October 24, 2023, at 12:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That Items 2.1 to 2.4 and 2.6 to 2.8 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   11th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

2023-10-04 ESACAC REPORT

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 11th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on October 4, 2023:

a)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend or provide a written communication to the November 1, 2023 Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee meeting to provide an update on fishing line receptacles;

b)    the start time of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee BE CHANGED from 3:00 PM to 4:30 PM on the first Wednesday of the month; it being noted that a majority of members selected this time; and,

c)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.2, 5.1 to 5.4 and 6.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   SS-2023-261 Single Source Procurement Operation and Maintenance of Landfill Gas Collection and Flaring System W12A Landfill Site

2023-10-24 - Staff Report (2.2) - SS-2023-261 Single Source - Operation Maintenance of Landfill Gas Collection and Flaring

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated October 24, 2023, related to the Single Source Procurement for the Operation and Maintenance of Landfill Gas Collection and Flaring System for the W12A Landfill Site (SS-2023-261):

a)    approval BE GIVEN to exercise the single source provisions of section 14.4 (d) and (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy for the operation and maintenance of the landfill gas collection and flaring system at the W12A Landfill Site in accordance with the proposal submitted by Comcor Environmental Limited, for a cost greater than $50,000 per year, for a two-year term;

b)    the single source annual estimated price of $150,530 (plus HST) submitted by Comcor Environmental Limited BE ACCEPTED to continue to provide operation and maintenance services of the landfill gas collection and flaring system services at the W12A Landfill Site in accordance with the terms and condition outlined in contract record C17-009 and applicable revisions;

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

d)    approval, hereby given, 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-E07)

Motion Passed

2.3   Kensington Bridge Environmental Study Report - Notice of Completion

2023-10-24 - Staff Report (2.3) - Kensington Bridge EA Study-Notice of Completion - Full

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated October 24, 2023, related to the Kensington Bridge Environmental Study Report Notice of Completion:

a)    the Kensington Bridge Environmental Assessment Study BE ACCEPTED;

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

c)    the Environmental Study Report BE PLACED on the public record for a 30-day review period. (2023-T04)

Motion Passed

2.4   Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law

2023-10-24 - Staff Report (2.4) - Traffic and Parking By-law-AODA

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 24, 2023, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 7, 2023, for the purpose of amending the Traffic and Parking By-law (PS-114). (2023-T08/T02)

Motion Passed

2.6   Planned Rebuild of Incinerator Systems at Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant – Procurement Approvals

2023-10-24 - Staff Report (2.6) - Greenway Incinerator Rebuild Procurements - Full

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated October 24, 2023, related to the Planned Rebuild of Incinerator Systems at Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant and Procurement Approvals:

a)    replacement fluidizing blower and repair of the existing blower BE AWARDED to Gardner Denver Nash LLC for the total price of $273,587.00 USD, estimated at $375,000.00 CDN, (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 12.2 (b) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the supply of expansion joints BE AWARDED to Senior Flexonics Canada for the total price of $615,000.00 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 12.2 (b) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)    the purchase orders issued for emergency repairs to the incinerator and related systems at Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant under Section 14.2 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy at a projected total price of $99,086.00 (excluding HST), BE CONFIRMED;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

2.7   Greenway and Adelaide Wastewater Treatment Plants Climate Change Resiliency Equipment Preselection

2023-10-24 - Staff Report (2.7) - Greenway and Adelaide Equipment Preselection Awards - Full

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated October 24, 2023, related to the Greenway and Adelaide Wastewater Treatment Plans Climate Change Resiliency Equipment Preselection:

a)    the supply of an equalization tank BE AWARDED to Greatario Engineered Storage Systems for the total price of $889,887.00 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 12.2 (b) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the supply of vertical propeller pumps equipment BE AWARDED to Sulzer Pumps (Canada) Inc. for the total price of $1,515,821.37, including contingency (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 12.2 (b) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

2.8   Oxford Wastewater Treatment Plant Membrane Replacement - Consultant Award

2023-10-24 - Staff Report (2.8) - Oxford WWTP Membrane.Equipment.Replacement.Consultant.Award - Full

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated October 24, 2023, related to the Oxford Wastewater Treatment Plant Membrane Replacement Consultant Award:

a)    CIMA Canada Inc. BE APPOINTED Design Consulting Engineers in the amount of $325,000.00, 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 in accordance with 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)

Motion Passed

2.5   Mobility Master Plan 2050 Mode Share Target

2023-10-24 - Staff Report (2.5) - MMP 2050 Mode Share Target-AODA

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated October 24, 2023, related to the Mobility Master Plan 2050 Mode Share Target:

a)    the Mobility Master Plan 2050 Mode Share Target report BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to be aligned with the discussion related to the land use study and intensification;

b)    the Mobility Master Plan project team BE DIRECTED to consult with the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee (ITCAC) with respect to this matter; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to clearly indicate how any options align with the Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP) goals;

it being noted that the delegation and presentation, as appended to the Added Agenda, from R. Buchal, ITCAC, with respect to this matter, were received. (2023-T10)

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

Motion to refer the Mobility Master Plan 2050 Mode Share Target staff report to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by H. McAlister

Motion to amend the referral by adding the following:

b)    the Mobility Master Plan project team BE DIRECTED to consult with the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee with respect to this matter; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to clearly indicate how any options align with the Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP) goals.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by H. McAlister

Motion to approve parts b) and c) of the clause.

Motion Passed (5 to 1)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   London Transit’s 2022 Annual Report

Response to CWC re LTC 2022 Annual Report

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

The London Transit Commission BE REQUESTED to review and refine the grading criteria for the 2023 annual report, with particular focus being given to service delivery standards, and alignment with the City of London’s Strategic Plan, as it relates to public transit, and report back at a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee;

it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Agenda and the Added Agenda, from J. Preston, W. Lau, M. Sheehan, C. Dolphin, L. Worsfold and P. Moore, the delegations from J. Preston, W. Lau and M. Sheehan and the London Transit Commission’s 2022 Annual Report, dated October 11, 2023, with respect to this matter, were received.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

Motion to approve the delegation requests from J. Preston, W. Lau and M. Sheehan, to be heard at this meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   CWC Deferred Matters List

CWC Deferred Matters List - as at October 13 2023

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List, dated October 13, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.2   (ADDED) 11th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

2023-10-18 ITCAC Report

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the 11th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on October 18, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Confidential

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

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

6.1    Personal Matters /Identifiable Individuals

A matter pertaining to identifiable individuals with respect to the 2024 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List – “Environment” Category.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

The Civic Works Committee convened In Closed Session from 1:41 PM to 1:45 PM.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 1:47 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (1 hour, 49 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. I will look to call the 15th meeting of Civic Works Committee to order. First, I’d like to start with the city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabeck, the Haudenosaunee, the Lanapawik, 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. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact cwc@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425.

Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information, meetings can be viewed via live stream or on YouTube and the city’s website. Okay, we’ll start with item one. I’m looking for disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, we’ll move to item two, our consent agenda.

We have a number of items that are here for consent. What I’m looking to do if I do not hear from members of the committee that they’d like anything else pulled, I’m looking to put items 2.1 to 2.4 and 2.6 to 2.8 forward for consent and then we deal with 2.5 in the delegation after these items. Okay, I’ve got Councilor McAllister and Councilor Troso for mover and seconder and any questions on the items 2.1 through 2.4 or 2.6 to 2.8. Okay, seeing no questions, any, I guess I’ll open that for voting then on those items.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, we’ll look to move to item 2.5, which is the Mobility Master Plan 2050 mode share target. We have a delegation from our buckle, from the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee. As you know, as a member of the advisory committee requesting to speak, they have delegation status already.

So we will hear from Mr. Buckle, who is online, I believe. Wait to see him come on camera. Hi, Mr.

Buckle. Okay, so you have five minutes for your presentation on the MMP. Does staff also have anything presentation? Okay, so we’ll provide you with that opportunity first and then we’ll move from there to our discussion.

Please go ahead. Okay, may I share my screen? Just a moment. Okay, thank you, you should be able to, go ahead.

Okay, thank you. Okay, we can see your screen, go ahead and you find it. Okay, thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee on behalf of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee.

We’re speaking specifically about the Master of Mobility Plan mode share target that is being presented to committee today. We had the opportunity to review the target recommendation late last week, but this has not been presented formally to our committee and any of our regular monthly meetings. So here is the feedback that we have about the proposal. We feel that the proposed mode share target is not sufficiently ambitious and we do not support the mode share target that is being recommended.

We also note that public feedback supports the same conclusion in that according to the public, the participants in the public survey 69% of them felt that the target was not ambitious enough. We did have an opportunity to review the July report, proposing the options of the mode share target options. And we felt that none of them were sufficiently ambitious. We provided very detailed input and recommendations to that effect at that time.

We now see that the current recommendation is being put forward. And we see that our recommendations have not been adequately considered. In particular, some of the deficiencies we see are insufficient analysis. There’s limited analysis of current and future travel patterns in the report.

There’s no analysis of feasibility of mode substitution such as substituting cycling instead of driving for short trips. There’s no analysis of London as a 15 minute city and there are insufficient references to best practices and research studies relevant to urban mobility. We also feel that the justification for the targets are quite weak. The option three, which is being recommended is actually very similar to the existing mode share at other cities.

In particular, the mode shares in Ottawa in the year 2011 are very close to the option three targets being proposed. The report includes an unsupported claim that in achieving the target will require increased densification. But this is not supported by any evidence or analysis that we could see. And there’s also seems to be an unsupported assumption that the current mode share cannot easily be changed, again, not supported by any analysis.

And finally, there’s no evidence that option three will meet London’s Climate Emergency Action Plan objectives. So we have several recommendations that we would bring to the committee. We are an advisory committee only, so we don’t have any power to make decisions on these things we can simply advise. What we recommend is that Council should refer this report back to the master mobility plan project team for further study.

Council should direct that the MMP project team establish a range of mode share targets, at least one of which will actually support the achievements of London’s climate emergency objectives. And finally, Council should direct the MMP project team to consult with the ITCAC MMP subcommittee prior to tabling any future MMP reports to the Civic Works Committee. And that concludes my remarks. This presentation contains a number of supplemental slides following the first two with which are part of the public record and contain some further supporting information.

But in the interest of time, I don’t have time to review those slides. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we’ve got in front of us the mobility master plan 2050 mode share target.

Within the report was contained recommendation from staff. In the committee’s hands as to next step, but I’m one next steps, but I’m wondering if Councilor McAllister would be willing to take the chair. Thank you in recognizing that I have the chair. Go ahead.

Thank you. I wanted to first start by thanking staff for taking the time to provide the information in front of us on master mobility plan and the proposed option three for the mode share target. I’m wondering if it’s possible. First, I wanna start with, I’m looking to move a referral and I’m looking to refer this matter to, and perhaps I’m seeking a little bit of direction also from the committee as to whether or not to refer it to SPPC or to refer it to be dealt with after it is dealt with in quarter one, 2024, a PAC.

So I am not sure if maybe the clerk would be able to provide a little bit of commentary on whether or not I’m trying to sequence this so that we get the information or deal with this information on the mode share at the same time when PAC is dealing with the land needs study so that the two are more complimentary and intertwined in terms of the response. Staff, like to respond to that. Madam Chair, we do have our colleagues here from planning and economic development and they may be able to provide some additional information to committee about the integration between this work as well as the lens need study. We don’t believe that approval of the modal share will predispose the outcome.

We are working collaboratively, but I will turn that over to Mr. Adema to follow up. Thank you and through the chair. So we are working on an update to the landing study for that makes up the London plan.

So looking at the, or taking the growth forecast that were approved by council at the end of last year and applying those to the anticipated or forecasted unit types and growth pattern. We are anticipating a report that would come in Q1 of next year, which would address a few matters, including confirming intensification as well as employment conversions as well as some other matters. As Ms. Share said, I don’t believe the outcome of this report would presuppose that analysis.

So as we’re reviewing specifically the intensification target, there’s a number of factors that will be including in that analysis, servicing issues, considering the impacts of policy changes that are result of housing accelerator fund projects that are on the horizon, as well as considering additional land that may become available through potential employment land conversions. And then the recommendation or direction based on this report and the mode share target will also inform that analysis. So my perspective is that having a recommended mode share with an attached level of intensification to go along with that will be an important input into the intensification target analysis. And we are working together, but in my opinion, having a decision on this report and the mode share target will be a valuable input into that next step analysis, which includes the overall intensification target.

Councillor on the follow-up. Thank you. I appreciate that feedback on potential for referral here. My concern is just that to me, there’s too many unknowns right now when it comes to how we’re going to address our intensification targets with some of the impacts from Bill 23, some of the changes with how we’re gonna look at DC studies going forward.

I feel like I also need my fellow Councillors that are on planning environment committee to weigh in on whether or not they also can support this based on the intensification piece. I feel like we’re guiding work from one committee to the next without having collaborative conversations, whereas staff are having those conversations, Councillors are not. And I think when we do that, we potentially put ourselves in at risk of having conversations that aren’t in alignment with each other. So I am looking to move this referral.

I’m just wondering if that, I’ll go to Councillor McCallister because I’m looking for a seconder. Sorry, Councillor Trouser, do you want to second that? Do you have a comment? For to say a little bit more, because while I support the gist of the referral, there’s a few things I want to add to it.

I just can’t get that into the main motion rather than have to keep amending it. So may I speak to that before something’s put on the floor? So you could amend the referral if you want to add more to it, but there is a referral on the floor. Okay, I’d like to make a few points.

I fully understand the need for the referral and I’m gonna support that. But if we’re gonna do the referral, let’s do it right. And I don’t know if this needs to go to the SPPC, but it most certainly does need to go to the PEC. And I think I fully agree with the chair, through the chair, I fully agree with the chair, fully agree with the chair that this needs a little bit more work.

I’d like to point out that planning all the way to 2050, could pose some problems. And I’d like to see as part of the referral that something be built in that it be reviewed every, and I’m not sure whether it’s five or 10 or 15 years or something like that. I just think passing this and saying, okay, here we are until 2050. And one reason for that is they’re gonna be at least two development charges studies before 2050.

And I think we’d be cutting ourselves short if we didn’t take advantage of those additional development charge studies. So I would like to see the referral include the recommendations from the advisory committee, which I think are laid out succinctly on that slide, but also that we write something in there about being able to open it up, being able to like, look, get a report back. I’ll ask staff whether that should be five, 10, 15 years, but I’m not comfortable just letting this go until 2050. So I don’t know if that’s ready to be in the form of a motion, yet, but I think there’s general agreement here that we would like to see some more work.

And I do think that whatever staff comes up with, this is gonna last us till 2050. And we’ve spent a lot of time on this. I wanna do it right. I would rather not get this report back Thursday for a Tuesday meeting.

I’d rather get a little bit more time. And one way to do that would be to send it to the advisory committee, which I think would be a very prudent thing to do. So that’s it for now. Do you want me to try to make a motion or is this just emerging organically?

So it’s okay. I’m happy to hand the chair back. I don’t know if Councilor Ron was finished. That’s why, hold on to the chair.

If you would like to add language to the referral, that would be the opportunity. If you want to add, you just laid it out, but if you wanna be more succinct in terms of exact language you want in a referral. I’m gonna pass it to staff first to see if the language that the Councilor suggested is amenable. Thank you, Mr.

Deputy Chair, thank you, Councilor. So mobility master plans are generally reviewed on a periodic basis between now and the long-term planning horizon. Usually it’s in around the five-year market. Maybe a little bit sooner in that.

Might be closer to seven. It really depends on the rate of growth within the city. I would remind committee that we are approving a modal split. It is one of many factors that relate to intensification.

And intensification conversely is one of many factors that influence our degree of success as we move towards our modal split goals. If there’s a desire to refer this back, I would acknowledge that there will be some schedule impacts that obviously the committee, I’m sure, understands. In terms of the refresh period, I don’t know that we actually need language in the motion. That is the practice that we have in place currently.

If there is to be language to be reflected in the motion, I’d ask that you leave it to be not prescriptive to say a five-year, but periodically over the course of the next two and a half decades. But we will absolutely be reviewing this regularly and that modal split would be updated based on our progress and based on the growth needs of the city at that time. So, sorry, just to add to that, in terms of the comments that the councilor made, would the recommendations from ITAC need to be spelled out or is that also taken into consideration? Councilor McAlister, you saw Councillor Van Meerberg and is waiting to speak as well.

Okay, and Councillor Van Meer, it’s on deck to speak next. If I may, Mr. Deputy Chair, option three that is provided actually does align with the climate emergency objectives over the course of both the climate emergency action plan and the life plan of the mobility master plan. We are happy to go back to the next round of ITAC for additional input.

We did meet with them on a number of occasions related to the MMP, but recognize that this material was not be able to provide it from subcommittee to the advisory committee in advance of civic works. And certainly we have been taking and would continue to take reports forward for their feedback as the MMP progresses. So certainly one and three of those recommendations are fine, two actually is fulfilled at this time as option three does meet those needs. Okay, thank you for that.

And moving to Councillor Van Meerberg, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Acting Chair. Further to Councillor ramen’s wish to refer, I’d be happy to second that. And I believe it needs to go to SPPC because I agree with her thinking that we need our fellow Councillors to weigh in on this.

This is a very important step for the future of London. And the last thing we wanna do is back ourselves into a corner where we’re planning it’s such a far length of time in terms of our mode share. When the simple fact of the matter is the car and personal vehicles are not going away. In fact, the usage is likely to increase on a percentage basis.

And the last thing we wanna do is constrict and constipate our road system even further damaging our local economy. So this has to be thought out and it has to be done in a proper manner. So I fully endorse going to a referral to SPPC and I would suggest we go to the meeting in November. So that would be my second of the motion if Councillor ramen agrees to that.

Councillor ramen, would you like to respond? Thank you, through the chair, may I ask a question just to follow up? Okay, so I heard that there’s concern if we move it to quarter one, 2024, if we align with the land use, land needs study. Madam Chair, there’s not necessarily concern.

There would be schedule impacts if committee and Councillors are okay with that somewhat delaying to Q1. Then we serve at the discretion of Council in terms of when you wish to make a decision on these matters. Thank you, through you, I guess back to you, sorry, back through the chair. I guess what I’m trying to gather is whether or not information will be in front of Planning and Environment Committee in order for them to weigh in on the intensification targets so that we have that alignment that I feel that is needed in order to have this conversation, which as Councillor van Mirbergen has said so eloquently is a considerable consideration for our community as we move forward.

And so I do feel like it is a broader conversation that involves more Council, but I would like to see it happen at the same time when we’re talking about our intensification targets. So I under, okay, so I’m seeing a thumbs up from Councillor van Mirbergen about that. So if I could ask through you whether or not that’s what kind of delays we’re talking about and whether or not there’s a possibility that maybe even that land needs study potentially could be moved up or that conversation around intensification targets so that we can have those two conversations in tandem. Through to staff in terms of the timeline.

Mr. Deputy Chair, so the time delay would be the same impact as whenever we’re able to get to SPPC in coordination with the land needs study. I got a quick nod from my colleague in planning that that can’t not be accelerated. This would put this project on hold to that time.

The impact that probably committee should be aware of is the intent was to make changes to our future budgets as part of likely the 2024 amendment for 2025. We would likely miss that window. That said, we have a lot of projects in the hopper that could still continue to proceed. We would, I would suggest that the motion should then recommend that staff coordinate the response, refer this to a future meeting of SPPC to be aligned with whichever committee cycle it is that we’re able to get for the land use study.

I’m just going to give you a quick check with Mr. Deema. Okay. Okay, did the clerk get the language for that?

If we can incorporate that to the motion or the referral? And the only reason I would ask to leave it that it’s a little bit of flexibility is I don’t believe that our colleagues in planning and economic development have determined which cycle they will be adding Q1, but they will be there in Q1. So we would align to that SPPC meeting. Councillor Charles, we’ll go ahead.

Yes, through the chair, I’m happy with the flexibility. We don’t have to put the dates in. We’re coordinating a couple of different things and I would leave it to staff to best do that. But as I understand how this is developing, we are going to refer this back to the MPPC project team for further study and that it’s going to come back to an SPPC meeting to be determined.

And we should also direct the project team to consult with the ITCAC subcommittee prior to tabling any further reports. It being noted that staff has indicated that the mode share targets will support the achievement of the climate emergency objectives. And I think with that, we’re moving towards a consensus on what we want to do here. I’m just looking to the clerk for that language to come up so we can all look at that, thank you.

Through the chair or through the acting chair, sorry. The motion as I have it at the moment is that the Mobility Master Plan 2050 mode share target report be referred to a future meeting of the SPPC to be aligned with the discussion related to the land use study and intensification. So anything additional I would need repeated, please. I believe Councillor Trosto had some additions.

You had amendments you wanted? Yeah, yes, yes. I just, that the council should also, that something, the project team should consult with the ITCAC MMP subcommittee prior to tabling any future reports. It being noted that staff has indicated that, that second bullet is not necessary because they have already indicated that it will support the achievement of London’s climate emergency objectives.

That doesn’t need to be a separate clause that could just be it being noted that for clarity. I would move that very roughly and I’m sure the clerk can fix that. Councillor Van Mereberg in this. Yes, I know I see his hand.

I go ahead Councillor Van Mereberg in. Okay, thank you, Acting Chair. But so my understanding is there’s a motion on the floor already and now there’s another motion competing with the other motion. The motion on the floor is what the clerk just read and now we’re adding language to it and having it moved again.

And so I would suggest that we deal with the original motion that the clerk read just a couple of minutes ago and then go from there. So it is an amendment to the referral that is on the floor and that is in order. Well, then I would suggest that we vote down the so-called amendment and deal with the original referral. Thank you.

So in the referral, could we have those as part A and part B? Councillor McAllister. So we were just again, conferring with the clerk so it is amenable. Okay, it’s an amendment to the referral, yes.

And just a reminder to not have side bar conversations. Thank you. Go ahead Councillor Van Mereberg in. Thank you, Acting Chair.

So just to clarify, we will vote on this proposed amendment first and then vote on the main motion after. Yes. Okay. Through the Acting Chair, if I may ask a question, the amendment to the referral that we’re voting on, I believe Councillor Trosto is the mover.

Do we have a seconder for that? I’ll second it. Go ahead Councillor Roman. Thank you and through you and on the referral, or sorry, on the amendment, sorry.

So I am comfortable with part B where we’re referring it back to the committee to provide the advisory committee to provide their feedback. However, the second part of the, if being noted, I will not be supporting because I think it presupposes an outcome. It presupposes that we’re going to choose an option where we’re trying to send it back to a committee to make a decision based on the information provided at another committee as well as to SPBC. So I just worry that we’re presupposing an outcome by putting in it being noted that if we choose the staff recommended targeted act, I just feel like it’s redundant anyways because it’s in the report.

So I won’t be supporting me at being noted. Okay, I’d just like to see the language before I make any comments. I haven’t had the chance to make any comments yet, but yeah, okay, one moment. Councillor Trosto, go ahead while I review it.

Yeah, and if that’s the case, the only reason I pulled it out is it being noted and not as a separate recommendation because that’s what I thought I heard the discussion was it could be in as a separate recommendation because I think it’s still an important recommendation, whether it’s in the report or not. So maybe that would be a part C if you’d be more comfortable with that. Okay, so you’d wanna split it and have it being noted that this will support the climate change emergency goals as a part C. Can we have that split out, please?

I believe through the acting chair, I believe I’ve posted the amended wording to have a B and a C. If there’s any wording changes needed, please let me know. Okay, I see it broken out. Any comment in terms of how it’s worded right now with B and C?

I’m gonna take the opportunity to speak from the chair then, then opportunities to be get. But I actually agree with Councillor ramen in terms of, I do feel there’s been redundancy in terms of C. I know it was called out in the ITAC report, but I believe the consultation would address any issues. We’ve heard from staff in terms of it meeting the climate change emergency goals, but in terms of the consultation, those are issues that can be brought up in terms of staff’s recommendation and then the committee’s recommendation.

So I’m happy to second B, but I would not second C. So I would actually look for that to be removed, staff. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chair.

What we might recommend that may provide some clarity to committee. This report is a bit shorter than the one you saw earlier this year because I’ve had a lot more of this comprehensive information that both ITAC and I think the discussion on the horseshoe is perhaps getting at. If you wish, what we could do in lieu of C is staff be directed to note clearly how any options that are recommended support the accomplishment of the climate emergency action plan goals. Okay, I’d be amenable to that.

Yes, that’s better language. If we could have that change. Thank you. And I would support the seconding of that.

Through the chair, if staff could repeat that, that would be wonderful. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chair.

And I will try to say it twice in a way that same. So C could be replaced if this would be to the satisfaction of the mover that staff be directed to clearly indicate how any options align with the accomplishment of the climate emergency action plan goals. New wording has been posted. If I may, Mr.

Deputy Chair, staff be directed to clearly indicate how any versus many options align with the climate emergency action plan goals. And hopefully that will resolve the concern that we’re presupposing an outcome but provide the committee when it goes to SPC with clarity around alignment between any options that are contained in the report as well as the staff recommendation in terms of that alignment with the approved CEAP. Okay, I don’t have anyone currently on the speakers list. Look at any of the visiting counselors that they want to comment.

If not, we can open that for voting. We’re just voting on the B and C of the amendment. Opposing the vote, the motion carries four to one. Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead.

Sorry, through you, Mr. Presiding Officer, I’m gonna ask the clerk to please add, we don’t need to go back and reconsider, but as the acting mayor, I will be voting today at committee. So if the clerk can please add me as a voting member for the committee. On that note, I’m gonna pass the chair back to Councilor Rome.

Thank you, and thank you for taking that part of the meeting and allowing me to present that motion. Sorry. But we have to deal with the amendment and we have to deal with the acting mayor. So we’ll just deal with that one second.

I still got the chair then, sorry. So we’re back on the original referral as amended. If there are any speakers to that, if not, we will open that for voting. Councilor Van Merbergen and then Deputy Mayor Lewis, or acting Mayor Lewis, I should say, go ahead.

Well, since this motion was presented to us A, B and C, can we vote on A now as we did on B and C and then vote on the motion as amended? ‘Cause I’d like to vote on A, I have no problem with just the referral. We can separate those votes if you want to A, B, C. Right, okay, thank you.

Clerk’s ready, we will open up for, oh wait, no, I’m sorry, Deputy Mayor Lewis wanted to speak to that. Sorry, Mr. Presiding Officer, we’re still in debate on the referral. I want to say that I support the referral.

My challenge is with the direction that it go to SPPC. And here’s why, and I’ve seen, and this is not specific to this Council. I saw it in my first term. I saw it before I was elected.

Pretty much anything that we deal with could be considered something that, oh, we need all of Council to weigh in on, so it should go to SPPC. And then we could get rid of our standing committees and just have four SPPC meetings a week. But I, at the same time, think that the land needs assessment and the MMP alignment is important. I think that this would be more appropriate if the MMP was referred as an appendix to PEC with the land needs assessment when that comes forward.

And then once that land needs assessment has come forward, that be referred to this committee as well, as an appendix for consideration on the MMP, so that the two committees are still doing their committee work. I share that as a concern, but I also recognize how complicated that is in this situation. So I’m raising this as a caution because I don’t want us to fall into a pattern of referring everything to SPPC. I think it’s important that the individual standing committees do the standing committee work that falls under their area of responsibility.

So I’m sharing that as a caution, but in this case, I recognize that we’re creating some complicated processes of going back and forth between two standing committees whose reports may then not align perfectly with reports to council. So I’m going to, with some hesitancy, say I will support the referral today, but I do so with that cautionary flag to colleagues that I am not a fan of sending everything to SPPC. All of council does get to debate and vote on every item at council itself, so there is an opportunity for everybody to weigh in. There is an opportunity, whether you’re a voting member as the guest acting mayor or whether you’re a guest counselor, there’s also the opportunity to attend standing committees and speak and work with standing committee members to potentially bring forward referral language that you can’t present yourself, but that you can ask a member of the committee to present for you or amendment language to the same effect.

So I just wanted to raise that ‘cause we’ve jumped through a few complicated procedural hoops here to get a referral on the table, which I support the spirit of. I just don’t love how we got to it, but I will support it because I do think that the alignment of the land needs assessment and the MMP is a valuable consideration. Okay, thank you, appreciate the caution. Any other comments on the referral?

And we will vote on these A, B, and C. I don’t see any others. We will open them in order to A, B, and C. I’ll leave it up to the clerk when she’s ready.

Alternatively, we could do A and then B and C together unless there are objections, we just do two votes. We’re just trying to add the acting mayor, sorry. I apologize for the interruption. Deputy Mayor Lewis, if you can just vote verbally every time I will fix it in post, thank you.

And through the acting chair, are we voting on part A alone right now? If we could just, if we could do A and then B and C, could we just do together as one? Unless there’s any objection, I’ll just have two votes. Through the acting chair, I apologize.

I have part A moved and seconded by Councilor Raman and Councilor Vameer-Burgen. If we are then voting on B and C separately, do I have a separate movement seconder or is Councilor Vameer-Burgen okay being the seconder? If we could do it as we did with the amendment and have B and C, I’m sure Councilor Trasso and then myself, we could just move and second that. That’s fine.

  • Post job part A right now. - Vote A. Closing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. And on B and C, I will also vote yes.

Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to one. Okay, that concludes that item. Now I will hand the chair back on. Thank you so much, Councilor McAllister.

I appreciate that. Okay, we’ll move on to item three, scheduled items. So this is item 3.1, which is not to be heard before 1205. So we succeeded that.

We’ve got Ms. Ruth and Mr. Collier, as well as Ms. Polashny joining us from London Transit Commission.

This is regarding the London Transit 2022 annual report. We are, we have received correspondence from Ms. Ruth about this matter as well, and it’s in your package. But I do wanna give you LTC the opportunity if they’d like to provide some initial comment that is open to you as well to do.

And if so, you can join us right here at this podium. Thank you so much. One moment, sorry. So thank you, yes.

You can use the mic and you’ll have five minutes. There we go, sorry. I’m a little technically challenged, apologies. I’m thank you again for accepting our delegation today.

I am here with my colleague, Mr. Collier, to just give you an overview of why we chose the grading that we did. This grading has been in place for, as long as we’ve been creating business plans for the LTC. This is an overall scorecard of all of our services.

It’s not just specialized, it’s not just conventional, it’s all of the services that we provide. Our grading of satisfactory, I understand, was not something that was well received, but I wanted to explain why we come to that conclusion. 2022 was, again, another year of the pandemic, which forced us to pivot away from our business plan and provide the best service that we possibly could. 365 days of the year, we were on the road, both specialized and conventional.

We had supply issues, we had a tire shortage, we had a filter shortage, we had a transmission fluid shortage where we had to actually hire a chemist to create transmission fluid for us. Vehicles that we had ordered a year ago still have not arrived. At one time, we had 38 buses sitting because we could not service them. However, we did not deter from service.

We were still on the road. We’re aware that there are gaps. We are very clearly aware that there are issues that we are working on. And we are working on, the unfortunate part is with the pandemic and you cannot get enough staff to drive the buses, you cannot get enough staff to clean and maintain and be mechanics.

You cannot do all of the things that you wanna do. You simply cannot. And that is why we have the satisfactory grading that we do. It wasn’t a case that we put it aside and we just didn’t wanna do it.

It wasn’t a case where we started it and thought, eh, it’s just not working. It was simply, we did the best we could with what we had. And that was provide service for the entire year. So I am happy to take questions.

I will do my best to answer them. If not, I can bring up Ms. Palashny. But I hope that helps make it a little more clear.

It wasn’t, trust me when I say the commission is not high-fiving each other because of all the great things we did. We had to put a lot of things on the back burner. We did, and we are anticipating covering those gaps this year. We have some very exciting developments in all of our plans.

And I’m happy to share those with you too as well if you’re interested. But that is my delegation and thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you for being here.

And for first being willing to have this conversation providing that thoughtful input into the discussion as well. We have a number of delegation requests and you’ll also see some additional communication. I have a request for delegation status that I’d like to deal with all of our requests for delegation status first. And then from there we can maybe then have any questions from members of the committee back to LTC or back to staff.

If that makes sense for everyone from flow of conversation. Okay, so I will do more business. So I’ll look for a motion to approve the delegation requests from Mr. Preston, Ms.

Lau, and Ms. Sheehan as appended to the agenda and the added agenda. I’ve got a mover with Councilor Cuddy and seconded by Councilor Callister. And we will open that for voting.

And I will vote yes. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So I understand Mr.

Preston or Dr. Preston is joining us online today. So I will first go to him for his delegation. And I just want to remind all of our delegates tonight today that we’re focused on the grading related to the Transit 2022 Annual Report.

So just to again, help to focus the conversation. I know that this could be a very broad topic, but there is that opportunity to have broader conversations with LTC directly. This motion was again intended for that 2022 Annual Report in that rating of satisfactory. So I will go to Mr.

Preston first and you have five minutes. Thank you. Great, thank you, much appreciated. Ultimately, I think there are so clear issues with the LTC self-evaluation tool.

If satisfactory work is a nebulous plane of progress toward a stated goal in the work plan. But more than that, I question the adequacy of the self-evaluation tool and capture and deliver realities of paracensit users. The volume of emails and phone calls that I’ve received this summer from riders reporting service failures is although not unsurprising given my experience, troubling and to say the least. Many of these people have stated that they have come to me because they’ve reported these challenges in the past, but no one was listening to their concern.

These are people that felt that they had nowhere else to turn, no way to affect change. And that the horrible things that they were experiencing were not being heard at the tables in the commission. When we’ve asked for details or timelines about what the LTC has done or what they’re going to be doing to fix the problem, we often have these answers of, quote, it’s in the plan or we’re working on it or it’s coming. And that might sound optimistic.

And I’m very interested to hear the presentation that’s coming tomorrow, but unfortunately, this has been the same message that we have heard over and over again for years. Our disability plan for last year said that they were undertaking assessments, but I haven’t seen any of those assessments or heard any of the action items that resulted from those assessments. They stated that smart cards would be coming online in 2020, a year after implementing the system on conventional transit contrary to the AODA. We were then told it would come in 2022.

Now we’re being told it’s coming in 2024, meaning almost five years of violation that clearly states in the AODA that payment method parity must be found across transit system. And last month after denying our request for delegation, we were directed to submit questions directly to the manager of the LTC and to date, I have yet to receive a response to any of these questions. The LTC said that last year, what they did their work was satisfactory. But for myself personally, I do not find it satisfactory that people are required to dial hundreds of times to book a ride, sometimes not get it through.

I don’t think that it’s satisfactory that people have to wait sometimes for over an hour for late rides without any contact from the LTC. I’m getting contrary to the AODA transportation standard and users have received reprimand letters for not waiting outside, sometimes on the cold or in the rain, despite this common experience of rides a ride late. I don’t find it satisfactory that service dogs are being denied entry or are not being managed correctly on the buses. I don’t think it’s satisfactory that users are giving up on the service entirely because it cannot consistently get them to work or school on time.

I don’t think it’s satisfactory that documents are being shared in inaccessible formats on the LTC website. I don’t think that it’s satisfactory that a report was submitted claiming to be fully compliant with the AODA when the LTC is clearly not. Given these enormous challenges, how can the commission state that they do not need, quote, significant focus directed at the initiatives under the objective? That’s the definition in their own evaluation tool, significant focus is needed.

But more than that, I wonder, if the commission has revealed themselves to be either unaware or to misunderstand their obligations under the AODA, if in their own self-evaluation of their compliance with the standard, they were wrong, then what level of confidence can we have in this self-evaluation? I think that it’s important for City Hall to then continue to ask questions and to get some answers to some of these very serious questions. Because ultimately, at the end of the day, yes, the pandemic slowed us down. Yes, there were significant challenges.

But the reality is, the things that people have experienced it on paratransit were not new in 2022. They were not new in 2021. These are issues that have existed for years well before the pandemic. And it’s about time that the commission puts a serious focus, significant focus on these initiatives to finally fix successful transit in the city.

Thank you. Thank you. I will look to go to our next delegation. We have a delegation request from Ms.

Lau. Thank you, do you wanna just test the mic before you begin? Can you hear me? Yes, that’s great.

Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you so much. You have five minutes. Go ahead.

Thank you everyone for allowing me this time to speak to the evaluation of LTC. My name’s Wendy Lau and I’m from Leeds Employment Services. Just to let you know, I’m one of the advocates with this group. The fact that we serve over thousands of people that have disabilities looking for work, going to work, and also life stabilization.

I’m speaking today on behalf of the group that are here and also for our clients of our experience. My take is with this self-evaluation, I don’t think it’s a voice of this customer. First of all, I think Jeff had noted that the sampling is not inclusive where our evidence have shown us since June, since February, of all the letters and testimonium coming from the writers, their families, the associations, organizations that work with the population who need parent transit of their lack of services, but the lack of services and accessibility to the parent transit as noted. These letters and testimonials are continuously coming in to us.

So when I look at this, that is the voice of the customers. It’s telling you exactly what they have experienced. The problems we are seeing, as Jeff noted, continue with the booking system. There’s no online, no smart card RSS, customer service where there’s no response.

And when there’s no mechanism to call when buses are 30 minutes plus late, that’s also issues that are in violation of the AODA legislation. The plan to install the smart card started in 2016. There’s nothing to do with the pandemic. We understand and we are reasonable.

The plan now is to look at 2024 pandemic, but are we confident? Historical performance from LTC are not often materialized or actually not materialized in a reasonable time. So what I’m asking LTC is to really focus on immediate support and action to the writers and to the public, where we really depend on healthcare, on the care of life care, because at this point, globally they are very high needs. Thank you.

Thank you. I will look to go to our final delegation, Miss Sheehan, and you have five minutes. Thank you. Do you wanna test the mic, sorry, first before you move?

Test, test, one, two, three, one, two, three. Thank you so much, okay, and you have five minutes. All right, thank you, committee, for allowing me to speak today. I’m going to try and limit my comments to five minutes as much as I can.

I have tried my best to combine my notes. I will not only be referring in my delegation to the satisfactory grade, but also the other grades in the included in the annual report and reasons for why I have grave concerns for those grade scores that the LTC gave themselves. My main concern is the fact that their fiscal responsibility, they rated as good, anybody that’s ridden one in transit over the past four or five years knows that’s the complete opposite. Long before COVID, long before COVID, there were countless, countless decisions made in terms of planning, in terms of routes, in terms of timing, in terms of frequency that were entirely irrelevant, considering they had eliminated routes previously just to invent new routes to make up for that lost area of space, when that time could have been, and that money could have been spent improving the current system that was.

And also, I have a concern about their satisfactory grade on being a affordable and accessible choice. No, it’s not. What they’re consistent since 2020 almost combined 50% increase in fares to the most vulnerable citizens that depend on this service. And zero to 6% increases being applied to the post-secondary institutions that represent a larger majority of revenue and ridership than those that are constantly feeling the burden of the increased fares.

I would like LTC to perhaps consider going forward to actually equally divide the increases to every segment of the ridership population instead of only forcing that burden on one segment. When it comes to, oh, the grading of good on being transparent, being understanding and other things like that, I don’t think it’s a good. Their customer feedback when it comes to the specialized service is bismal and has been bismal for almost a decade. Their timing and frequency, their ability to access bookings has been bismal.

Their feedback opportunity is from the ridership has been bismal at best. And very clearly, our feedback does not equate or knows it considered in their frequency or other planning decisions. When it very well should be considering we are the ones that depend on the service and it’s really embarrassing and disgusting that more of the most vulnerable citizens are recouping the costs that LTC willingly took on during COVID when they chose to not collect fares. That was their choice and they knew full well that it would astronomically destroy the revenue for years to come.

And yet the riders are bearing the burden. The riders are bearing the burden of raised fares because of things that we have mostly are control over. It’s their call, their operations, not ours. And it’s really disgusting that we are constantly the burden of recouping based on their physical decisions.

I would also like to inquire as to how the income related bus pass program is being allowed to be increased when the new amount will be nearly one third of a social assistant recipient’s basic needs amount and what the city staff at their level are willing to do to maybe not push such a burden on their social service recipients and considering Ontario Works is now converting everybody that was getting employment expenses like a bus pass through them over to the income related bus pass program. It’s really concerning that more people are gonna be forced to pay more than they really should for less than reasonable access and transit, thank you. Thank you. So we’ve heard from our three delegations.

We have added communication as well. I will look to the committee to see if there are any questions related to the report of folks here from LTC or for city staff on this item. I have a Councillor Cuddy and I realize also that Councillor McAllister, you did provide a motion ahead of time, but I’ll go to Councillor Cuddy and then to Councillor McAllister. If you prefer Chair Olet, Councillor McAllister put his motion on the floor first.

Councillor, you ready to do that? Go ahead. Thank you and through the chair. And I do want to obviously leave an opportunity for committee members to ask questions, but in terms of offering some direction, I wanted to kind of frame around the future planning that will go into this.

So my motion is to the London Transit Commission be requested to review and refine the grading criteria for the 2023 annual report with particular focus being given to service delivery standards and alignment with the city of London strategic plan as it relates to public transit. And I’ll just take this opportunity to speak to it as I have the floor right now. Just one moment, I’ll look for a seconder. Oh yes.

Councillor Cuddy, thank you. Go ahead. - Thank you. And I do understand that we’re obviously inquiring about the 2022 report.

A lot of the issues that were raised today are not new to any of us. I do believe that those concerns have been heard by the LTC, but moving forward as has been also said today, we do need plan and we do need a focus. And a lot of the issues that I’ve heard really do revolve around our service delivery. And I do want to see in the next report, which comes with us in 2023, a focus on that.

I’m giving the opportunity to the LTC to review and refine the grading material because I do think there are shortfalls that we’ve identified in our review of the 2022 annual report. And so I would like that feedback to be taken on board for the LTC. I know we have two Councillors who sit on the board with us today. I appreciate your attendance at the committee.

But I do think that these are very serious issues that we know have existed for some time, but we really do need to review and refine the grading material. So there’s an accurate reflection of the shortfalls and how LTC will evaluate and plan to address them in the future. Thank you. Councillor Cuddy.

Thank you, Chair and through you. I want to begin by thanking all of our visitors and guests and speakers for coming today. I know it’s not easy for you to get out and come here, speak to Council. And I want to thank you very, very much.

I also want to thank Mr. Preston, who I’ve never met, but I’ve always been a fan of his. He’s so eloquent and he speaks so well and he’s so knowledgeable. And so Mr.

Preston, thank you very much for speaking. I just want to mention briefly, Chair, that during the campaign last year, many of us, in fact, all of us heard of the doors of issues with LTC, the regular service, plus also paratransit issues. In fact, so much so that plenty, my constituents now, ask for rides because they couldn’t depend on reliable service to get to the polls that day. But I understand, listen to the speakers, that this is probably a systemic problem that has lasted for more than a decade.

And I think this is the Council Chair. This is our time and our turn to help fix the problems for everybody in our gallery and all the ridership of LTC. So I really don’t have any questions for, I want to thank, by the way, Ms. Ruth and Mr.

Collier for coming today. We want to work with you, we want to fix the problems, we want to solve it. We would like all of the people in the gallery to come back and say, what a great job LTC has done. And I want to be a part of that.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, over to Acting Mayor. Thank you, Chair. And through you, my first question, and sorry, this is going to feel like engaging a little bit in cross debate, but I’d like to know if Councilor McAllister can clarify, the Transit Commission will be requested to review and refine the grading criteria for the 2023 annual report.

But there’s no direction to bring that review back to either this committee or to the Commission Board or both. And so I’m wondering if there might be a refinement in the direction here as to where this review is going to go. Because I agree with a lot of the sentiment that we heard from some of our guests about longstanding problems, not just COVID problems. And frankly, if we’re aligning something with the City of London strategic plan, it falls, I believe, to Council’s purview to approve that refined grading criteria before it gets put to use.

So that’s my first question to you is, can we get some clarification from the Councilor on the intent of this motion? And is there any language refinement in terms of the reporting structure after the review? Councilor McAllister, while not engaging across debate, would you like to answer that question? Yes, and through the chair, I appreciate the feedback.

I’m very open to refining this. And I agree with the Acting Mayor’s statements. I would be happy to have the language amended to reflect this coming back to both the Board and to CivicWorks once it is ready. Okay, so that’s been updated.

So just to capture the language around reporting back to CWC. To Mayor Lewis? Okay, so just to continue on that, and that looks good to me, I think that captures and dresses the concern I had. Because I will say, I appreciate the spirit of this being let’s move forward.

I still disagree with some of the self-evaluation in the 2022 report, but I’m more interested in how we address this moving forward. And I think that this is a good first step. I will say to our guests from LTC, that I think in this refining of the criteria, there needs to be a more robust feedback opportunity for members of the public, your ridership in particular, to provide their own feedback, not that it should be the exclusive feedback that you use for your grading, but that it should be a component of the grading in terms of the customer satisfaction from your ridership. And I think that this is not the, I will say that this is not the only thing that needs to be reviewed.

And I know that I’ve had some engagement with the commission members and the management as well, over some of the other policies, in particular, the moving of stops. And again, I think there’s a component missing in terms of the public feedback and engagement that can’t just be limited to a, you know, a random sampling survey on a bus or on a web link. I think there has to be a more robust process to that. But that’s a discussion for another day.

I can support this moving forward because I think this is an important step towards addressing these concerns so that they’re not concerns in the future. And that’s what I want to see. Next year, I want a gallery with guests who are saying let in transit really made some improvements this year. I want paratransit users to come to us and say, I am so happy with the online booking system that we should have had a long time ago.

I’m so happy that I can use my smart card now to pay for a paratransit ride, just as I can for regular service. But I also want regular service users to come back and tell us that they’re getting better service than what they have. I will indicate to Ms. through you, Chair, to Ms.

Shehan, that’s going to include some ridership costs. That will include some user fees. And whether that is how the Transit Commission proceeds with its negotiations with Western and Fanshawe, Student Unions, whether that is the funding arrangements with the city and budget asks, and whether that’s through user fees, those all have to be components of that moving forward. So I can support this as a good first step, but I think what we’ve heard loud and clear from both members of Council and the community is that we have a serious problem here that needs to be addressed.

So let’s start today by approving this and taking that first step. Thank you. I’ll look to other members of the committee. And then I also have Councillor Ferreira ready to speak.

Okay, Councillor Trosso. Thank you and through the chair. Could I just get a clarification on where this leaves, where the motion leaves the matter of accepting or not accepting what was referred back to us with respect to the questions that we asked, or is it that we’re just not going to deal with that and we’re going to move forward? Could that just be clarified?

Thank you. Are you looking for me to answer that? Are you looking for the mover to answer that? The mover and second year to answer that.

Okay, Councillor McHylister again, not in cross debate, but just answering the question, thank you. Yeah, the answer guy today. I’m happy to give my intention. So this, obviously this motion is moving forward in terms of the 2023.04.

We would obviously have to vote on this and then there is still the original motion in terms of accepting the report because we do still have to accept the report. For my point of view, the reason why I’ve put forward this motion is I can’t change the past. I would like to see the future improved and what I’m trying to do is offer the LTC the opportunity to review and refine the grading material, which is what we originally had an issue with in 2022. And I think this motion gives them that opportunity.

So we would pass this in terms of the future report, but we would still have to accept the 2022 report. Thank you and Councillor Trussa, just to clarify, into the motion, we could add the motion to receive the 2022 annual report. And if you look at what we included in the referral part one and two, they’re very similar to what we’re now including as a future work. So I think that we’re addressing both the grading component as well as the report back to CWC through that mechanism.

So if the mover and seconder are open to also including receive in that, then that would address all those outstanding components as well. Councillor Trussa. With that motion, and again, this is an honest question. I’m very confused here.

Suppose the Councillor was not willing to, you know, agree with the response that we get. Would this motion be consistent with that view hypothetically? Councillor Callister. I mean, we could have part A and part B.

If you still are unhappy with the answers you get and you wanted to vote against what they resubmitted, you’d be free to do so. I’m just trying to find a path forward because I think that we need to move on. 2022 is over and done with. We’re in 2023 and I want to see things change moving forward.

I don’t think that it’s gonna do us any good to shoot this back. We’ve heard from the LTC if you have any questions. I think this is now your opportunity to ask from 2022, but I’m personally in favor of moving forward. If you’re against what they have sent to us, you could vote against part A.

Councillor Trussa. Through the chair, although we’re simply receiving it, we’re not endorsing it, which means I could vote for the entire motion if the intent is to just, okay, we’ve received this. We’re not resolving it because we’re moving forward. If that’s the intent of the motion, I’m happy to just not separate it and support the whole thing.

Is that a reasonable interpretation? Councillor McAllister? Yes, I mean, the language says be received. There’s no endorsement, it’s just received.

Thank you. Satisfied, Councillor. Thank you. Councillor Cuddy.

Thank you, I think that’s been, thank you. Through you, Chair, I think that’s been answered by Councillor McAllister. And I want to thank him for the motion. And I want to reference what Acting Mayor Lewis said.

Let’s move forward. We can see what’s happening in the rear view mirror. It’s not what we want to see. And again, to reference, Acting Mayor Lewis, next year we want to see this gallery full of people who are complimentary and happy with the service they’re getting.

And so, let’s move forward. Let’s not look at in the back and we want to make progressive moves. Thank you. Thank you.

And I’d like to acknowledge Councillor Ferrer and Councillor Privel who are both here that are from our representatives on LTC. And I know Councillor Ferrer wanted to make some comments. Go ahead. Thank you.

And through you, I guess I’ll start with echoing Councillor Cuddy’s comments. And I would add to that and say when we see the gallery full that everyone who is here using the specialized transit was able to get easy access to that specialized transit to get here. And that would be including everything that I’ve heard from most of the delegates. I feel like I probably spoke to everyone up in the gallery at one point.

And just knowing that calling a ton of times a day trying to get a specialized ride and that, just speaking to that and knowing that you didn’t have to make those calls. So I do want to thank you for coming out and just in your advocacy and bringing this to the table. Now, sitting in the middle of everything, sitting between the community who’s advocating for this and sitting with LTC, I see both sides of the perspective. I do see the shortages in supply chains and the labor shortages and all the pressures that were on the LTC side.

But then I also see individuals who are trying to use these services, making calls and the stress and the effort that you have to put in to get that right. So I’m trying to figure out a way to work with people on the LTC and the commission itself to reduce the pressures that we see for the community side and do it in an actual practical way. So I just wanted to speak to both of those sides. I did hear some questions come out, specifically with, let’s start with the booking part.

I do know that there is some developments on the online booking portal with LTC. So maybe I could look to the commission to the chair here, Ms. Ruth, could you speak to the booking system and where we’re at on that? Thank you, Ms.

Ruth. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. I actually have a few updates that will cover up some of what Dr. Preston has referred to.

The portable readers, the smart card readers for pair of transit will be in place in the first quarter in 2024. The booking system, the current system that we have right now has been sold. And it’s been sold to a company that already has their own booking software, which means they are not going to do any improvements for us, they’ll maintain the system, but they will not make it, they will not add the things that we need. So we are right now assessing our options.

We will be replacing that software. We’re assessing our options that will allow for online booking, real-time arrival via text, equal access for telephone users, and that also aligns with our service targets. So those are two very big components that we know have been missing, but we have timelines now. As for the assessments, we have done assessments.

They’ve been going on for the last several months. We’ve increased resources to become available since August and have been applied to our weekday service from 8 a.m. to 6.30, our Saturday service, 8 a.m. to 2 p.m., and our Sunday service from 8 a.m.

to 6 p.m. We’re seeing a higher demand on Sundays for paratransit. So people are wanting to live and experience our city, so that’s what’s happening. By the end of 2023, we’ll have 1,200 weekday rides, weekday, not weekend, just weekday rides.

That’s a 20% increase over last year. In August, we had an addendum to our vehicle purchases. So we purchased vehicles through Voiggo in 2022, which we are still waiting for. The senior management team of Voiggo came up with a new option of a bus that is really gonna suit our needs better.

We’ve already received two. There’s two more coming that will be on the road, I believe in the next two weeks in the middle of November. These new buses have ramps as opposed to lifts. It’s a safer experience for our operators.

It’s a safer experience for our customers, for sure. And the vehicle itself means you do not need to have specialized licensing for this. So we have a bigger pool of people to choose from to operate these vehicles. These are all really great, really great options.

38 vehicles plus two additional right now on the road. There’s six more coming that we’re expecting. These new vehicles will cover the growth hours that we were not able to do in 2021 and 2022. We have another, I’m sorry, I just took a bunch of those.

We have another onboarding of operators coming in November as well. And that will be the rest of this year. And then we’ll be recruiting again in the new year. I’m happy to send all of the CWC as well as any commissioner or any counselor, the staff reports that outline all of these changes that are coming within the first quarter.

Some of that have already happened now. Right now our ridership has exceeded on paratransit from 2022. We’re already exceeding that number as well as our conventional service. Like I said earlier, it’s not perfect, it’s not.

And we’ve never claimed it to be. We are working diligently, we hear the people, we hear their comments. I certainly can’t answer anything specifically into any one person’s complaint because I don’t have the backstory. But I think it’s really important for everyone who uses transit to know that we do care about our customers.

We do. The voice of the customer, that’s the survey that we use. It’s a third party survey service that reaches a wide swath of people. But pre-pandemic, we also met in the community whenever we were doing new routes, whenever we had new changes coming, there was open sessions at multiple locations in the city.

So there are opportunities or there were pre-pandemic opportunities for people to connect with us. That’s not to say that people cannot connect with us now, they certainly can. And just to respond to Ms. Sheehan’s comment about increases, that 50% is not accurate.

We’ve had one increase in 14 years, our second increase is coming in January. So two fair increases in 18 years is not a lot. It’s really not when compared to other properties. The free fare, due to the pandemic, we had to find a way to get people on transit to still make it safe.

So we had people boarding at the back. We couldn’t collect fares at the back of the bus. But there’s reasons for why we did what we did. And as far as the income-related bus pass, that doesn’t really come under our purview.

That’s a city initiative, a city initiative that I’m very thankful for. But the choice of one department moving that responsibility to another has nothing to do with London Transit. So just to be clear, just so Mel knows that it’s not something that we’ve decided on. I think that that covers off most things, David.

Thank you for that opportunity. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, and through you again, thank you for answering those questions. I know you, I didn’t tell you beforehand I was gonna ask that, but I figured you’d probably have the answer right off the top of your head.

So basically, so yes, I heard some messages also in the delegation that we’ve heard the same message for years, and I know. But for me, for the other Councillor on the board or on the commission, and for commissioners that I’ve spoke to, I believe that we are focused on this and we want to make a significant change. You can see it already, you can already see the movement that we’ve had on it. You can see with our new commissioners that we have coming to the board, I am very excited to have those new commissioners in the next meeting, and we will make some real good pushes to actually mitigate and make some significant change for everybody who’s been asking for the Specialized Transit Service to be able to just meet the demand.

I don’t want to have anybody making calls, a hundred calls, two hundred calls, waiting for hours to get their ride anymore. So I would love to see in a year or a couple of years, or however long it takes to have this gallery full of Specialized Transit riders saying that they were able to get here with ease. So those are the comments that I did want to make. Oh, I should go actually a little bit more.

One more thing, moving the moving forward piece. We are going to be getting a significant budget ask from the LTC coming up. So there is a part of Council’s role that we have to start considering to make some of these changes work. So you need to keep that in the back of your mind as well because it is not just LTC it.

There’s a significant effort on our side too that we are going to have to do. So once those budget talks come, we are going to have to start considering all of these aspects. We’re going to have to be considering the people who need these rides. And I am telling you right now, considering everything that we’ve gone through, especially during the pandemic and the way the LTC has been able to make it through, that is going to come to the table too.

So this is not just the LTC or the commission. It’s not just the riders who are in the gallery. It’s us too. We all are going to have to have a stake and we’re going to have to make some big decisions coming up.

So I guess I’ll leave it there. Thank you. Next I have Councilor Perbal. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I would like to thank for the updates to the chair of the commission. I would also like to add one more that based on her suggestion and recommendation, there is an additional, actually two people but one person at the commission who will be representing the group or everyone who is using the specialized services. So I just want to add to that.

Thank you to the entire committee, all the members, because I totally agree with all of you that instead of us now going back to the drawing board and start inefficiently using our time to 2022, we are looking to the future. I’m really happy about it. I’m really happy with the motion because I love to see the strategic plan in there. The reason for it is because as you all know, we did introduce the additional step which is implementation plan.

And I hope that the LTC is going to look into the implementation plan, combined with the working plan that the LTC has and to really define it to the tactics, plan of actions, deadlines, responsibilities and this. And I believe there’s going to be a much better way to do it than to do it by creating system. As you know, the grading system, it’s very broad, it’s very subjective. And I think that LTC implements the strategic plan very similar or identical to the city hall in terms of the implementation plan.

We’ll be on the right track and we will be able to answer the questions to any users, to any committee, to any councils, because it’s going to be much more accurate and much more specific. So thank you to the committee very much, looking forward to the council and being approved as well. And let’s move forward. And as was said here many times, we know we got to be better and we will be better and we are going to strive towards those high goals that we set for ourselves.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, I believe we’ve heard from all members of the committee as well as our visiting councilors, except for councilor Hillier, but I’m not sure if he has an indicator to like to speak on this matter. So with that, we will look for a motion to, well, we’ve got the motion in front of us, which includes the motion to receive.

So we will open that for if everyone’s ready to vote on that matter. I will vote yes. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you and I just want to take a moment again to say thank you to members of LTC, board members, as well as Ms.

Pleschney for joining us today and for being so open to a conversation. Thank you to those that joined us today in the gallery. I think that we have a path forward and I think it’s very encouraging to hear how things are already moving along at LTC. So thank you for that willingness to share that information.

Okay, we are moving on. Yeah, we dealt with the whole item together. Okay, so we are moving on. We have no items for direction.

We’re moving on to item five, which is our deferred matters list. You’ll see that there are two items on that list. They’re here to be received. You’ll notice that they were, one was from 2017 and one was 2022.

The first item was the garbage and recycling collection and next steps, which was requested in 2017 and is expected for quarter three, 2023. The second item was the updates, the 60% waste diversion action plan, including the green bin program that was November 2020 and is expected for quarter four in 2023. So that’s in front of us to be received. Councilor Chaucer.

Through the chair, could either of these two items be updated? Mr. Stanford, do you want to speak to other of them? Thank you, Chair and through the chair, the two items, they were actually much longer at one time.

These are the remaining parts. Both these items actually will be Q1 2024 and they will actually come together in the same report. These are just sort of remaining items that need to be brought back to this committee’s attention. Thank you.

So these are just the remaining items. Councilor Chaucer. Yes, thank you, through the chair. Could that be made explicit in this item just to adjust the dates?

We don’t really need a motion to do that. Acting Mayor. Thank you, Madam Chair. Happy to start speaking so you can catch your breath there.

Yeah, so typically, I know for colleagues, the deferred matters is a new addition to the agendas. These used to be a regular occurrence on each agenda to keep us up to date with the items that were not yet closed. But it has always been, it hasn’t required a motion on a verbal update from staff. The clerks have simply updated it for the next committee cycle.

So the next report, the clerk should just simply have those new Q1 2024 dates in there for committee’s reference. Okay, thank you. So this is, if there’s no further conversation on this item, this is for a motion received. Thank you for a mover and seconder, Councillor McAllister and Acting Mayor Lewis.

That’s open for voting. No, we will, yes. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, we’re onto item 5.2, which was an added, the 11th reported the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee.

And that included the delegation for the Mobility Master Plan. That is for to be received. Going for a mover and a seconder. Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Trossa.

I’ll open up for voting. No, I will, yes. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Madam Chair, I’m just gonna advise the committee.

I know that the last item on the agenda is a confidential matter. I’m going to be excusing myself a little early for another meeting. I’ll let committee deal with that as it sees fit. But before I go, I wanted to take the opportunity to say to all the members of the committee, happy year one, because today marks one year from election day last year.

So congratulations, everybody. You’ve survived 365 days of being an elected official. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

With that, we’ll move to item six, which is our confidential matter. This is a personnel matter with identifiable individuals, a matter pertaining to identifiable individuals with respect to the 2024 Mayor’s News Honors List Environment category. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for us to move in camera. Councillor Cuddy.

Thank you, seconded by. Open that for voting and then we’ll move in camera. Opposing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. We’ll just need a few minutes.

Thank you, I’ll go to Councillor McAllister to report out. Thank you through the chair. The committee went in closed session for a personal matter, I’m sorry, a matter pertaining to an identifiable individuals with respect to the 2024 Mayor’s New Year Honor List for the environmental category, reporting out the progress was made. Thank you, we are onto item number seven, which is a motion to adjourn.

Councillor Cuddy, Councillor Trozzo, hand vote. Thank you, that is carried. Thank you everyone for a productive meeting.