January 23, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:02 PM; it being noted that Councillors P. Van Meerbergen and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that Councillor S. Franke disclosed a pecuniary interest related to Council In Closed Session, the 2nd Report of Council in Closed Session, and Added Bill No. 44, by indicating that her spouse is employed by the Thames Valley District School Board.

2.   Recognitions

2.1   2024 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List

His Worship the Mayor recognizes the contributions made to London by the following citizens who were named to the 2024 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List in the following categories:  Jennifer Williams (Accessibility); Don Pollock (Age Friendly); Audrey Cooper (Arts); Bill Brady (Distinguished Londoner); Evelyn Chertkow (Distinguished Londoner); Brian Harris (Distinguished Londoner); Sheilah Hogarth (Distinguished Londoner); Youth Coalition Combating Islamophobia (Distinguished Londoner); Rumina Morris (Diversity and Race Relations); Diane Szoller (Environment); Jason Hick (Heritage); Jenna Rose Sands (Humanitarianism); Jamie Walls (Safety and Crime Prevention); Vito Frijia (Sports).

At 1:32 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

At 1:36 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen joins the meeting.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

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

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending lease of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/2/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/2/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.3/2/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.4/2/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.5/2/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.6/2/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.7/2/CSC)

4.8    Security of Property        

A matter pertaining to the security of the property of the municipality or local board, including communications necessary for that purpose.  Disclosing information related to the locations of data centres and key telecommunication interconnection sites to the public could be misused by a bad actor as part of a cyber threat campaign against corporate systems, data, and public services. (6.8/2/CSC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:37 PM to 1:51 PM.

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

5.1   1st Meeting Held on December 19, 2023

2023-12-19 - Council Minutes - Full

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Minutes of the 1st Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on December 19, 2023 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Ontario Ombudsman’s report regarding a complaint about a gathering held by members of the Community and Protective Services Committee of the City of London on March 21, 2023:

a)         the report of the Ontario Ombudsman, dated January 2024, BE RECEIVED;

b)         the Municipal Council BE REMINDED that they shall diligently comply with their obligations under the Municipal Act, 2001 including review of applicable open meeting rules; and

c)         the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide a reminder to all elected officials related to quorum and relevant open meeting provisions within the Municipal Act, 2001.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

At 2:00 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor S. Lewis in the Chair. 

At 2:07 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following communications BE RECEIVED, and BE REFERRED as noted on the Added Agenda:

6.2     Application - Issuance of Proclamation - World Thinking Day

1.     T. Palacio, Provincial Projects Administrative Assistant - Ontario, Girl Guides of Canada, Ontario Council

6.3     Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, Councillor P. Cuddy and Mayor J. Morgan - Municipal Options to Limit or Prevent Renovictions

1.     J. Thompson, Executive Director, Life Spin

6.4     Byron Legion Monument Donation to Springbank Park

1.    Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor A. Hopkins

6.5     150 King Edward Avenue (Z-9670)

1.     Fr. P. Antony, Vicar, St. Mary’s Catholic Church 

2.     R. Jose

6.6    Green Development Standards

1.     R. Bareng 

2.     H. L. Glousher 

3.     S. Soufan 

4.     E. Blokker 

5.     A. Saad 

6.     S. Bhaiyat 

7.     A. Sherazi 

8.     L. King 

9.    (ADDED) P. Kramer 

10.  (ADDED) D. Butler 

11.  (ADDED) S. Luisi, Bumble Bee Gardens 

12.  (ADDED) B. Morrison, M. A. Hodge, Climate Action London

6.7     2598-2624 Woodhull Road (Z-9673) / 1982 Commissioners Road East (Z-9668) / 3810-3814 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9671) / 3637 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9664)

1.     A. Johnson

6.8    (ADDED) Mayor J. Morgan - Deputy Mayor and Budget Chair Positions

1.    (ADDED) B. Brock

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   2nd Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2024-01-15 CSC Report 2

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the 2nd Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 13 (4.1) and item 14 (5.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by H. McAlister

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) Argyle Business Improvement Association 2024 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy (Relates to Bill No. 22)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Argyle Business Improvement Association:

a)    the Argyle Business Improvement Association proposed 2024 budget submission in the amount of $493,000 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A”, as appended to the staff report;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2024 fiscal year for the purposes of the Argyle Business Improvement Association and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $315,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law A.-6873-292 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 15, 2024 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Argyle Business Improvement Association BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area 2024 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy (Relates to Bill No. 23)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area:

a)    the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area proposed 2024 budget submission in the amount of $354,592 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A” of the staff report;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2024 fiscal year for the purposes of the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $70,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law C.P.-1528-486 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 15, 2024 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Hyde Park Business Improvement Association 2024 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy (Relates to Bill No. 24)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association:

a)    the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association proposed 2024 budget submission in the amount of $740,869 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A” as appended to the staff report;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2024 fiscal year for the purposes of the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $599,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law CP-1519-490 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 15, 2024 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024.

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) London Downtown Business Association 2024 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy (Relates to Bill No. 25)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the London Downtown Business Association:

a)    the London Downtown Business Association proposed 2024 budget submission in the amount of $3,010,227 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A”, as appended to the staff report;

 

b)    the amount to be raised by the Corporation of the City of London for the 2024 fiscal year for the purposes of the London Downtown Business Association and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $2,050,227;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law CP-2 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 15, 2024 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the London Downtown Business Association BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) Old East Village Business Improvement Area 2024 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy (Relates to Bill No. 26)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Old East Village Business Improvement Area:

a)    the Old East Village Business Improvement Area proposed 2024 budget submission in the amount of $656,100 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A”, as appended to the staff report;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2024 fiscal year for the purposes of the Old East Village Business Improvement Area and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $42,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law CP-1 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 15, 2024 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Old East Village Business Improvement Area BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.6) Corporate Asset Management System Contract Amendment – Brightly Software Canada Inc. (Relates to Bill No. 27)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Corporate Asset Management (CAM) Software System:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report January 15, 2024 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on January 23, 2024 to:

i)    approve the amending agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Brightly Software Canada Inc. to provide for ongoing license and support fees for the Corporate Asset Management Computer System (the “ Amending Agreement”);

ii)    authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Amending Agreement;

iii)    delegate to the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports the authority to approve future amending agreements to continue the Corporate Asset Management Computer System; and

iv)    authorize the Mayor and the Clerk to execute amending agreements approved by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports;

it being noted that the Amending Agreement will provide for license and support fees for the Corporate Asset Management Computer System at the price of $116,905 + HST for the year 2024 with an increase of 3% annually for the remaining four years (2025, 2026, 2027, & 2028) of the contract in accordance with Schedule “B” – item 6 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.7) Single Source SS-2023-350 City Hall Campus Cooling Tower and Controls Replacement

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the procurement of a replacement cooling tower and controls for City Hall and Centennial Hall (Single Source # SS-2023-350):

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(d) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to engage Enwave Energy (London District Energy) to supply and install a cooling tower and controls compatible with the existing distribution system;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as outlined in the Source of Financing as appended to the staff report dated January 15, 2024 as Appendix “A”; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with the authorization set out in part a).

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (2.8) City Hall Front Entrance Canopy Repairs and Remediation

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the City Manager, the report dated January 15, 2024, “City Hall Front Canopy Repairs and Remediation” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (2.9) Assessment Growth for 2024, Changes in Taxable Phase-in Values, and Shifts in Taxation as a Result of Reassessments

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report dated January 15, 2024,  “Assessment Growth for 2024, Changes in Taxable Phase-in Values, and Shifts in Taxation as a Result of Reassessments” BE RECEIVED for information purposes;

it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated January 11, 2023 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec City Mosque Attack and Action Against Islamophobia

Motion made by H. McAlister

That based on the application dated December 12, 2023 from Muslim Wellness Network, January 29, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec City Mosque Attack and Action Against Islamophobia.

Motion Passed

8.1.12   (4.3) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Black History Month

Motion made by H. McAlister

That based on the application dated December 12, 2023 from WeBridge Community Services, the month of February 2024 BE PROCLAIMED Black History Month.

Motion Passed

8.1.13   (4.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - World Thinking Day

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That based on the application dated December 5, 2023 from Girl Guides of Canada, February 22, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED World Thinking Day.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.14   (5.1) Request for Indemnification for a Judicial Review - Councillor S. Stevenson

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the communication dated January 10, 2024 from Councillor S. Stevenson with respect to Indemnification for a Judicial Review BE RECEIVED and NO FURTHER ACTION BE TAKEN.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

8.2   2nd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2024-01-08 CPSC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 2nd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 1st Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on December 7, 2023:

a)   two Voyager Maxi 3 Panel Folding Tabletop Display Kit with PVC graphics and two carrying bags with green background BE PURCHASED for future bird friendly displays at various London Public Library locations; it being noted that the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee has sufficient funds in its 2023 Budget; and,

b)   clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.3, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Single-Source Procurement SS-2024-001: Employment Services Case Management Software (Relates to Bill No. 29)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 8, 2024, related to the implementation of case management software for London Regional Employment Services, it being noted that in accordance with Section 14.5 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Single Source contract awards greater than $50,000.00 require approval of City Council:

a)    a single source procurement in accordance with section 14.4(e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy BE APPROVED to ESCASES INC. to provide licences for their case management solution at a cost of $293,800.00 for a two-year term;

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

c)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024, to:

i)    approve the Service Agreement for the provision of case management software for service providers within the London Catchment Area (“Service Agreement”) to be entered into between The Corporation of the City of London and ESCASES INC., as appended to the above-noted by-law;

ii)    delegate the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development and the City Manager the authority and power to:

A)    represent the City (City Representative) with respect to the above-noted Service Agreement;

B)    execute the above-noted Agreement on behalf of the City of London;

C)    approve and execute amending agreements and approve additional one-year terms to the above-noted Service Agreement that are consistent with the requirements contained in the Service Agreement and that do not require additional City of London funding; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project. (2024-A03)

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (4.1) Byron Legion Monument Donation to Springbank Park

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 8, 2024, related to the proposed donation of Byron Monument to the City of London for Springbank Park per Sections 4.1a) and 4.2b) of the City of London Donation Policy:

a)    the donation of the Byron Monument and cash contribution of $200,000 for installation and maintenance from the Byron-Springbank Legion Branch 533 (Monument Consortium) BE ACCEPTED IN PRINCIPLE; it being noted that the preliminary estimate of the total cost of the Byron Monument Project is $400,000 to be fundraised by the Monument Consortium.

b)    that the above-noted acceptance BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal Agreement for the work to be done related to the detailed design/fabrication, site placement, construction, ownership/maintenance of this Byron Monument donation at Springbank Park including a written valuation by an independent appraiser or other third-party supporting documentation to substantiate fair market value;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with a formal Agreement related to the above-noted approval; and,

d)    the Byron-Springbank Legion Branch 533 (Monument Consortium) BE THANKED for their generous donation;

it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Agenda and the verbal delegation from Reverend F. Mantz and E. Holder, with respect to this matter, were received. (2023-M12)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (4.2) Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, Councillor P. Cuddy and Mayor J. Morgan - Municipal Options to Limit or Prevent Renovictions

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to Municipal Options to Limit or Prevent Renovictions:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee (CPSC) with recommendations on a spectrum of municipal options to limit or prevent renovictions, including but not limited to amendments to or new municipal by-laws, policies and programs, by the end of Q3 of 2024;

b)    the communications from Mayor Morgan, Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Cuddy and Councillor Trosow, as appended to the Agenda and the Added Agenda BE RECEIVED and BE REFERRED to Civic Administration for consideration with respect to including the potential operational value of N12-N13 filing requirements in the report back; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to include, in the report back, the feasibility and impact of extending the Residential Rental Unit Licence applicability beyond the current unit limit, to include the possible extension to all multi-unit residential dwellings of up to and including 4 storeys in height or less, and including those units contained in sub levels;

it being noted that this does not prevent the CPSC from considering additional motions around property standards compliance matters at a future meeting. (2023-C09)

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Deferred Matters List, as at December 12, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3   2nd Report of the Civic Works Committee

2024-01-09 CWC Report - Full

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 2nd Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 1st Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 1st Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on December 14, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Sole Source Award: Acoustic Fibre Optic Monitoring Contract

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 9, 2024, related to a Sole Source Award for an Acoustic Fibre Optic (AFO) Monitoring Contract:

a)    the contract value for Pure Technologies Ltd. 300, 705-11 Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2R 0E3, BE APPROVED, in accordance with section 14.3 (c) of The Corporation of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, in the total amount of $717,413.41 (excluding HST) for a four year period (2024-2027) to continuously monitor 15.86 km of the City’s most critical watermains;

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

c)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2023-F17)

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) Appointment of Drainage Superintendent By-Law Update Under the Drainage Act (Relates to Bill No. 28)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 9, 2024, related to the Appointment of a Drainage Superintendent pursuant to the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990:

a)    Jessica Trela, C.E.T., BE APPOINTED to be named as the Drainage Superintendent for the City of London to carry out the duties imposed upon Jessica Trela pursuant to the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990;

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024, to appoint a Drainage Superintendent pursuant to the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.17, and to repeal By-law No. A.-8287-224 entitled “A by-law to appoint a Drainage Superintendent pursuant to the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.17;

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

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2023-C12)

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) Municipal Waste and Resource Materials Collection By-law Amendments (Relates to Bill No. 32)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the draft proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report, dated January 9, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024, to amend the Municipal Waste and Resource Collection By-law (WM-12) to establish requirements for implementing a Green Bin Program and related collection program changes, including litter prevention. (2023-E07)

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.5) Contract Amendment: RFP 19-02 Recycling Collection Garbage and Yard Waste Collection

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 9, 2024, related to Contract Amendment RFP19-02 Recycling Collection Garbage and Yard Waste Collection:

a)    approval BE GIVEN to exercise the contract amendment provisions of section 20.3e of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy for RFP 19-02 Recycling Collection Garbage and Yard Waste Collection, for a cost exceeding the threshold limits outlined in section 20.3 (a) and (b);

b)    the proposed amended price to change the frequency of collection of curbside Blue Box Program materials for an additional total annual cost of approximately $650,000 more than the original price submitted by Miller Waste Systems Inc., BE ACCEPTED, it being noted that these additional costs are in the City’s best interest in order to align the terms and conditions of the agreement that the City has with Circular Materials Ontario, the Producer Responsibility Organization that is paying the majority of Blue Box Program costs during the transition period (July 1, 2023 to December 31, 2025);

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

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required to give effect to these recommendations. (2023-F17/E07)

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (3.1) 1st and 2nd Reports of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st and 2nd Reports of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC), from the meetings held on December 6, 2023 and January 3, 2024, respectively:

a) with respect to the 1st Report of the ESACAC:

i) the ESACAC recommendations, as appended to the ESACAC Added Agenda, relating to the Yard and Lot Maintenance By-law BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration; and,

ii) clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 to 3.3, 5.1 and 5.2, BE RECEIVED;

b) with respect to the 2nd Report of the ESACAC:

i) the following actions be taken with respect to the Climate Action Change Sub-Committee recommendations with respect to the Multi-Year Budget Discussion:

A) the , revised, draft Climate Action Sub-Committee recommendations BE FORWARDED to the Municipal Council Budget discussions for consideration; and,

B) it BE NOTED that the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee held a discussion with respect to these matters; and,

ii) clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 3.1 BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the verbal delegation from B. Samuels, Chair, ESACAC, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the Deferred Matters List, as at December 12, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4   3rd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2024-01-16 SPPC Report 3

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 3rd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 4 (2.1) and 8 (4.4).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.2) 2023 Climate Emergency Action Plan Update Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the report regarding the 2023 Climate Emergency Action Plan Update BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.3) 1st Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 1st Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee from its meeting held on December 13, 2023 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (4.1) RBC Place London Board By-law Recommendations

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward to a future meeting of Municipal Council a by-law to incorporate the changes to the London Convention Centre Corporation By-law as requested in the communication dated December 18, 2023 from L. Da Silva, CEO, RBC Place London, provided the changes are permissible under the City of London Act, 1992 and the Municipal Act, 2001.

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (4.2) London & Middlesex Community Housing

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the London and Middlesex Community Housing:

a)       the communications dated December 4, 2023 from P. Chisholm BE RECEIVED;

b)       the resignation of Shellie Chowns from London and Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors BE ACCEPTED; and

c)       the term for Kathleen Savoy, Board of Director Tenant BE EXTENDED from December 31, 2024 to December 31, 2026;

it being noted that the usual manner to solicit applications for appointment for the position to London and Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors has commenced, with applications to be brought forward to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (4.3) 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Draft Base Budget Amendments

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, with respect to the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Draft Base Budget Amendments, the following actions be taken:

a)    on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report dated January 16, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information and the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Draft Base Budget Amendments related to Tourism London (as appended to the staff report dated January 16, 2024 as Appendix “A”) and Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (as appended to the staff report dated January 16, 2024 as Appendix “B” and “C”) BE REFERRED to the Budget Committee deliberations on the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget;

b)    on the recommendation of the Chief of Police and Chair of the London Police Services Board, the Base Budget Adjustment form and revised Business Cases P-28, P-L8, P-57 and P-29 BE REFERRED to the Budget Committee deliberations on the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget; and

c)    on the recommendation of the CEO/General Manager of the Covent Garden Market, the revised Business Case P-66 BE REFERRED to the Budget Committee deliberations on the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated January 15, 2024 from AM Valastro with respect to the Police 2024-2027 multi-year budget.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.1) Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program Public Transit Stream Funding Reallocation

Motion made by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure and the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken regarding recent changes to the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) Public Transit Stream (PTS) as communicated by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO):

a)    the MTO BE REQUESTED to remove Project ICIP-LON-08, Oxford Street / Wharncliffe Road Intersection Improvements from the current program and reallocate the decommitted funding to ICIP-LON-06, the Wellington Gateway project; 

b)    the financial impacts associated with recommendation a) above (as summarized in Appendix “A” as appended to the staff report) BE RECEIVED for information, noting that these impacts are subject to approval of this request by MTO; and

c)    subject to approval by the MTO, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to take all actions necessary to implement the capital budget changes outlined in this report;

it being noted that the Mobility Master Plan (MMP) is considering corridor improvements in the area of Oxford Street and Wharncliffe Road and this funding reallocation will support improved infrastructure project integration.

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

At 3:00 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair. 

At 3:05 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

8.4.8   (4.4) Mayor J. Morgan - Deputy Mayor and Budget Chair Positions

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, with respect to the Deputy Mayor and Budget Chair positions, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake the necessary actions to implement the following:

a)    a pay increase of 12.5% to the annual base Councillor salary for the Deputy Mayor position effective January 2024;

b)    a pay increase of 12.5% to the annual base Councillor salary for the position of Budget Chair effective January 2024; and,

c)    the Governance Working Group BE DIRECTED to review this as part of its larger review of Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy on its Deferred Matters list, and provide any recommendations on further changes to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee in order to allow for implementation in the 2026-2030 term of Council;

it being noted that the communication dated January 8, 2024 from Mayor J. Morgan, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

8.5   2nd Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2024-01-09 PEC Report 2 - Full

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 2nd Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding item 11 (5.2).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) 1st Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 1st Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that a verbal delegation from S. Levin, with respect to these matters, was received.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (3.1) 1544 Dundas Street (Z-9671) (Relates to Bill No. 33)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 15370070 Canada Inc., c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd., relating to the property located at 1544 Dundas Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial (ASA4) Zone TO an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1(_)) Zone;

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

  • Litwinchuk, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

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

  • the recommended amendment would permit a new land use that is considered appropriate within the surrounding context and will facilitate the reuse of the existing commercial building;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (3.2) 2598-2624 Woodhull Road (Z-9673)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, the application by Brock Development Group Inc., (c/o Michelle Doornbosch), relating to the properties located at 2598-2624 Woodhull Road BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

  • the property is too close to a significant woodland; and,

  • the proposed application does not meet the City of London Environmental Management Guidelines;

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

  • a communication dated January 2, 2024, from Koscinski, Executive Director, Thames Talbot Land Trust;

  • a communication dated January 5, 2024, from Gowanlock;

  • a communication from R. Inculet; and,

  • a communication from Inculet;

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

  • Rail;

  • Koscinski, Thames Talbot Land Trust;

  • Inculet;

  • Rau;

  • Gowanlock;

  • Inculet; and,

  • Doornbosch, Brock Development Group Inc.;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (3.3) 1982 Commissioners Road East (Z-9668) (Relates to Bill No. 34)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2804904 Ontario Inc., (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc.), relating to the property located at 1982 Commissioners Road East and part of 1964 Commissioners Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) and Urban Reserve Special Provision (UR4(7)) Zone TO a holding Residential R5 Special Provision (hh-18R5-7(_)) Zone;

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

i)    design the side elevation of the corner units that are facing the driveway and the common amenity space with enhanced detail;

ii)    provide pedestrian connectivity through the proposed development to the public streets;

iii)    connect walkways directly from individual units of the 2 storey townhouses to Constance Avenue and Commissioners Road East, respectively;

iv)    provide enhanced tree planting; and,

v)    review short-term bicycle parking spaces allocated to the site for the townhouses;

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

  •    the project fact sheet from M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning/Design;

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

  •    M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates an infill development on an underutilized site and contributes to the range and mix of housing options within the area;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (3.4) 150 King Edward Avenue (Z-9670)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by (Eparchy of Mississauga), relating to the property located at 150 King Edward Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (NAS3(3)) Zone and Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(80)) Zone TO a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (NAS3()) Zone and Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5()) Zone;

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

  •    a communication dated January 7, 2024, from V. Philip;

 

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

  •    S. Rasanu, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

  •    D. James;

  •    S. Thomas;

  •    J. Devassia;

  •    D. Matthew; and,

  •    L. Jimi;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the adaptive reuse of an existing building within the Built Area Boundary;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (3.5) 3810-3814 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9671)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Towns of Magnolia London Inc., relating to the properties located at 3810-3814 Colonel Talbot Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting, to amend the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), for the City of London by

ADDING a site-specific policy to the Lambeth Neighbourhood to allow a height of 6-storeys for one apartment building;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone TO a Holding Residential Special Provision R6 (h-17.h-67.h-89.R6-5(_)) Zone;

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

i)    provide a minimum ground floor height of 4.5m to give prominence to the base of the building and provide additional opportunities for increased glazing to activate the street and provide passive surveillance;

ii)    provide street-orientation with the principal building entrance for the apartment building facing toward Colonel Talbot Road;

iii)    ensure the width of the garages for the townhouse units does not exceed 50% of the individual unit width, and does not project beyond the front façade of the unit;

iv)    reduce the amount of surface parking at-grade in favour of more underground parking to decrease the amount of impervious surfaces and provide opportunities for additional landscaping and amenity space;

v)    review short-term bicycle parking spaces allocated to the site for the townhouses;

vi)    locate the principal building entrance for the apartment building on the Colonel Talbot Road-facing façade and distinguish this entrance with a high degree of transparent glazing, signage, weather protection (canopies, awnings, etc.) and direct walkway access to the street;

vii)    incorporate a high degree of bird-friendly glazing and architectural detail in the north and south elevations (side elevations) for the apartment building as these facades will be highly visible from Colonel Talbot Road;

viii)    incorporate 5% EV charger spaces for required parking spaces(roughed in or complete Level 1 or 2);

ix)    ensure 50% native plants, and no non-native species planted;

x)    provide enhanced tree planting due to significant healthy mature tree removals; and,

xi)    investigate opportunities for solar installation on apartment buildings;

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

  •    N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including the Lambeth Neighbourhood policies with the exception of height in which the site-specific policy refers to;

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates an infill development on an underutilized site and contributes to the range and mix of housing options within the area;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (3.6) 3055 Dingman Drive/Roxburgh Road and 4313 Wellington Road (OZ-9665) (Relates to Bill No. 30)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Goal Ventures Inc. and Goal Ventures Southwest Inc., c/o KWA Site Development Consulting Inc., relating to the property located at 3055 Dingman Drive/Roxburgh Road and 4313 Wellington Road South:

a)    the revised, attached, proposed by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024, to amend the Official Plan by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Shopping Area Place Type AND AMENDING Map 7 – Special Policy Areas – of The London Plan by adding the subject site to the list of Specific Policy Areas;

b)    the revised, attached, proposed by-law as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 9, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA3/ASA5/ASA6(3)/ASA7(1)

/ASA8(11)) Zone TO an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision/ holding Light Industrial Special Provision (ASA3/ASA5/ASA6(3)/ ASA7(1)/ASA8(11)/h-55h-212LI1(_)) Zone;

c)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issue(s) through the site plan process:

i)    offer safe pedestrian connections within the public realm; and,

ii)    provide a high-quality gateway image along Highway 401 East and Wellington Road South and enhanced landscaping along the gateway corridor shall be required in conformity with the policy framework of The London Plan and Southwest Area Secondary Plan;

iii)    investigate EV charger spaces for required parking spaces (roughed in or complete Level 1 or 2);

iv)    ensure 50% native plants, and no non-native species planted;

v)    provide enhanced tree planting;

vi)    investigate solar installation on industrial buildings; and,

vii)    include bird friendly glazing on any glazing below 5 storeys; and,

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

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

  •    a revised staff report page; and,

  •    a communication dated January 8, 2024, from J. Manocha, 401L Inc., and K. Papatia, 1787996 Ontario Inc.;

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

  •    R. Walker, KWA Site Development Consulting Inc.;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Shopping Area Place Type, Criteria for Special Area Policies, and Key Directions;

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Wellington Road/ Highway 401 Neighbourhood of the

Southwest Area Secondary Plan; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates a broader mix of uses on a serviced site within the urban growth boundary along the 401 Highway corridor;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed

8.5.9   (3.7) 3637 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9664)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by SOFCO Properties, relating to the property located at 3637 Colonel Talbot Road:

a)    the proposed revised, attached, by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a holding Residential R1 (h-17R1-16) Zone and Open Space (OS4) Zone TO a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-14(_)) Zone, a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-149h-121*R5-2(_)) and Open Space (OS4) Zone;

b)    the requested Special Provisions to facilitate the construction of a new detached garage in the front yard in the R1-14 Zone BE APPROVED, including:

i)    permitting accessory buildings in the form of detached garages in the front yard;

ii)    permitting a front yard depth for garages of 4.5 metres whereas 8.0 metres is required; and,

iii)    garage doors shall not face Colonel Talbot Road;

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

i)    planting as many replacement trees as possible on the subject lands; and,

ii)    implementing the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Study; and,

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

it being pointed out that the following individuals made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including the Lambeth Neighbourhood policies; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site within the Urban Growth boundary with an appropriate form of infill development at the rear of an existing detached dwelling lot;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed

8.5.10   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the Deferred Matters List dated December 18, 2023 BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Committee Clerk BE DIRECTED to update the Deferred Matters List to remove any items that have been addressed by the Civic Administration.

Motion Passed

8.5.11   (5.2) Green Development Standards

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Site Plan Control By-law and/or Zoning By-law:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to update by Q3 2024 the Site Plan Control By-law and/or Zoning By-law to include the following requirements:

i)    5% of the required parking spaces for buildings over 40 units be roughed in for EV charging;

ii)    minimum 50% native species for landscaping, with no invasive species planted should be considered during plant selection criteria, and for staff to create a preferred list; and,

iii)    short-term bicycle parking requirement at a rate of 0.1 space / unit for townhouse developments. Where feasible, bicycle parking should be centrally located to serve all units;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include CSA A460 (bird friendly) standard in all city facilities building design standards;

c)    the CSA A460 standard BE USED as a reference by staff in building design and construction;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the legislative framework and municipal best practices to adopt a by-law through section 97.1 of the Municipal Act to implement sustainable building construction features, including but not limited to, energy efficiency, water conservation and green roofs, and report back to Council with options and recommendations, including identifying any required Official Plan, Zoning By-law and Site Plan Control Bylaw amendments; and,

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to Council within Q3 2024 with a short update regarding the scope and timeline of the Green Development Guidelines and Green Parking Lot Guidelines, and the above items;

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

  •    a communication dated January 9, 2024 from Ward 11 Councillor S. Franke and Deputy Mayor and Ward 2 Councillor;

  •    a communication dated January 4, 2024, from B. Morrison and

M.A. Hodge, Climate Action London;

  •    a request for delegation status dated January 7, 2024, from M.A. Hodge, Climate Action London;

  •    a communication dated January 5, 2024, from B. Samuels, Chair, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee and Coordinator, Bird Friendly London;

  •    a communication dated January 6, 2024, from T. and L. Nielsen, E. Power, N. Kuchmij, M.B. Blokker, J. Mazur, T. Bell, S. Miller, R. Kanu and

L. Miller;

  •    a communication from J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders’ Association;

  •    a communication and a request for delegation status dated January 7, 2024, from L. Blumer;

  •    a communication dated January 8, 2024, from L. Derikx, Interim Executive Director, London Environmental Network; and,

  •    a communication dated January 8, 2024, from R. St. Pierre;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard verbal presentations from M.A. Hodge, Climate Action London, L. Blumer and M. Wallace, London Development Institute, with respect to these matters;

it being noted that staff are encouraged to engage industry partners, utility companies and other relevant partners throughout this process.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

At 3:35 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

At 3:36 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen joins the meeting.

9.   Added Reports

9.1   2nd Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by C. Rahman

That clauses 1 and 5 of the 2nd Report of the Council, In Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That clauses 2, 3, and 4 of the 2nd Report of the Council, In Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That clause 6 of the 2nd Report of the Council, In Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

That clauses 1-6 of the 2nd Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

  1.     Lease and Contribution Agreement – City and HL General Partner Inc. – Telecommunications Equipment – 300-320 King Street

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, and the concurrence of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the Lease and Contribution Agreement for the lease of lands for the installation of new City of London telecommunications equipment located at 300-320 King Street, the Lease and Contribution Agreement between the City (the “Tenant”) and HL General Partner Inc. (the “Landlord”) attached as Appendix “A”, for the lease in respect of the Tenant’s right to construct, maintain, and operate of telecommunications infrastructure on a portion of the Lands (the “Building”) located at 300-320 King Street, for a term of approximately Ninety Nine (99) years commencing on the earlier of (i) the 2nd anniversary of the issuance of the building permit for the Building; or (ii) the first of the 4th month following completion of the Building shell, as determined by the professional engineer engaged by the Landlord for construction of the Building and terminating on May 31, 2123 (the “Expiry Date”) BE APPROVED, subject to renewal options.

 

  1.     Partial Property Acquisition – 1453, 1455 and 1457 Oxford Street East – East London Link Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance   Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to a partial acquisition of the properties located at 1453, 1455, 1457 Oxford Street East, further described as Parts 28, 29 and 31, Part of Lots 4 and 5, Plan 703, in the City of London, being part of PIN 08106-0015, PIN 08106-0016 and PIN 08106-0017, containing an area of approximately 879.69, 1373.08, and 1274.38 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the East London Link Project, the following actions be taken:

a)     the offer submitted by Paul-Marc Champagne (the Vendor), to sell the subject properties to the City, for the sum of $310,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

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

    

  1.     Partial Property Acquisition – 1459 Oxford Street East – East London Link Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to a partial acquisition of the property located at 1459 Oxford Street East, further described as Part 27, Lot 68, Plan 19(C), in the City of London, being part of PIN 08106-0022, containing an area of approximately 1,199 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the East London Link Project, the following actions be taken:

a)     the offer submitted by Red Maple Properties Inc. (the Vendor), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $106,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

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

  1.  Settlement Agreement – 847 Highbury Avenue North – East London Link Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 847 Highbury Avenue North, further described as Part Lot 9, Concession 1, in the City of London, being part of PIN 08290-0220, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the East London Link Project, the following actions be taken:

a)     the Agreement as to Compensation and Possession from 847 Highbury Inc. to settle the outstanding expropriation compensation to the property owner, for the total sum of $250,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

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

  1.  Partial Property Acquisition – 2154 Richmond Street – Sunningdale Road Improvements Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Transportation and Mobility, and Division Manager, Transportation Planning and Design, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the partial acquisition of a portion of property from 2154 Richmond Street, further described as Part of Lot 16, Concession 6 (Geographic Township of London) in the City of London, County of Middlesex, Designated as Part 2,3,4 and 5, Reference Plan 33R-21696, being Part of PIN 08145-0152, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Sunningdale Road Improvements Project, the following actions be taken:

a)     the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, attached as Appendix “C”, submitted by Drewlo Holdings (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $504,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement, including a Temporary Easement Agreement, for a term of one year, for the sum of $50,000.00, with the option to extend the term up to two times, each for a period of one year, for an additional total sum of $50,000.00; and

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

  1.      Property Acquisition – 2835 Westminster Drive – Westminster Central Public School – London Police Service Operations

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, along with a resolution of the London Police Service Board, and on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the surplus school property owned by the Thames Valley District School Board, located at 2835 Westminster Drive, legally described as Part Lot 15, Concession 5, as in 224251, subject to 124380 , 224251, in the City of London, formerly the geographic Township of Westminster, County of Middlesex, being all of PIN 08203-0010 (LT) (the “Property” ), as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, the following actions be taken:

a)     the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, attached as Appendix “C”, submitted by Thames Valley District School Board (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $2,300,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement;

b)     the Amending Agreement, attached as Appendix “D” BE ACCEPTED; and

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

That progress was made with respect to items 4.7 and 4.8, as noted on the public agenda (6.7/2/CSC) and (6.8/2/CSC).

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.19 to Bill No. 38 and Added Bill No.’s 39 and 43, excluding Bill No. 31, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Second Reading of Bill No. 19 to Bill No. 38 and Added Bill No.’s 39 and 43, excluding Bill No. 31, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 19 to Bill No. 38 and Added Bill No.’s 39 and 43, excluding Bill No. 31, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.31 and Added Bill No’s. 40 to Bill No. 42, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Second Reading of Bill No.31 and Added Bill No.’s 40 to Bill No. 42, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.31 and Added Bill No.’s 40 to Bill No. 42, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 44, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 44, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 44, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 3:36 PM.

Appendix: New Bills

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 (2 hours, 49 minutes)

Thank you, please be seated. Well, welcome to the second meeting of City Council for the 2024 year. I know one of those I think was in 2023, so don’t get confused. We actually start our council meetings in December.

And I’d like to start with a land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Leni Peiwok, and Adewan drone peoples. We honor respect the history languages and cultures of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area.

The two Row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Silver Covenant chain, the Beaver Hunting Grounds of the Haudenosaunee Nanfant Treaty of 1701, and the Key Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796. You hear on track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabak and the Dish With One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak and Haudenosaunee. The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewaas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie della Ware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and county. City of London is also committed to making every effort to providing alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request.

To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact Council Agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. It’s now my pleasure to introduce our performer for the National Anthem. Born in London, Ontario, cellist Mariana Grigg made her solo debut at age 16 with the London Community Orchestra. She was then selected as a member of the prestigious National Youth Orchestra of Canada.

Mariana has appeared as a principal cellist with the London Youth Symphony, the Western Symphony Orchestra, the London Community Orchestra, and many more. Well with NYOC, she performed in many venues across Canada and internationally. Mariana recently performed at the Queen’s Ball of Bridgerton Experience in Toronto. Mariana graduated with an undergraduate degree in Music Performance from Western University.

She completed a master’s degree at McGill University’s Schulich School of Music. This season, she can be heard at the Grand Theatre and London’s Candlelight concerts. Mariana and the Vintra – sorry, string or quartet – will also take the stage during the UNESCO City of Music meetings taking place at the end of February that will bring cities of music from around the world to London. Please join me in welcoming Mariana who will now perform the National Anthem for us and please rise for that.

I’ll now look to colleagues for disclosures of pecuniary interest for this meeting. Seeing none, today is a pretty special day from a recognition standpoint. We get to recognize the 2024 Mayors New Year’s Honors List. So if you’ll give me a moment, I’ll make my way to the podium for today’s presentation.

Okay, thank you. And for those of us, I’ll just let you know we had a nice reception with both the award recipients today as well as members of their families. And I just wanted to start before I get into this. We’ll have many an opportunity over the next little bit to recognize and thank the many people who’ve made many wonderful contributions to our city.

But there are many people in the audience today who enable them and support them and allow them to do the amazing things that they get to do. So as you’re here to celebrate, people on the floor will make sure we kind of look in the right direction for photos and everything, I just wanted to say thank you to each of you for supporting amazing people in our city and allowing them to do the things that they’re doing. You’ll hear some amazing accomplishments today, but I recognize as someone who serves in public office that I can only do so and many people can only do the things that they are passionate about when they have the support of loved ones, families, and friends. So thank you for everything you’ve done.

As we celebrate some of your loved ones today, I just wanted to share my thoughts on that with you. The Mayor’s New Year’s Honors List is an annual recognition of persons who’ve contributed in an outstanding manner to the community of London in one of the following categories. Accessibility, age-friendly, arts, distinguished Londoner, diversity and race relations, environment, heritage, housing, humanitarianism, safety and crime prevention, and sports. And it’s now my honor to introduce the 2024 Mayor’s New Year’s Honors List recipients and share just a little bit about each of them with all of you.

And as I introduce you, you can kind of make your way out while I’m giving a little bit of a description. So when you’re hearing it, your name, feel free to come out just to the center here. And yeah, that’s logistics is very important. So you can come out when I say your name and I’ll do the description.

So under the category of accessibility, Jennifer Williams, Jennifer, sure, they’re clapping for you already and I haven’t even said the amazing things you’ve done. Jennifer Williams, who is the director of volunteers for the London Air Show, tries to make an environment that is inclusive to persons of all abilities. Jennifer always finds ways to make everyone feel included. Some volunteers and wheelchairs who feel valued and appreciated in the help that they are able to provide due to Jennifer’s wonderful leadership.

Jennifer always makes sure the volunteers have everything they need to be involved and she is always very accommodating to all the volunteers and will even move volunteers to a more accessible and safe area for their own enjoyment and ability. She also includes individuals from many different diverse communities who are all free from discrimination, disability, sex, race, age. For these reasons, many more, Jennifer Williams is named to the 2024 Mayor’s New Year’s Honors List in the category of accessibility. As you know, as I’m the one who screws everything up and makes it not smooth, Jennifer did amazing.

Age-friendly, Don Pollock, come forward, Don. Don has volunteered the past several years with the local London carp branch in the capacity as president. This active London chapter provides a wide variety of informative educational speakers for each chapter meeting and provides valuable takeaway information for many seniors living in the London area. With Don’s dedication and contributions to the organization, there has been an increase in attendance with every monthly meeting.

His assistance is key in putting together the popular meeting agendas and speakers. We should hire you for council. That is, efforts as president for the local London carp branch and more, Don is named the 2024 Mayor’s New Year’s Honors List in the category of age-friendly. The category of the arts, Audrey Cooper.

After growing up in Toronto, where she started her own family in the 1950s and 60s, Audrey faced retirement and moved from Toronto to London to be closer to family. Health-wise, she was also dealing with another challenge, depression. In true Audrey fashion, after seeking conventional mental health treatments, she plotted her own therapy. At age 76 of age, Audrey picked up a paintbrush and started to paint.

She started to enjoy sales of her newfound talents and was enjoying the camaraderie of the kind spirits in her new home when one day, looking at an empty space in London’s downtown Talbot Centre, she decided it was the perfect venue to showcase the works of the city’s talented creative community. Its purpose was clear to me, she says, and so a dream was born. Dozens and dozens of local artists’ work has adorned the gallery’s walls over the past ten years and countless other creatives have been inspired by her talents as an artist, encouraged by her endeavors and contributions to the London arts scene or simply come under the spell of the Audrey story. For all of these reasons and many more, Audrey Cooper is named to the 2024 Mayor’s New Year’s Honors List in the category of the arts.

In the distinguished Londoner category, we’ll start with Bill Brady. Why not Bill? He is a print and radio journalist, manager and executive who’s been involved with various local and national organizations. He is regarded as a pioneer of the television call-in show in Canada.

Bill’s daily radio program was on the air in Southwestern Ontario region for more than 20 years. A radio personality and general manager for CFPL Radio in London. Brady was also the President of the Operations for the Black Burn Radio Company and Senior Vice President at the Black Burn, Parent Black Burn Group Company. Brady has served as President of the Central Canadian Broadcasters Association and in 1996 he was inducted into the Canadian Broadcast Hall of Fame.

For all of these reasons and many more, and you’ve served on many, many other boards and many capacities since then, Bill Brady, you are named to the distinguished Londoner for the 2024 Mayor’s New Year’s Honors List. Next up, welcome to Brian Harris. Brian Harris is a member of the Royal Canadian Legion Victory Branch in London and has been since 2006. In 2007, Brian joined the Executive as a Sergeant of Arms Public Relations Chair and Operations Chair.

In 2009, he was elected President and served a two-year term. He has held almost every position on the Victory Executive through 2022. During those years, he held multiple positions as zone and district levels at the Legion, including Commander. In 2019, he was elected Vice President Ontario Command and served one three-year term.

Also in 2019, he was appointed Provincial Poppy Chair, a position he continues to hold. In 2017, he began an initiative to permanently house homeless veterans in London, a position he continues to chair today. In 2011, he began to support two youth groups, number nine Royal Canadian Army Cadets and the London Legion Track and Field Alliance. Both positions he continues today.

Over his nearly two decades of service to the Royal Canadian Legion and our veterans in multiple capacities and his encouragement and development of youth activities, Brian Harris is named a distinguished Londoner for the 2024 Mayors New Year’s Honors list. Evelyn. Evelyn Schurkow. Evelyn Schurkow has been a longtime volunteer tour guide with Museum London.

She began her volunteer role in 1970. She has contributed to the education of thousands of students in the region regarding the arts and art history in London. She continues to tour the museum where for 53 years, she has generously shared her knowledge and experience with students of all ages. She has shared her experience and passion for the arts to inspire youth to think critically about art and to find wonder within it.

Evelyn has also supported artists in their work contributing to a thriving art community in London and has enjoyed all of residency has to offer here. She has also given back with generous donations of artwork to the museum to complement the many pieces within a collection she has used to educate and inspire countless youth in London. For these reasons and more, Evelyn is named a distinguished Londoner for the 2024 Mayors New Year’s Honors list. Next we’ll invite Sheila Hogarth to come out.

Sheila is a Northwest London resident who has been actively collecting litter throughout the city for the last 12 years. Surgery to help her epilepsy allowed her to be more independent and motorized wheelchairs have allowed her to be mobile. She has been giving back to the community and encouraging others to do so as do their part as well. Her contributions not only beautify the city but also help protect wildlife, plant life, waterways, soil and ecosystems from toxic and dangerous chemicals and materials that they shouldn’t be introduced to.

For her contributions to the London community and her time giving back and for those who live in Northwest London, I see you all the time out picking up litter and helping the community each and every day. I swear you’re out there more than anybody else in the entire Northwest. And I think Councilor on would say the same. For all those amazing efforts that you’ve done Sheila, you’re named as a distinguished Londoner for the 2024 Mayors New Year’s Honors list.

Next we’ll have representatives from the youth coalition combating Islamophobia and the distinguished Londoner category. Youth coalition combating Islamophobia is a passionate collective of Muslim youth and their adult mentors dedicated to raising awareness, advocating for change and combating Islamophobia. Through workshops, events and educational resources, YCCI strives to empower individuals and communities to stand against prejudice and discrimination. For all of their efforts and contributions in bringing people positive change, YCCI is named the 2024 Mayors New Year’s Honors list in the category of distinguished Londoner.

I just want to add, although the group is represented by number, oh come on out, come on out. The group is represented by a number of individuals today. It is a large group and not everybody was able to come. So we have a little bit of certificates for everybody and I’ll present those all to you, but we’ll do one group photo perhaps first.

Next I’ll welcome out Romina Morris. Probably fun to get to stand here and not have to answer questions from a council. Romina Morris became the City of London’s first director of anti-racism and anti-oppression in 2021 and was responsible for building and staffing this newly formed division. In the aftermath of the attack on Ireland and family, Romina was instrumental in the design and implementation of the city’s plan to disrupt and dismantle Islamophobia.

This effort won accolades and aberration across Canada and was hailed as a model for other cities to follow. Through Romina’s leadership, the ARIO division provides guidance, tools and supports and training for employees to take proactive steps in addressing systemic racism and oppression within the workplace and within the community. In addition to targeting racism and oppression directed towards black people, indigenous people, Asian people and all people of colour, division focuses on ableism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and other equity seeking groups as necessary. Following all, for all these reasons and many more, Romina Morris is named to the 2024 Mayors New Year’s Honors list in the category of diversity and race relations.

Diane has been involved in many community volunteers’ activity locally to support environmental action. She organized many public workshops, i.e. renewables, conservation, energy efficiency, composting and recycling. Diane also developed a community-wide energy plan response campaign for London through neighbourhood forums, roundtables, local election surveys and more, resulting in municipal plan support.

She participated in the city’s urban agricultural strategy committee as ACE REP. She was a member of the city’s community engagement task force tasked with municipal engagement policy, city’s cycling advisory committee input into cycling master plan and various other development projects. London middle sex road safety strategy team tasked with the implementation to reduce traffic accidents and for all of these contributions and many more over the past years and your dedication for bettering the environment. Diane, you are named to the 2024 Mayors New Year’s Honors list in the category of environment.

Thank you. In the heritage category, Jason Hicke. Jason Hicke is the communications coordinator for the architectural conservancy Ontario London region branch. He has changed the profile of heritage issues in the locality through reaching out to the community in a very effective and informative way.

Through social media, Jason has engaged with a larger group of interested people. He keeps everyone involved with local, provincial and even countrywide heritage issues and events. His technical knowledge has been invaluable. Jason has also contributed significantly to the Heritage House sign initiative which has done so much to illuminate our neighbourhoods and highlighted the heritage awareness and profile across the city.

For this and many other reasons, Jason Hicke is named to the 2024 Mayors New Year’s Honors list in the category of heritage. In humanitarianism category, Jenna Rose Sands. Jenna Rose Sands is a Cree Anishinaabe artist and writer in London. She has created the atrocities against Indigenous Canadians for dummies, a zine which explores hard to read about and surely harder to write about topics such as the residential school system, missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and the 60s scoop.

She has also created a website of resources to support her writings. More recently, she is the Executive Director of Safe Space. She has been a fierce advocate for London’s health and homelessness whole of community system response, has advocated for unhoused Londoners who are being harassed and targeted on the streets and has secured additional funding from the city for greater supports like increased access to beds and showers for London’s rising unhoused population. For these reasons and many more, Jenna Rose Sands is named to the 2024 Mayors New Year’s Honors list in the category of humanitarianism.

Jamie Walz in the category of safety and crime prevention. Jamie has been a member of the London Search and Rescue team since 2005. Jamie has been a searcher for the team and is on call 24/7/365. He has taken on a role as an instructor on the team and has taught numerous classes for new recruits.

Jamie is a team lead who oversees and searches while operational. Jamie took additional training to further his knowledge in search and rescue, advanced search and rescue and search manager training. Jamie served on the senior leadership team as Deputy Commander of the Elsar team up until October 2020. In October 2020, he was elected Commander of the team.

His main task was to oversee the transition of the Elsar team from a division under St. John Ambulance to their own independent organization. When Elsar left St. John Ambulance, Jamie led the team through the transition to be a not-for-profit organization and eventually a registered charity.

Under his guidance as Commander of Elsar between 2020 and 2023, the team increased in size from 16 members to 108 members. The team enhanced their digital capabilities under his direction. The fundraising capabilities of the team helped expand their equipment. His foresight into the technological and digital needs of the team will assist Elsar for years to come.

For these reasons and many more, Jamie Walls is named to the 2024 Mayors New Year’s Honors List in the category of safety and crime prevention. Congratulations. And the sports category, Vito Frigette, and he’s not able to join us today, but his family members are here. Vito joined the national — this is the category of sports I should mention.

Vito joined the National Basketball League of Canada in 2011 when seven teams began to play. The London Lightning were born and as a result brought professional basketball to London. As owner of the team, he brought six championships to London in 11 years and allowed many Londoners to enjoy and cheer on a hometown team. Regardless of London basketball fans attended, along with thousands of elementary school-age children because Vito would give thousands of free tickets to the schools to give children the opportunity to see this sport.

Vito is not only generous with school children, but he also donates his gym facilities to organizations that need a place to practice or hold an event. The Boys and Girls Club of Canada, the YMCA, and Kids Sport London have all taken advantage of Vito’s generosity and willingness to help community and encourage kids to play sports as well. Vito has also contributed financially to London’s athletes’ performance on the world stage. Vito has generously donated to expensive costs of training Olympians.

Because of his love of sports, because of his leadership abilities and his willingness to help children develop and play sports, Vito is named to the 2024 Mayor’s New Year’s Honors List in the category of sports. Congratulations. Let me just conclude by once again thanking everybody who contributed to the nominations process this year. I know each and every year, we reach out to seek worthy Londoners, worthy of distinction.

We rely on those who long to forward names to members of council, those who work on our community advisory committees, and many others who ensure that we get phenomenal contributions in our community recognized here before council. I know that there are many, many, many other people in this city doing amazing things, and we can think about today as an example of recognizing just a few individuals who are contributing to our community in such a significant way. Again, thank you to all of the family members and loved ones who support everything they do, and we look forward if you want to stay for the rest of the council meeting, you’re welcome to, but we know that maybe you have some plans with those you came here to support and really appreciate your time today, and thank you for all that you do for our city as well. Okay, everyone.

That concludes recognitions. Item three is review of confidential matters to be considered in public. We have none, which means we’re on to council and closed session, for which we have eight items listed on the agenda. I’ll look for a motion to move into closed session, moved by Councillor Cutty, seconded by Councillor ramen.

We will open that for voting momentarily. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. We’ll be moving to committee room five for closed session. So everybody else, you don’t have to leave because we’re moving, welcome to stay, but we’ll be in closed session for a little bit.

Thank you, please be seated. Okay, that concludes the in-camera portion of our meeting, but I’ll go to Councillor Frank for a declaration. Thank you, yes. I declare a conflict of interest in closed session on items 4.6 and 4.7.

Thank you. We’re now on to communications and petitions. There are eight, if you include the added agenda, sorry, confirmation and signing of the minutes of previous meetings, the first meeting, which was held December 19th, 2023. Look for a mover of those minutes, Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Cutty.

Any discussion on the minutes? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open those for voting. Now we’re on to communications and petitions and there are eight, if you include the added agenda. 6.1, we have to deal with separately and at this time.

The other ones, after we’re done with 6.1, we can refer to the various components of the agenda. So 6.1 is the ombudsman report, an investigation into a complaint about a gathering held by members of the community and protective services committee. The report is attached to the agenda and by legislation, we’re required to take an action with respect to this report. So I’m prepared to bring a motion before council related to this report, but to do so, I’ll turn the chair over to the Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Your Worship. I will take the chair and I will recognize Mayor Morgan. So in response to the report, I’m willing to put the following motion on the floor and then I’ll provide some commentary on it. The following actions be taken with respect to the Ontario ombudsman report regarding a complaint and a gathering held by members of the community and protective services committee of the city of London on March 21, 2023.

A, the report of the Ontario ombudsman dated January 24, be received. B, the Municipal Council be reminded that they shall diligently comply with their obligations under the Municipal Act, 2001, including a review of applicable open meeting rules. And C, city clerk be directed to provide a reminder to all elected officials related to quorum and the relevant open meeting provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001. So that’s been moved by Mayor Morgan.

Do we have a seconder for that? Seconded by Council Palosa. Mayor Morgan, go ahead with your general motion. So I will let you know, colleagues, I am a little bit frustrated by the recommendations that the ombudsman has made because I find them vague.

And I also find them difficult to action. And in some sense, even alluding to that the onus is on city staff to ensure that we ourselves as individuals follow all the appropriate rules. So given the the vagueness of the recommendations, I brought forward a number of actions that I feel we could take, which really does just remind Councillors of the onus, the individual onus that each of us have to comply with the obligations of the various acts and provide the opportunities for a reminder about both the quorum and open meeting provisions. Given the the vagueness of the recommendations, I’m unsure that there’s anything additional that we could actually contemplate proceeding with at this time.

And again, I find myself relatively frustrated with the fact that a comprehensive report is written and the recommendations really don’t say much. And in some cases, almost allude to putting the onus on city staff for members of this council to follow the rules. So I know members of council have commented the media. I think they’ve taken their own individual actions.

I think that those are appropriate steps to take. And I think that this this motion fulfills our obligation to dispense with the item under the legislation, given the recommendations that were made. It’s very difficult to respond in any other way, given the vagueness of the recommendations. So I have this on the floor.

Any other speakers? Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer, as chair of the Community Services Committee when this offense took place, I had also reached out after this report for the final public one to the ombudsman office, realizing that I too was frustrated that I believe a lot of this was already covered in our council training and our clerks have been diligent in providing their services to help track attendance at events and meetings should we have any concerns.

I’d also raised the concerns with them that the report said quorum a committee but didn’t name any names in it, thereby potentially implying that it could have been all members of committee, which members of committee, so just for the public records. This report does not pertain to the mayor, the chair, or the vice chair of this committee. I realize that there’s not much actionable items in this. I questioned the ombudsman office and they said if we wrote them, they really went right back anyways, if we were asking for anything else in the report, and they said we’re always welcome to find integrity commissioners as of going forward if we wanted, but they don’t name names in open reports, they don’t amend reports, and that the obligations of municipality.

So this would dispose of it and meet their criteria as we do need to take some action with it tonight and this would satisfy that. Thank you. Councillor Palosa. Councillor Ferrera.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I also contacted the ombudsman as well, and I had a conversation, frank conversation with the ombudsman or the writer of the report, I should say. With respect to the generalness of the word committee in the title and within the first couple of paragraphs, because as Councillor Palosa’s already spoke to, didn’t get as detailed and specific as I’d like it to have been, I pointed out to the ombudsman, it was only until line 11 in the report that they spoke to three members of the committee rather than the committee as a whole, and I was just pointing out, and I understand, you know, with respect to not having names on the report, but I did want the ombudsman to know that it wasn’t as detailed as it could have been, and any kind of reader going through the report, you know, the general reader might not make it all the way to line 11, and they might take the whole committee was in breach of the open meeting rule.

So I do, I did also mention to the ombudsman that I followed the three recommendations, but I still felt a little captured within the language, but I do appreciate the mayor bringing this to us, and I do know that moving forward, you know, we will not be doing that, so I’d like to look forward, I’d like to work together and just, you know, be respectful of the open meeting rules and, and core. Thank you, Councillor Ferriara, any other speakers to this item? Councillor Trussow. Just a very brief question, could someone from civic administration just confirm that this work is not built to the city, we don’t have any financial liability for the report or the investigation, that’s my understanding, is that correct?

And I will direct that to our city clerk. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. There is no fee or charge to back to the Corporation of the City of London for the ombudsman’s work.

Thank you for that, Mr. Sothis. Any other speakers to this motion? Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I would say that I accept this report, it was done professionally and there were lessons learned. Thank you. Councillor Stevenson.

Are there any other speakers to this item? Seeing none, then I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote on this. Close in the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0.

Thank you, and I will return the chair to Mayor Morgan. Yeah, thank you. That’s expenses with 6.1, 6.2 through 6.8. There can be a general motion to refer those items to the various components of the agenda.

Councillor Palosa, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any discussion on referring all of those to the relevant points of the agenda? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 15 to 0. Okay, there are no motions to which notice was given. We’re on to reports. The first report is 8.1, the second report of the Corporate Services Committee.

I will turn it over to Chair McAllister to present that particular report. Thank you, and through your worship, happy to present the second report of the Corporate Services Committee. I have had a request to have item 14 pulled. The earlier items all dealt with the BIA budgets.

I just want to thank the BIA for coming for presenting their budgets and being available to answer any questions. The other items dealt with City Hall in terms of property maintenance that needs to be done, and I have had no other requests in terms of pulling. But I will make a note that it was, just scrolling down, item 13, which was the application for the issuance of the proclamation of World Thinking Day. The clerk did reach out to ensure that there was a local connection and provided me wording in terms of what to put forward.

The based on the application did it dated December 5, 2023, from Girl Guides Canada. February 22, 2024, BIA proclaimed World Thinking Day as it does have a local connection, and that was provided. So, Councillor, if you’re saying that the communication might change the committee’s position on this, then I would suggest pulling 13, because the committee direction would require us to make a slightly different direction, because it was referred to this meeting. So, we’ll pull it, and then you can make an alternate motion, because it was referred here to deal with.

So, so far, that means 13 and 14 dealt with separately. Does anybody want any of the other pieces of the corporate services agenda dealt with separately, aside from the last two items? Okay. Seeing none, then you can move a motion for the remainder.

Okay. I’d like to report a motion for items 1 through 12. Okay. Let’s move by the chair.

Any discussion on items 1 through 12? No. Okay. Seeing none, we can open that for voting.

Close in the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. Okay. I’ll go back to you.

Chair, you should present the committee’s item 13, 4.1. And if you have a member of the committee who would like to provide the alternate direction, I would suggest, since you’re presenting the referral piece, that a member of the committee could stand up and make an alternate direction as it’s been referred here. So, I’ll let you present item 13, and you’ll have that on the floor, but we need a direction since it was referred here. So, perhaps you can look to a member of your committee to either dispense with this in one way or another by either denying it or approving it.

Okay. Thank you. I will put item 13 on the floor. This was the application of the issuance of proclamation for World Thinking Day, which was provided by Girl Guides Canada.

In what was presented to the committee, they didn’t have a London connection. So we asked the clerk to reach out in terms of getting that local connection. We have since received that, and yeah, we’ll look to another committee member to provide direction on that. Or any member of council can.

Councillor Raman. Thank you. I’ll move a motion to approve it. Sorry, I forgot.

Yes. Thank you. Move a motion to approve it. Thanks.

Okay. And I’ll look for a seconder because that’s a different. Councillor Caddy. Okay.

We’ve been seconded to approve this proclamation now. Any discussion on that? Okay. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Opposed on the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. Okay. Back to you, Chair.

Thank you. Item 14, I will note that unfortunately, Councillor Caddy was not present. So the vote on this was a 3-1 vote. I did have a request to have this pulled.

So yeah, I’ll put that on the floor. The committee recommendation was to accept but take no action. Okay. So that’s on the floor by the committee chair.

I’ll look for a discussion by colleagues. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I will not be supporting this motion to take no action.

When the complaints came in, I relied on our complaint protocol. When it was not followed, I relied on council. At council, it was suggested that I pursue procedural fairness in another forum. So here I am.

Councillors are entitled to procedural fairness and the reasonable expectation that our code of conduct will be followed in a way that provides protection and accountability to both the public and to the Councillor whose conduct is in question. Therefore, I am seeking indemnification for a judicial review per our indemnification policy. My intention would be to retain John Mascarin of Eric Burles. He is an established municipal lawyer who also serves as an integrity commissioner for 50 municipalities across Ontario.

His reputation is rock solid and the fact that he would take up this case should speak volumes. A committee it was recommended that I first pursue a review by the ombudsman before seeking judicial review. Joining that is the proper timing or because a judicial review would be more expensive. First, the professional advice I have received is that judicial reviews have a time limit of 30 days after the initial action with very few exceptions.

Therefore, a judicial review would need to commence almost immediately. There has been precedent set that clearly establishes judicial review as the most appropriate next step. So while it may be the opinion of some Councillors that the ombudsman is more appropriate, it is not the opinion of the professional advice I have sought. Second, the city manager made very clear at committee that the integrity commissioner is contracted directly by council.

So the integrity commissioner is not a typical contractor with the City of London who we can rely on staff to manage and oversee. It is our direct duty as Councillors to consider their rulings but also hold them accountable if and when they make a mistake. I have provided every single necessary piece of advice to this council that demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that the integrity commissioner did not follow the city council’s code of conduct complaint protocol. The precedent has been very clearly established that council alone sets its code of conduct and complaint protocol.

The integrity commissioner does not get to invent protocol as they see fit. Third, I stated at committee that the estimated total cost to taxpayers of the judicial review could be approximately 20,000. That is a very loose estimate that does not just include the cost of a lawyer or my lawyer but the entire judicial review process. Please do not misunderstand that 20,000 is the amount I am seeking to pay a lawyer that is the estimated cost of the entire proceeding aside from the costs already incurred by taxpayers for the integrity commissioner’s investigation.

All of this could have been avoided had it been dealt with at council. Obviously not the cost of the investigation. Hold on. Go ahead.

Point of order. Respectfully, it was dealt with a council just the Councillor doesn’t like the outcome of it. So I’m challenging the wording used that it was dealt with the council. Yes, I concur the integrity commissioner’s report was dealt with and dispensed by council as per our obligations and so it’s just a wording piece that you’re using.

If you could just retract that piece and then continue on. Well, I’d like to clarify. The part that wasn’t dealt with at council was the protocol not being followed. So it was the issue of procedural fairness, not the report that wasn’t dealt with but the issue of procedural fairness twice was referred to as to what the avenues were to pursue that rather than it be done at council.

Okay. Appreciate the clarification. Continue on it with your remarks. The integrity commissioner is a direct contractor of this council.

So we cannot turn a blind eye to the cost incurred of their investigations and all of a sudden care about costs when a Councillor chooses to defend themselves when a clear error is made. When it comes to the investigation of social media posts by the integrity commissioner, if we’re going to pay for the investigation, then we must also commit to supporting indemnification for a Councillor to defend themselves, especially when an error as clear as this is made. The travesty to taxpayers here is not this potential cost of indemnification, but rather the cost of the integrity commissioner’s investigation that clearly did not follow our proper protocol. Council voted nine to six to accept the integrity commissioner’s recommendation to reprimand me, but of the nine who voted to reprimand me at least two stated that they agreed that there were potential flaws in the process and that I should and could seek appropriate recourse.

So here I am. My final ask is this. If you were one of the six Councillors who voted not to reprimand me or if you were one of the nine members who voted to reprimand me, but acknowledged the potential flaws in this process, then please allow me the procedure to seek procedural fairness through a judicial review and make my case to an appropriate body. Okay.

Thank you, Councillor. So the motion before us is the committee’s recommendation. The council was speaking against that to seek an alternative direction, but the committee’s recommendation would have to be defeated before that could happen. So I’ll look to other speakers on the committee’s recommendation.

Okay. And then we’ll open the committee’s recommendation for voting. It was in the vote motion carries 12 to three. Councillor McAllister.

I think that concludes your report. Yes, that concludes the second report of the corporate services committee. Thank you. On to the second report of the community protective services committee item 8.2, turn it to Chair Palosa.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’ve been given no advance notice to pull anything for people to run separate. It was all unanimous votes a committee. Okay.

Councilor Palosa is willing to put the whole thing on the floor. Does anybody want anything dealt with separately at this particular committee? Okay. Thank you.

So this was the second report of the community protective services committee. I’ll put all items 1 through 6 on the floor, recognizing that we had a delegation for the Byron Legion Monument donation to Spring Bank Park. This was to move forward in principle with a report coming back as we move forward. And the delegation, we welcomed Mr.

Mance and former Mayor Holder with us. And we also had guests in the gallery, the gallery is almost full for item 4.2. This was municipal options to limit or prevent renovations and some of those same guests are with us again this evening, realizing if we move forward with this, a staff report will come back in the future doing a missable scan of other jurisdictions and what could be potentially options for enforcement. Okay.

Any speakers on the entire or any items in the committee’s report, I’ll go to Councillor Cutty first and then Deputy Mayor Lewis next. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ve been through you a few weeks ago, a parishioner at St. Peter’s Cathedral who I volunteer with said to me, you know, Peter, I watch you on council, but you never smile and you’ve got such a nice smile.

And the last week she added insult to this and she said, and you sometimes look angry. So I said, you’re in the rain, watch this Tuesday because I will be smiling. Your worship, a lot of many times we do things around this horseshoe that doesn’t have a quantifiable or a doesn’t have a quantifiable effect immediately. But what we’re doing today does and we will see it immediately.

And I thank those in the gallery for coming today. No, please don’t. But I want to say your worship that I am so grateful and I’m going to name off a few people. If you don’t mind, I’ll be brief.

I’m grateful to my colleague to my right, Deputy Mayor Lewis, who has been with me from the very beginning on this early November when we started this process. And I went to his office one day and I said, I’m frustrated, I don’t know what to do. He suggested that I speak to Mr. Kritolik, who is the second person I want to thank.

And if Mr. Kritolik, if you’re listening today, thank you for the fine work you did. And I remember calling him and I said, I’m really not sure to do this. And he said, Councilor Cuddy, leave it with me.

I know what you need and I know what you want and I’ll get this done. Your worship, you’re the third person I’d like to thank on this. Thank you very much. You came to me at a council meeting.

It said, can I add my name to this? I said, absolutely. Thank you. I do appreciate your efforts.

I want to thank the Budget Chief, Councilor Palosa, for unanimously bringing this to getting unanimous support for this. Thank you so much, Councilor Palosa. And last, I would like to thank Assistant Minister of Housing, Rob Flack, for the work he did. I remember going to the Deputy Mayor saying, can we contact Minister Rob Flack about this?

He said, absolutely. Let him know what we’re doing. Minister Flack and Minister Paul Calendra worked with us on this and I am deeply grateful to the work that our minister has performed on. So Deputy Assistant Minister Flack, thank you so much for the work you’ve done with this.

Your worship, this is, if we don’t have anything this year that is monumental, this is it. This will make changes. And I am so grateful that we have, as a council, we’re going to come together and we’re going to make this happen. And in closing, I’ll say that Hamilton has done the same and other cities will follow us.

This is not a perfect motion, it won’t be perfect legislation, but it’s pretty close. So thank you, sir. And thank you to Council for supporting this. Okay, I have a speaker’s list.

I have Deputy Mayor Lewis and then Councilor Trostam. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m actually going to start with some brief comments on item 4, which is the Byron Legion Monument donation. And I want to take the opportunity as well to thank Councilor Van Mirbergen and Councilor Hopkins.

And Councilor Hopkins, in particular, has spent a lot of time with me on this one to move this forward. I know we saw his honourable former worshipfulness in the media last week talking about this as well with members of the Legion. And this has been a long, long time coming. This has been in the works since before Councilor Hopkins joined Council, as I believe so.

And I know the Councilor is in her third term, so that tells you we’ve been working on this for a while. Excited to have some of the same folks who were involved in helping with the Holy Roller Restoration stick their hand up and say, “Hey, maybe we can help with this too.” That’s great news because that project was just finished. So looking forward to that, noticing that, but we do have to approve that today so that they can start their fundraising efforts to get that monument to our veterans moving for Spring Bank Park. And then, eventually, from a public safety perspective, this will be good as well because it will allow the road closures that happen on Remembrance Day to shift that ceremony into the park instead of on our public roadways.

And that will be a benefit from a public safety perspective in the long run. I’ve used one minute on that, so I’m going to jump right into the next item, which is the right evictions motions. I’m going to say I’m going to be perhaps a little less enthusiastic than Councillor Cutty. Only in that, I think we’ve got a lot of work to do still.

But I do genuinely believe if we focus on what’s before us today, this calendar year, we can see some changes in place. And earlier today, Councillor Trussau said hello to me in the hallway and asked how my morning was going. And I had just hung up the phone with a constituent reporting yet another N12, a false N12, and the problems that are being experienced now by the neighbourhood in a home that used to be a single-family home that’s become a converted, multi-residential dwelling. And they’re reporting no fire egress windows and all kinds of other issues with that property.

So the timing of that call was really appropriate given the motion that’s before us today. There are a number of things different municipalities around the province are doing. Very few of them, including the one in Hamilton, have been tried and tested yet. Even the one that’s being proposed in Hamilton has not yet come into force and effect.

It’s actually subject to what they do in their multi-year budget as well. And I guarantee you, Councillor Cuddy, there will be something else monumental we’re doing this year. It’ll be that multi-year budget. That Budget Chief Ploza has been working so diligently on for the last, well, 365 days or so.

So I just want to say, and I know that Councillor Cuddy thanked a number of people. I would echo those thanks. But I also want to take a moment to single out Councillor Trussa on Councillor Ferreira. There was a lot of differences of opinion on what exactly should be in this motion.

But we came together, we worked throughout the weekend, I know Councillor Cuddy referenced last week about me being able to call him at 7 o’clock on a Saturday night to talk about things that were before committee. And this is exactly what he was referring to. I had to call and say, listen, Councillor Ferre, and I’ve been talking, how do you feel if we change this in the motion to get it a little bit better so that more folks can support it? That’s the kind of work behind the scenes that often members of the public will never see.

They don’t know what’s happened. They don’t know how many hours have gone into it. But starting from very different perspectives on where we should get to on this. There was a lot of work.

There was a lot of give and take and a lot of saying, okay, we can all live with this as it is today. Let’s get moving on this because we don’t want to delay to make it perfect. We want to get something moving today that is going to have hopefully some results this year. And once that’s done, we can always go back and look at some other pieces later.

But let’s get the thing we all agree on moving. And so that’s where we are today. So I do hope that this will be supported unanimously. And I want to, before I wrap up, just also acknowledge that folks in the industry, folks who are landlords, folks who are in the building and development industry have approached me as well.

And they have said, you know, we are also going to be working on this. But we are going to be focusing a lot of our advocacy efforts on the province to enact some of the changes that are proposed in bill 93, which really addresses some of the shortcomings in the landlord tenant tribunal and the residential tendencies act changes that need to be addressed. So I want to thank, I know Mr. Wallace is here from LDI today.

He’s one of, but not the only member of the other side of the equation. The landlord side who have said, yeah, there’s got to be some changes here. And we think that there’s some things to do with the province. You acknowledge that in your letter.

We’re going to work on that. You guys work on this and let’s be all partners to make sure that we have a better tenancy protection regime in London and in Ontario than we do today. So hopefully we can support this unanimously and get working on the changes to our by a lot of come forward. Exactly.

Five minutes. So well timed. Councilor Trossa, you’re next. Yes.

Thank you very much for acknowledging the work that Councilor Freire and I did on this. That cuts some of my time down considerably. I did want to thank you again for doing that. I do want to acknowledge as Councilor Cuddy already has done, no clapping, that we’ve got visitors in the audience.

So I think we’re very instrumental in bringing some of these problems that we face in our city and around the province around the country to our attention. And while I think that what we’ve done in terms of being able to come forward with a unanimous recommendation from our committee, which I hope will unanimously pass today, by no means should we let our guard down. We have to continue being diligent as we progress, there will be additional and 12s. I think the fact that we’ve already said that we’re looking at this carefully is going to have a good effect in terms of making people think twice before they abuse the system.

And I do want to acknowledge the many, many landlords, some of which I’ve had the opportunity to speak with in the last week, who operate very legitimate outfits and do not engage in this type of activity. And I think the challenge in drafting legislation is finding the sweet spot where we’re really disincentivizing bad behavior while not creating additional burdens for complying members of the industry. And I’m very optimistic that we can do that. Finally, I want to thank the city of Hamilton and certainly the acorn activists and others in the city of Hamilton who have brought forward, and I know it still needs to be proved and it still needs to go through some hoops, but this has been getting national attention.

It’s been getting national attention in the press. And I think it’s going to again already have a very beneficial effect. I am not going to make an amendment to forward on the Hamilton information to our staff because in fact our very diligent staff has already acknowledged that this is there. In fact, I received a note I think other Councillors have as well.

So I’m very pleased that this is moving forward. I happen to think that the Hamilton Bible does a really good job, sort of on the one hand creating pretty close to comprehensive tenant protections that we’re looking for while at the same time being very careful about not treading into exclusive provincial jurisdiction. That’s going to be the challenge here. So I’m looking forward to what happens with Hamilton.

And thank you again for everybody coming together to support this. Thanks, Councillor, I have Councillor Hopkins next followed by Councillor Ferrera. Yes, if I may, I would like to make some comments to the Byron Spring Bank monument. And first of all, through your worship to the chair, I want to thank the committee for their unanimous support of this monument.

I think there’s lots of things going on. And I do really appreciate the Deputy Mayor’s comments on the work in the years and years of work that has gone into this, and it’s come from this working group that the Deputy Mayor sits on. So my thanks to the members of the working group led by Padre Frank Mance and of course the former Mayor Holder. But also I think given the amount of years and work, I want to thank City staff to Parks and Rec in particular for their continuous work on this monument and seeing this through it.

When you think of all the hours that both the community and the city has spent, and to have it come forward, I know we still have an agreement to get signed and lots of fundraising that the community will be doing. But just, I’ve seen it in action, and I really, really want to thank everyone that has been involved in having this monument come to us today. Thank you. Councillor Ferra.

Thank you, Your Worship, and through you. I’m going to comment on the motion that was brought by you and Councillor Cudi and Lewis with the work that as the Deputy Mayor has described with other members of council, I do want to point out again, I’m not going to take too much time. But I thought this was just a great example for me, how we can come together and collaborate again. We have to echo that, you see all the spokes coming together to that hub, and we’re all supporting the whole load together.

I thought that was just a great example, and it’s something that would facilitate hopefully our way into the budget time with more difficult talks that are going to be coming. But I do want to point that out. I also want to point out thanks to everybody in the gallery who’s actually been giving us good information, I really appreciate that, and for everybody in my ward who’s contacted me with this matter and discussing this, this is, there is still a lot of work to be done as the Deputy Mayor has said. But when that work is complete, we will, I personally, the people in my ward, a lot of people will have more protections, and that is a great thing, that is a great thing from this council, so this is a very big step for me.

I also need to point out, when I was at the Webster Street Apartments for the first assembly, and the things that I saw, Councillor Cuddy, I could see in your face the anxiety, I could see how that affected you, and it was that moment when I knew that you were really on board here. So I really want to point you out, just point that out, because I’m really grateful of how you’re on board, and I really hope that we all do get that unanimous vote, because that would definitely signal out to the city what our stance is, what our position is, and what we are trying to do. So I’ll leave it for there. Thank you.

Any other speakers to this? I’ll just say I was distracted there, because in an odd series of events, Mr. Flack was calling me during that debate, so I’ll call him after the meeting, maybe it’s money. It can always help before the budget.

So any other speakers on this, and this is the whole committee report, we’ll open the entire committee report then for voting. Blue’s under vote, motion carries 15 to 0. Thank you, that concludes the report, and if you ever felt it was a call offering money, I’m happy to call a brief recess. That’s not a bad idea, given where we are in the agenda.

If colleagues, we still have a number of reports to go. If people would like to take a break now, we could, or we could push through for a little longer. Okay, let’s do another committee report, and then we’ll check in at that point. So thank you, Councillor Ploza, we’ll go to Councillor Hopkins for the Civic Works Committee report.

Yes, Your Worship. I’d like to put the second report of the Civic Works Committee on the floor. I have not been contacted by anyone to have something pulled. So I will be putting the report on the floor.

Can anybody like anything pulled from the Civic Works Committee report that was separately, knowing that you can still comment if you like? Okay, looks like you can move the whole thing. If I can make just a few comments about the meeting, Your Worship, and we received the first report from the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee. We received that.

We went out with a sole source award for our acoustic fiber optic monitoring contract to retain technologies for a four-year period. We appointed a new drainage supervisor. We had someone temporary, and Jessica Trila is now a drainage supervisor. We also had to change some bylaws given the many changes that are going on with municipal waste and resource material collections.

And just want to also make a comment about the contract amendment that we supported for the recycling collection, garbage, and yard waste. Obviously, we’re doing many, many changes. Um, increases, this is the blue box. Hopefully, we’ll be getting that through the producer responsibility process that will be going forward.

We did receive the two reports from the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Group. We received a delegation from the chair as well, Brandon Samuels, who spoke on yard and maintenance bylaw, which we have forwarded on to Civic Works. And with that, I know I just want to make a further comment. We did have a discussion at committee around the introduction of last week’s Greenbun and the changes in garbage calendar, many things to staff for the work that they continue to do implementing this program.

And with that, that is my report. Okay. Thank you. Other comments on the Civic Works report?

Councillor Troz. I’ll go ahead. Just to follow up on that last piece, I really want to acknowledge the outstanding work that the staff has done on the implementation of the Greenbun. And I know from reading the list, in my word, particularly my neighborhood in Old North, that there were a couple of issues.

And I’m just very busy referring people to service-lundered, because I think that that’s just rather than get hung up on the phones and maybe being frustrated, I think using service-lundered is just exactly what this type of issue calls for. There are a few, I would say relatively minor issues that have happened. And all in all, from what I can tell it, it’s a successful rollout. And again, this has been many years in the coming.

So congratulations to everyone involved, particularly Mr. Chase Stanford, who’s not here, but he certainly gets a lot of the credit. Because I know he will take individual calls from residents who have day-to-day issues. And he does so cheerfully, and he does so in a way that makes people feel that they’re being listened to by the city, and I appreciate that so much.

So again, thank you very much. And civic works can now go on to other things. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you.

That’s all the speakers I have on the Civic Works report. So seeing no others, I’m going to open that for voting. The vote in the motion carries 15 to 0. >> The next report is the third report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting.

I’ll turn it to Deputy Mayor Lewis to present that report. Thank you, Your Worship, unless anyone wants anything dealt with separately, I’m prepared to put the whole report on the floor. Items separately from Mr. Mayor Bergen.

Go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor. If we could pull number four, 2.1, the reallocation of the taking the money from the intersection at Oxford and Warren Cliff, if we could vote, I’d like to vote on that separately, please. >> Anything else?

Separate for colleagues? Yes, Councillor Hopkins? >> Yeah, Your Worship, I just want to make sure I am referring to the third report of SPPC. Is that correct?

That’s on the floor. If you could pull number 8, 4.4, I did not support it at committee. >> Okay. So 4 and 8, so far?

Anything else? Go ahead. >> All right. I will put the committee report on the floor, excluding 4 and 8.

So that will be 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. That’s on the floor. Any discussion on those items? Okay.

Seeing no discussion, we’re going to open that for voting. >> Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. >> Deputy Mayor.

And I will put item 4 on the floor. This is the Investing in Canada Infrastructure stream that Councillor Van Bergen referenced. >> Okay. That’s on the floor.

Councillor Van Bergen, are you looking to speak to it or just vote contrary? I’ll let you put your name at your hand on the list. >> Yeah, no. Thanks, Mayor.

I’m just going to vote again. I’m going to vote at the committee meeting. Thanks. >> Okay.

Appreciate it. Councillor Lehman, go ahead. >> Thank you. While this intersection is not in my ward, it’s in Councillor Ferris’ ward and Councillor Trassel’s ward, thousands of like constituents as well as those in Councillor Hopkins’ ward and Councillor Robinson’s ward go through this intersection daily.

This is a definition of a bottleneck. Oxford Street runs fairly smoothly. In the morning coming eastbound until you hit approximately Cherry Hill Mall where it starts to back up from this intersection and once it gets through there it resumes pretty good traffic flow and in the evening it starts backing up sometimes going past Talbot all the way to Richmond and Oxford and after that runs fairly smoothly all the way through intersection of Wonderland, through Sanatorium, across the bridge until you get to West Five. This is a similar roadblock was at Richmond and Fanshawe and after years this is finally being addressed.

I’m much to the relief, I’m sure, of people that go through that intersection daily basis. I know the price tag for Richmond and Fanshawe and I think to do a proper job here at Oxford or Morncliffe that’s desperately needed needs the funding that was originally allocated when the previous Council passed the monies and this project five years ago. Five years we’ve been waiting to get relief at this intersection and here now that because BRT is running over budget they’re going to be stealing relief at that intersection. I don’t think we’re going to use the term stealing.

Council reallocating monies to cover BRT’s shortfall at the expense in my opinion of doing a proper job of relieving this bottleneck for the thousands of users including transit by the way. There’s a lot of relief that’s needed for transit to get through here. So I asked my colleagues to please reconsider this decision and allow the users of that go through daily the thousands proper relief that they’ve been waiting for quite a long time, quite frankly, to get this project back on track with the funding that was originally allocated. Thank you.

Other speakers to this? Councillor Trostav, go ahead. I do want to thank Councillor Lehman for asking me to reconsider my vote because you make a very persuasive argument and at the committee I explained why even though I had grave concerns about this reallocation. I was still going to support the reallocation because I don’t want to do anything that could jeopardize this other reality, the entity to whom the reallocation is being made.

And I also want to point out that I’m not going to give the same long speech that I gave less time because I think you just explained what a horrible intersection this is and it’s felt all the way up and down and now that we’re going to be looking at a lot of new development in the Oxford corridor it’s going to become even more acute and I’ll be raising this issue again. I do want to say I was pleased that the traffic staff did indicate that they would be looking at some short range mitigation measures in my request and I take that in good faith. It’s not part of the motion but it was not made part of the motion because there was a reasonable representation from Mr. McRae.

So I just want to make sure you don’t think your plea is falling on deaf ears. I am going to vote very reluctantly, exceptionally reluctantly, as reluctantly as one can be. But I’m so worried about what the unanticipated consequences would be of a no vote here. And I really do look forward to working with you in terms of dealing with that Oxford corridor because it’s something we share.

I share it with Councillor Ferreira, I share it with you. And it’s something I’m very concerned about. So that close, yes. Thank you, Councillor Troso.

Any others? I see Councillor Ferreira. Thank you. Your worship through you.

I need to comment on this one too. I did speak to why I would be voting for this just for the reallocation of funds. Because with the mobility master plan, I’d hate to see work get laid down, paid for, and then torn up possibly years down the road, a couple of years down the road. So I do see the Councillors’ reluctance to vote for this.

And I do see the Councillor Layman’s words, what he’s saying. And I think that the arguments do have merit. The reason that I am voting the way I am is simply because we do have the mobility master plan still in development. It will be touching on that intersection.

And I would hate to, like I said, have that work done and then have little tweaks here and there. And that would just result in loss of money. And it also, just a little cherry on top, just for that, we’re looking to see, would be the relief of pressure on the tax rate increase for that business case. So that’s why I’d be voting the way I am.

Go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, worship, and I will say, I think Councillor Layman has made a compelling argument about his concerns here. This is, since you’re chairing and I’m asking the question, this might be a little awkward to address a question through to you, but I’m going to ask if you might have any updates for us in terms of advocacy, or perhaps Councillor Frank through FCM, if there’s any advocacy occurring with the federal government in terms of updating their contributions to these transit streams. I remember when the previous Council in pre-COVID approved the Wellington Gateway project.

Obviously, there are lots of things that have happened in the intervening time. None of those things really within staff’s control. They certainly did not foresee, just like the rest of the world, a global pandemic, supply chain issues, material cost escalations, shortage of skilled trades, labor cost escalations. None of that was predicted when this project was approved with the funding arrangement that the senior levels of government provided at the time.

And now it feels like the senior levels of government are in some way washing their hands of any responsibility to help absorb these increased costs. So through your worship, I don’t know if you can comment on whether or not any work is happening through OBCM or if Councillor Frank can provide anything with regard to FCM work on this. But I would be interested to hear if anything is going on because we cannot be the only ones in this position, having received some of these infrastructure funds, and now finding they are far short of what is required to finish a project. So I’ll start and I’ll take some leeway given I’m also chairing to answer this question.

So these are comments that I raised a committee on this item. Early in the contribution agreements under this particular program as contribution agreements have been in the past, the responsibility is for the municipality to absorb cost overruns for most projects. But what is different, what many municipalities are seeing, is the scale and breadth of the increases in costs for major infrastructure projects that were agreed to under this program and some others. I can tell you it is a very active and live discussion with Ontario big city mayors.

I know that AMO too is talking about this as yet another example of the general conversation that we’re having both at FCM, Ontario big city mayors, the national big city mayors group and AMO on the challenges that municipalities are facing in this fiscal environment. It isn’t just about addressing these projects as one offs and the cost overruns, but it’s about the fact that of all of the revenue streams that occur across the country, municipalities get about nine cents of every tax dollar and yet we’re responsible for an incredible amount of infrastructure in this country. And so the challenge could be restricted just to these projects, but this is an illumination of the inability of municipalities to absorb without making major shifts in their capital plans significant escalations of price appreciation. So yes, this is being dealt with.

It may not be in a specific way that you’ve said it, but it is part of the larger conversation about the imbalance in the fiscal framework between levels of government that needs to be addressed and a very active discussion. I will spoiler for Council and I always hate saying that I’m bringing a motion forward before I’m ready to do so, but I am in discussions with both Councillor Frank and Councillor Hopkins about bringing forward a more comprehensive motion to the February SPPC meeting in support of this and the advocacy that is happening both on the overall fiscal framework piece, which is an active lobbying position, as well as an illumination about the challenges that we’re facing on infrastructure projects with significant cost overruns through those partnerships agreements, which yes, it is our responsibility, but I don’t think anybody anticipated the municipality to take on such a large share of the infrastructure projects when they were approved when they were initially approved before actually bringing them to construction and fruition. And it feels like we almost don’t have a choice, because if we were to then say, let’s cancel these projects, which is often much needed infrastructure, we would lose, although maybe not as large as we would like, the federal and provincial contributions that are already in there. So, the long answer to your question is, yes, it is an active lobbying position.

I intend with my colleagues who do external lobbying and our government relations group bringing forward a more comprehensive motion to a future meeting of council, but it will not solve our current problem that will continue to face both here and within the multi-year budget about how are we going to absorb significant cost pressures on the infrastructure side that I think every municipality is seeing coming out of COVID. I don’t know if Councillor Frank has anything to add or no. Thank you. Yes, that was an excellent summary, but I did want to just specifically address.

So, at the FCM Board in September, we actually did pass a resolution specifically about DMAF funding, so the Disaster Mitigation Adaptation Fund, which is a federal program. And so, the Board approved an FCM to call on the federal government to work with municipalities to develop a funding mechanism to address inflationary cost escalations as it relates to that funding stream. We had a broader discussion at that point too about it not just being that one specific fund, but in fact most of our capital programs that receive federal and provincial funding. So again, this joint initiative with the mayor and Councillor Hopkins, I’m hoping to elevate that and make it a little bit broader.

We will be having a Board meeting in February at FCM, and so I’m hoping the timing works out that I’ll be able to bring that letter from London Council to the Board meeting at FCM to see if we can make it a little bit broader. But this of course is part of our larger municipal growth framework discussion that FCM and municipalities across Canada are having, where municipalities are being called on to do the bulk of the infrastructure costs. And I shared this at the last meeting, but in November we had a different discussion FCM, but more specifically about how right now the municipality per unit is having to pay about $107,000, so $107,000 per unit in infrastructure costs. So that’s looking at roads, sewers, community centers, all of those hard costs.

And we know that we need to be getting more funding from our partners to be able to pay for all that if we’re expected to deliver on our housing commitments. So lots of work happening at FCM on this, and I’ll of course be reporting back to committee on that. You were asking a question, you’ve got some answers, so I’ll start your timer again, and you can continue on. Thank you.

I appreciate all the feedback on this. I think in this case, I’m just going to share with colleagues that I think Councillor Layman has persuaded me enough to cast my vote as a protest vote in this situation. This doesn’t reflect on the work of staff, it reflects on the importance of getting our infrastructure projects moving, and the lack of reinvestment from our senior levels of government in helping deliver on projects that were approved, pre-current economic conditions where nobody could have envisioned this, it’s not a reflection of the work of our staff, it’s not a reflection of the importance of the Wellington Gateway, I think that’s a critically vital project for this city, but I think that this intersection is likewise extremely important, and I’m quite aware Councillor Trussell and I’ve had a number of conversations about the intensification that’s coming along Oxford in his ward around Cherry Hill Mall, and the impact that that is going to have. So while I recognize that this is likely to pass, and probably I will echo Councillor Trussell probably reluctantly should pass, but in this case I’m going to pass my vote in protest and say this is one where the federal government needs to come back and correct the deficit that the infrastructure project now has because the economic conditions have completely changed, and a project that was supposed to be almost a one-third, one-third, one-third cost share feels like now it’s getting to be close to 50% municipal cost share by absorbing all of these extra costs, that is not in spirit what we agreed to when we approved these projects, so despite what may be in the contract agreements I think it’s not consistent with the spirit, so in this case I’m going to cast my vote in protest.

Okay, I’m going to speak, I’ll turn the chair over to you, so actually no, you’re presenting a report so you get to still stand, Councillor Layman, I’m going to have you chair, and then I’m putting myself on the speaker’s list on this item, I’ll go in there. So I want to say a couple of things in the debate of this item, first is a question through the presiding officer to staff, the item before us is permission to ask the MTO if we can move the allocation of this funding over, we still need their permission to do so, if they say we have permission to do so, do we have to, or can we make a decision later to have the choice? In other words, given there are some concerns by colleagues, I’m trying to ask can we proceed with seeking the permission, but essentially when we maybe get a clearer picture of some discussions that are happening at other levels, a clearer picture of any opportunities to then, you know, choose the project we want to allocate them to, I know that’s a bit of an on-the-spot question, but it’s, I think, is relevant to the debate at this time. No staff, thank you through the chair, the information we have received from the Ministry of Transportation is that they need requests submitted by the end of January, and that would then flow into an amendment to the agreement for the program.

So certainly no guidance on a path like that, based on the information we’ve received, but I can’t, certainly can’t assure that that is a possibility. I have a feeling that their deadline is set based on TPA timing and their fiscal cycle. Go to the Mayor. Okay, so I’m going to chuck that up to worth a try, but I’m not going to count on that as a possibility.

So I’m going to say with respect to my colleagues, I appreciate your frustration on this particular project. I mean, I actually drive that way every day, and so I understand what Councillor Lehman and Councillor Tro sau see in that intersection, both from a pedestrian safety standpoint as well as a general congestion standpoint, which is why it was a project that we actually submitted as a council. That being said, I do appreciate the work that our staff have done. They’re trying to solve a number of problems for us all at once, given the substantive cost pressures we have on the infrastructure side of things, and although it might be tempting to cast a vote in protest, sometimes casting a vote in protest ends up actually changing the result of the vote.

So if you actually want something to happen, I would suggest voting the way that you wanted to happen and being very cautious about presuming something’s going to pass and then voting in a different way. This decision, which is not an easy one, and yet an example of a number we probably have to make about allocating limited resources in as a strategic way as we possibly can, will allow us to support what we know is a challenge for a project that we’ve already committed to and started the construction on, and that’s dealing with a funding deficit in the Wellington Gateway project. It allows for us to potentially offset some cost pressures in an annual budget update because we can fund the tax-supported portion of that cost overrun, which is the smaller portion the DCs will support most of it, and potentially avoid the debt servicing costs and issuing the debt on the tax-supported portion of that, which would fall out in subsequent years multi-year budget updates. Should we seek the permissions on the timeframe?

It probably wouldn’t work into this one, but it would be an annual budget update. And it doesn’t preclude us from actually doing something with this intersection, although we would obviously need a substantive source of financing to do so, and perhaps the permanent transit fund or other infrastructure projects that we fund out of the master mobility plan is the source. But I see this as trying to deal with a very challenging situation on a number of infrastructure projects across the city by doing a strategic reallocation that tries to solve a few things. So for all of the frustration out there, I just want to emphasize, I think our staff have done an excellent job of trying to bring us a solution that tackles a number of challenges we face.

Certainly not the challenges at that intersection, but I know that you’re going to engage in other mitigating factors that you can try to do, knowing that a full infrastructure project is obviously always the best option for long-term sustainability. I will be supporting the committee’s recommendation because I think it is the strategic move at this time to address the shortfalls in the Wellington Gateway project, get the needed infrastructure in the ground there, provide an opportunity for us to avoid some debenturing in the annual budget update on that project, and doesn’t preclude us from making improvements to the intersection in the future. I know it’s not an easy decision. I know this is one where some people are going to like it, some people aren’t.

But this is the sort of challenge we have to face when we have limited resources and a number of critical infrastructure projects with that upward pressure that we talked about in my previous answer to the question. So again, our advocacy on this is important. But until we know what’s going to change in the future, this is something that I think we have to proceed with and make the best of a difficult situation, knowing that it is not what any of us would consider ideal, given the previous approvals as Council has made the direction we’ve gone and the challenges that we know exist at that particular intersection. We’re in turn the chair there, any other speakers?

Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I just wanted to quickly say this one has been a tough one. I reconsidered my vote shortly after the committee meeting and in talking with residents and now listening to what we’re saying here, I am going to choose to vote no this time.

Okay. Other speakers? Councillor Mereberg, go ahead. Mayor.

I pulled this at SPPC and voted against the motion to reallocate funds to the BRT from this improvement at Warren Cliff and Oxford. I mean, that intersection and I think we can all agree is an absolute horror show. It should have been improved years ago and then just to delay it further, I think is not frankly in the best interest of most Londoners. We have to continually remind ourselves that the vast majority of Londoners get around in vehicles and it’s up to us to make that ability as safe and as efficient as possible.

And fixing that intersection, it certainly behooves us as a council to have that as a priority. So I wanted to make that comment and I appreciate it. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you.

Any other speakers who have spoken yet? Councillor ramen. Go ahead. Thank you.

And through you, I just had a follow up question to staff. I too am struggling with this. It’s one of those things where I think, again, you know, we see that there’s a need to shift based on the ability to do so, one, from this ability to now move funds, which I think is needed because we have to fund the other project, but at the same time, the implications that it means that this improvement would be delayed further. And I’m just wondering from where we are with the mobility master plan, are potential timelines for consideration, does this enter into that, is there still the opportunity of funding became available that we could move forward anyways with this on a separate note?

I just want to see what are possible steps or is this all shifted into the mobility master plan and then follows that process? Mr. McRae. Through the chair, the mobility master plan will be identifying solutions in the upcoming year and subject to the scope of those and council’s direction, the project could unfold in several ways.

Funding is obviously a key part of that, and that is a function of the scope. But the municipal source of funding for the project is being retained, so that provides flexibility. So whether that is a project solely funded through the development charges process, it provides a foundation for that approach or it can also serve as a matching source of funds if the scope of the project makes it suitable for an external, like a federal infrastructure funding program. Thank you.

I appreciate that answer. I will say as we’re talking about being swayed by debate, I do think that the mayor swayed me a little bit more back into being a little more logical on this one, again, because I’m worried that if we all shift in one direction, we may tilt the boat, so I’m, again, reluctantly supporting it. Thank you. Any other speaker?

Go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you. I just wanted to say that I will be supporting the committee and the staff recommendation. I think it’s a wise choice to be doing at this point, and I also think that I’d like to remind council that the reason that so many people drive is because it’s the easiest way to go around the city.

But if we actually invest in our transit system and make it more efficient, more people will be able to take the bus, and that is more convenient and vastly cheaper than owning a car. So I say this is another step in the right direction to getting people out of their cars and onto buses and alternatives that are more convenient for them. Thank you. Councillor Trost, I already spoke to this item, so you don’t speak again.

I have Councillor Hopkins though next. Yeah. Thank you, Your Worship, and I just want to make a few comments given the way this debate may go. I did support it at committee, and I will continue to support it.

And I think I heard loud and clear staff, they will be identifying solutions coming forward in the next year through the master plan process. So I think there’s a lot of work that can happen, opportunities that can happen. I think for now though, there is this opportunity that we can move some money over from one project to another, and I would encourage Council to support the recommendation. And I do appreciate the comments coming from Councillor Layman.

I know representing the West end of the city, we do have challenges how we move around. It is a continuous concern right along Oxford, and I am really looking forward to having further solutions, opportunities as we develop out in the West end to improve the mobility, the driving in particular on Oxford. So I am hoping committee will support the recommendation. That’s all the speakers I have.

Okay. It’s the committee’s recommendation that’s on the floor. So we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote.

Motion carries. Nine to six. Okay. So committee’s recommendation passes.

I’ll go back to the Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Your Worship. Now I’ll put item number eight on the floor. Councillor Hopkins asked for this one to be pulled.

Okay. Yes, Councillor. I just wanted to vote differently on this one. Any discussion on this matter?

Yes. Go ahead, Councillor Troce. Without reopening the entire debate, we had a very full debate, I think, at the committee. I’m going to retain my vote for the reasons I stated.

I’m not going to repeat all of them. This has been a very harmonious meeting. I really appreciate that. This is just one of those areas where we have a principal difference, and I will be voting on this.

Thank you. Okay. Any other speakers? Go ahead, Councillor ramen.

Thank you. And through you. Yes, I too will be retaining my vote. I do think this is something where we need further discussion.

To me, unfortunately, I didn’t get to get clarification, but, you know, when I look at the issue and compensation, I always want to look and understand if salary includes all of the benefits pension associated in the salary calculation, to better understand whether or not that is part of the entire percentage that we’re looking at. I’m not sure that he was prepared to be able to answer that question, but I do know that that would be something, if we were discussing it at a committee, that would be something that I would be looking for more information, which is why I will continue to support my earlier position. Other speakers? Seeing none, we’ll open this for voting.

Was in the vote. Motion carries. 11 to 4. So good to continue on.

Go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Yes.

I was just going to advise your worship. As I know that Chair Lammon was up the way and I’m presenting the planning committee report as well. If it helps folks decide whether or not they’re prepared to carry on, all items, despite some significant debate, were passed unanimously at committee. So if we’re willing to continue on, I’m willing to put the entire second report on the floor.

I don’t see anybody asking for a motion to go ahead to Councillor Stevenson. I was hoping to pull 11, 5.2. Anything else pulled separately? All right.

Then I will put items 1 through 10 of the second report of the Planning and Environment Committee on the floor. Any debate on those items? Go ahead. Councillor McAllister.

Thank you. And through the chair, I just wanted to offer some commentary. I did attend the Planning Committee. I’m not on that committee, but with item number 6, 150 King Edward, I just wanted to thank everyone who came out and showed support for that.

Their current congregation has outgrown their current establishment, which is also on King Edward, not too far away from where they’re looking to relocate. The plaza in question that they’re looking for, the zoning change, has been vacant for a long time. I’ve heard from many residents, they’d like to see something in there, and I really do think that this congregation has made themselves part of the community. They’re most welcome to that facility, and if they can make it work for what they want, I applaud them for that, and I welcome them back to the neighbourhood.

Thank you. I don’t have it. I’ll go ahead, Councillor Palosa. Thank you.

Ever so briefly, as I was also a guest at this lovely planning meeting, and thank you to committees for taking the suggested amendment to item 3.6, being number 8. This is the old Costco-type area, and just an update, a staff had just updated me that there was concerns raised through me that were the publics, in regards to the stop signs all being erected, but the crossroads aren’t built out yet, and some people stop, some people slow, some people perhaps speed up, that hopefully, within a day or two, those signs will be begged for safety until the site sees more construction and starts to be built out. Thank you to committee and to staff for seeing this process. Any other speakers?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open those items from the committee’s report with the exception of 11 for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15-0. And Your Worship, I will now put item 11.

That’s 5.2 from the committee report, the Green Development Standards on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor for consideration. Any speakers? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Councillor van Neerbergen. Seconded call. Councillor van Neerbergen. Parking.

Councillor van Neerbergen. Absent. Motion carries, 13-1. Thank you, colleagues, and that concludes the second report of the Planning and Environment Committee.

Okay, next we have added reports, which is the second report of Council on closed session. Councillor ramen has generously volunteered to read out our closed session report. Thank you, and through you, your Council in closed session report, item 1, lease and contribution agreement, city and HL general partner, Inc., telecommunications equipment, 300-320 King Street, that on the recommendations that Deputy City Manager Finance supports with the concurrence of Deputy City Manager Enterprise supports, and with the concurrence of Deputy City Manager and Environment and Infrastructure on the advice of the Director Realty Services with respect to the lease and contribution agreements for the lease of lands for the installation of a new city of London telecommunications equipment located at 300-320 King Street, the lease and contribution agreement between the city, the tenant and HL general partners, Inc., the landlord for the lease in respect of the tenant’s rights to construct, maintain and operate of telecommunication infrastructure on a portion of the land, the building located at 300-320 King Street for a term for approximately 99 years commencing on the earlier of the second anniversary of the issuance of the building permit for the building or the first of the fourth month following completion of the building shell as determined by the professional engineer engaged by the landlord for construction of the building, and on May 31, ‘21, ‘23, the expiry date be approved subject to renewal options, two, partial property acquisition, 1453, 1455 and 1457, Oxford Street East, East London link project that on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Finance supports on the advice of the Director Realty Services with respect to a partial acquisition of the properties located at 1453, 1455, 1457, Oxford Street East, further described as part 28, 29, 31 parts of lots, 4 and 5, plan 703 in the city of London being part of the PIN or pin number 08106-0015, pin 08106-0016 and pin 08106-0017 containing an area of approximately 87.69, 1373.08 and 1274.38 square feet as shown on the location map for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the East London link project, the following actions be taken A, the offer submitted by Paul Mark Champagne, the vendor to sell the subject, properties to the city for the sum of 310,000 be accepted, excepted to the terms and conditions, a set of the agreement and the finance for this acquisition be approved, a set of the source of finance report, three partial property acquisition, 1459, Oxford Street East, East London link project that on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Finance supports on the advice of the Director Realty Services with respect to a partial acquisition of the property located at 1459, Oxford Street East where they’re described as part 27, lot 68, plan 19, bracket C in the city of London being part of pin 08106-0022 containing an area of approximately 1,199 square feet as shown on the location map for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the East London link project, the following actions be taken, the offer submitted by Red Maple properties Inc, the vendor be to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of 106,000 be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions, a set of the agreement and be the financing of this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report settlement or settlement agreement, 847, hybrid Av North East London link project that on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Finance supports on the advice of the Director Realty Services with respect to the property located at 847, sorry, hybrid Av North, further described as part lot 9, concession 1 in the city of London being part of pin 08290-0220 as shown on the location map for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the East London link project, the following actions be taken, a, the agreement as to compensation and possession from 847, hybrid Inc to settle the outstanding expropriation compensation to the property owner for the total sum of 250,000 be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions, a set of the agreement and be the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report, 5 partial property acquisition 2154 Richmond Street, Sunningdale Road, improvement project that on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Finance supports with the concurrence of the Director Transportation and Mobility and the Division Manager Transportation Planning and Design on the advice of the Director Realty Services with respect to the partial acquisition of a portion of property from 2154 Richmond Street further described as part of lot 16 concession 6 geographic township of London in the city of London County Middlesex designated as part 2, 3, 4 and 5 reference plan 33 are 31, 6, 9, 6 being part of pin 0, 8, 1, 4, 5, 0, 1, 5, 2 as shown on the location map for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Sunningdale Road Improvement Project, the following actions be taken, a, the agreement of purchase and sales submitted by Drew Lowe Holdings, the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of 504,000 be accepted subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement, including a temporary easement agreement for the term of one year for the sum of $50,000 with the option to extend the term up to two times, each for a period of one year for an additional total sum of $50,000 and be the financing of this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report, 6 property acquisition 2835 Westminster Drive, Westminster Central Public School, London Police Services Operations, then on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, along with the resolution of the London Police Service Board, and on the advice of the Director Realty Services with respect to the surplus school property owned by the Thames Valley District School Board, located at 2835 Westminster Drive, legally described as part lot 15 concession 5 as in 2, 2, 4, 2, 5, 1, subject to 1, 2, 4, 3, 8, 0, 2, 2, 4, 2, 5, 1, in the city of London, formerly the geographic township of Westminster County Middlesex, being all of pin 0, 8, 2, 0, 3, dash 0, 0, 1, 0, l, t, the property, as shown on the location map, the following actions be taken, the agreement of purchase and service submitted to the Thames Valley District School Board, the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of $2,300,000 be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions, set out in the agreement, the amending agreement be accepted and see the financing of this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report. That progress was made with respect to item 4.7 and 4.8 as noted on the public agenda, and I know that you want to move these separately.

Yeah, I will give you some instructions, but I have to go to Councillor Frank first. Thank you. Yes, and I declared a conflict of interest in closed session due to my partner working at one of the proponents in the items. And that’s number 6.

So what we’ll do is we’ll deal with items 1 and 5 first, items 2, 3 and 4 second, those are the transit related items that I believe Councillor Vameer-Briggan would like to vote alternately on, and then item 6 which Councillor Frank has declared a conflict on. So Councillor Ramen, perhaps you could put I think 1 and 5 first, then 2, 3, 4 and then 6. Thank you. Okay, moved by Councillor Ramen, any discussion on those?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open those two for voting. Councillor Trozzo indicated as yes. Thank you. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 15 to 0. Councillor Ramen. Do you all look to put 2, 3 and 4 on the floor, please? Okay, these are the items related to transit infrastructure projects on both the Wellington Gateway and East London, like any discussion on these?

No. Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Thank you. Councillor Trozzo indicates yes.

Close in the vote. Motion carries 13 to 2. Thank you. I’ll look to put item 6, the property acquisition at 2, 8, 3, 5 Westminster Drive on the floor.

Great. Any discussion on this one? Let’s open that for voting. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 14 to 0 with 1 recuse. Thank you. That concludes the in-camera report. Thank you very much.

Greatly appreciated. There are no other added reports. There are no deferred Madams. Any inquiries?

Seeing none, there’s no emergent motions. Bylaws, there’s all the bylaws before you plus a couple of added bills based on the in-camera. I think what we’ll do is we’ll do all of the bylaws associated with everything except the transit ones that we separated out and the school board one that the conflict was declared on. So do everything else first, which means bills 19 through 38 and added bill 3943 excluding bill 31.

So that’s essentially everything except the transit related items and the school board items. So everybody okay with that division? Okay. All right.

So I need to move her for first reading of that. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor McAllister. We will open first reading for voting. Councillor van Mirbergen, closing the vote.

Motion carries 15 to 0. Okay. I move her for second reading of that. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Ferrera.

Any discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0.

Second reading of those items, mover, Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. We’ll open third reading for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0.

Okay. Next, we’ll do the transit related items, which is bills 31, added bill 40, added bill 4242. So bill number 31 and added bills 4042. Correct?

So everybody okay with that? Yours is not coming yet. Okay. I move her for those then.

Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor McAllister. We’ll open first reading of those bills for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to 3.

Okay. Second, mover, seconder for second reading of those bills. Councillor Ferrera, seconded by Councillor Layman. Any discussion on second reading?

Seeing none, we’ll open those for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to 3. Third reading for these matters.

Moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, open third reading for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to 3. Okay.

The school board related item that’s bill number 44, I’ll look for a mover of that item. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Ferrera, open first reading for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0 with one recuse.

Second reading, mover and seconder. Moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor McAllister. Any discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0 with one recuse. Okay. Second reading of bill 44, moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor McAllister, open third reading for voting.

Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0 with one recuse. Okay. That brings us to the end of our scheduled agenda.

I will look for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. We just by hand, all those in favor of adjournment? Motion carries.

Okay. Thanks for adjourned.