillor Cuddy. Councillor Vamereberian. There is a motion drafted and loaded into eScribe that contains A, the attached presentation with respect to the Mobility Master Plan B received by the Civic Works Committee for their consideration.

And B, the London Transit Commission be requested to provide the following information to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee. And then it further goes into detail of what those requests were. Would you, do you want to include that in your motion and then include take no action? Sorry, could you just make a phone?

Keep the motion? Yeah, I’m just gonna move this motion. Yeah, that the night, sorry. The Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee be thanked and their presentation be received with no further action.

Okay, and Councillor Cuddy, you’re okay to second that. Okay, thank you. And Councillor Trostle, give your hand up, go ahead. I think that’s a little abrupt and I’m not gonna be supporting that motion.

I would like to hear a little bit more discussion. I would like to hear some reaction from staff. And I do have some questions for the presenter. So just to come out of the gate with no further action.

Well, of course it’s gonna be further action because the question of our Mobility Master Plan of Discussion and Consultation is ongoing. And this is very broad. Now, at the last council meeting, we, at the last Civic Works Committee, we had a long discussion about this matter. And one of the questions that came up was, how can we get a little bit more hands on?

And I raised the question of whether a counselor could participate in the committee. One of the things I’d like to do is ask the presenter if he would be willing to join this working group and whether that would be okay with staff. Is that something that we could just do? Or is that something we would need a formal motion going up to council for?

‘Cause I do think we need more eyes on this. And I’m not finished with my questions, but I wanna send that to staff first. Okay, and so through the chair to Ms. Shear, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to having members of the community sit on our staff, project teams and staff steering committees. I would advise against that. Those are working teams for staff and some of those discussions are confidential at that time.

We are meeting regularly with the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee. This is a standing item. They have a sub-team that is working on it that staff are happy to support. So if they ask us, could that person, could people from the committee join staff teams?

I would advise no. We’re happy to work with the team as a sub-committee that’s been set up at the community. Or sorry, at the community advisory committee. Through the chair, may I ask the presenter— Follow up, Councillor?

Through the chair, if I may ask the presenter, what is your sub-committee asking us to do today? I believe having more active input into the actual working team would be helpful. And whatever format would be agreeable, the situation right now is we’re generally fairly unaware of what the discussions are within the team until a report is presented to us, like the one that recently came forward. And then we have the opportunity to respond, but there isn’t really any back and forth discussion of any significance other than going through formal committees.

Thank you. Did you follow up? Thank you, follow up. So I’m looking to staff.

Short of your formal, I feel we’re in a situation right now where we will get a staff report on Thursday when it comes to our committee on Tuesday. And I do want to see more back and forth, and I did raise this at the last meeting, and I’m wondering how we can do that. Madam Chair, I’d want an adventure to clerk’s territory, maybe Ms. Westlake Power is on the call.

I would suggest that the ability to have early council involvement in ongoing staff efforts, or to change the nature of how we engage with the community advisory committees, might be best referred to governance working group for a more fulsome discussion. Right now, staff have a work plan that is laid out, and touch points planned with a variety of stakeholders, including the community advisory committees. We don’t really have a mechanism by which to bring them into our in-house teams. That would be appropriate.

I think it’s a bigger question than we’d want to answer from just the transportation planning side. Thank you. Councilor, does that satisfy you? No, it certainly doesn’t.

It absolutely doesn’t, because transferring this to the governance working group, well, those of us who have been engaged in the governance working group know how backed up we are and how busy we are with other things, but I want to work around this, and I want to find something that satisfies people. If I hear you undertaking that you are going to be continuing your engagement with the advisory committee through their subcommittee, that’s positive. But what I would like to do then is, and I will be putting a motion on the floor. Okay, Councilor, we have a motion on the floor right now.

  • I understand that. I didn’t put a motion on the floor. I said I will later in the meeting put a motion on the floor, and I want to get staff’s reaction. I want to get staff’s reaction to the consideration that the planning horizon is too long, because these are things that you can work on yourself, that consider walking and cycling separately, and that the mode share targets need another option.

We are limited at option one. And what I’m hearing from the presenters here is, we need another option that is closer to what the cycling advisory committee came up with. So are these things that you can incorporate into your work without a formal motion, or do we need a formal motion to ask you to look at those things? Madam Chair, with respect to the planning horizon being long as the report comes forward, that outlines the actions associated with the plan, it will be broken up into sub horizons.

You’ve not seen that yet because we’re not there yet. That work is in progress at this time. With respect to cycling and pedestrianism being considered separately, yes, they will be. They’re rolled together right now here, but as we talked about the plans and interventions and programs and supports for both modes, both of those will have interconnected because there are interconnections, but also separate strategies where they’re independent.

With respect to, and I’m sorry, what was the last one? Was adding another mode shared target in the other direction from the one we eliminated? Madam Chair, because we recently have brought this to council, we received the direction to proceed with options two and three for consideration. We are intending to report back to this committee in October with a recommendation.

I believe it’s the 24th cycle. At that time, if you’re not satisfied with what staff have brought to you, that would be a time to refer it back to staff for additional work with the supportive committee and council. Thank you. So back to the debate on the amendment from the councilor.

I still am going to be opposing this amendment because I think that take no further action is sort of in conflict with everything we’ve just said. We are gonna take further action. So I’m fine with receiving the report. I’m fine with saying that we received a delegation.

We heard the report. There were some questions. Other members of this council may have some questions too, but I don’t think taking no further action is useful to have in the motion. And I would ask that that be withdrawn, ‘cause I think it’s very contrary, if not hostile to what we’re trying to do here.

Thank you, Councilor Van Meerberg, and you’re speaking to your motion. Yeah, a way of commentary. I think it’s useful to remind ourselves now and then we’re the standing committee and we have advisory committees, and that’s what they are, and that’s what they do. They advise, and that’s what they’ve done today.

We’ve listened to their presentation. We’ve given them even an extension. We’ve heard what they had to say, and the motion has followed through. So we have to, again, remind ourselves that we receive advice and opinions, but it’s this committee that makes the decision and ultimately council.

So I just wanted to reiterate that. Councilor McAllister. Thank you, and through the chair, recognizing that there was already the pre-drafted motion, there was, we can see, I understand, obviously in terms of them presenting the information, but they did also have requests in terms of what they’re asking for, in terms of information from London Transit. And I personally don’t think that that was out of line.

I think that that’s appropriate. Yes, they are an advisory committee, but they are requesting information. And I’d just like to know, through the chair, to staff, if any of that had been requested in the original motion is out of line, or do you believe that that’s something that could be easily gathered? Thank you.

Ms. Chair. So Madam Chair, I know I don’t believe the information is requested to be provided from London Transit is out of line. We would provide a request after council approval to their committee, to their commission, and they would act on that based on their own by-law parameters.

But I don’t even know that that’s even necessary. I think that can be requested staff to staff. There are a number of things in the content that was provided by our advisory committee that merit further consideration as the plan unfolds, and that data that would be received from London Transit will be helpful for the advisory committees. They continue to weigh in on the transportation, on the mobility master plan.

Councilor McAllister. Thank you and through you. So again, I think the original motion that had been drafted I think is actually more appropriate. The current one, I don’t think I will support because really what they were asking for is that this information to be received, that they get some more information and that this be worked into consideration of the master mobility plan.

From what I’m hearing from staff, that will be done regardless that you take this into account in terms of your working groups with the committees. But I do think it’s appropriate, they’ve taken the time to come to us, present their information and ask for some that we acknowledge that. And that’s why I think the original motion is actually more appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers to this motion? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. This is on the motion.

It was in Mayor Bergen’s motion, seconded by Councillor Cudi. Councillor, do you want to— Wasn’t that an amendment as to what was on the screen? No, this was a separate motion. Okay, so if we went to reinstate what the original motion was, we have to vote this down.

That’s correct. Thank you. Councillor Trasso. Closing the vote, the motion fails two to three.

Thank you, so I’m in the hands of the committee for where to go next, Councillor McAllister. I would like to put the original motion on the floor. Thank you, I’ll look for a seconder. Would you read it again?

It’s gonna be up on the screen for you, but the original motion was that the following actions be taken with respect to the ninth report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee from its meeting held on August 16th, 2023. The attached presentation with respect to the Mobility Master Plan be received by the Civic Works Committee for their consideration and be the London Transit Commission, be requested to provide the following information to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee and then there’s listed provisions associated with that and then C clause 1.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 be approved. Councillor Van Merber, can you have your hand up? Yeah, I’m just curious, Chair, where did this motion come from?

So it was part of the ITCAC, the Integrated Transportation Committee’s report. So it was part of the recommendations that came out of that report with the request for the additional communications that they were, or the information that they were requesting. So it’s a motion to receive and then provide them with the additional information provided. So the clauses were just one second, sorry.

Councillor, can you imagine, did you have a follow-up? No, I’m just a little confused. Usually the advisory committees don’t set the motion. We set the motion.

So the original motion was my motion. This may be an ask, it’s not the original motion. So those were the motions made during the ITC Integrated Transportation Meeting, which are brought to you to this committee and for you to make a final decision on. So yes, these are their asks, but they were motions made during the previous meeting.

And if I could get clarification on part C of what these clauses are? They’re just the remainder of the clauses from the report. So like item 1.1 was disclosures of preliminary interest, but no action was made on those. So you just vote to receive the clauses.

Thank you. Yeah, it’s everything under consent on page 19 of your package, Councillor Trusson. Yes, thank you, that clarifies my question. So if it’s not already on the table, I will move the motion that’s on the screen.

It’s already been moved and seconded. Any additional comments? Thank you. Councillor Van Meerberg.

I’ll be voting against this motion. Yeah, I’ll just leave it at that, thank you. Okay, thank you, and with that, any further speakers? Seeing none, I’ll call the question.

Councillor Trusson, closing the vote. The motion carries three to two. Okay, thank you. That will move on to item number five, which is Deferred Matters and Additional Business.

I will hand the chair over to Vice Chair McCallister that I may ask a question. Recognizing that I have the chair, go ahead, Councillor Rhum. Thank you. I prepared a question for today in relationship to communication that I had received from the community.

Dating back a few months ago, I was contacted by the Guru Nanak Mission Society regarding their concern around the scattering of ashes in our community. They were not aware of any guidelines associated for organizations to pass on to their membership and to pass on to community members around our practice of scattering ashes and waterways. From there, I have had subsequent conversations with staff and was looking for an opportunity to update the community as well as this committee on what those guidelines could be and the communication going forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. If I’m good to go. Let’s use I forgot I was chair.

Please go ahead, Mr. Chair. No worries, I forget, I forget sometimes where I am too. Thank you, Councillor Ralman.

The, I wanted to thank the faith communities who’ve reached out to us with respect to this matter for their patients and us getting back to them with an approach as to how to manage the scattering of ashes in municipal waterways. We originally were under the belief that we were required to pass a by-law and designate specific locations for this activity. We’ve gone through a very comprehensive review with support from our colleagues and legal and it is our best understanding that that is actually not required that this is already a permitted activity in city parks and city waterways as long as it is contained to the scattering of ashes and to organic floral tributes like flower petals and flowers. So what I would recognize is we probably have a gap in that information being provided to communities members either through faith-based groups or just general London residents who might be interested in this as an end of life celebration for their loved ones.

So we certainly can provide some immediate information out to the community confirming that yes, this practice is permitted and then we can do some additional work to provide more information about well accessible locations that can support this safely for folks. Although you can do it anywhere that you choose to, there are probably some areas easier to access along the river and we will integrate this as well into our river management strategies on a go forward basis. So as we’re designing and thinking about how people might access the river for recreational scenic purposes, that there’s also that desire to do this for end of life and religious purposes as well. And we want to make sure that there’s that respectful and safe opportunity for people to do that too.

Thank you, if I may follow up. No, follow up, go ahead. Thank you. Just wondering when community, the community can expect to have a location available that they may be able to do that.

So at this time, Councilor Rahman, they could do this at any location that they can currently access. We are going to make some minor improvements to accessibility for AODA compliance at the Riverside boat launch and we will be doing that work immediately along with some signing and some general tidying of the area into 2024. We’re actually going to do some more substantive improvements to that location and that information can be shared and there can be some engagement for that process. And then as we continue to move forward, we’ll be looking for other locations that can support this animal more formal way to make sure that it is safe and meet successability needs for people who are remembering their loved ones.

I would also suggest that we can get some information out quite quickly just letting people know that this is something that they can do and also letting other users of these very valued spaces in our city know that to be respectful and that people are engaging in an end-of-life celebration for their loved ones, that they should leave them to do that in peace and use that space later when that work is done. More questions? And thank you, Seth. I will return the chair to Councilor Rahman.

Thank you. We have one item for confidential today, item 6.1, Councilor Trossa. Yes, under item five, just to follow up on some discussion that we had at the last meeting about the green bin rollout. And that we’re here now and the students are back.

And we had some discussion about some additional materials that could go out in the near campus neighborhood, which I would assist you with. But could you give me an update on what that is going to entail? Thank you. Before I go to staff, I’m gonna turn the chair back over to Councilor McAllister as I have to go.

If you don’t mind, thank you. I don’t have each other. Okay, and recognize it that I will come over there. Go ahead, Mr.

Senator. Thank you, and through the chair, two items have occurred. First and foremost, all the students that are working with off-campus housing have been have received information directly from student services. There was a door delivery that is either complete or underway.

So all the dates for the interim calendar are in their possession now. There will be an additional interim calendar with the city logo prepared as well. That should be available in about a week to 10 days. And that will be made available as we had for previous discussion for any counselors that wish to be involved in any type of handout in that case.

And we’ll be also contemplating additional deliveries into student areas where the message might not be getting through. Thank you, that’s very helpful. And I assume I don’t have to bring this to this committee table to continue asking questions. I can just work directly through a year office on this.

Through the acting chair, absolutely. For an item like that, we’re also in conversation with Western who will notify us as long with Fanshawe if there are hot pockets where information is not clearly being digested. So we’re here to help not only the committee members here but also the community. Thank you.

Give me for one moment as I log in. Okay, so we are currently on item number six. We’ll be going in camera. So I need a mover and a seconder to go in camera please.

Rosso, can I get a seconder? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Chasso. Yes.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, we’re now back in public session. I’ll ask Councillor Cuddy to report from our closed session. Thank you Vice Chair and through you.

We went into the in camera session at 1245. We made progress on confidential matters and we ended our session at 1250. Thank you and through you. Okay, thank you.

We are now on item seven, which is adjournment. We get a motion to adjourn, Councillor Cuddy. So trust those seconds. Okay, all those in favor of adjournment?

Could I get the hands? Motion to adjourn. We are adjourned, thank you.